Special Education Research Policy & Practice 2024

SPECIAL EDUCATION

RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE (Volume 8)

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Preparedness to Teach English Language Learners with Disabilities. By Jocelyn E. Belden 5

Assessing General and Special Educators’ Perceived Training in Autism Spectrum Disorder. By Brittany Desnoyer 27

American Indian and Alaska Native Children with Disabilities: Considerations for Improving Individualized Education Programs. By William Garnett and Neal Nghia Nguyen 45

Perceptions and Experiences of Teachers Collaborating with Immigrant 58 Families of Children with Disabilities. By Marta Mohammad and Marie Tejero Hughes

Scale-Up of a Literacy Curriculum for Students with Significant Cognitive 79 Disability. By Joshua N. Baker, Dawn R. Patterson, Christopher J. Rivera, and Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell

Supporting the Changing Context of Education for Students with 103 Additional Needs. By Lesley Eblie Trudel

Special Educator Training in Norm-Referenced Academic Assessment: An 112 Analysis of Syllabi. By Adam B. Lockwood, Andrew Wiley, and Richard Cowan

Influences of Teachers’ and Students’ Attitudes on Academic Performance of 128 Students with Disabilities in the Inclusive Secondary Schools in Tanzania. By Peter Elisha Mwamwaja

Does Accountability Make a Difference? An Analysis of State Performance 139 Plans and Educational Environments. By Michelle Powers

Environmental Sensory Accommodations for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): 162 A Scoping Review. By Maggie Carey, Chelse Spinner, and Julia VanderMolen

Strategies for Enhancing the Implementation of Sign Language Policies in 185 Zimbawean Special Schools for the Deaf. By Chegovo Reward Wedzero, Mary Runo, and Martin Musengi

The Effectiveness of Error Correction Procedures in Discrete Trial Training. 208 By Darian Sepulveda (Derck) and Christopher Smith

Editorial Board of Reviewers

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

Editor

George Giuliani, J.D., Psy.D., Hofstra University

Hofstra University Special Education Full-Time Faculty

Elfreda Blue, Ph.D.

Stephen Hernandez, Ed.D.

Gloria Lodato Wilson, Ph.D.

Mary E. McDonald, Ph.D, BCBA-D, LBA

Darra Pace, Ed.D.

Diane Schwartz, Ed.D.

Editorial Board

Mohammed Alzyoudi, Ph.D., American University in the Emirates. Dubai. UAE

Faith Andreasen, Ph.D.

Vance L. Austin, Ph.D., Manhattanville College

Amy Ballin, Ph.D., Walker Solutions

Heather M. Baltodano-Van Ness, Ph.D., BCBA-D, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Dana Battaglia, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, Westbury UFSD

Brooke Blanks, Ph.D., Radford University

Kathleen Boothe, Ph.D., Southeastern Oklahoma State University

Nicholas Catania, PhD, State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota

Lindsey A. Chapman, Ph.D., University of Florida

Morgan Chitiyo, Ph.D., University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Jonathan Chitiyo, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh at Bradford

Heidi Cornell, Ph.D., Wichita State University

Lesley Craig-Unkefer, Ed.D., Middle Tennessee State University

Amy Davies Lackey, Ph.D., BCBA-D

Lauren Dean, Ed.D., Hofstra University

Josh Del Viscovo, MS, BCSE, Northcentral University

Darlene Desbrow, Ph.D.

Janet R. DeSimone, Ed.D., Lehman College, The City University of New York

Lisa Dille, Ed.D., BCBA, Georgian Court University

William Dorfman, B.A. (MA in progress), Florida International University

Brandi Eley, Ph.D.

Tracey Falardeau M.A., M.S., Midland Educational Agency

Danielle Feeney, Ph.D., Ohio University

Neil O. Friesland, Ed.D., MidAmerica Nazarene University

Theresa Garfield, Ed.D., Texas A&M University-San Antonio

Leigh Gates, Ed.D., University of North Carolina Wilmington

Sean Green, Ph.D.

Mohammed Hamzeh Al Zyoudi, Professor

Deborah W. Hartman, M.S., Cedar Crest College

Shawnna Helf, Ph.D., Winthrop University

Nicole Irish, Ed.D., University of the Cumberlands

Randa G. Keeley, PhD, Texas Woman's University

Hyun Uk Kim, Ph.D., Springfield College

Louisa Kramer-Vida, Ed.D., Long Island University

Nai-Cheng Kuo, PhD., BCBA, Augusta University

Renée E. Lastrapes, Ph.D., University of Houston-Clear Lake

Debra Leach, Ed.D., BCBA, Winthrop University

Marla J. Lohmann, Ph.D., Colorado Christian University

Mary Lombardo-Graves, Ed.D., University of Evansville

Pamela E. Lowry, Ed.D., Georgian Court University

Denise Lucas, M.S.

Matthew D. Lucas, Ed.D., Longwood University

Jay R. Lucker, Ed.D., Professor Emeritus, Howard University

Jennifer N. Mahdavi, Ph.D., BCBA-D, Sonoma State University

Alyson Martin, Ed.D., Fairfield University

Krystle E. Merry, M.S. Ed., NBCT., Ph.D. Candidate, University of Arkansas

Marcia Montague, Ph.D., Texas A&M University

Chelsea T. Morris, Ph.D., University of West Georgia

Gena Nelson, Ph.D., University of Oregon

Lawrence Nhemachena, MSc, Universidade Catolica de Mozambique

Maria B. Peterson Ahmad, Ph.D., Western Oregon University

Christine Powell. Ed.D., California Lutheran University

Deborah Reed, Ph.D., University of Tennessee

Ken Reimer, Ph.D., University of Winnipeg

Dana Reinecke, PhD, BCBA-D, Capella University

Denise Rich-Gross, Ph.D., University of Akron

Benjamin Riden, ABD -Ph.D., Penn State

Mary Runo, Ph.D., Kenyatta University

Carrie Semmelroth, Ed.D.., Boise State University

Pamela Mary Schmidt, M.S., Freeport High School Special Education Department; Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Lead Educator

Edward Schultz, Ph.D., Midwestern State University

Mustafa Serdar Köksal, Ph.D., Hacettepe University, Turkey

Emily R. Shamash, Ed.D., Fairfield University

Christopher E. Smith, PhD, BCBA-D, Positive Behavior Support Consulting & Psychological Resources

Emily Smith, Ed.D., University of Alaska

Gregory W. Smith. Ph.D., University of Southern Mississippi

Emily Sobeck, Ph.D., Franciscan University

Ernest Solar, Ph.D., Mount St. Mary’s University

Gretchen L. Stewart , Ph.D., University of South Florida

Roben Taylor Daubler, Ed.D., Western Governors University

Jessie Sue Thacker-King, Arkansas State

Julia VanderMolen, Ph.D., Grand Valley State University

Joseph Valentin, Ph.D.

Nancy Welsh-Young, Ed.S., Ph.D. Candidate, University of Arkansas

Cindy Widner, Ed.D., Carson Newman University

Kathleen G. Winterman, Ed.D., Xavier University

Sara B. Woolf, Ed.D., Queens College, City University of New York

Mohamed Bin Zayed, University for Humanities

Perry A. Zirkel, Ph.D., J.D., LL.M., Lehigh University

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Preparedness to Teach English Language Learners with Disabilities

Jocelyn E. Belden, Ed.S. Georgia State University

Abstract

The study investigated the self-efficacy and preparedness of teachers who teach English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities. The research was conducted in public school districts in a southeastern metropolitan area with a substantial proportion of ELLs. A total of 111 teachers participated in the study, providing data regarding their self-efficacy levels. The study also explored variations in self-efficacy across different demographic and qualification variables. Furthermore, the preparedness of teachers to teach ELLs with disabilities was assessed. To assess the self-efficacy and their preparedness of teachers towards ELLs with disabilities, a modified version of Chu's (2011) Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale was utilized. This instrument adaptation was explicitly designed for special education teachers who work with culturally and linguistically diverse students with disabilities. The results, derived from a 5-point Likert survey, indicated that teachers with first year teachers to four years (0-4 years) of experience demonstrated the highest levels of self-efficacy. Furthermore, teachers with multiple certifications in general education, special education, and English as a second language exhibited higher mean scores in instructional, cultural, and language knowledge. These findings underscore the importance of measuring teachers' self-efficacy concerning ELLs with disabilities, thereby contributing to the existing body of research in this domain.

Keywords: English language learners, teacher self-efficacy, preparedness, diversity, inclusion

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Preparedness to Teach English Language Learners with Disabilities

Self-efficacy plays a crucial role in teacher effectiveness and is closely linked to teacher motivation, confidence, and job satisfaction. According to Bandura (1977, 1993), self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their ability to complete a task and achieve their desired outcome successfully. Teachers’ self-efficacy can have a positive impact on students’ academic performances. For example, teachers who possess high self-efficacy are more likely to have a positive attitude toward their students, set high expectations for them, and utilize effective instructional strategies (Burley et al., 1991; Caprara et al., 2006; Browers & Tomic, 2000; Kasalak & Dagyar, 2020; Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008; Villeme & Brockmeier, 1991). Previous research has also found that higher teacher self-efficacy has been associated with improved student performance and higher teacher job satisfaction (Tacbalan et al., 2023).

Teachers who tend to have a higher rate of self-efficacy are also more likely to persist in facing and adapting to changing circumstances (Clark & Newberry, 2018; Love et al., 2020; Newberry, 2018; Siwatu, 2007; Tucker et al., 2005; Estrella, 2016; Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010, 2016; Shaukat et al., 2019; Mashburn et al., 2009; Poulou, 2019; Tschannen-Moran et al.,

1998; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Furthermore, the construction of teachers' self-efficacy has farreaching implications. It usually improves teacher well-being but also often boosts student academic outcomes. Existing literature on teacher self-efficacy such as Browers & Tomic (2000), Burley et al. (1991) and Caprara et al. (2006), highlight that confident teachers are more likely to provide high-quality instruction and foster a positive and supportive learning environment for their students, and stay in teaching.

In contrast, teachers with low self-efficacy tend to feel overwhelmed, experience burnout, and develop negative attitudes toward their students and the teaching profession. Wang et al. (2015) investigated the relationship between self-efficacy, causal attributions, burnout, job satisfaction, illness, and quitting intentions among teachers. Through the collection of survey data from a sample of 441 teachers in Ontario, Canada, the authors found that higher levels of self-efficacy were associated with reduced burnout levels and increased job satisfaction. Wang et al. (2015) study demonstrates that teachers who believed in their capabilities to perform their tasks successfully were less likely to experience burnout and more likely to feel satisfied with their work. Additionally, the study revealed that teachers with higher self-efficacy demonstrated stronger intentions to remain in the teaching profession, indicating a more significant commitment to their roles. These findings highlight the importance of self-efficacy in shaping teachers' well-being and commitment to the teaching profession. Previously conducted studies on teacher self-efficacy, such as Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2007) and Klassen and Chiu (2011), have found consistent associations. They discovered that low self-efficacy could be related to lower job satisfaction and increased teacher burnout. Moreover, these studies revealed that teachers with lower self-efficacy were more likely to contemplate leaving their profession, indicating higher turnover rates (Klassen & Chiu, 2011; Tschannen-Moran & Woolflok Hoy, 2007).

Literature Review

Factors affecting teachers' self-efficacy in teaching special education

Special education teachers carry the critical task of providing high-quality education to students with disabilities (SWD). This significant role is often compounded by numerous challenges, including unqualified instructional aides (Chambers & Forlin, 2021) and inadequate preparation time and opportunities for collaboration with general education teachers (Mulholland & O'Connor, 2016). Despite these hurdles, Zee and Koomen's (2016) comprehensive review of over 40 years of research indicates that special education teachers exhibiting high self-efficacy are better equipped to manage job-related stress and demonstrate a more robust commitment to their profession.

Nevertheless, the field of special education continues to grapple with the issue of teacher attrition, a problem accentuated by the need for more robust training and support in everyday teaching practices (Hagaman & Casey, 2018). Specific factors like insufficient training and support in instruction, assessments, behavior management, and behavior support strategies can undermine special education teachers' confidence (Li & Chueng, 2021). Therefore, addressing these factors is crucial to retaining dedicated and efficacious special education teachers.

Special education teachers, who are equipped with an understanding of their students' cultures and languages, can provide more effective support to students with disabilities. Gay et al. (2012) demonstrated this in their research, finding that culturally responsive teaching practices could significantly enhance academic engagement and achievement among such students. Similarly, Marroquin and Hargrove (2015) showed that professional development focused on cultural competence and language development boosted self-efficacy among teachers working with culturally and linguistically diverse students with disabilities. As a result of these professional development activities, participating teachers reported heightened confidence in addressing their students' academic and behavioral needs. This research underscores the importance of incorporating culturally responsive teaching practices into special education and ensuring that teachers receive professional development geared towards cultural competence and language development, mainly when working with diverse students with disabilities.

Factors affecting teachers' self-efficacy in teaching English language learners

Data from the Institute of Educational Statistics (IES, 2021) for the 2018-2019 academic year reveal a noteworthy trend: English Language Learners (ELLs) comprised 11.3% of students with disabilities. These needs primarily stem from cultural and linguistic differences compared to their non-ELL peers (Snyder et al., 2017). Effectively meeting the unique needs of ELL students is pivotal to fostering an inclusive learning environment and promoting positive educational outcomes. However, a teacher's self-efficacy in instructing ELLs can be influenced by factors such as insufficient training and support in instruction, assessments, behavior management, and behavior support strategies (Li & Chueng, 2021). Additionally, a teacher's understanding and support of cultural and linguistic diversity in the classroom are essential (Chu & Garcia, 2014). The need to consider cultural and linguistic factors when teaching ELLs stems from the dual challenge these students face: acquiring a new language and adapting to a new culture. These processes can significantly affect their classroom participation, comprehension of material, and engagement with teachers and peers. Snyder et al. (2017) emphasized that ELL students require specialized support and instruction to achieve academic success. Integrating such measures is crucial for enhancing the academic experience and outcomes for ELL students.

Factors affecting teachers' self-efficacy in teaching English language learners with disabilities

Teaching ELLs with disabilities adds a layer of complexity, presenting educators with significant challenges and potential barriers. The extant literature has identified several barriers that can impede teachers' self-efficacy to teach and support these students effectively. These barriers include cultural and language, insufficient resources and training, and the intersectionality of language and disability (Park & Thomas, 2012; Rhinehart et al., 2022). Cultural differences between ELLs and their teachers can pose a significant challenge, particularly if teachers lack cultural competence (Kourea et al., 2018). These differences can lead to misunderstandings, conflicts, and ineffective communication, negatively impacting ELLs' self-esteem, and motivation to learn and affecting teachers' self-efficacy in addressing students' needs (Fu & Wang, 2021). Therefore, educators will need to cultivate a deeper understanding of the cultural background of ELLs with disabilities while also creating an inclusive classroom environment that values diversity and promotes mutual respect (Orosco & Abdulrahim, 2017; Reeves et al., 2002).

Language barriers can be challenging for ELLs with disabilities, impeding communication and understanding and hindering students' access to instruction and support (Park & Thomas, 2012). Furthermore, ELLs with disabilities may struggle with language acquisition and comprehension, making it difficult for teachers to meet their unique needs (Orosco & Abdulrahim, 2017; Samson & Collins, 2012). This interaction between language learning and disabilities is complex and multifaceted, and teachers may feel overwhelmed and unprepared when trying to simultaneously address both sets of needs (Hoover, 2017; Maxwell, 2012; Rodriguez, 2009).

Insufficient resources and training can also disadvantage teachers' self-efficacy when teaching ELLs with disabilities. Teachers require resources such as adapted curriculum materials, assistive technology, and multilingual resources to effectively support their students' diverse learning needs (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010). A lack of these resources can lead to feelings of inadequacy and frustration among teachers, reducing their confidence in their ability to effectively teach and support ELLs with disabilities (Durgunoğlu & Hughes, 2010). Furthermore, the lack of targeted professional development (PD) and ongoing coaching can limit teachers' ability to acquire the skills and knowledge needed to meet the unique needs of these students (Li & Peters, 2016).

In a study on teachers' self-efficacy to teach ELLs with disabilities, Paneque and Barbetta's (2006) study further highlighted special education teachers' challenges when teaching ELLs with disabilities, such as the availability of resources, teacher dispositions, and language skills. Paneque and Barbetta (2006) concluded that, while teacher self-efficacy was generally high among the special education teachers in the study, significant barriers still needed to be addressed to improve the overall effectiveness of teaching ELLs with disabilities. Addressing the barriers of culture and language differences, lack of resources and training, and the intersectionality of language and disability is crucial for practical instruction and support to ELLs with disabilities, improving teachers' self-efficacy and enhancing their students' academic outcomes (Chao et al., 2017).

Factors affecting teacher self-efficacy, preparation, and professional development

The relationship between teacher preparedness, professional development, and self-efficacy is evident in a study by Ibrahim et al. (2020), which examined the impact of practical pedagogical professional development (PD) training on early career teachers' self-efficacy beliefs. The findings revealed a positive influence on teachers, highlighting the significance of PD in boosting self-efficacy and preparedness. Other research supports the connection between PD, enhanced self-efficacy, and student outcomes. A meta-analysis on teacher preparedness by Blank, de las Alas, and Smith (2008) found that over 50 hours of PD leads to more positive results for teachers' self-efficacy and students' progress. Providing engaging, relevant, and comprehensive PD is crucial for ELL teachers, as their personal experiences, beliefs, and participation in PD opportunities can shape their self-efficacy in teaching this population (BrayClark & Bates, 2003; Brown & Pajares, 1999; Buell et al., 1999; Cochran-Smith, 2004; Lumpe et al., 2014; Malo-Juvera et al., 2014).

Furthermore, ongoing professional development is vital in maintaining and enhancing teacher self-efficacy throughout their careers. Research suggests that targeted PD initiatives, such as workshops, seminars, and collaborative learning communities, can significantly impact teachers' confidence in their instructional abilities (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Guskey, 2002). By providing opportunities for continuous learning and skill development, educational institutions and policymakers can empower teachers to adapt to evolving educational practices and effectively meet the diverse needs of their students.

University coursework has also been shown to impact teacher self-efficacy positively. Studies by Brown and Pajares (1999) and Buell et al. (1999) discovered that university coursework related to inclusion practices, characteristics of students with disabilities, and inclusion positively affected teachers' self-efficacy scores. University coursework can equip teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary to address the needs of diverse students, including those with disabilities, and boost their confidence in their abilities (Brown & Pajares, 1999; Buell et al., 1999). These findings can be particularly significant for special education teachers working with ELLs with disabilities, as these students may have unique needs that demand specialized training and preparation. By arming teachers with the required knowledge and skills through university coursework, they may be better prepared to meet their students' needs and experience heightened self-efficacy.

Purpose of the Current Study

This study aims to investigate the self-efficacy ratings of general education (GENED), English as a second language (ESOL), and special education (SPED) teachers in the metro area of a southeastern state, focusing on their self-efficacy and preparation to teach ELLs with disabilities. By examining this underexplored population and geographical context, this study aims to contribute new insights and expand the knowledge base in this critical area of research.

Motivated by the findings of Malo-Juvera et al. (2018), which suggest that preservice teachers often display lower self-efficacy when instructing ELLs due to insufficient cultural, pedagogical, and linguistic competencies, this study also seeks to investigate the factors influencing teachers' self-efficacy in teaching ELLs with disabilities. By addressing these aspects, the study intends to identify specific competencies and qualifications that significantly impact teachers' self-efficacy in teaching ELLs with disabilities. Moreover, it aims to examine the extent of teachers' engagement in higher education and professional development programs and explore various teacher qualifications, including the route to certification, years of service, certification status, and educational background.

Through a rigorous investigation of these factors, this study aims to contribute to the scholarly literature by providing valuable insights into the self-efficacy and preparedness of teachers in the instruction of ELLs with disabilities. By shedding light on the role of PD, university coursework, teacher qualifications, and specific instructional contexts, the findings can inform educational practices and teacher training programs and ultimately enhance the support and educational experiences of ELLs with disabilities. The goal is guided by the following three research questions.

1. What is the extent of professional development and university courses that teachers report having for teaching ELLs with disabilities?

2. How do general education, English as a second language (ESOL), and special education teachers rate their self-efficacy in teaching ELLs with disabilities?

3. Does teacher self-efficacy vary based on professional qualifications, such as teaching experience, degree level, and professional development?

Method

The survey for this study was distributed via an online link on social media platforms and email during the spring semester of the 2021-2022 academic year. Before dissemination, the researcher obtained approval from their home university's Institutional Review Board (IRB) to conduct the study in five local school districts with the highest percentage of ELLs in a southeastern metropolitan area. Permission was also granted to disseminate the survey link on social media outlets, specifically special interest groups for K-12 teachers in the school districts of the southeastern metropolitan area.

The researcher requested permission from the IRBs of the five local school districts to send the survey to all K-12 teachers, but only three school districts allowed distribution. The survey was designed using Qualtrics software, an online tool available through the researcher's home university, and was designed for participants to take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. Participants were presented with a consent page at the beginning of the survey, which explained that participation was voluntary and confidential, posed no risk, and that the data collected would not be attributed to them, their school, or their school district. Participants also had the option to exit the study at any time.

The study, conducted during April 2022 to May 2022 over eight weeks, employed a distribution strategy to ensure widespread participation among potential participants. The survey was posted four times on multiple social media platforms throughout the designated duration. Emails were also sent to principals following the completion of statewide testing. Among the initial 311 participants who began the survey, 111 completed the entire study. Four school districts were contacted to send surveys to total the survey being distributed to over 18,227 teachers. Regrettably, data availability limitations made it impossible to determine the proportion of teachers from different districts accurately. The inability to accurately determine the proportion of teachers from different districts was due to limitations in the data collected from social media through an online link.

Participants

The study sample consisted of (n =111) K-12 teachers from public schools in metropolitan area school districts in the Southeast who had taught or currently taught at least one ELL student with a disability. Participants' demographic information can be found in Table 1. Most of our sample was female (95%) and identified as White/Caucasian (66.66%). The sample also included those identified as Black/African American (26%). Only 7.21% of the respondents spoke a second language. Of the participants' educational credentials, 51% of

most teachers had multiple certifications, such as SPED or GENED, with ESOL combined; 26% had only GENED certifications, and 14% had ELL. In the participants' current teaching placement, 51% taught GENED, 18% taught SPED, and 13% taught ESOL. The grade levels teachers taught were Elementary K-5 (49%), Middle 6-8 (27.02%), and High School 9-12 (22.52%).

Table 1

Demographic Data

Characteristics

Gender

Male

or not reported Race/Ethnicity

a Second Language

Scale Measurement

The survey used in this study is a modified version of Chu's (2011) survey, which was based on Siwatu's (2007) Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale (CRTSS) and Culturally Responsive Outcome Expectancy Scale (CRTOE). The scale used in this study was

adapted and modified to align with the specific context of the research. The two tools, CRTSS and CROTE, were chosen for this research based on their potential effectiveness, but adjustments were made to suit the study's objectives better. In Chu's (2011) study, the initial survey showed promising results in terms of internal validity and reliability, as evidenced by the high Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.93 for the CRTSE scale, indicating strong internal consistency in measuring the underlying construct and a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.84 for the CRTOE scale, indicating good reliability. However, due to the specific focus on teachers' self-efficacy in teaching ELLs with disabilities, certain modifications were necessary to tailor the tools more accurately to the research context. The modifications that were used are described. To collect self-assessment data from the teachers, a Likert scale was utilized, though specific modifications were made to suit the research context. The Likert scale originally ranged from "definitely yes" (1) to "definitely no" (5) in Chu's (2011) study. However, the scale's response options were modified to capture more nuanced responses and align with the study's objectives. The new scoring system ranged from 1 to 1.80, representing "strongly disagree," and from 4.20 to 5, representing "strongly agree" (Likert, 1932). These changes allowed teachers to express their opinions and self-perceptions along a continuum, offering a more refined assessment of their self-efficacy in teaching ELLs with disabilities.

The students in each question were identified as "English language learners with disabilities. Previously, students were identified as coming from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (CLDs). The modification of participants captured the specific group of students the researcher wanted the participants to consider while answering the question. Additionally, previous studies have shown that cultural, linguistic, and instructional barriers can affect teachers' self-efficacy (Allinder, 1994; Estrella, 2016; Polat, 2010; Siwatu et al., 2016). Therefore, the 20 questions were then grouped into three domains: instructional practices, cultural awareness, and linguistic knowledge, based on their tendency to reflect one of those domains. In the research context, "grouped" refers to categorizing the 20 questions into different domains. Each question was analyzed to determine which domain it best represented based on the specific aspect of teaching ELLs with disabilities that it addressed. By grouping the questions into these domains, the researchers aimed to organize the survey in a way that allowed them to investigate teachers' self-efficacy in these distinct teaching areas. This categorization facilitated a focused examination of teachers' confidence and competence in instructional practices, cultural awareness, and linguistic knowledge of working with English language learners with disabilities.

The instructional practices category included questions that focused on the teaching strategies and techniques used by the teachers. Next, the cultural awareness category aimed to assess the teachers’ understanding and knowledge of different cultures and their potential impact on learning ELLs with disabilities. The linguistic knowledge category evaluated the teachers’ understanding of language development, acquisition, and use in the context of ELLs with disabilities. These categories were selected to provide a comprehensive picture of the teachers’ abilities and attitudes in working with ELLs with disabilities. Within each category, several questions aimed to measure teachers’ self-efficacy in that domain. For example, in the cultural awareness category, teachers were asked to rate their confidence in creating a caring and supportive learning environment for ELLs with disabilities. In the linguistic knowledge category, teachers were asked to rate their confidence in identifying the language needs of

ELLs with disabilities and providing appropriate support. By grouping the questions into these categories, the researchers could better understand which areas of teacher preparedness for ELLs with disabilities may need improvement.

Results

Teacher preparedness to teach ELLs with disabilities. Frequency data was used to assess teachers’ preparedness in ELLs with disabilities, focusing on the number of university courses and PD opportunities received. Results showed that most (54.9%) of teachers had taken 1-2 courses on teaching SWDs. Conversely, only 31% had taken 1-2 courses to teach ELLs, and an even smaller percentage (12%) had undergone 1-2 courses specifically aimed at teaching ELLs with disabilities. Regarding PD, 40% of teachers reported attending at least 1-2 PD courses on teaching ELLs and SPED students. Only 13% of teachers had attended at least 1-2 PD courses specializing in teaching ELLs with disabilities.

Teacher self-efficacy in teaching ELLs with disabilities .

The survey results on teachers' self-efficacy in teaching ELLs with disabilities are presented in three tables. The higher mean scores indicate strong agreement with certain aspects of teachers’’ self-efficacy to teach ELLs with disabilities. In comparison, lower scores suggest areas where teachers may feel less efficacious in their confidence and competence in addressing specific challenges. In Table 2, the cultural domain displays a total mean score of 4.03 (SD = 0.10), indicating the overall average self-efficacy in this aspect of teaching. Among the cultural domain items, "I can create a caring and supportive learning environment for ELLs with disabilities" received the highest mean score of 4.45 (SD = 0.81), indicating teachers' strong confidence in their ability to foster a nurturing classroom environment. Moving to Table 3, which assesses the instructional practice domain, the mean score is 3.63 (SD = 0.07), showcasing the average level of self-efficacy in this area. The item "I can accommodate my ELL students with Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs)" obtained the highest score of 3.98 (SD = 0.96), indicating teachers' heightened assurance in their ability to address individualized needs. Conversely, the item "I can implement interventions that minimize the effects of cultural mismatch between home and school" received the lowest score of 3.22 (SD = 1.11), suggesting a comparatively lower level of self-efficacy in dealing with cultural discrepancies. Overall, the survey highlights areas of strength and potential growth, providing valuable insights into teachers' confidence in their abilities to teach ELLs with disabilities.

Table 2

Teacher Self-Efficacy in Cultural Understanding

Minimu

Identify the differences

between ELLs’ communication at home may differ from school.

Create a learning environment that reflects the various backgrounds of my ELLs’ with disabilities.

Structure parent-teacher conferences that are comfortable to allow ELLs’ parents to participate.

Build positive relationships with ELLs’ parents.

Identify standardized tests may be biased against ELL student backgrounds.

Identify cultural differences when communicating with parents regarding ELLs educational progress.

I can create a caring and supportive learning environment for ELLs with disabilities.

Table 3

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Instructional Practices

Implement interventions for ELLs with disabilities that minimize the effects of cultural mismatch between home and school.

Use research-based teaching methods to assist ELLs with disabilities in learning the content.

Obtain information about my ELLs preferred learning (e.g., cooperation or individual work).

Critically examine the curriculum to determine whether it appropriately represents ELLs with disabilities.

Modify instructional activities for ELLs with disabilities to meet developmental needs

Accommodate ELLs who have Individual Education Plans.

Develop various types of instructional assessments that are matched to ELLs proficiency

Table 4 reveals the survey results on teachers' self-efficacy in the linguistic knowledge domain of teaching ELLs with disabilities. The mean score in this domain is 3.68 (SD = 0.07), indicating teachers' average level of confidence in their linguistic knowledge-related abilities. Among the items assessed, "I can communicate effectively with my students" received the highest mean score of 3.96 (SD = 0.97), indicating teachers' strong belief in their proficiency to interact effectively with their students. On the other hand, the item "I can apply language acquisition theories to lessons" obtained the lowest mean score of 3.38 (SD = 1.18), indicating a lower level of self-efficacy in applying language acquisition theories to their instructional practices. These results suggest that while teachers demonstrate high self-efficacy in the cultural awareness domain, they exhibit relatively lower self-efficacy in the linguistic knowledge domain. This insight highlights areas where additional support or PD might enhance teachers' confidence and competence in teaching ELLs with disabilities, particularly concerning language acquisition theories.

Table 4

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Language Knowledge

Tell the difference if my ELLs solely have limited English or if the student has a disability.

Distinguish an ELLs academic language and social language

Design appropriate instruction

that is matched to ELLs language proficiency.

with students

who are ELLs who have disabilities

my students in

succeeding by sending documents home in the native language of my students who are ELLs with disabilities. Apply language acquisition

theories to my lessons. Total 3.68

Teacher self-efficacy and professional qualifications. The study's results provide valuable insights into the self-efficacy scores of teachers based on various qualifications and characteristics. Regarding credentials, teachers specializing in ESOL and SPED demonstrate slightly higher self-efficacy scores across all three constructs (see Table 5). ELL teachers self-reported mean scores of 4.04 in cultural awareness, 3.82 in instructional practices, and 3.85 in language knowledge. In contrast, SPED teachers reported scores of 4.05 in cultural awareness, 3.75 in instructional practices, and 3.29 in language knowledge. In contrast, GENED teachers exhibit slightly lower self-efficacy scores in these areas, with mean scores of 3.84 in cultural awareness, 3.34 in instructional practices, and 3.25 in language knowledge. Interestingly, teachers with multiple qualifications, particularly those with ESOL expertise, showcase the highest self-efficacy scores in cultural awareness, with a mean of 4.15, and language knowledge, with a mean score of 4.25. When considering grade levels, middle school teachers rated themselves with the highest self-efficacy scores across all dimensions, with a mean score in cultural awareness of 4.03, a mean of 3.66 in instructional practices, and 3.79 in language awareness. Conversely, high school teachers have the highest self-efficacy in cultural understanding, with a mean score of 4.05. Furthermore, the analysis of years of experience suggests that teachers with 0-4 years of experience rated themselves with the highest self-efficacy, especially in cultural understanding (mean of 4.22). Conversely, those with specialist degrees reported the lowest self-efficacy in cultural understanding (mean of 3.91).

Table 5

Self-efficacy Scores by Teacher Qualifications

Credential

Discussion

This study revealed that teachers rated their self-efficacy in working with ELLs with disabilities varied across cultural awareness, instructional practices, and language knowledge domains. The study also showed that teachers’ professional qualifications and years of experience impacted their self-efficacy. The results of this study highlight’ the significance of providing support and training for preservice and newly in-service teachers in teaching ELLs with disabilities. The data also revealed that teachers with 0-4 years of experience had higher

self-efficacy scores than those with five or more years of experience (Siwatu, 2011). The finding suggests that less-experience teachers may feel more confident in their abilities to work with culturally and linguistically diverse students (CLDs) such as ELLs. Hoy and Spero’s (2005) study demonstrated that the belief in one’s ability to be effective in the classroom had been linked to teachers’ commitment to their teaching careers, with selfefficacious teachers more likely to remain in their careers after the first year. New teachers with such pedagogical knowledge may have a solid foundation for effectively supporting ELLs. Furthermore, less-experienced teachers’ enthusiasm and fresh perspective could increase their own self-efficacy scores (Hoy & Spero, 2005). However, further research is warranted to gain a comprehensive understanding of the underlying reasons for this observation.

Exploring the relationship between less-experienced teachers, their training, and self-efficacy scores in working with ELLs would provide valuable insights into developing practical pedagogical approaches for fostering success among culturally and linguistically diverse student populations. The results from this study also indicated that teachers with multiple certifications in ESOL and SPED had higher self-efficacy scores in all competencies compared to GENED teachers. Teachers with multiple certifications in ESOL and SPED had higher self-efficacy scores than GENED teachers may be due to the additional training and knowledge they received in teaching ELLs and SWD. These certifications likely provide teachers with specific skills and strategies to address the unique needs of ELLs with disabilities, increasing their confidence and competence in the classroom. Teachers with specialized training and certifications may feel more confident in their abilities to work with ELLs. For example, Siwatu (2011) found that teachers with multiple certifications, such as ESOL and SPED, had higher self-efficacy scores in all competencies compared to GENED teachers. Other studies have also found similar results, indicating the importance of providing specialized training and certification for teachers who work with ELLs (Cruz et al., 2020; Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010).

The results of this study also emphasize the need for specialized support and training for teachers to educate ELLs with disabilities. Teachers should be equipped with resources and training in cultural responsiveness and language acquisition to support teacher self-efficacy and commitment to their careers. PD is critical in providing teachers with the necessary knowledge and skills to meet the diverse needs of their students, including the most vulnerable populations of ELLs with disabilities (Cruz et al., 2020; Siwatu, 2007).

Limitations

While this study offers valuable insights into teacher self-efficacy, it is essential to acknowledge and address several limitations. The study encountered limitations related to the response rate and time constraints. Due to testing constraints and limited survey distribution, the achieved response rates were lower than the desired target. This raises concerns regarding the representativeness and generalizability of the findings, as the sample may only partially reflect the border population of interest. The study also relied on a modified version of Siwatu’s (2007) CRTSS and CRTOE scales, which introduces potential statistical concerns. These concerns encompass issues of generalizability, as the modified scales may need to fully capture the nuanced context and specificities of the current study. Moreover, the reliability

and validity of the modified scales may differ from the original scales, which could impact the accuracy and interpretation of the results. Furthermore, it is essential to note that the survey questions were adapted to fit the study’s intended purpose. However, the lack of a confirmatory factor analysis poses a limitation, as it limits the ability to establish the underlying constructs being measured definitively.

The last limitation relates to the sample size and demographics. Most participants were monolingual white females, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to a more diverse population. Future research should include a more diverse group of culturally and linguistically diverse teachers and individuals representing a range of genders. A larger, more diverse sample size would provide a stronger foundation for statistically robust and representative results.

Future Research and Practice

Future research in this area could significantly benefit from expanding the sample size to include a more diverse representation of CLD teachers and individuals of different genders. This inclusion would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the experiences and perspectives of teachers working with ELLs with disabilities. Additionally, qualitative research to explore teachers’ perceptions of their self-efficacy and perspectives on ways to improve access to professional development opportunities for effectively meeting the needs of ELLs with disabilities would yield valuable insights. By examining the unique intersection of ELLs with disabilities, our study fills a gap in the literature on culturally responsive teaching practices. Building upon the insights from previous studies by Cruz et al. (2020) and MaloJuvera et al. (2017) regarding the assessment of self-efficacy and the implementation of culturally responsive teaching methods, our current study contributes to the existing literature by further underscoring the critical need to equip teachers with the necessary training and resources for effectively educating diverse students, specifically ELLs with disabilities. Drawing from the recommendations made by Cloud (1993) regarding the significance of training in language forms and second language acquisition to support learning and engage families, our findings reinforce the importance of targeted preparation and PD initiatives for educators. These findings emphasize the imperative for educational stakeholders to prioritize enhancing teachers’ preparation and PD, thereby fostering the adoption of more culturally responsive and effective teaching practices tailored to the needs of ELLs with disabilities. By dedicating efforts to continued research and implementing improved pedagogical approaches, the field can collectively strive towards better academic outcomes and provide comprehensive support for this unique and vulnerable student population.

Conclusion

In summary, this study aimed to investigate the self-efficacy ratings of general education (GENED), English as a second language (ESOL), and special education (SPED) teachers in the metro area of a southeastern state, focusing on their instruction of ELLs with disabilities. The overarching goal was to demonstrate how professional qualifications and years of experience influence teacher self-efficacy in educating ELLs with disabilities. Through examining self-efficacy levels, the study aimed to shed light on teachers' confidence levels in various aspects of their instructional practices, including establishing positive relationships,

fostering cultural understanding, and addressing the unique needs of ELLs with disabilities within the classroom setting.

While teachers in the study generally expressed confidence in certain areas, such as building relationships and cultural understanding, they also encountered challenges bridging the cultural gap between home and school environments for ELLs with disabilities. It is essential to acknowledge the limitations of this study, including response rate, sample size, and demographics, which underscore the need for further investigation to identify the most effective strategies for enhancing teachers' professional development in this area.

As supported by previous research, the significance of self-efficacy highlights the imperative to assess and foster teachers' self-efficacy to promote both their well-being and their students' academic success. Schools play a crucial role in creating supportive learning environments by cultivating high levels of teacher self-efficacy, which can be achieved through providing tailored professional development opportunities, fostering a supportive work environment, and recognizing and valuing teachers' efforts.

Ultimately, this study highlights the importance of comprehensive teacher training and ongoing PD in addressing the multifaceted needs of ELLs with disabilities. School leaders and policymakers can make significant strides in improving educational outcomes for this vulnerable student population and enhancing teacher effectiveness by prioritizing these initiatives.

References

Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(2), 86-95.

Allington, R.L. , & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). Different programs, indifferent instruction. In D. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds.), Beyond separate education (pp. 75-97). New York: Brookes. Ami, N. A. S. N. Z., Abd Majid, R., & Yasin, M. H. M. (2016). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Self-efficacy Instrument among Special Education Teachers. Asian Social Science, 12 (2).

Baca, L. M. (1990). Theory and practice in bilingual/cross cultural special education: Major issues and implications for research, practice, and policy US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 , 191–215. Doi: 10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control New York: Freeman.

Banks, C. A. M. (1993). Restructuring schools for equity: What we have learned in two decades. The Phi Delta Kappan , 75(1), 42-48.

Barni, D., Danioni, F., & Benevene, P. (2019). Teachers’ self-efficacy: The role of personal values and motivations for teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 1645. (????)

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and, methods , Boston: Aliyn and Bacon.

Bray-Clark, N., & Bates, R. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs and teacher effectiveness: Implications for professional development. Professional Educator, 26(1), 13–22.

Brownell, M. T., & Pajares, M. F. (1999). Teacher efficacy and perceived success in mainstreaming students with learning and behavior problems. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22, 154–164. Doi: 10.1177/088840649902200303

Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., & Gamel-McCormick, M. (1999). A survey of general and special education teachers’ perceptions and in-service needs concerning inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education , 46, 143–156. Doi: 10.1080/103491299100597

Burley, W. W., Hall, B. W., Villeme, M. G., & Brockmeier, L. L. (1991, April). A path analysis of the mediating role of efficacy in first-year teachers’ experiences, reactions, and plans. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago . Burr, E., Haas, E., & Ferriere, K. (2015). Identifying and Supporting English Learner Students with Learning Disabilities: Key Issues in Literature and State Practice. REL 2015-086. Regional Educational Laboratory West .

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology , 44(6), 473-490.

Casteel, C.J. & Ballantyne, K.G. (Eds.). (2010). Professional development in action: Improving teaching for English learners . Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/PD_in_Action.pdf

Chambers, D., & Forlin, C. (2021). An historical review from exclusion to inclusion in Western Australia across the past five decades: What have we learnt? Education Sciences, 11(3), 119.

Chao, C. N. G., Sze, W., Chow, E., Forlin, C., & Ho, F. C. (2017). Improving teachers’ selfefficacy in applying teaching and learning strategies and classroom management to students with special education needs in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 360-369.

Chu, S. Y. (2011). Teacher efficacy beliefs toward serving culturally and linguistically diverse. Students in special education: Implications of a pilot study. Education and Urban Society, 45(3), 385-410.

Chu, S. Y., & Garcia, S. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching efficacy beliefs of in-service special education teachers. Remedial and Special Education , 35(4), 218-232. Clark, S., & Newberry, M. (2019). Are we building preservice teacher self-efficacy? A largescale study examining teacher education experiences. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 32-47. Cloud, N. (1993). Language, culture, and disability: Implications for instruction and teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16 , 60-72. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). The problem of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(4), 295–299.

Cross, F. (2017). Teacher Shortage Areas Nationwide Listing 1990–1991 through 2017–2018 June 2017. Office of Postsecondary Education, US Department of Edu cation Cruz, R. A., Manchanda, S., Firestone, A. R., & Rodl, J. E. (2020). An examination of teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy. Teacher Education and Special Education , 43(3), 197-214.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Research on teaching and teacher education and its influences on policy and practice. Educational Researcher, 45(2), 83–91.

Delpit, L. (1995 ). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: New Press.

DeMatthews, D.E., Edwards, D. B., & Nelson, T. E. (2014). Identification problems: US special education eligibility for English language learners. International Journal of Education Research, 68, 27–34. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.08.002.

Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Hughes, T. (2010). How prepared are the US PSTs to teach English language learners? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22, 32– 41.

Estrella, I. (2016). Teacher Self-Efficacy to Teach English Language Learners in Mainstream Classrooms (Doctoral dissertation).

Fu, Yao, and Jiaxi Wang. “Assessing Mainstream Pre-service Teachers’ Self-Efficacy to Teach English Language Learners.” International Journal of Instruction 14(3) (2021).

Gándara, P., & Santibañez, L. (2016). The teachers our English language learners need. Educational Leadership , 73(5), 32-37. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/feb16/vol73/num05/TheTeachers-Our-English-Language-Learners-Need.aspx

Garcia, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2010 ). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English language learners New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Georgia Professional Standards Commission. (2018). 505-3-. 01 Requirements and standards for approving educatory preparation providers and educator preparation programs. Retrieved July, 12(2021), 11.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.

Glasow, P. A. (2005). Fundamentals of survey research methodology. (??????)

Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction Pearson. One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.

Hamayan, E. V., Marler, B., Lopez, C. S., & Damico, J. (2013). Special education considerations for English language learners: Delivering a continuum of services . Philadelphia: Caslon Publishing.

Hansen-Thomas, H., Grosso Richins, L. Kakkar, K., & Okeyo, C. (2014). I do not feel I am properly trained to help them! Rural teachers’ perceptions of challenges and needs with English-language learners. Professional Development in Education , 42(2), 308-324.

Harrison, J., & Lakin, J. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ implicit and explicit beliefs about English language learners: An implicit association test study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 72, 54-63.

Hegde, A. V., Hewett, B., & Terrell, E. (2018). Examination of teachers’ preparedness and strategies used to teach English language learners in kindergarten. Early Child Development and Care , 188(6), 774-784.

Hester, O. R., Bridges, S. A., & Rollins, L. H. (2020). ‘Overworked and underappreciated’: special education teachers describe stress and attrition. Teacher Development , 24(3), 348365.

Hoover, J. J., Erickson, J. (2015). Culturally responsive special education referrals of English

language learners in one rural county school district: Pilot project. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 34 (4), 18-28. Doi:10.1177/875687051503400403

Hoover, J. J., & DeBettencourt, L. U. (2018). Educating culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners: The need for continued advocacy. Exceptionality , 26(3), 176-189.

Hutzler, Y., Meier, S., Reuker, S., & Zitomer, M. (2019). Attitudes and self-efficacy of physical education teachers toward inclusion of children with disabilities: a narrative review of international literature. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy , 24(3), 249-266.

Ibrahim, A., Clark, K., Reese, M. J., & Shingles, R. (2020). The effects of a teaching development institute for early career researchers on their intended teaching strategies, course design, beliefs about instructors’ and students’ knowledge, and instructional selfefficacy: The case of the Teaching Institute at Johns Hopkins University. Studies in Educational Evaluation , 64, 100836.

Kasalak, G., & Dagyar, M. (2020). The Relationship between Teacher Self-Efficacy and Teacher Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice , 20(3), 16-33.

Klingner, J., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., & Riley, D. (2005). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas , 13, 140.

Knoblauch, D., & Hoy, A. W. (2008). “Maybe I can teach those kids.” The influence of contextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education , 24(1), 166-179.

Kourea, L., Gibson, L., & Werunga, R. (2018). Culturally responsive reading instruction for students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic , 53(3), 153–162.

Ladson-Billings G. J. (1994). What we can learn from multicultural education research. Educational Leadership , 51(8), 22–27.

Li, N., & Peters, A. W. (2016). Preparing K-12 Teachers for ELLs Improving Teachers’ L2 Knowledge and Strategies Through Innovative Professional Development. Urban Education

Love, A. M., Findley, J. A., Ruble, L. A., & McGrew, J. H. (2020). Teacher self-efficacy for teaching students with autism spectrum disorder: Associations with stress, teacher engagement, and student IEP outcomes following COMPASS consultation. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 35(1), 47-54.

Lumpe, A., Vaughn, A., Henrikson, R., & Bishop, D. (2014). Teacher professional development and self-efficacy beliefs. In The role of science teachers’ beliefs in international classrooms (pp. 49–63). Brill.

Malo-Juvera, V., Correll, P., & Cantrell, S. (2018). A mixed methods investigation of teachers’ self-efficacy for culturally responsive instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 146-156. Doi:10.1016/j.tate.2018.05.003

Mashburn, A. J., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Pianta, R. C. (2006) Teacher and classroom characteristics associated with teachers’ ratings of prekindergartners’ relationships and behaviors. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 24(4): 367–380.

Maxwell, L. A., & Shah, N. (2012). Evaluating ELLs for special needs a challenge. Education Week, 32 (2), 1–12.

Meijer, C. J. W., & Foster, S. F. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral chance.

The Journal of Special Education , 22(3), 378-385.

McLeskey, J., Barringer, M.D., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M., … Ziegler, D. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education: foundations for student success (J. McLeskey, B. Maheady, M. T. Brownell, & T. J. Lewis, Eds.) (1st ed.). Routledge.

Miller, C. A., Guidry, J. P., Dahman, B., & Thomson, M. D. (2020). A Tale of Two Diverse Qualtrics Samples: Information for Online Survey Researchers: A Tale of Two Diverse Qualtrics Samples. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention , 29(4), 731-735. More, C. M., Spies, T. G., Morgan, J. J., & Baker, J. N. (2016). Incorporating English language learner instruction within special education teacher preparation. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(4), 229-237.[1]

National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress Educational Testing Service, & United States. (2019). NAEP report card: Reading . Washington, D.C: National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Dept. of Education.

Mitchell, S. L. (2016). Relationships among teachers’ attitudes, behaviors toward English language learners, experience, and training (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). Mulholland, M., & O’Connor, U. (2016). Collaborative classroom practice for inclusion: Perspectives of classroom teachers and learning support/resource teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 20(10), 1070-1083.

Okhremtchouk, I. S., & Sellu, G. S. (2019). Teacher readiness to work with English language learners: Arizona context. The Teacher Educator , 54(2), 125-144.

Orosco, M. J., & Abdulrahim, N. A. (2017). Culturally responsive evidence-based practices with English language learners with learning disabilities: A qualitative case study. Educational Borderlands: A Bilingual Journal , pp. 1, 27–45.

Owens, S. (2020). English learners deserve more: An analysis of Georgia’s education for speakers of other languages. Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. https://gbpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/English-Learners-Deserve-More-AnAnalysis-of-Georgias-Education-for-Speakers-of-Other-Languages.pdf

Ozgur C., Kleckner M., Li Y. (2015). Selection of statistical software for solving big data problems: A guide for businesses, students, and universities., Sage Open, 1-12.

Paneque, O. M., & Barbetta, P. M. (2006). A study of teacher efficacy of special education teachers of English language learners with disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal , 30(1), 171-193.

Park, S., Magee, J., Martinez, M. I., Willner, L., & Paul, J. (2016). English language learners with disabilities: A call for additional research and policy guidelines. (????)

Park, Y., & Thomas, R. (2012). Educating English-language learners with special needs: Beyond cultural and linguistic considerations. Journal of Education and Practice , 3(9), 52-58.

Podell, D. M., & Soodak, L. C. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals. The Journal of educational research , 86(4), 247-253.

Polat, N. (2010). A comparative analysis of pre-and in-service teacher beliefs about readiness and self-competency: Revisiting teacher education for ELLs. System, 38(2), 228-244.

Polat, N., & Mahalingappa, L. (2013). Pre-and in-service teachers’ beliefs about ELLs in content area classes: A case for inclusion, responsibility, and instructional support. Teaching Education, 24(1), 58-83.

Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education , 23(5), 557-571.

Poulou, M. S., Reddy, L. A., & Dudek, C. M. (2019). Relation of teacher self-efficacy and classroom practices: A preliminary investigation. School Psychology International , 40(1), 25-48.

Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In A. Goody, J. Herrington, & M. Northcote (Eds.), Quality conversations: Research and Development in Higher Education , pp. 25, 562–567. Jamison, ACT: HERSDA.

Rhinehart, L. V., Bailey, A. L., & Haager, D. (2022). Long-term English learners: untangling language acquisition and learning disabilities. Contemporary School Psychology , 1-13.

Rodriguez, Diane. (2009). “Meeting the needs of English language learners with disabilities in urban settings.” Urban Education 44(4), 452–464.

Rodriguez, D., Manner, J., & Darcy, S. (2010). Evolution of teacher perceptions regarding effective instruction for English language learners. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 9(2), 130-144.

Rotter, J.B., (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs 80, 1-28. Doi: 10.1037/h0092976

Samson, J.F., & Collins, B.A. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English language learners: Applying research to policy and practice for teacher effectiveness . Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535608.pdf

Schwab, S. (2019). Teachers’ student-specific self-efficacy in relation to teacher and student variables. Educational Psychology , 39(1), 4-18.

Shaukat, S., Vishnumolakala, V. R., & Al Bustami, G. (2019). The impact of teachers’ characteristics on their self‐efficacy and job satisfaction: A perspective from teachers engaging students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 19(1), 68-76.

Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education , 23(7), 1086-1101.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: Going beyond traditional motivational and behavioral approaches. Organizational Dynamics , 26(4), 6274.

Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student and school attributes as predictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion. Journal of Special Education , 31, 480–497. Doi: 10.1177/002246699803100405

Snyder, E., Witmer, S. E., & Schmitt, H. (2017). English language learners and reading instruction: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth , 61(2), 136-145.

Tacbalan, A. D., Alcalde, A. P., & Modina, E. P. (2023). An analysis of the variables influencing job satisfaction and the self-efficacy of the teachers. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science , 7(6), 773-782.

Toepoel, V., & Schonlau, M. (2017). Dealing with nonresponse: Strategies to increase participation and methods for postsurvey adjustments. Mathematical Population Studies, 24(2), 79-83.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research , 68(2), 202.

Tschannem-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive concept. Teaching and Teacher Education , 17(1), 723-805.

Tucker, C. M., Porter, T., Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., Ivery, P. D., Mack, C. E., & Jackson, E. S. (2005). Promoting teacher efficacy for working with culturally diverse students. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth , 50(1), 29-34.

Voltz, D. L. (1998). Cultural diversity and special education teacher preparation: Critical issues confronting the field. Teacher Education and Special Education , 21(1), 63-70.

Villegas, A. M., SaizdeLaMora, K., Martin, A. D., & Mills, T. (2018). Preparing future mainstream teachers to teach English language learners: A review of the empirical literature. In The Educational Forum , 82(2), 138-155). Routledge.

Walston, J., Redford, J., & Bhatt, M. P. (2017). Workshop on Survey Methods in Education Research: Facilitator’s Guide and Resources. REL 2017-214. Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest . Wang, H., Hall, N. C., & Rahimi, S. (2015). Self-efficacy and causal attributions in teachers: Effects on burnout, job satisfaction, illness, and quitting intentions. Teaching and Teacher Education , 47, 120-130.

Wisdom, J., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Mixed methods: integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis while studying patient-centered medical home models. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality . (???????)

Woolfolk, A. E., Hoy, W. K. (1990) Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 81–91.

Zhang, Y. (2000). Using the Internet for survey research: A case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science , 51(1), 57-68.

Zwane, S. L., & Malale, M. M. (2018). Investigating barriers teachers face in the implementation of inclusive education in high schools in Gege branch, Swaziland. African Journal of Disability, 7(1), 1-12.

About the Author

Jocelyn E. Belden, Ed.S is a Ph.D. student in the Learning Sciences Department at Georgia State University. She has taught in education for 15 years in p-12 th grade capacity. Her research interest involves equitable teaching, teacher qualifications, and professional development practices to teach culturally and linguistically diverse learners in special education.

Assessing General and Special Educators’ Perceived Training in Autism Spectrum Disorder

Brittany Desnoyer, Ph.D., BCBA California State University, Stanislaus

Abstract

The significant increase in the number of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) requiring special education services in U.S. public schools, calls for general and special educators to have extensive knowledge concerning the characteristics of ASD. With the overarching importance of early intervention and many students (e.g., those from underserved and underrepresented communities, of average intelligence, or impacted by COVID-19) receiving delayed diagnoses, educators must be well-versed in the early warning signs. This article provides teacher educators with a tool to (a) assess the self-reported, type and level of preservice and in-service training provided to practitioners regarding the characteristics of ASD, (b) identify gaps in knowledge and understanding, and (c) determine appropriate instructional points of entry.

Keywords: autism spectrum disorder, teacher preparation, early identification, characteristics of autism, referral of autism

Assessing General and Special Educators’ Perceived Training in Autism Spectrum Disorder

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a heterogeneous, neurodevelopmental disorder that is characterized by deficits in social interaction, communication, and stereotyped patterns of restrictive and repetitive behaviors (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The prevalence of ASD has increased rapidly over the last several decades (Maenner et al., 2023). According to the most recent estimates from the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network (ADDM), as many as one in 36, or 2.8% of school-age children in the United States (U.S.), have an identified ASD, with a median age of diagnosis varying greatly across the 11 surveillance sites (e.g., Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin; Maenner et al., 2021). This represents a dramatic increase in the incidence of ASD when compared to initial data from 2002 that indicated the prevalence was 1 in 150, or 0.6% of children/youth (ADDM, 2007).

Autism Spectrum Disorder in School Settings

The significant growth of students with ASD being provided special education services in U.S. public school settings has paralleled that of national prevalence rates (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2022). In 2009-2010, the number of students, ages 3–21, receiving special education services under the categorical classification of autism, as outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), was 5.6%. Since then, figures have more than doubled, with over 12% of students maintaining autism eligibility in the 2020-2021 academic year (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).

With the reauthorization of IDEA (2004), all students with disabilities must be provided access to inclusive classrooms alongside their same-aged peers to the maximum extent possible. As a result, 40% of students with ASD spend 80% or more of the school day in general education classrooms, with 18% spending 40-79% of the day, and 33% spending less than 40% of the day (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). With the heightened participation of students with ASD in inclusive classrooms, educators need more knowledge concerning these students. It is imperative that not only special education teachers, but early childhood, and general education teachers alike, receive explicit training in the recognition and provision of services to students within this population. Given that the quality of teacher education programs is positively correlated to student success, adequate pre-service and in-service training are essential (Brownell et al., 2005).

The Importance of Early Identification

Early identification and referral of ASD is particularly critical as it is positively correlated to improved educational outcomes and the reduction of symptom severity (Ozonoff et al., 2008). The provision of services during the early childhood years affords students with ASD the best opportunity for pro-social development across the lifespan (Dawson et al., 2010; Helt et al., 2008; Reichow et al., 2018). According to the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD, 2022), ASD can be detected as early as 18 months of age and reliably diagnosed by 24 months of age. As such, early screening and close monitoring for ASD is encouraged (Reichow et al., 2018), with a particular focus on children considered high-risk (e.g., children born into families with a child already diagnosed with ASD, children who experienced complications during birth; Getahun et al., 2017).

Despite the benefits of early identification, many children do not receive an affirmative prognosis until they are much older, with the median age of diagnosis around 50 months (Maenner et al., 2021). According to data collected by Maenner et al. (2021) across 11 states, only 47% of children with suspected ASD were evaluated by 36 months of age. For children with a comorbid intellectual disability, the age of diagnosis ranged from 34 months to 57 months. And, for children without a comorbid intellectual disability, the average age of diagnosis ranged from 36 months to 74 months, well beyond the recommended age of identification and into the child’s school-age years.

Not only are students of average intelligence susceptible to oversight but deviations in ASD prevalence rates have also been routinely documented in culturally and linguistically diverse communities (Bertrand et al., 2001; Christensen et al., 2018; Maenner et al., 2021). These children are historically underrepresented within the categorical disability of autism in schoolbased special education programming (Morrier & Hess, 2012) and, when they are diagnosed, the median age is substantially higher compared to their white peers (Shattuck et al., 2009). As a result of these discrepancies, subsets of children and their families may be deprived of accessing critical resources and intervention services during the early childhood years.

Further complicating this issue was the discovery that many children have had multiple evaluations with inconsistent findings (e.g., ASD was suspected, but ruled out) before an eventual diagnosis. In some cases, children were diagnosed as having ASD in a clinic, using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ([DSM] American Psychiatric

Association [APA], 2013), or at school, adhering to IDEA (2004) eligibility criteria, but not both (Maenner et al., 2021). This illustrates inconsistency and confusion across clinical and schoolbased measures, creating barriers for families as they move through the process of ASD identification and diagnosis. Table 1 outlines the differences between school-based eligibility requirements for autism under IDEA (2004), and the guidelines for obtaining a medical diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder under the DSM-V (APA, 2013).

Table 1

School Eligibility for Autism v. Medical Diagnosis for Autism Spectrum Disorder

School Eligibility

Criteria Utilized

Definitions of ASD

Professional Consultants

IDEA (2004)-federal, special education law outlining 13 categorical disability areas, including “Autism”

Autism-

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b /a/300.8/c/1

Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) Team-serves students from birth through age 3 and consists of

1. Parent or legal guardian

2. Service Coordinator

3. Second Professional deriving from a different discipline

Individualized Education Program (IEP) Team-serves students from age 3 through age 21 and consists of

1. Parent or legal guardian

2. Special education teacher

3. General

Medical Diagnosis

DSM-5 (APA, 2013)diagnostic handbook of mental disorders outlining 20 disorders, including “Autism Spectrum Disorder”

Autism Spectrum Disorderhttps://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/ autism/hcp-dsm.html

A developmental pediatrician, pediatric neurologist, child psychiatrist, or other licensed medical provider

education teacher

4. School administrator

5. School psychologist or another individual who can interpret assessment results

6. Student (optional)

7. Relevant stakeholders (optional)

Purpose Determines school-based eligibility Determines medical diagnosis

Qualifying Outcomes

Individualized, school-based services and supports that may include a change in educational placement, individualized instruction & intervention, related services & support personnel, assistive technology, academic accommodations & modifications, transition support, special transportation, extended school year services, etc.

Cost Free as mandated by IDEA (2004); Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

The Role of the Educator

Medical intervention & inhome services & support that may include medication, respite care, clinical services, in-home therapies (e.g., applied behavior analysis), supplemental security income, etc.

State-funded or may be covered by health insurance

With the late onset of identification for several subsets of students, it is imperative that educators (e.g., early childhood, special educators, general educators) are able to acutely recognize the early signs of ASD and initiate the referral process when necessary. To do this, teachers need explicit training in the characteristics of ASD (Low et al., 2021). According to Busby et al. (2012), knowledge is a relevant predictor of a teacher’s ability to access early screening and identification processes. To adequately prepare educators for this role, teacher preparation

programs must emphasize and systematically teach the signs, symptoms, and characteristics of ASD.

Teacher Knowledge

Despite its importance, effective personnel preparation in the field of ASD is lacking (AlSharbati, 2015; Barnhill et al., 2011; Toran et al, 2016). An analysis of teacher preparation practices across the U.S., specifically in the field of ASD, revealed surprising data. In 2011, 44 of 87 university programs reported a lack of state-adopted competencies specific to the area of ASD (Barnhill et al., 2011). In further analysis of the ASD competencies at the 87 universities across 34 states, only half cited characteristics and definitions of ASD as an instructional topic (Barnhill et al., 2011). Barnhill et al. (2011) maintained that there was an ongoing need for preparation programs to ensure that educators acquired the skills necessary to work with heterogeneous populations of individuals with ASD. More current research supports these findings, indicating that teacher preparation programs may be inadequate in preparing teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary to teach students with ASD (Toran et al., 2016). Noted areas of deficiency included inconsistency in training and a lack of clearly prioritized competencies in the area of ASD programming (Hart et al., 2013).

General Education Teachers

While a small body of literature on general educators’ pre-service knowledge regarding ASD exists, some studies suggest that it is in need of improvement. Sanz-Cervera et al. (2017) discovered that the majority of surveyed participants were unaware that ASD diagnoses typically occurred during the first three years of a child’s life, believed children with ASD did not engage in eye contact during conversation, and considered the behavior of children with ASD to be homogenous across all cases. Similar studies suggested that they held little knowledge about ASD, with many reporting having never been in contact with a child/youth with ASD, yet simultaneously expressing confidence in their ability to recognize the symptoms (Al-Sharbati et al., 2015). Further, some general educators conveyed inaccuracies as viable truths, noting children with ASD could not express emotions and were incapable of making eye contact (Al Sharbati et al., 2015). When directly assessed on their self-reported knowledge of ASD, general educators responded I don’t know to 7 out of 15 questions (Segall & Campbell, 2012). This lack of knowledge, compounded by misconceptions and an inflated sense of ability to correctly recognize students with ASD, may subsequently skew referral rates (e.g., over-referral, underreferral).

Special Education Teachers

While research has demonstrated that special educators have more knowledge about ASD than general educators (Haimour & Obaidat, 2013), it also indicated that they have varied perceptions of the categorical features of the disability (Schwartz & Drager, 2008). Barned et al. (2011) found that among pre-service early childhood special educators, many held misconceptions regarding the behaviors and characteristics of children with ASD. These included believing that the disorder could be outgrown, describing early childhood intervention as unimportant, and maintaining that all students with ASD were identical in symptomatology and severity. In follow-up interviews, special educators continued to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the characteristics of ASD, with some conflating ASD with ADHD, stating that both subsets of

children have difficulty with concentration and focus (Barned et al., 2011). Additional research found that among 148 early childhood special education pre-service teachers, many indicated that they did not have an adequate knowledge base concerning the behaviors or symptomatology associated with ASD and lacked the ability to differentiate ASD from ADHD (Johnson et al., 2012).

The literature prompts concerns regarding the adequacy of teacher preparation, with the qualifications and competencies of educators cited as a critical component that can interfere with the quality of education and student achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2016; U.S. Department of Education, 2017). These issues interface with increased prevalence rates of ASD (Maenner et al., 2023), and the ongoing eligibility of these students in U.S. public schools. With the mandated inclusion of students with disabilities in general education environments (IDEA, 2004), it is imperative that both general and special educators be conversant with the specific characteristics and warning signs of ASD.

Preparing Educators to Recognize Characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder

An educator’s (general or special education) lack of knowledge concerning the recognition of students with ASD can impact the over-or under-identification of this population, delaying the provision of critical services and support. Given the increasing number of students with ASD in K-12 public school systems, educators absorb much of the responsibility for symptom recognition and referral. With COVID-19 causing notable disruptions in the progress of early identification (Maenner et al., 2023), it is predicted that the number of unidentified students in school settings, with a potential ASD, will increase. This phenomenon places additional pressure on educators to have a strong foundational knowledge of the characteristics of ASD in order to make informed referrals.

The field of ASD is continuously evolving with regard to policy, technology, etiology, diagnostic criteria, and evidence-based practices. If educators are to teach effectively and efficiently, it is imperative that they receive training in innovative skills, current information, and modern methodology (Osamwonyi, 2016). To meet the increasing needs of students with ASD in a global economy, it is necessary to provide sound programming for teachers to prepare them to correctly identify students with ASD. Due to the subjectivity in the referral process, teacher preparation programs must directly and explicitly provide instruction in ASD symptomatology (Desnoyer, 2019). While the field of special education in the U.S. follows IDEA (2004) guidelines, overall knowledge and understanding of ASD have dramatically evolved since its authorization. Having a sound working knowledge of federal, special education law is important, however, educators must also have an operational understanding of criteria that are better aligned with current research. To effectively recognize the early warning signs of ASD, the use of present-day criteria across multiple disciplines better positions educators to make informed referrals (Desnoyer, 2019). Avoiding erroneous patterns of thought and the common pitfalls associated with bias is essential for adherence to an evidence-based profession (Travers, 2017). To promote the accuracy of identification, it is important to acknowledge the interface between education and psychology, adopting a universal, well-rounded understanding of ASD as a conceptual disability (Desnoyer, 2019). In doing so, confusion surrounding symptomatology across professionals, parents, and ancillary stakeholders will be limited.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

The DSM (APA, 2013) is a handbook, utilized by many healthcare professionals as the authoritative guide to the diagnosis of mental disorders. While it is a U.S.-based tool, it has been adopted by practicing physicians and clinicians throughout many parts of the world. The DSM (APA, 2013) provides the structural framework for the official classification of all categorical psychiatric disabilities, as well as mandated benchmarks for disability diagnoses (APA, 2013). Having undergone seven revisions since its initial publication in 1952, the latest edition of the DSM (DSM-V) was released in 2013 and describes ASD as a spectrum categorized by the level of support an individual requires (e.g., support, substantial support, very substantial support). With the intention of increasing specificity, the introduction of this edition underwent an extensive revision process to address what was considered the over-identification of children/youth under the category of Pervasive Developmental Disorders using the former DSMIV (APA, 2000).

Demonstrating the most significant changes to date, the DSM-V (APA, 2013) eliminated all five sub-groups of Pervasive Developmental Disorders (e.g., Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, Rhett’s Syndrome, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified), aggregating them into one broad category of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In addition, the DSM-V (APA, 2013) introduced a two-domain model of deficit (e.g., social interaction and communication, restrictive and repetitive behavior) rather than the threedomain model in the DSM-IV (APA, 2000; e.g., social interaction, communication, restrictive and repetitive patterns of behavior), by combining social interaction and communicative skills (APA, 2013). The annotated symptoms were reduced from 12 to seven, requiring an individual to meet all three within the domain of social interaction and communication (e.g., deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, deficits in the development and maintenance of relationships; APA, 2013) and two out of the four symptoms within the area of restricted and repetitive behaviors (e.g., repeated patterns of speech and/or interactions with specific objects, insistence on routine or focused patterns of speech and/or interest that are abnormal in intensity, hyper-or hypoactive sensory input as a result of environmental stimuli; APA, 2013). Because research suggested that the DSM-IV (APA, 2000) criteria were ambiguous and overextended, the belief was that the use of the twodomain model would lead to more stringent, definitive diagnoses (McPartland et al., 2012).

Through this revision, there are significantly fewer ways to arrive at the diagnostic threshold for ASD with only eleven possible combinations in the DSM-V (2013) compared to 2,027 combinations under the DSM-IV (APA, 2000; McPartland et al., 2012).

With the diagnostic criteria of ASD being an ongoing, iterative process, paired with the complexities of the outdated criteria outlined in IDEA (2004), it is imperative that educators receive current and continued training in symptomatology. The historical confusion surrounding the characteristics of ASD emphasizes the importance of teacher preparation throughout their pre-service programming and beyond (Desnoyer, 2019). With many educators acting as the gateway to referral and subsequent diagnosis, understanding present-day criteria, such as that outlined in the DSM-V (APA, 2013) is essential.

The Autism Spectrum Disorder-Diagnostic Criteria Questionnaire

Using the DSM-V (APA, 2013) criteria as a guide, teacher educators can assess the knowledge of pre-or in-service teachers (e.g., traditional undergraduate or graduate students, students moving through accelerated programs at the undergraduate or graduate levels while working in school-based residency programs) concerning ASD during their program of study and throughout their teaching career. It allows teacher educators to maximize instructional time by identifying existing gaps in their self-reported understanding of ASD as a disability.

Figure 1 depicts the Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnostic Criteria Questionnaire (ASD-DCQ; Desnoyer, 2019 ), a survey created from a systematic task analysis of the DSM-V (APA, 2013) criteria. The questionnaire was developed based on the most recent edition of the diagnostic criteria according to the DSM-V (APA, 2013) to promote the modern presentations of ASD. The 17-item questionnaire assesses the self-reported type and level of training provided to general and special educators during their pre-service and in-service training. Each item directly correlates with the specific symptomatology and characteristics of ASD outlined in the official diagnostic criteria (APA, 2013; APA, 2000).

This questionnaire is designed to evaluate the type and level of self-reported, pre-service, and inservice, training provided to general and special educators regarding the recognition and referral of students with an autism spectrum disorder.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (APA, 2013): The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the handbook used by healthcare professionals in the United States and much of the world as the authoritative guide to the diagnosis of mental disorders. The DSM contains descriptions, symptoms, and other criteria for diagnosing mental disorders. It provides a common language for clinicians to communicate about their patients and establishes consistent diagnoses that can be used in the research of mental disorders (APA, 2013).

Levels of training:

Incidental Instruction: Instruction conducted during unstructured activities for brief periods of time, typically when students show interest or are involved with other materials and activities (Brown et al., 1991)

Direct Instruction: A research-based instructional approach in which the instructor presents content using a formal review of previously taught information, presentation of new skills or concepts, guided feedback and correction, and independent practice (Friend & Bursuck, 2011)

Types of training:

Pre-Service Training/Teacher Education Program: A Bachelor’s or Master’s degree university program with a course of study that results in a degree and licensure in general or special education (UCONN Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, 2020)

In-Service Training: Employee education that takes place after formal education is complete and employment has begun (IDEA, 2004)

Please rate the level of instruction received in any teacher education or district in-service training program for each of the following criteria required for ASD diagnoses.

o Select 5 if the criteria was explicitly mentioned and taught through direct

instruction

o Select 4 if the criteria was explicitly mentioned and discussed

o Select 3 if the criteria was incidentally mentioned and discussed

o Select 2 if the criteria was incidentally mentioned but not discussed

o Select 1 if the criteria was not mentioned or discussed

Knowledge of the DSM-5 criteria for ASD

1. Autism Spectrum Disorder

OneDiagnosticCategory

Three Levels of Support

2. Level 1: Some support is required

3. Level 2: A substantial amount of support is required

4. Level 3: A very substantial amount of support is required

Two Domains of Impairment

5. Ongoing deficits in social communication and social interaction across varied contexts

6. A restricted or repetitive pattern of behavior, interest, or activity

Three Outlined Symptoms Marking Impairment in Social Communication & Interaction

7. Deficiencies in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging from abnormal social approach and failure to engage in normal back-and-forth conversation, to limited affect, initiation of social interaction, or sharing of interests

Education Program 5 4 3 2 1

Training 5 4 3 2 1

8. Deficiencies in nonverbal, social communication, ranging from poor integration of verbal and nonverbal communication, through irregularities, or a lack of, body language, eye contact, and facial expressions or gestures

9. Deficiencies in initiating and continuing relationships at a rate comparable to same-age typically developing peers ranging from an inability to modify behavior based on social contexts, through a failure to engage in imaginative play, make friends, or express interest in individuals

Education Program 5 4 3 2 1

Four outlined symptoms marking restricted, repetitive behavior, interests, activities

10. Repetitive patterns of speech, movement, body language, or use of materials, or deficiencies in the use and comprehension of nonverbal communication to a total absence of facial expression or gestures

11. A rigid adherence to ritualistic routines, patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior, or extreme resistance to change

12. Interests that are abnormally intense or focused, or highly restricted

13. An unusual interest in sensory stimuli or hypo-or hypersensitivity to sensory input

Requirement for Diagnosis

14. Must exhibit all three symptoms marking impairment in social communication/social interaction and at least two, of the four, symptoms marking impairment in restricted, repetitive behavior, interests, and activities

Additional Considerations

15. Must be present in the developmental period of early childhood

16. As a result of symptoms, social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning are significantly impaired

Comorbidity Constraints

17. Must not be better accounted for by an intellectual disability

Figure 1. Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnostic Criteria Questionnaire (ASD-DCQ)

Note. Used with permission of Desnoyer (2019)

Using this tool, the provision of training regarding the characteristics can be analyzed to assess whether pre-service or in-service educators feel proficient in contemporary diagnostic symptomatology. Due to the significant modifications made in the DSM-V (APA, 2013), it is important to assess the type and level of training in which an individual participated. For each item on the questionnaire, participants indicate on a 5-item Likert scale whether instruction in their pre-service education and/or in-service training focused on the specific diagnostic criteria for ASD was: (1) never mentioned or discussed, (2) mentioned incidentally and not discussed, (3) mentioned incidentally and discussed, (4) explicitly mentioned and discussed, (5) explicitly mentioned and taught through direct instruction. Overall, the ASD-DCQ can be used as a tool for pre-and post-programmatic self-assessment to guide initial and remedial instruction.

Use with Pre-Service Teacher Candidates

Within the context of a teacher preparation program, instructors can utilize the ASD-DCQ (Desnoyer, 2019) to assess the perceived type and level of training provided to teacher candidates regarding the signs and symptoms of ASD. Based on response indicators, teacher educators can identify if teacher candidates (a) have been directly taught the current characteristics of ASD (e.g., DSM-V), (b) have been exposed to current characteristics incidentally, but without direct instruction (e.g., DSM-IV), or (c) lack training in current criteria altogether. This allows for the identification of a candidate's preliminary skills and provides an entry point for instructional planning and programming. With an array of content-based benchmarks to meet and a limited period of time to do so, the ASD-DCQ (Desnoyer, 2019) allows teacher educators to maximize instructional sessions by providing focused, individualized training. The following steps outline a suggested process for implementation with subsequent examples and implications for practice.

Step One: Administer Assessment.

The ASD-DCQ (Desnoyer, 2019) is useful across a variety of teacher educators responsible for the training of pre-service teachers including adjunct instructors, clinical professors, and tenure-track faculty members. It can be used in foundational, global special education courses (e.g., introduction to special education) required for students deriving from varying degree programs (e.g., elementary education, secondary education, special education, early childhood) or in more advanced courses focused specifically on supporting students with ASD (e.g., introduction to ASD, teaching students with ASD). In both cases, the implementation of the survey will yield relevant information regarding prior learning experiences and self-reported strengths and weaknesses. This allows teacher educators to maximize instructional time by tailoring instruction based on response data. For example, an adjunct instructor teaching an introduction to special education course may be responsible for teaching the characteristics of the 13 categorical disability areas outlined in IDEA (2004). With candidates deriving from multiple disciplines and a range of benchmarks to meet, the ASD-DCQ (Desnoyer, 2019) could be administered to determine hierarchical components of priority regarding students with ASD.

Step Two: Analyze Results. Following survey implementation, teacher educators should analyze assessment data, paying particular attention to notable patterns and trends in student training. For example, response indicators may suggest that a large majority of students report receiving direct instruction in the two primary domains of impairment. However, they may overwhelmingly note that the three levels of impairment were only incidentally mentioned or

discussed. To meet the specific needs of this group of students, it would be appropriate to dedicate an increased amount of time to providing direct instruction in the latter area.

Step Three: Plan Instruction. Once student strengths and weaknesses have been identified, teacher educators can map out the amount of instructional time that should be dedicated to each domain. This will vary based on the specific goals and objectives of the course and the instructional time available within a given semester. The assessment will also help teacher educators determine the most appropriate instructional configuration. If many students have the same identifiable strengths and weaknesses, whole-group instruction may be beneficial. On the contrary, if small clusters of students require support in diverse areas, then utilizing a co-teaching model of instruction, or cooperative learning groups may be a better fit. A plan for the provision of direct instruction in areas of need can then ensue. For example, based on the sample data collected in step two, the instructor may decide to create a whole group lesson to expound upon the three levels of support that a student with ASD may require. To provide direct instruction in this area, an “I do, we do, you do” model of teaching could be implemented This might include defining each level of severity with written examples and video depictions portraying students with ASD across each of the three levels. Then, breaking the class into cooperative learning groups and assigning each group a written case study of a student with a corresponding video depiction. As a group, they may be asked to determine the level of support the student would require and defend their decision using examples from the presentation and course readings. While each group presents their determinations to the whole class, audience members could decide if they agree or disagree with the team’s decision, citing relevant literature as support. Finally, students could engage in an independent review of the content using a web-based, interactive quiz software. Using this systematic planning process, teacher educators can individualize instruction and target existing gaps in knowledge and understanding.

Step Four: Monitor Progress. Following instruction, monitoring student progress, and checking for understanding using formative and summative assessments is important. In the aforementioned example, the teacher educator may opt to engage in a brief sorting activity at the onset of the next instructional period. This could be done by providing student descriptions and asking teacher candidates to place them in the level 1, level 2, or level 3 category of support. The content could then be integrated into a final culminating exam or end-of-semester project. This technique would effectively allow the instructor to assess content mastery and maintenance.

Use with In-Service Educators

When used within the context of in-service training, administrators, program directors, or those responsible for the provision of ongoing teacher training and development, can use the ASDDCQ (Desnoyer, 2019) to identify concepts in need of instructional remediation. Based on response indicators, administrators can identify if school personnel (a) have been directly taught the current characteristics of ASD (e.g., DSM-V), (b) have been exposed to current characteristics incidentally, but without direct instruction (e.g., DSM-IV), or (c) lack training in current criteria altogether. This allows for the identification of permanent and provisional employees’ preliminary skills and provides an entry point for instructional programming. With a

finite amount of time dedicated toward continuing education, the ASD-DCQ (Desnoyer, 2019) allows administrators to maximize professional development hours by quickly identifying which topics, if any, require individualized training. The following steps outline a suggested process for implementation with subsequent examples and implications for practice.

Step One: Administer Assessment. The ASD-DCQ (Desnoyer, 2019) is useful across a variety of educational environments responsible for the ongoing training of in-service educators. Depending on the specific needs of a learning center, this tool could be used in the provision of professional development across varying sites (e.g., Head Start programs, comprehensive school sites, center-based schools, clinics), grade levels (early childhood, elementary, secondary, transition-aged), and appointments (early childhood educator, general educator, special educator, support personnel). In all cases, the implementation of the survey will yield relevant information regarding prior learning experiences related to the identification of students with ASD. Administrators can then target global areas in need of remediation during the assigned time for professional development. For example, given the upward trend of prevalence rates of students with ASD, an early childhood director may wish to highlight this as an area of focus for upcoming training seminars. Through the administration of the ASD-DCQ (Desnoyer, 2019), specific components needing reteaching would be revealed.

Step Two: Analyze Results. Upon assessment completion, administrators can analyze the results of the assessment and look for the emergence of themes and commonalities across practitioners. For example, a group of early childhood educators may report receiving direct training in many of the social, communication, and behavioral aspects of ASD. However, they may also state that age-related requirements regarding the onset of symptoms (e.g., symptoms must be present in the developmental years of childhood), were not mentioned nor discussed. In this case, it would be appropriate for the director to identify this as an area in need of remedial instruction. Because early childhood educators interact with very young children, they are in positions of heightened importance regarding the identification of early signs of ASD.

Step Three: Plan Instruction. Once strengths and weaknesses have been identified, administrators, or individuals responsible for the planning and implementation of ongoing professional development, can determine topics of instructional importance. These may vary based on the individual needs of each school site or educational center. Again, the assessment will help determine the most appropriate instructional configuration (e.g., whole group, small group) based on similarities and differences in skills across those surveyed. Once instructional topic(s) have been identified, a plan for the provision of direct instruction in each identified area can begin. Using the above example, a director may hire an expert in the field of early childhood special education (e.g., professor, school-based psychologist, clinician, child psychiatrist) to provide a professional development seminar emphasizing legal mandates and age requirements related to the onset of ASD. The presenter could introduce the material by engaging participants in a “graffiti walk” using inquiry to incite ideas and engagement. Using this technique, questions such as “Why is it important to know, recognize, and record early signs of ASD in children/youth?” or “What are potential consequences of delayed identification and diagnosis of

ASD” are written on large pieces of chart paper and displayed around the room. Each group of participants could be given a specific color marker and asked to silently walk around the room, respond to the prompt in writing, read others’ responses, and rotate to the next question. Following this activity, the presenter might engage in a brief presentation, outlining current mandates, and explicitly connecting them to participant responses. In addition, an informal tool for documenting childhood milestones and tracking potential areas of concern, such as the Milestone Tracker App (NCBDDD, n.d.) or Milestone Checklist (NCBDDD, n.d.), could be introduced. This would offer practitioners a concrete method of record-keeping, ensuring that early warning signs of ASD are well-documented in the developmental years of childhood. In groups, participants could then watch brief clips of students at varying developmental levels, while completing the checklist based on the age of the student. Each group could then pass their documentation to another group who will determine, based on the accuracy and specificity of record keeping, whether the child had a marked impairment. Finally, participants could engage in an independent review of the content by writing a content-related question on an index card, trading index cards with another individual, and responding to their peers’ questions by citing material learned throughout the presentation. Using data-based decision-making using the ASDDCQ (Desnoyer, 2019), coordinators can provide relevant, targeted training and maximize time dedicated to professional development.

Step Four: Monitor Progress. Following instruction, it is important to monitor practitioners’ ability to apply new material in the educational environment. Checks for understanding in a school or clinical setting could include conducting informal observations, interviews, or records reviews. Assessing aspects of social validity regarding the relevance and practicality of the provided seminar also gives valuable feedback and insight to the presenter. This process ensures that the diverse needs of participants are met.

Using the ASD-DCQ (Desnoyer, 2019) teacher educators are better equipped to provide effective pre-service and in-service training in the area of ASD identification. As the prevalence rates of ASD increase, so does the need for current knowledge of early warning signs. If educators are to effectively recognize and refer children and youth, direct and explicit instruction in the DSM-V (APA, 2013) criteria is warranted.

Conclusion

Educators are increasingly required to provide feedback regarding changes in symptomatology as well as the side effects of co-occurring interventions (Mattison, 2014). To do this effectively, it is imperative that teachers have an adequate working knowledge of childhood disorders and classifications included in the DSM (APA, 2013; Mattison, 2014). At a minimum, educators should be familiar with clinical presentations and treatments that are currently used (Konopasek, 2012). Mattison (2014, p.106) argues that educators cannot be the last to know of DSM disorders and criteria. They are valuable in terms of accurate classification and an individual’s ability to understand symptom severity and plan for intervention accordingly (Mattison, 2014). These discussions have relevance to students with ASD as the field adjusts to the impact of a new definition. Using the ASD-DCQ (Desnoyer, 2019), teacher educators and professional development personnel can effectively assess the type and level of training provided to pre-or

in-service educators regarding the characteristics of ASD. This allows for the identification of existing gaps in the understanding of important diagnostic and assessment criteria. Through databased decision-making, effective personnel programming can be implemented for children/youth with ASD.

References

Al-Sharbati, M. M., Al-Farsi, Y. M., Ouhtit, A., Waly, M. I., Al Shafaee, M., Al-Farsi, O., Al Adawi, S. (2015). Awareness about autism among school teachers in Oman: A crosssectional study. Autism, 19(1), 6-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313508025

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.) American Psychiatric Publishing.

Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network Surveillance Year 2000 Principal Investigator, CDC. (2007). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders: Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, six sites, United States, 2000. MMWR Surveillance Summary 56(1):1-11.

Barned, Nicole & Knapp, Nancy & Neuharth-Pritchett, Stacey. (2011). Knowledge and attitudes of early childhood preservice teachers regarding the inclusion of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education , 32(4), 302-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2011.622235

Barnhill, G. P., Polloway, E. A., & Sumutka, B. M. (2011). A survey of personnel preparation practices in autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357610378292

Bertrand, J., Mars, A., Boyle, C., Bove, F., Yeargin-Allsopp, M., & Decoufle, P. (2001). Prevalence of autism in a United States population: The Brick Township, New Jersey, investigation. Pediatrics, 108(5), 1155-1161. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.108.5.1155

Brown, W. H., McEvoy, M. A., & Bishop, N. (1991). Incidental teaching of social behavior: A naturalistic approach for promoting young children's peer interactions. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(1), 35-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005999102400109

Brownell, M.T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E. P., & McCallum, C.L. (2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation a comparison with general teacher education. The Journal of Special Education, 38 (4), 242-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246690503800406

Busby, R., Ingram, R., Bowron, R., Oliver, J., & Lyons, B. (2012). Teaching elementary children with autism: Addressing teacher challenges and preparation needs. The Rural Educator , 33(2), 27-35. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v33i2.416

Christensen, D. L., Braun, K. V. N., Baio, J., Bilder, D., Charles, J., Constantino, J. N., Daniels, J., Durkin, M. S., Fitzgerald, R. T., Kurzius-Spencer, M., Lee, L. C., Pettygrove, S., Robinson, C., Schulz, E., Wells, C., Wingate, M. S., Zahorodny, W., & Yeargin-Allsopp, M. (2018). Prevalence and Characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years -Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2012. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C.: 2002), 65 (13), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6513a1

Dawson, G., Rogers, S., Munson, J., Smith, M., Winter, J., Greenson, J., Donaldson, A., & Varley, J. (2010). Randomized, controlled trial of an intervention for toddlers with autism: the Early Start Denver Model. Pediatrics, 125(1), e17–e23. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0958

Desnoyer, B. (2019). An analysis of teacher training concerning the identification of students with autism spectrum disorder (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas).

Dietz, P. M., Rose, C. E., McArthur, D., & Maenner, M. (2020). National and state estimates of adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(12), 4258-4266.doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04494-4

Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. (2002). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

Getahun, D., Fassett, M. J., Peltier, M. R., Wing, D. A., Xiang, A. H., Chiu, V., & Jacobsen, S. J. (2017). Association of perinatal risk factors with autism spectrum disorder. American Journal of Perinatology , 7(03), 295-304. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1597624

Haimour, A. I., & Obaidat, Y. F. (2013). School teachers’ knowledge about autism in Saudi Arabia. World Journal of Education, 3 (5), 45-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wje.v3n5p45

Hart, J. E., & Malian, I. (2013). A statewide survey of special education directors on teacher preparation and licentiate in autism spectrum disorders: a model for university and state collaboration. International Journal of Special Education , 28(1), 4-13.

Helt, M., Kelley, E., Kinsbourne, M., Pandey, J., Boorstein, H., Herbert, M., & Fein, D. (2008). Can children with autism recover? If so, how?. Neuropsychology review , 18(4), 339–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-008-9075-9

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2004). P.L. 108-446, §118, Stat, 2647. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2004). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.8/c/1

Johnson, P., Porter, K., & McPherson, I. (2012). Autism knowledge among pre-service teachers specialized in children birth through age five: Implications for health education. American Journal of Health Education , 43(5), 279-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2012.10599246

Konopasek, D. E. (2012). Medication fact sheets: A behavioral medication reference for educators (4th ed.) Research Press.

Lord, C., Risi, S., DiLavore, P. S., Shulman, C., Thurm, A., & Pickles, A. (2006). Autism from 2 to 9 years of age. Archives of General Psychiatry , 63(6), 694-701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.63.6.694

Low, H. M., Wong, T. P., Lee, L. W., Makesavanh, S., Vongsouangtham, B., Phannalath, V., ...& Lee, A. S. S. (2021). A grassroots investigation of ASD knowledge and stigma among teachers in Luang Prabang, Lao PDR. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 80, 101694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2020.101694

Maenner, M. J., Shaw, K. A., Bakian, A. V., Bilder, D. A., Durkin, M. S., Esler, A., ... & Cogswell, M. E. (2021). Prevalence and characteristics of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years—autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2018. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 70 (11), 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss7011a1

Maenner M.J., Warren Z., Williams A.R., et al. (2023). Prevalence and characteristics of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 Years—Autism and developmental disabilities

monitoring network, 11 Sites, United States, 2020. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 72 (2): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss7202a1

Mattison, R. (2014). The interface between child psychiatry and special education in the treatment of students with emotional/behavioral disorders in school settings. In H. M. Walker & F. M. Gresham, Handbook of evidence-based practices for emotional and behavioral disorders: Applications in Schools (pp. 104-126). Guilford Press.

McPartland, J. C., Reichow, B., & Volkmar, F. R. (2012). Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 51 (4), 368-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2012.01.007

Morrier, M. J., & Hess, K. L. (2012). Ethnic differences in autism eligibility in the United States public schools. Journal of Special Education, 46(1), 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910372137

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Students With Disabilities. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg

National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2023). http://cdc.gov/ncbddd/aboutus/report

National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022). https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html

National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (n.d.). https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/pdf/LTSAEChecklist_COMPLIANT_30MCorrection_508.pdf

Osamwonyi, E. F. (2016). In-service education of teachers: Overview, problems and the way forward. Journal of Education and Practice , 7(26), 83-87.

Ozonoff, S., Young, G. S., Goldring, S., Greiss-Hess, L., Herrera, A. M., Steele, J., ... & Rogers, S. J. (2008). Gross motor development, movement abnormalities, and early identification of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38 (4), 644-656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0430-0

Reichow, B., Hume, K., Barton, E. E., & Boyd, B. A. (2018). Early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for young children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The Cochrane database of systematic reviews , 5(5), CD009260. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009260.pub3

Sanz-Cervera, P., Fernández-Andrés, M. I., Pastor-Cerezuela, G., & Tárraga-Mínguez, R. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ knowledge, misconceptions and gaps about autism spectrum disorder. Teacher Education and Special Education , 40(3), 212-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840641770

Schwartz, H., & Drager, K. D. (2008). Training and knowledge in autism among speechlanguage pathologists: A survey. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39(1), 66-77. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2008/007)

Segall, M. J., & Campbell, J. M. (2012). Factors relating to education professionals’ classroom practices for the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders , 6(3), 1156-1167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.02.007

Shattuck, P. T., Durkin, M., Maenner, M., Newschaffer, C., Mandell, D. S., Wiggins, L., et al. (2009). Timing of identification among children with an autism spectrum disorder: Findings from a population-based surveillance study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 48(5), 474–483. https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e31819b3848

Toran, H., Westover, J. M., Sazlina, K., Suziyani, M., & Mohd Hanafi, M. Y. (2016). The preparation, knowledge, and self-reported competency of special education teachers regarding students with autism. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities , 24(1), 185-196.

Travers, J. C. (2017). Evaluating claims to avoid pseudoscientific and unproven practices in special education. Intervention in School and Clinic , 52(4), 195-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216659466

UCONN Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities. The Early Childhood Personnel Center. (2020). https://ecpcta.org/preservicetraining/#:~:text=Pre%2Dservice%20is%20the%20term,standards%20of%20a%20specifi c%20discipline

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Preparing and credentialing the nation’s teachers. The secretary’s annual 10th report on teacher quality. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/ateachershortageareasreport2017-18.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Teacher shortage areas nationwide listing. 1990–1991 through 2017–2018.

U.S. Department of Education (2020). ED facts data warehouse (EDW): IDEA part B child count and educational environments collection. https://go.usa.gov/xdp4T

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) database. (2021) https://data.ed.gov/dataset/ideasection-618-data-products. See Digest of Education Statistics 2021 , table 204.30.

About the Author

Brittany J. Desnoyer, Ph.D., BCBA , is an Assistant Professor of Special Education at California State University, Stanislaus, and a Board Certified Behavior Analyst. She received her bachelor’s and master’s degree from Michigan State University, and her doctoral degree from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She teaches coursework focused on evidence-based practices used to support students with extensive support needs, autism spectrum disorder, and emotional and behavioral disorders. Her research interests include the promotion of personal agency, autonomy, and self-efficacy in children and youth with disabilities.

American Indian and Alaska Native Children with Disabilities: Considerations for Improving Individualized Education Programs

William Garnett, Ph.D. California State University, Fresno

Neal Nghia Nguyen, Ph.D. Stephen F. Austin State University

Abstract

The current lack of understanding and consideration from classroom educators regarding the distinct tribal cultures and identities of American Indian and Alaska Native children with various disabilities has necessitated a national discourse on how these children can best be served in public schools. This article links the existing education laws to classroom practices and suggests approaches to (1) adjust the intricate components of the current individualized education programs for special educators and related stakeholders to be able to meet the unique and individualized needs of this student population and (2) address the needs for active involvement as well as valuing the indispensable connections between these children and their community.

Keywords: American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities, individualized education programs for American Indian and Alaska Native children, American Indian and Alaska Native children and special education, tribal cultures of American Indian and Alaska Native children with special needs.

American Indian and Alaska Native Children with Disabilities: Considerations for Improving Individualized Education Programs

American Indians and Alaska Natives represent the most culturally diverse group in the United States (Duran, 2002). Of the approximate 1000 distinct tribes in the United States, only 574 are recognized by the federal government (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2021), while more than 400 are currently unrecognized (Government Accountability Office, [GAO], 2012). American Indians and Alaska Natives represent approximately three percent of the total population in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022), and are considered the most marginalized group (AsanteMuhammed et al., 2019; Berumen, 2020; Clarren, 2017).

Most American Indian and Alaska Native school-aged children attend public schools rather than tribal schools (National Congress of American Indians, 2021). When compared to other race/ethnic groups in the public school system, American Indian and Alaska Native children often have the lowest grades (Torres, 2017), endure more harassment than their peers in other racial/ethnic groups (Campbell & Smalling, 2013; Jones et al., 2015), are more likely to experience violence, substance abuse, and attempt suicide at much higher rates (Urban Indian Health Institute, 2009). American Indian and Alaska Native school-age children are often more likely to be identified as needing special education services (DeVoe et al., 2008) and are often

over-represented in the disability categories of specific learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, and intellectual disabilities (Zhang et al., 2014). The causes of over-representation of American Indian and Alaska Native in identification for special education services are difficult to determine; however, contributing risk factors have been identified such as socioeconomic and environmental factors such as limited access to healthcare services (Cromer et al., 2019) and cultural differences between American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and publicschool systems (Ingalls & Hammond, 2007).

Strong connections to tribal practices and traditions have many positive effects on American Indian and Alaska Native children. Such connections have been reported to improve educational outcomes (Whitbeck et al., 2001), contribute to reducing the risk of drug and alcohol use (Kulis et al., 2011), and reduce suicide risk (Lester, 1999). Hundreds of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes live within the United States. Each tribe is a separate culture with its own language, practices, and values (Sanchez & Stuckey, 1999), which makes ensuring access to opportunities to learn and express language and culture within each tribal context very challenging for public school systems. Added to this is American Indian and Alaska Native children are often taught by teachers who have little to no understanding of their unique tribal cultures (Morgan, 2009; Starnes, 2006). Additionally, American Indian and Alaska Native children who have been identified and labeled with disabilities are potentially at risk for losing opportunities to engage with and learn their own cultural practices when the focus tends to be on addressing learning needs central to the disability category while ignoring those central to the child’s cultural identity (Rowe & Francis, 2020).

Several key pieces of legislation support the education of American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities: (a) Title VI in the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) and (b) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004). Contained within Title VI are provisions to support the cultural development and tribal identities of American Indian and Alaska Native children, and contained within IDEA 2004 are provisions that support the individual learning needs of children with disabilities. However, when it comes to the educational planning of American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities, the intersection of Title VI Indian Education and IDEA 2004 may be overlooked. The purpose of this article is to outline provisions within Title VI and IDEA 2004 and to provide suggestions for improving individualized education programs (IEPs) to support the cultural development of American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities.

Provisions in Title VI: The Indian Education Act

First passed and enacted in 1972, The Indian Education Act, previously designated as Title VII and then reauthorized and renamed as Title VI in ESSA (2015), contains key provisions that support the unique learning needs of American Indian and Alaska Native children. The first key provision ensures the educational programming provided to American Indian and Alaska Native children by school districts meets “the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of Indian children, so that such children can meet the challenging State academic standards” (Title VI Indian Education § 6102 [1], 20 U.S.C. § 6301). The second key provision ensures that

American Indian and Alaska Native children also have opportunities to “gain knowledge and understanding of Native communities, languages, tribal histories, traditions, and cultures” (Title VI Indian Education § 6102 [2], 20 U.S.C. § 6301). The third key provision ensures those who provide educational programming for American Indian and Alaska Native children “have the ability to provide culturally appropriate and effective instruction and supports to such students” (Title VI Indian Education § 6102 [3], 20 U.S.C § 6301). Title VI also contains two additional provisions that specifically address elementary and secondary schools to ensure schools develop programs designed to not only support these students in meeting State learning standards but also meet their distinct cultural, language, and learning needs (Title VI Indian Education § 6111, 20 U.S.C. § 6301).

Provisions in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004

Originally passed in 1975 as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004) entitles children who meet specific disability criteria to educational programming that addresses their individual learning needs. Several key mandates in IDEA 2004 ensure these needs are met: A free appropriate public education (FAPE) and the individualized education program (IEP).

The FAPE Mandate

The FAPE mandate is defined in IDEA 2004 as special education and related services that are provided free of cost, meet State standards, and conform to a child’s individualized education program (IEP) (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §300.17). One of the main components of the FAPE mandate is an appropriate education. In the landmark court case Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley (hereinafter Rowley) (1982), the US Supreme Court determined the meaning of what constitutes an appropriate education by developing a two-part test. The first part of the test asked whether the school district had complied with the procedures of the law, and the second part asked whether the IEP had been developed to provide a child with an education that conferred a benefit. If a school district follows the procedures in IDEA 2004, and if the IEP has been created to confer an educational benefit to the child with a disability, then the school district follows the FAPE mandate. The Rowley standard of what constitutes an educational benefit was revisited in Endrew v. Douglas County School District (hereinafter Endrew) (2017). In Endrew the Supreme Court established a new standard with regard to the level of educational benefit school districts must provide in order to meet the FAPE mandate in IDEA 2004. The new standard extends the Rowley standard by requiring a school to offer “an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” (Endrew, 2017, pp. 14-15).

Components of an IEP

The IEP is central to ensuring a student with a disability who meets the requirements defined in IDEA 2004 for special education and related services receives a FAPE (Yell, 2019). All IEPs must contain the following components in order to comply with IDEA 2004: (a) a statement regarding the child’s most current levels of academic and functional performance, which includes a statement regarding how the disability impacts the child’s involvement and progress

in the general education curriculum; (b) a statement of annual, measurable goals, both academic and functional, which are based on the child’s needs as a result of the child’s disability and allow the child to be involved in and make progress in the regular education curriculum as well as other areas of need and a description of how progress on those goals will be measured, (c) a description of benchmarks or short-term objectives for children with disabilities who take alternative assessments that address alternative learning standards, (d) a statement of when progress reports toward achieving annual goals will be provided, (e) a statement of special education, related services, supplementary aids and services along with program modifications and supports for school personnel to assist the child in making progress toward achieving annual goals, making progress in regular education curriculum, participating in nonacademic school related activities, and being educated with and participating in activities with children without disabilities; (f) a placement determination that describes to what extent the child will not be educated or participate in activities with children without disabilities, (g) a statement of individualized accommodations needed to measure achievement and functional performance on State and district assessments, or a statement as to why the child requires taking an alternate assessment; (h) dates for service provision, (i) a transition plan if the child is 16 years of age, and (j) a statement of the transfer of rights when the child reaches the age of majority (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320).

Two Laws, One Path: An American Indian/Alaska Native IEP

The history of American education policies meant to erase the identities of American Indian and Alaska Native people are well documented. Even today, with increased attention toward culturally responsive instructional practices, tribal cultures remain at risk of disappearing (Sanchez & Stuckey, 1999). Title VI provides American Indian and Alaska Native children with assurances that address access to cultural development within the contexts of the American public education system; however, Title VI makes no mention of supporting American Indian and Alaska Native school-age children with disabilities with gaining such access. Similarly, IDEA 2004 contains mandates that ensure all children with disabilities are afforded an education that confers a benefit specific to their circumstances; however, absent from the law is explicit language pertaining to cultural relevance in the development of the IEP as well as access to learning cultural practices. Since neither law references the other, and with American Indian and Alaska Native cultures often ignored in American society (Fryberg & Stephens, 2010), American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities might be at risk of being denied opportunities to engage in and access their culture as provided for them in Title VI. To mitigate this potential risk, provisions in Title VI and mandates in IDEA 2004 should be blended together to address the educational program planning of American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities to provide them with access to culturally enriching activities and learning opportunities unique their tribal heritage. In the following sections are recommendations for school districts and IEP teams to support a more culturally relevant IEP for American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities.

Considerations for an American Indian IEP Team

Whether it’s an initial IEP or an annual review, central to the development of the IEP itself is the IEP team. Though IDEA 2004 contains guidance for who should be a part of a child’s IEP team,

it does not explicitly address the potential need for membership based on cultural background or the specific cultural needs of the American Indian and Alaska Native child with disabilities. American Indian and Alaska Native family structures differ significantly from their typical American counterparts (Light & Martin, 1986). American Indian and Alaska Native family structures are more open and often involve more than one household (Red Horse et al., 1978). Because of these different family structures, when creating an IEP team for an American Indian and Alaska Native child with a disability, some additional team considerations should be made. Parette and Petch-Hogan (2000) suggested some extended family members of a child with a disability in some American Indian and Alaska Native tribes assume the caretaker role for the child with a disability. Since extended family members may not have legal rights over the child in the eyes of Western legal policies, they should still be considered critical members of the IEP team, and school districts should ensure they are invited to planning meetings as well as receive progress updates regarding the child.

Another consideration for IEP team membership are tribal elders because cultural identity among American Indians and Alaska Natives is tied directly to the tribe (Weaver, 2001). Tribal elders can provide a wealth of knowledge and understanding to the IEP team (Sparks, 2000), so suggesting a tribal elder be added to the IEP team may facilitate the development of a more culturally responsive IEP. Though it may not always be possible to add a tribal elder from the child’s tribe, encouraging parents and extended family to suggest adding an elder from the broader American Indian and Alaska Native community to the IEP team might also provide significant and meaningful contributions to the development of the child’s IEP. Including tribal and extended family members on IEP teams for American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities may facilitate the creation of a relationship that is respectful and trusting as they can assist the rest of team with understanding a child’s unique tribal culture, which is often missing from general teacher preparation coursework (Brayboy & Maughan, 2009; Castagno, 2012).

Lastly, the Indian Education Coordinator should be added to the IEP team. Though the role and responsibilities of the Indian Education Coordinator are not found in the Indian Education Act itself, the typical role and responsibilities of the Indian Education Coordinator are varied. For the most part, Indian Education Coordinators work with American Indian and Alaska Native children in schools to support their needs, locate and access community resources, and work within the school community to ensure the child’s needs are met (Eau Claire Area School District, 2017). The Indian Education Coordinator could also play a crucial role in the development of the transition plan by providing information about scholarships specific to American Indians and Alaska Natives should the child decide to attend college or a trade school once they leave public school. Table 1 outlines the requirements in IDEA 2004 for an IEP team and provides suggestions for an IEP team for an American Indian/Alaska Native child with a disability. Whether it is an initial IEP or an annual review, central to the development of the IEP itself is the IEP team.

Table 1

Suggestions for Building an American Indian and Alaska Native IEP Team IDEA 2004 Requirements for an IEP Team Suggestions for an American Indian IEP Team

Parents of the child; a general education teacher of the child; a special education teacher; a district representative; an individual who can interpret evaluation results; additional members who have knowledge about the child or expertise in certain areas pertaining to the child (at the discretion of parents and district), and the child (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.321[a])

Considerations for the IEP Meeting

Extended family members (i.e., grandparents, uncles, aunts).

Tribal elder(s) and/or someone knowledgeable regarding the child’s tribal practices, history, language, etc.

Indian Education Coordinator.

When scheduling and holding the IEP meeting, Parette and Petch-Hogan (2000) recommend considering the time and location of the meeting and understanding the priorities, needs, and resources of the family. A number of barriers to attending IEP meetings exist for American Indian and Alaska Native families (Peterson & Monfort, 2004; Tepper & Tepper, 2004), and these include a distrust of the American educational system (Parette & Petch-Hogan, 2000). When discussing disability with American Indian and Alaska Native families, special education teachers, case managers, and school administrators should keep some key ideas in mind.

First, the meaning of a disability is culturally defined (Lo, 2005). Not all American Indian and Alaska Native tribes share Western cultural concepts of disability (Waldeman et al., 2008). Some American Indian and Alaska Native tribes view disability as something that emerges out of relationships more so than the result of a medical condition or environmental influence (Pichette et al., 1999). Some American Indian and Alaska Native tribes view disability as part of a person’s life path (Simmons et al., 2004), while some view disability as a kind of spiritual disharmony (Clay, 1992). Because of these differing views, it is vital the IEP team members take great care when discussing the meaning of disability during the IEP meeting for an American Indian child and seek to understand how the child’s tribe and the family view disability.

During the IEP meeting, school personnel should use active listening strategies such as restating what has been said, seeking clarification, awareness of one’s own biases, sharing opinions after listening, and being sincere (Willis, 2018). Additionally, it is important to allow family, extended family, and other tribal members the opportunity to speak, as well as to provide adequate time for sharing of information and knowledge. After the IEP meeting, it is important to follow up with parents and guardians to ensure lines of communication remain open as this leads to building trust and a stronger relationship.

Considerations for Present Levels of Academic and Functional Performance

The present levels of academic and functional performance statements are used to develop annual measurable goals for the child with a disability, and it is also the point of measure to

determine the success of an IEP (Yell, 2019). What goes into the present levels of academic and functional performance is relatively flexible; therefore, the IEP team can add information pertaining to the cultural status of the American Indian/Alaska Native child with a disability. The information could include baseline data on the acquisition of the child’s tribal language and participation in tribal practices and customs. This kind of information can then be used to create annual measurable goals that reflect the unique cultural learning needs of the child. Table 2 provides the IDEA 2004 requirement and potential information to include in the present levels of academic and functional performance for American Indian and Alaska Native students with disabilities.

Table 2

Considerations for Additional Information in the Present Levels of Academic and Functional Performance for American Indian and Alaska Native Students with Disabilities

IDEA 2004 Present Level Requirements

A statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (i.e., the same curriculum as for nondisabled children).

For preschool children, as appropriate, how the disability affects the child’s participation in appropriate activities.

(IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320[1]).

Considerations for Measurable Annual Goals

Considerations for an American Indian IEP

Include present level of tribal language use.

Include present level of engagement in cultural practices (i.e., attending pow-wows, creation of regalia, spiritual ceremonies, etc.).

Include a statement of the child’s understanding of the child’s tribal history (i.e., oral histories, involvement in treaties, etc.).

Include a statement of the child’s understanding of the child’s tribal government structure.

Derived from information within the present levels of academic and functional performance, measurable annual goals are designed to not only support progress in the regular education curriculum but also meet the child’s “other educational needs that result from the child’s disability” (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §300.320 [2][i][B]). Given the flexibility within the present levels of academic and functional performance and what measurable annual goals can address, the IEP team should consider measurable annual goals that support the child’s tribal language acquisition, cultural skills development, and levels of participation in the overall tribal community. Table 3 outlines the IDEA 2004 regulatory requirements with examples of areas for measurable annual goals that pertain to the cultural development of an American Indian/Alaska Native child with a disability.

Table 3

Suggested Areas for Measurable Annual Goals for American Indian and Alaska Native Children with Disabilities

IDEA 2004 Measurable Annual Goal Suggestions for Measurable Annual Goals for Requirements American Indian Students with Disabilities

Meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum. (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320[2][A]).

Meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320[2][B]).

Considerations for Related Services

Attending and dancing at pow-wows.

Speaking tribal language (which can be supported via a Speech/Language Pathologist).

Engaging in and practicing tribal ceremonies.

Creating tribal art and regalia.

Preparing tribal/ancestral food.

Engaging in tribal society, including tribal government.

Related services are meant to ensure the child with a disability can benefit from special education (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.34[a]) and these services can also enhance the cultural development of American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities. For example, speech-language services could be used to assist the American Indian and Alaska Native child with a disability in acquiring mastery of their tribal language. Occupational therapy services could support the development of fine motor skills needed for engaging in traditional practices such as beadwork, leatherwork, and traditional food production. Physical therapy along with therapeutic recreation and recreation related services could support the development of the gross motor skills needed for involvement in various dancing techniques used in pow-wows.

Considerations for Transition Planning

Students with disabilities served under IDEA 2004 must have a transition plan in place in their IEPs by no later than age 16, or sooner, if the IEP Team determines such a plan is appropriate at a younger age (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320[b]). Transition services are meant to improve academic and functional performance of a student with a disability in order to assist the student’s change from school related activities to post-school environments, which include twoor four-year colleges, vocational and career training, employment, and daily living activities (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §300.43[1]). Transition services are meant to be centered on the student’s strengths, preferences and interests, and should include instruction, related services, community experiences, development of employment and other post-school living goals based on the needs of the student (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §300.43[2]). Transition plans must contain measurable and appropriate post-secondary goals derived from transition assessments related to the areas of skill training, education, employment, and if the IEP Team determines the need, skills for independent living, and the transition services needed to support the student in

meeting these goals (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §300.320 [b]). Given the high percentage of unemployment among individuals with disabilities in the United States (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023) and given the high percentage of unemployment among American Indians and Alaska Natives (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022) it is critical for the transition team and the transition plan to be focused on the transition needs of the American Indian and Alaska Native child with a disability.

Since what constitutes a transition service is broad within the context of the regulations, the IEP team for the American Indian and Alaska Native child with a disability can address a number of cultural aspects. For example, community experiences could be more than just those typically addressed such as using a bus or accessing activities and services within the general community. A transition service plan could be used to support the American Indian and Alaska Native child with a disability access to the tribal community and attending cultural events that include social gatherings and spiritual practices.

Though the list of post-secondary goal areas does not explicitly include access to and participation in the unique cultures of American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities, it is critical the IEP team for the American Indian and Alaska Native child involves members of the tribal community and the Title VI coordinator when it comes to transition planning. These individuals can provide knowledge and information pertaining to training programs, educational programs, employment programs, grants, and scholarships that are specifically available to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Some of these programs include specific tribal financial support for tribal members to attend college or job training programs. Additionally, tribal elders as members of the child’s IEP team, can provide guidance for developing post-secondary goals that support the child’s access and involvement in daily tribal life within the greater American Indian/Alaska Native community when the child leaves schoolbased services and supports.

Implications for Future Inquiry and Classroom Practice

The existing research literature regarding IEP development for American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities is significantly limited. Since strong connections to culture may result in improved educational outcomes (Whitbeck et al., 2001), future studies should explore the education performance and post-school outcomes of American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities when their IEPs are more supportive of their cultures and their unique learning needs within those cultures. Such studies may lead to improving practices and policies to better serve this unique group of students.

Blanchett (2006) stated teacher preparation programs continue to produce teachers who have limited knowledge of the unique cultures of American Indian and Alaska Native students and how to work with these culturally diverse populations (Morgan, 2009; Starnes, 2006). The current systems in place regarding teacher preparation and professional development require substantial change. First, school districts receiving Title VI funds should be using those funds to not only support the cultural development of American Indian and Alaska Native children with

and without disabilities but also to provide periodic professional development and inform school staff regarding the tribal cultures represented within their schools and community. Second, the multicultural coursework within teacher preparation programs should be altered enough to ensure American Indian and Alaska Native cultures are specifically addressed rather than blended into a generalized multicultural landscape. Lastly, state level teacher credential programs and accreditation bodies can ensure teacher credential programs include competencies and performance expectations that specifically address American Indian and Alaska Native children with and without disabilities.

Conclusion

American Indians and Alaska Natives make up the most diverse group within the United States but are also the most marginalized. Title VI contains provisions intended to support the cultural development of American Indian and Alaska Native children yet contains no specific language addressing the learning needs of American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities. Likewise, IDEA 2004 contains mandates and provisions for ensuring children with disabilities receive services intended to support both their academic and functional development yet does not explicitly include language centered on cultural development. Since neither law references the other, the needs of American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities run the risk of getting lost between the two. Schools can meet the cultural development needs of these children by ensuring IEP teams and IEPs are culturally relevant, not just disability relevant. Doing so ensures American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities are not only provided access to their unique cultures but also have opportunities to engage with, participate in, and celebrate their heritage.

References

Asante-Muhammed, D., Tec, R. & Ramirez, K. (2022, February 14). Racial wealth snapshot: American Indians/ Native Americans. National Community Reinvestment Coalition. https://ncrc.org/racial-wealth-snapshot-american-indians-native-americans/ Berumen, F. G. (2020, July 1). The most marginalized and impoverished people in the United States and in the Americas has always been and continues to be Native Americans. The California-Mexico Studies Center. Retrieved from http://www.californiamexicocenter.org/the-most-marginalized-and-impoverished-people-in-the-united-statesand-in-the-americas-has-always-been-and-continues-to-be-native-americans/ Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of white privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35 (6), 24-28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x035006024. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). Brayboy, B.M.J, & Maughan, E. (2009). Indigenous knowledges and the story of the bean. Harvard Educational Review, 79 (1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.1.I0u6435086352229

Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indian entities recognized by and eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs , 86 Fed. Reg. 7554 (January 29, 2021).

Campbell, E.M. & Smalling, S.E. (2013). American Indians and bullying in schools. Journal of Indigenous Social Development, 2 (1), 1-15. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/29815

Castagno, A.E. (2012). “They prepared me to be a teacher, but not a culturally responsive Navajo teacher for Navajo kids”: A tribal critical race theory analysis of an Indigenous teacher preparation program. Journal of American Indian Education, 51 (1), 3-21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43608618

Clarren, R. (2017, July 24). How America is failing Native American students: Punitive discipline, inadequate curriculum, and declining federal funding created an education crisis. The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/left-behind/ Clay, J. (1992). Native American independent living. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 11 (1), 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687059201100109

Cromer, K. J., Wofford, L., & Wyant, D. )2019). Barriers to healthcare access facing American Indian and Alaska Natives in rural America. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 36(4), 165–187. doi:10.1080/07370016.2019.1665320.

DeVoe, J.F., Darling-Churchill, K.E., & Snyder, T.D. (2008). Status and Trends in the Education of American Indians and Alaska Natives: 2008 (NCES 2008-084). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008084_1.pdf

Duran, B. E. S. (2002). American Indian belief systems and traditional practices . The University of Oklahoma. http://www.wellnesscourts.org/files/Duran%20%20American%20Indian%20Belief%20Systems.pdf

Eau Claire Area School District (2017). American Indian education coordinator: Essential job functions. Retrieved from https://www.ecasd.us/ECASD/media/DistrictSite/PDFs/HR/American-Indian-Education-Coordinator.pdf

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 137 S.Ct. 988 (2017). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf

Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq (2015).

Fryberg, S.A. & Stephens, N.M. (2010). When the world is colorblind, American Indians are invisible: A diversity science approach. Psychological Inquiry, 21 (2), 115-119. DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2010.438487

Government Accountability Office. (2012). Indian issues: Federal funding for non-federally recognized tribes. (GAO Publication No. 12-348). Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Regulations 34 C.F.R. § 300.1 et seq (2006).

Ingalls, L., & Hammond, H. (2007). The match between Apache Indians’ culture and education practices used in our schools: From problems to solutions. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal (CTMS), 3 (1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.19030/ctms.v3i1.5270

Jones, M., Galliher, R., & Lee, R. M. (2015). Daily racial microaggressions and ethnic identification among Native American young adults. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037537

Kulis, S., Hodge, D., Ayers, S. L, Brown, E. F., & Marsiglia, F. F. ( 2011). Spirituality and religion: Intertwined protective factors for substance use among urban American Indian youth.” The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse , 38(5), 444–449. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2012.670338

Lester, D. (1999). Native American suicide rates, acculturation stress and traditional integration. Psychological Reports , 84(2), 398-398. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1999.84.2.398

Light, H.K. & Martin, R.E. (1986). American Indian families. Journal of American Indian Education, 26(1), 1-5. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24398095

Lo, L. (2005). Barriers to successful partnerships with Chinese-speaking parents of children with disabilities in urban schools. Multiple Voices, 8(1), 84-95. https://doi.org/10.56829/muvo.8.1.k.70j61243758146w

Morgan, H. (2009). What every teacher needs to know to teach Native American students. Multicultural Education , 16(4), 10-12. https://nativephilanthropy.candid.org/reports/what-every-teacher-needs-to-know-to-teachnative-american-students/

National Congress of American Indians (2021). Education. https://www.ncai.org/policyissues/education-health-human-services/education

Parette, H.P. & Petch-Hogan, B. (2000). Approaching families: Facilitating culturally/linguistically diverse family involvement. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 , 4-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990003300201

Peterson, P.J. & Monfort, L. (2004). Creating culturally dynamic materials for rural culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional students. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23, 29-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050402300405

Pichette, E.F., Garrett, M.T., & Kosciulek, J.F. (1999). Cultural identification of American Indians and it’s [sic] impact on rehabilitation services. Journal of Rehabilitation, 65 , 310.

Red Horse, J.G., Lewis, R.G., Feit, M., & Decker, J. (1978). Family behavior of urban American Indians. Social Casework, 67-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/104438947805900201

Rowe, D.A. & Francis, G.L. (2020). Reflective thinking: Considering the intersection of microcultures in IEP planning and implementation. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 53(1), 4-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920952007

Sanchez, J. & Stuckey, M.E. (1999). From boarding schools to the multicultural classroom: The intercultural politics of education, assimilation, and American Indians. Teacher Education Quarterly, 269 (3), 83-96.

Simmons, T.M., Novins, D.K., & Allen, J. (2004). Words have power: (Re)-defining serious emotional disturbance for American Indian and Alaska Native children and their families. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 11, 59-64.

Sparks, S. (2000). Utilize Native American elders in the classroom and school. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35(5), 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/105345120003500509

Starnes, B. A. (2006). What we don't know can hurt them: White teachers, Indian children. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(5), 384-392. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170608700511

Tepper, N. & Tepper, B.A. (2004). Linking special education with multicultural education for Native American children with special needs. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23, 3033. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050402300406

Title VI Indian Education, §§ 6102 (1)-(3), 20 U.S.C. 6301, et seq. (2015.)

Title VI Indian Education, § 6111, 20 U.S.C 6301, et seq. (2015).

Torres, D. D. (2017). Cultural discontinuity between home and school and American Indian and Alaska Native children’s achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 110 (4), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1103686

Urban Indian Health Institute. (2009). Urban American Indian and Alaska Native youth: An analysis of select national data sources. Urban Indian Health Institute.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023, February 23). Persons with a disability: Labor force characteristics summary. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022, January 26). Unemployment rate for American Indians and Alaska Natives at 7.9 percent in December 2021. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/unemployment-rate-for-american-indians-and-alaskanatives-at-7-9-percent-in-december-2021.htm

U.S. Census Bureau. (2022, October 11). Facts for features: American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month: November 2022. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2022/aian-month.html

Waldman, H.B., Perlman, S.P., & Swerdloff, M. (2008). Native American children with disabilities. Exceptional Parent, 38, 54-55. Weaver, H.N. (2001). Indigenous identity: What is it, and who really has it? American Indian Quarterly, 25, 240-255. https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2001.0030

Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., Stubben, J. D., & LaFromboise, T. (2001). Traditional culture and academic success among American Indian children in the upper Midwest. Journal of American Indian Education, 40 , 48-60.

Willis, J. (2018, July 13). The value of active listening: A look at a set of communication skills that can help teachers achieve productive outcomes in conferences with students or their parents. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/value-active-listening Yell, M.L. (2019). The law and special education (5th ed.). Pearson. Zhang, D., Katisyannis, A., Ju, S. & Roberts, E. (2014). Minority representation in special education: 5-year trends. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 118–127. https://doi.org10.1007/s10826-012-9698-6.

About the Authors

William Garnett, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Special Education and Master’s Degree in Special Education program coordinator at California State University, Fresno in the Department of Literacy, Early, Bilingual, and Special Education. His research interests include American Indian and Alaska Native issues in education, disability studies, individuals with disabilities in criminal justice system; transition services; and school disciplinary practices and students with disabilities.

Neal Nghia Nguyen, Ph.D., is an associate professor of Early Childhood Education at Stephen F. Austin State University in the Department of Education Studies. His research interests include early childhood education and development, compassion science, neuroscience and early learning, and neurodevelopmental disorders.

Perceptions and Experiences of Teachers Collaborating with Immigrant Families of Children with Disabilities

Marta Mohammad, M.Ed.

Marie Tejero Hughes, Ph.D.

University of Illinois at Chicago

Abstract

This study explores the crucial area of fostering culturally responsive collaboration between teachers and immigrant families of students with disabilities. Through an exploration of teachers' perspectives and experiences, this research seeks to understand the opportunities and challenges inherent in these vital relationships. This qualitative study involved interviewing teachers, both special and general education teachers, about their experiences with immigrant families of students with disabilities and their perspectives on the adequacy of their teacher education preparation for such engagements. The findings underscored the need for enhanced professional development initiatives tailored to equip teachers with effective strategies for engaging with culturally and linguistically diverse students and their families. Moreover, the findings point toward a future where teachers and immigrant families can collaboratively nurture supportive, inclusive, and enriching educational environments, ensuring that every student with a disability, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to thrive academically and socially.

Keywords: culturally responsive collaboration, immigrant families, disabilities, special education

Perceptions and Experiences of Teachers Collaborating with Immigrant Families of Children with Disabilities

In the United States (US), approximately 14% of the population is born outside of the US, as reported by the US Census Bureau (2017-2021). Immigrants, individuals who come to live permanently in a foreign country, arrive in the US with aspirations for a better life (Hill & Torres, 2010), often driven by a desire to provide their children with educational opportunities they themselves never had (Cohen et al., 2020). However, their journey is not without challenges, which can have detrimental effects on them (Xu et al., 2022). As they strive to rebuild their lives in a new cultural setting, immigrant families confront various obstacles, including adapting to a different way of life (Riggo & Avalos, 2017). Furthermore, they may grapple with limited English proficiency and uncertainty regarding access to educational and healthcare services (Alsharaydeh et al., 2019). Each family's experience is unique, with many needing to navigate support systems related to housing, employment, and English language acquisition (Urtubey, 2020). Some immigrant families may find themselves uncertain about where to begin and how to acclimatize to their new homeland.

The immigrant population of students in the US continues to expand (Soutullo et al., 2016), with immigrant-origin students now comprise 28% of all students in the country (Higher Ed

Immigration Portal, 2018). When relocating to the US, many immigrant families encounter the unfamiliar US educational system, requiring them to gain an understanding of the system for their children's benefit. The US education system can be markedly different from their previous experiences, leading to potential confusion (Hatfield, 2015). Such families may grapple with uncertainties about what to expect from their children's schools. To aid immigrant families in adapting to the US school system, culturally competent navigators play a vital role in facilitating collaboration between families and teachers, thereby bridging the gap (Miller et al., 2014). Bridging the gap is essential to establish a positive relationship with immigrant families.

For immigrant families with students who have disabilities, adjusting to their new country can be even more challenging. Among all public-school students in the US, 15% receive special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). These families face numerous barriers that may slow down their children's development (Cycyk & Duran, 2020). Research indicates that immigrant and racial minority students are often diagnosed with disabilities later than their White peers, potentially delaying the receipt of necessary services (Kizildag et al., 2022). Additionally, English language difficulties can pose a significant challenge to navigating the US system, with approximately 1 in 3 immigrants with disabilities having limited English proficiency (Echave & Gonzalez, 2022). Another factor is the varying cultural perceptions of disability (Kizildag et al., 2022), which may influence how families adapt to their new lives. Immigrant families often encounter difficulties in settling into their new environment (Duran et al., 2020). Research underscores that family advocacy is significantly shaped by social class and socioeconomic status, with cultural barriers often impeding successful advocacy for their children (Kibria & Becerra, 2021). Lastly, many immigrant families of students with disabilities may not be familiar with US special education laws and services. In the US, each student with a disability is entitled to an Individualized Education Program (IEP), a legal document outlining their specific needs and special education services under IDEA. However, many immigrant families may feel uncomfortable with the IEP process and may not fully comprehend it (Urtubey, 2020). Special education teachers and other school professionals may serve as an essential resource to help navigate these challenges.

Family-School Collaboration

Collaboration between schools and families plays a pivotal role in fostering children's success (Miller et al., 2014), and it is imperative that families and schools collaborate effectively (Paccaud et al., 2021). Research underscores that immigrant families in the US highly value productive family-school partnerships as a key factor in their children's success. Such partnerships, when appropriately implemented, yield numerous positive outcomes for students (Soutullo et al., 2016). Thus, teachers must proactively establish positive relationships with families, as doing so can enhance family involvement and contribute to student success (Ramirez, 2003). We know that students with strong family support systems are more likely to engage academically (Soutullo et al., 2016). Hence, building respectful relationships with immigrant families serves as the cornerstone for understanding and addressing their unique challenges (Cycyk & Duran, 2020). Effective family involvement is contingent upon teachers

comprehending the influence of ethnicity on both parents and their children (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011).

When working with immigrant families, professionals should approach interactions with empathy and a genuine desire to understand the families better (Urtubey, 2020). To foster meaningful engagement, teachers should adopt a culturally and linguistically responsive approach that empowers families and promotes mutual respect (Duran et al., 2020). Research demonstrates that when families actively participate in their children's education, they are more likely to cultivate positive school-home relationships. This involvement leads to an improved school climate, enhanced family confidence, and greater satisfaction (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). Consequently, teachers should consider culturally responsive interventions that leverage the strengths and preferences of immigrant families (Clarke et al., 2017).

Teachers would benefit from actively seeking opportunities to enhance their knowledge and skills in working with immigrant families. Teachers should meet families where they are, devoid of judgment, and with respect, recognizing that family roles and responsibilities may differ from those expected in the US (Urtubey, 2020). However, there exists a gap in the implementation of family collaboration when working with immigrant parents (Fellin et al., 2015). Teachers need to make an effort to understand cultural differences to foster effective communication with both students and families (Ramirez, 2003). The cultural background of families significantly influences their comprehension and perception of family-school relationships. At times, families may interpret school practices as hostile or discouraging (Soutullo et al., 2016). It is important for teachers to learn about families’ cultures and how it impacts their perceptions of their relationships with schools.

Research conducted by Angell and Solomon (2017) demonstrated that as some Latinx families contended with school districts to secure special education services for their children that they occasionally ceased their efforts due to concerns that professionals might mistreat their children in retaliation. It is incumbent upon teachers to ensure that all students have an equitable opportunity to reach their full potential and to collaborate with families in meeting students' needs. Regarding students with disabilities, teachers should play a pivotal role in assisting families in navigating the IEP process and in promoting students' success. Research demonstrates that immigrant families are highly supportive of their children's education and place significant emphasis on access to educational resources and information pertaining to parental rights and the IEP process (Tang Yan et al., 2022).

It is important to note that studies concerning students with disabilities often inadequately represent immigrant families (Xu et al., 2022). Currently, there is limited research on teachers' perspectives regarding collaboration with immigrant families of students with disabilities. A literature review conducted in 2016 indicated that out of 38 articles focused on immigrant issues, only a few were associated with immigrant families in educational contexts (Soutullo et al., 2016). The collaboration between teachers and immigrant families of students with disabilities is pivotal in creating a safe and successful environment for children. This study aims to explore teachers' experiences and perspectives on collaboration with immigrant families of students with

disabilities. Their insights can serve as a valuable resource for improving collaboration for all stakeholders involved. This current research study investigated the following questions: (1) What are teachers' experiences when collaborating with immigrant families of children with disabilities? And (2) What are teachers' perspectives regarding their preparedness to work with immigrant families of children with disabilities?

Methods

Participants

Twelve teachers (six special education and six general education) were recruited from a public elementary school located in the US near Chicago, Illinois. The school district was purposively selected because it is in a community that identifies itself as a progressive inclusive community with about 8% of the population identifying as born outside of the US. The community’s equity statement promises to create a mutually respectful and multicultural environment for all residents. The school in the study was one of 10 elementary schools in the school district. The district prides itself in making every effort to build a positive and equitable learning environment focused on a whole child. The elementary school enrolled around 500 students in grades K-5. The school is attended by 15% Black students, 14% Hispanic/Latinx students, 3.5% Asian students, 15% of students identified as having two or more races, and 18% of students have IEPs. Each student in the district is provided with access to internet at home and school and is also provided with a personal tablet or laptop. The school district provides a translator to families who request one for the IEP meeting.

The study was conducted after an approval from the University’s Institutional Review Board was received. To be eligible for the study, teachers had to be at least 18 years old, hold a valid general or special education teaching license, and have experience working with immigrant families of students with disabilities. An email was sent to all teachers to inform them about the purpose of the study. Interested teachers completed a screening survey and if eligible were invited to participate in an interview. The teachers’ participation was voluntary, and written consent was obtained. Teachers were informed that they could withdraw their participation at any time and no one in the school, including the administrators, would be aware of their participation or responses.

All teachers were responsible for teaching in the content areas such as reading, math, writing, social studies, and science. When answering demographic questions, nine teachers identified themselves as White, two as Hispanic, and one as African American. All teachers were born in the US Midwest and all were primarily English language speakers with eight indicating they spoke English only, two spoke Spanish, and two spoke some Spanish. Teachers had an average of 17 years of teaching experience, ranging from 3 to 40 years of experience. On average, teachers had six students with disabilities in their classroom.

Interview

After the teachers completed the screening survey and they were found to be eligible to participate in the study, they were invited to participate in the interview. The lead author

conducted the open-ended, semi structured interviews. Ten interviews were conducted face to face and two on a virtual platform with interviews taking about 30 to 40 minutes. All teachers were asked the same set of questions in the same order. We used a detailed interview guide that was prepared in advance by us. The interview consisted of 11 questions that were open-ended and focused on teachers’ experiences of working with immigrant families of students with disabilities and their perceptions of teachers’ preparation when working with immigrant families of students with disabilities. Teachers were also asked demographic questions. All interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed. After the transcriptions were completed, they were shared with the teachers to ask for their feedback in better understanding their perspectives. Only one teacher shared feedback and asked to make small corrections related to grammar errors in their transcript. The lead author used reflectivity field notes to capture as many details as possible, including the comments on the researcher’s feelings and ethical dilemmas during the research process.

Positionality

The lead author for this research is a bilingual White woman born outside the US. She received her primary and secondary education in her country of origin. She currently serves as a special education teacher, specializing in students with moderate and severe disabilities, at the same school where the study was conducted. It is worth noting that her personal background as an immigrant and her extensive experience working with immigrant families could potentially influence her perspectives and approach in this study. It is important to underline that the lead author did not occupy any supervisory roles over the teachers involved in the interview process. The co-author of this research is a bilingual Hispanic woman also born outside the US. She completed her secondary education in the US and has a background in general education. She taught in a public school where approximately one-third of the students' families were either immigrants or migrants. In the context of this research, both authors are committed to minimizing the impact of unconscious biases that may affect the way individuals perceive and relate to others. They acknowledge the importance of understanding implicit biases, recognizing their potential influence on decision-making processes, and appreciating the consequences of such biases on both professional and personal aspects of individuals' lives (Harrison-Bernard et al., 2020).

Data Analysis

A qualitative data analysis approach was used to explore teachers' experiences and perceptions when engaging with immigrant families of students with disabilities. After transcribing the interviews, the data were organized to address the primary research questions. The process involved thorough examination of each question's content and the categorization of text segments into shared codes. This coding process facilitated the emergence of overarching themes, preserving the teachers' language and authentic perspectives (Strauss, 1987). This method, widely used in qualitative research, respects participants' language, and maintains an open focus (Leavy, 2017). In pursuit of greater coding reliability and framework refinement, the researchers conducted debriefing sessions and similar codes were grouped into broader themes, capturing teachers' perceptions of their interactions with families.

Throughout the analysis, regular weekly meetings were held to collaboratively discuss the data. An online platform was used for seamless document sharing and fostering feedback exchange among the researchers. Additionally, memo writing played a pivotal role by documenting significant quotes from interview transcripts, aiding data interpretation. These memos served as a valuable tool in uncovering relationships within the data and enhancing the researchers’ comprehension of the participants' perspectives, a practice that aligns with the methodology described by Charmaz (2000). Memo writing documented insights and key quotes, aiding data interpretation. Member checking was employed to validate findings, incorporating participant feedback. The final phase synthesized themes and supporting quotes into a coherent narrative, yielding a comprehensive understanding of teachers' experiences and perceptions in their interactions with immigrant families of students with disabilities. This analytic process helped maintain transparency, reflexivity, and methodological rigor, iteratively reviewing data to produce a portrayal of teachers' experiences.

Results

After the interviews were analyzed, the researchers identified main themes that focused on teachers’ perceptions of working and collaborating with families. The main findings focused on teacher reports related to: 1) positive and productive experiences, 2) challenging experiences, 3) ways to enhance future collaborations, 4) methods of communication with families, 5) resources shared with families, 6) professional development, and 7) advice for other teachers (see Table 1).

Table 1

Themes and categories

Main Findings Category

Positive and productive experiences

Challenging experiences

Ways to enhance future collaborations

Methods of communication with families

Resources shared with families

Professional development-teacher preparation program

Professional development-teachers

Advice for other teachers

 Regular and positive interactions

 Communication about ways to assist at home

 Other

 Not being on the same page regarding a student’s disability

 Language barrier

 Other

 No negative experiences

 Having a translator

 Documents and resources in family’s native language

 Other

 Email

 Meeting in person

 Phone calls

 Newsletters and daily home sheets

 Translation services

 Academic resources

 Referring families to professionals

 Other

 Training on working with diverse families

 Learning about cultures

 No training on working with immigrant families

 Workshops and book studies

 No training on working with immigrant families

 Learning about families’ cultures

 Building relationships

 Regular communication

Note. The category “Other” is described in the Data Results’ narrative.

Positive and Productive Experiences

Teachers were asked to recount positive and productive experiences they had while collaborating with immigrant families of students with disabilities. The majority of teachers highlighted the value of regular and positive interactions with these families. Ms. Davis, for instance,

appreciated a parent's willingness to ask questions to better comprehend their child's disability, especially when a language barrier hindered communication. She found these inquiries essential for bridging understanding and building stronger connections between teachers and parents. Ms. Davis shared her perspective saying:

But what I found very positive was just her demeanor in our interactions with one another, but more specifically how open and understanding in her willingness to ask questions when she didn't understand something. So, when I reiterated that her child did in fact, have a disability, that should have been brought to her attention when her child was younger. I gave her more insight as to what this child specific disability was, and I gave her more information regarding around what an IEP was and why we typically put them in place.

Another teacher, Ms. Janda, emphasized the importance of initiating positive interactions at the start of the school year. She stressed the discomfort of addressing issues only after they had arisen and highlighted her goal of building early relationships with families.

I mean one of my goals at the beginning of the year is to just build a relationship with the family, so that we can work together. I find it really uncomfortable after something has happened at school to then have that be my first time to connect with home.

Furthermore, some teachers pointed out the productive nature of discussions concerning ways to support students at home when collaborating with immigrant families. One of the teachers mentioned that she provided visual supports, such as a daily picture schedule for parents to use at home with their child. Another, Ms. Alman, described working closely with a family that sought additional home-based activities for their child, borrowing classroom materials and crafting worksheets to facilitate learning at home.

I had a certain family that really wanted extra work to work on at home with their child and I collaborated with them on how best to do that they didn't want like just like worksheets or anything like that. So, I let them borrow materials from my classroom, like file folders to work on.

Ms. Bafna acknowledged that initial misalignment between parents and teachers may occur, particularly at the beginning of the school year. She stressed the importance of connecting with parents and providing guidance for home-based assistance.

He (student) understood the directions that we were giving and if we read the story to him he was able to tell us back but he was not able to process those letter sounds. After speaking to his parents and working closely with them, I first approached it, this is what he needs help with, this is what you can do at home.

Additionally, teachers shared positive experiences related to collaborating with other

professionals and engaging in discussions with families about their histories and backgrounds. Mr. Hubert, for example, found it challenging to communicate with a Hispanic family due to language barriers. To overcome this, he enlisted the help of the English a second language (ESL) teacher, who was fluent in Spanish, to facilitate effective communication during meetings with the family.

I think I can share is the one that I’m thinking of the most was a Hispanic family. They were not born here. Their son was in my class. He had a learning disability in reading and at first it was a struggle communicating with the parents because English was their second language, and it was, you know it was, they had the limited ability to speak English. So, meeting with them, and like conferencing with them, and like touching base with them, was a, was a challenge. So actually, I used our ESL teacher to attend those meetings because he, he was at the time getting some ESL services, and she was fluent in Spanish, so she was able, so she was able to kind of help me communicate with them.

Challenging Experiences

Teachers were asked to describe experiences that they had collaborating with immigrant families of students with disabilities that they thought were challenging. A recurring challenge highlighted by several teachers was the difficulty of being on the same page with families regarding their child's disability. Ms. Bafna described the challenges of understanding cultural stigmas, citing an instance where an Indian family resisted acknowledging their child's need for specialized services, despite clear evidence. She conveyed her perspective by noting:

It goes back to challenging, understanding the stigma. There was one Indian family and their kids needed a lot of help and should be in an instructional classroom. He (the student) couldn’t figure out what to do with his body, but the family said he didn’t need services, no matter how many times we brought it up. We felt powerless, and they said they will fix it at home. It came up as we were being too pushy and didn’t understand what the kid needed.

Similarly, Ms. Davis encountered a family that did not believe their child had a disability. She emphasized the teachers' responsibility to adapt their approach to meet students' unique needs, even when faced with such challenges.

This mother in particular, thought that it was very negative to have a disability. It almost seemed like there was no hope. It was a lot of like 'well, how can my doctors fix this child, like how am I supposed to move on from this?' There, unfortunately, was not like a good conclusion there. Mom, still from my understanding, believes that her child does not have a disability, and it just must mean that the teachers aren't doing their job correctly.

Another notable challenge, as reported by some teachers, was the language barrier when communicating with parents. The language gap often led to misunderstandings, with parents

struggling to grasp their child's experiences at school. Ms. Ellis shared her experience, highlighting the difficulties arising from using translators.

I had a parent who needed a translator for communication, and it was non-stop arguments between the translator and myself, between the translator and the parent, between the parent and myself. It was as if, like they weren't even translating in the right language, although everything was correct, like they were reiterating what I said. The parent was just displeased they didn't like what I was telling them they didn't like being told their child had a disability.

Another teacher, Ms. Green, mentioned that not having access to documents in families’ native language can be frustrating. She had to use online translation services to help translate legal documents for parents and collaborate with ELS teacher to help with parent communication.

Yes, Google translate doesn't always work. Like I’m a non-Spanish speaker. I'm relying on that program to help me with my translation, but it's a little bit more formal. And you know, for someone who maybe, isn't as well educated, which I found out that might be hard for that parent to read that more formalized Spanish language. And I’ll also ask our ESL teacher because that student also worked with the ESL teacher. She had also given me a tip -very short sentences, so almost having to rewrite how I write, not only writing email messages, but writing that individual students IEP. So very short sentences that can be easily translated. So, the language is almost a little bit more simplified in a way so translates better into Spanish.

Other challenges cited by teachers included difficulties in understanding family expectations and occasional miscommunications. A few teachers admitted they did not encounter negative experiences when collaborating with immigrant families of students with disabilities.

Ways to Enhance Future Collaboration

Teachers were asked to articulate their preferences regarding what would be beneficial to have available when collaborating with immigrant families of students with disabilities in the future. The foremost need, as expressed by the majority of teachers, was the availability of interpreters or translators to facilitate communication with families. Ms. Bafna underscored the significance of language support, stating, “Language. Overall understanding of what we are trying to say, a translator would be ideal to have in every situation, even if they don’t request one, just have one there as a support.” This sentiment was echoed by other teachers who stressed the role of translators in overcoming language barriers and preventing misunderstandings when conversing with parents. Ms. Janda mentioned that for her, the biggest barrier is that she doesn’t speak another language, so having access to technology and translation services online is also very helpful.

Second, several teachers emphasized the importance of having educational documents and resources available in languages other than English. Mr. Hubert mentioned that because language

is a “huge barrier”, teachers rely too much on students “going home and communicating to their families”. He added that having resources available in different languages can help parents understand the US school system better, because the biggest barrier is “obviously language”. Ms. Ellis mentioned that it would be great to have more friendly school websites for parents who do not speak English and someone to teach families how to navigate and use these websites.

Lastly, teachers also proposed ways to enhance collaboration with immigrant families by incorporating cultural understanding and sensitivity. They suggested sending surveys to parents at the start of the school year to gain insights into students' cultural backgrounds. Additionally, teachers recommended the involvement of social workers in sharing resources about various cultures. This could include guidance on cultural nuances, such as appropriate tone of voice and eye contact, to facilitate effective interactions with families. These resources and strategies aim to bridge language and cultural gaps, ultimately promoting more effective communication and understanding between teachers and parents.

Methods of Communication with Families

Teachers shared various methods of communication employed when collaborating with immigrant families of students with disabilities. Their insights highlighted the importance of flexibility and adaptability in accommodating diverse communication preferences. First, most teachers used emails when communicating with parents. Ms. Flores mentioned that she mostly uses emails, however she also offers in-person communication when needed.

Primarily via email. And then I do like to offer, you know, in at conference time. If parents want to come and talk to me about, you know how their student is doing in my classroom, if they come to me from another classroom, I offer that opportunity. But mostly email is the way that we communicate.

Teachers also highlighted the significance of in-person meetings when collaborating with parents. These meetings could take the form of conferences or personal interactions as needed. Ms. Bafna said it is important to always include positive things about students when talking to their parents:

Talking is the best way to do it. Documenting, email, having conversation is the best way and always start with the positive things and build positive relationships with them. Do not start with the negative every single time, that way they are more comfortable with you and having that open relationship.

Like Ms. Bafna, other teachers thought it was important to have in-person conversations with families. Mr. Hubert mentioned that nowadays we rely too much on technology and in his opinion communicating with parents is done best when it is face to face. Another teacher, Ms. Ilk, mentioned that meeting with families personally is the best, because if there is a language barrier, teachers can show parents pictures and images to understand each other better.

Phone calls emerged as another prominent method of communication. Ms. Alman mentioned that she is willing to “tweak that communication” with families which can include a phone call or even a text message when necessary. Ms. Janda said that she provides “every avenue of communication whether it's email or I share with all the adults my phone number”.

Next, some teachers (n=3) used newsletters and daily school-home sheets to communicate with parents. One of the teachers said that in the previous district where she worked, the weekly newsletters were sent to parents in English and Spanish. This was a helpful way to support parents whose native language was Spanish. Another teacher mentioned that she uses daily notes and newsletters to follow up on in-person conversations.

Finally, some teachers (n=3) described using translation services as the method they use to communicate with families. Ms. Davis said that she likes to use translators because she wants to “make sure everything's communicated across all settings in an appropriate way”. She also mentioned that a translator is not typically available unless it’s requested ahead of time.

Resources Shared with Families

Teachers provided insights into the resources they share with immigrant families of students with disabilities, highlighting four key categories: academic resources, referring families to other school professionals, sharing resources in family’s native language, and sharing resources about students’ disabilities.

The most frequently mentioned resource shared with parents was academic materials, as acknowledged by the majority of teachers. These academic resources encompassed modified academic work tailored to individual student needs, educational games, and materials for home use during the summer. Ms. Davis elaborated on her practice of sharing academic resources, including visual supports like token charts and social stories. Ms. Ilk mentioned that she adapts curriculum for individual students. She was able to use her technology skills and experience she had as the web designer, to use in her classroom. She said “Some of the books that we read in class -we translated in a PowerPoint at a lower level. We uploaded that. So, I was able to use my technology skills to upload a lot of things”. Another teacher, Ms. Ellis, mentioned that parents often ask about materials to work with children at home, and she used to send resources to work at home during summertime. She usually shares these resources via email.

Sometimes, a lot of times, we email stuff to parents, especially as the summer approaches. A lot of them want stuff they can work on with their kids over the summer, so usually that's you know, that's quite a bit of paper. It's just easier to email the file.

Secondly, teachers discussed referring families to other school professionals, when necessary, with a particular focus on social workers. Ms. Alman emphasized the valuable resources that social workers can offer to parents. Another teacher, Ms. Cole, mentioned that she just shares the resources that she usually provides to general education students. “It's really the support staff that

would do more, like a social worker, our ESL teacher, if they need other types of services”, she says.

Teachers also highlighted the significance of sharing resources in the family's native language. While only one language, Spanish, was specifically mentioned by the teachers, it was emphasized that providing resources in parents' native language was essential to ensure their understanding of the materials. For instance, stories read in the classroom were often available in Spanish, and teachers would send these resources home to facilitate engagement.

Professional Development

During the interviews, teachers shared their experiences regarding professional development, with a focus on two distinct phases: teacher preparation programs and ongoing professional development as employed teachers. These discussions provided insights into the training they received related to culturally responsive collaboration with families, particularly immigrant families of students with disabilities. First, teachers were asked to describe any professional development they received on the culturally responsive collaboration with families during their teacher preparation program. Three main findings were described by the teachers. These included receiving professional development on: working with diverse families and students, learning about cultures, and working with families but nothing specific to immigrant families.

Teachers described receiving training on working with diverse families and students. One of the teachers mentioned that she does not remember how exactly the class was called. She does remember taking a class during her teacher preparation program and learning how to work with students from diverse backgrounds. She also learned how to modify curriculum for these children. Another teacher, Ms. Janda, said that she does not remember anything specific, but there was at least one class she took on working with students with disabilities. The class, however, did not really help her to learn how to work with students.

I'd say there was nothing specific about, well, there was maybe one class about students with disabilities, but it was so (…) it was so different than what I ever experienced as a teacher. Like, it just wasn't very hands on or useful and so like it helped me learn information or learned kind of the symptoms or what I needed to look for in a student. But it didn't help me at all like know how to interact or react or work with.

Teachers also described learning about different cultures during their teacher preparation program. One of the teachers, Mr. Leon, mentioned that he took a class on cultural competency. Ms. Kasey said that she read and discussed cultural barriers and she also volunteered in organizations that supported working with immigrant families as a part of her teacher preparation program. Another teacher, Ms. Flores, admitted that she participated in the training on multiculturalism and social justice during her master’s program. She said:

My whole Master's degree (…) was based around like social justice and multiculturalism. So, I think they did a really nice job in talking about how to like, prepare me to become a teacher as a second career, and things to consider when teaching, as far as like emotional

needs and family needs in terms of students who are either underserved, or not having an equitable representation in education.

A few teachers expressed that despite their comprehensive training on various aspects of teaching, their teacher preparation programs did not provide specific guidance on working with immigrant families. While they learned about cultural competence and diversity, the focus was not on the unique challenges and needs of immigrant families, particularly those with students with disabilities. This gap in training left teachers feeling unprepared for this specific aspect of their profession. Ms. Davis said that she does not feel that she is prepared to “deal with immigrant families”. Mr. Leon mentioned that even though he took a class on cultural competency, nothing was mentioned about immigrant families.

No, definitely not that specific like (…) I took, you know, a class on, you know, cultural competency or your cultural, you know, relevance stuff like that, but definitely not specific, as far as you know, being immigrant status and students of special needs. Like definitely not that I've never heard of something like that. So definitely never taken anything of that. Yes, yeah definitely, yeah so, I don't think I I’ve been prepared for that at all.

Second, teachers discussed the professional development they had received as employed teachers within the last two to three years. Two main professional development comments were identified: participating in book studies and workshops and not receiving any training specific to working with immigrant families of students with disabilities.

Half of the teachers admitted that while being employed as teachers the professional development they received on culturally responsive collaboration with families, mostly focused on attending workshops and book studies. Ms. Green admitted that because she is an ESL teacher, she receives professional development yearly on working with families and multilingual learners. Another teacher, Ms. Cole, said that she received training on different cultures and races.

No, I mean culturally responsive workshops we've had, but not immigrant. You know people from different cultures, we had for different races, gender, and race and but that immigrants. It could be that the district that I’m in, the population isn't too large.

Half of the teachers admitted that even though they received some professional development, they have never received any training specific to working with immigrant families of students with disabilities. When asked about the professional development, Ms. Davis said:

I would say minimal, and I don't think I could think off the top of my head name of that. A lot of it was “just find a translator”, “make sure you're meeting the needs of this child”. It was very broad. Let's put it that way, very broad. No training regarding immigrant families.

Some teachers admitted that they did not receive any professional development at all, and others mentioned that they draw from their own experiences when working with families. Ms. Janda said she had to seek resources on her own because the school has not provided any training for teachers.

I would say no, it hasn't been provided. There are things that I’ve sought out on my own, but that's just because I’ve wanted to learn more. I've had not necessarily had immigrant families but I’ve had many more students who have been kind of labeled as autistic or on the spectrum. So, I’ve done a lot of research on my own, but the school hasn't provided anything.

Advice for Other Teachers

Teachers offered valuable advice based on their experiences collaborating with immigrant families of students with disabilities. Three key pieces of advice emerged from their insights: learning about families' culture, building relationships with families, and communicating with families.

First, teachers described learning about families’ culture as an important advice for other teachers. Ms. Bafna said that it’s important to meet the students’ needs while respecting the cultural boundaries. Ms. Davis mentioned that it’s important to seek “any type on the information you can get on culture”. Ms. Ilk said that “we need programs on various cultures and then to respect those cultures”.

Another crucial piece of advice, echoed by the teachers, revolved around building strong relationships with families. Ms. Green emphasized the necessity of being open-minded and involving families in their child's education, emphasizing that this approach is essential for the child's success.

Learn about family, be open minded, make sure you're listening to what they have to say, and you need to put in the time in the efforts, and, and if it's a case of another native language that that parent is speaking, then you, you got a translate things into that home language. I think that's so important because a lot of people don't do that. Yeah, I don't know how they're communicating with their parents. Then it's yeah, so you have to, you have to know that their input, their, their expert knowledge on their child is valued and needed in order to be successful, and they're very active participants in their child's education.

Other teachers who mentioned building relationships as important, said that teachers should work on meeting individual students’ needs and be patient with families. Teachers also mentioned that it’s necessary for families to feel respected and teachers should look for resources on their own to work with these families.

Teachers also highlighted the significance of regular communication with families. Ms. Kasey mentioned that “the relationship through frequent communication is essential”. Ms. Flores said

that it’s critical for teachers to get to know families as early in the school year as possible and the goal is to work as a team.

I think it's really important to reach out to the families very early on in the year, like a parent inventory, and in the one that I send, I ask you know, what if, what their primary language is and how they feel comfortable communicating-via email, via text or phone, and if the family doesn't speak the language. I think that's the very first step in making sure you have an opportunity to engage where both of you feel like you're being heard, and that that parent could potentially communicate the needs of their student to you, or they think you are really understanding where they're coming from. So I just think parent outreach and continual communication is a good way to keep collaborating on what I see in what the parent sees, and working as a team.

Overall, teachers provided insightful advice for their colleagues regarding collaboration with immigrant families of students with disabilities. They emphasized the need for cultural awareness, relationship-building, and regular communication as key strategies to enhance these collaborations. Additionally, some teachers expressed a desire for more resources, increased professional development related to family collaboration, and greater inclusivity of families in the educational process.

Discussion

The primary aim of this study was to delve into the perceptions of teachers concerning their interactions and collaborations with immigrant families of students with disabilities. This research contributes to the vital discourse surrounding the necessity of culturally responsive collaboration between teachers and immigrant families. Our investigation uncovered a multitude of positive and constructive experiences that teachers encounter when working alongside immigrant families of students with disabilities. Foremost among these positive experiences are the establishment of regular and positive interactions, the facilitation of effective communication on methods to support learning at home, and collaborative efforts with other professionals to cater to families' unique needs. Existing literature underscores the significance of nurturing home-school relationships as a valuable investment for schools, families, and communities at large (Lockhart & Mun, 2020). Building positive relationships benefits students, families, teachers and other professionals who have an impact on students’ school success.

However, amidst these positive interactions, there exist noteworthy challenges that teachers confront. The most salient challenge is the divergence in perspectives between schools and families regarding a child's disability, exacerbated by language barriers. The identification of language differences as a significant challenge aligns with prior research findings (Soutullo et al., 2016). Furthermore, the dearth of available translators compounds the issue, resulting in limited family engagement during communication with teachers (Hill & Torres, 2010).

Addressing the discordance between families and schools concerning students' disabilities necessitates a deeper understanding of the cultural factors that shape their perceptions. Gaining

insights into the cultural dimensions that influence the interpretation of disabilities is paramount. It is imperative for teachers to proactively seek information about a student’s disability and cultural expectations to foster a better understanding of parental perspectives. It is essential to recognize that students with disabilities and their families frequently rely on a variety of professional services encompassing health, development, and education (Bourke-Taylor et al., 2010). Unfortunately, current practices in schools related to family-school relations often overlook culturally relevant strategies for family involvement (Hill & Torres, 2010). Enhanced cultural understanding would enable teachers to appreciate the importance of incorporating family perspectives when working with students.

Another facet explored in this study was teachers' experiences within their teacher preparation programs and their readiness to engage with immigrant families of students with disabilities. This study substantiates existing research indicating that there is inadequacy in teacher preparation programs related to addressing the diverse needs of students and their families (Chu & Garcia, 2014). Despite some teachers receiving professional development related to culturally responsive collaboration, none had been exposed to professional development tailored specifically to working with immigrant families. A similar sentiment prevailed among many teachers, who lamented the absence of any professional development on culturally responsive collaboration once they commenced their teaching careers. This lack of training is unfortunate, as research underscores the potential impact of teachers' biases on their interactions with specific ethnic groups (Ramirez, 2003). Appropriate professional development could serve as a valuable tool in fostering a deeper understanding of immigrant communities.

Limitations

One primary constraint inherent to this study pertains to its limited scope, as it exclusively incorporates the perspectives of a modest sample of 12 teachers, all of whom are affiliated with the same school. Consequently, the findings may possess a degree of specificity tailored to the unique dynamics of this particular school and its surrounding community. Consequently, the extent to which these findings can be extrapolated to broader educational contexts is subject to question. Nevertheless, these findings undeniably serve as a valuable foundational reference point for teachers and administrators endeavoring to enhance their interactions with immigrant families. The findings offer insights that can catalyze further research and initiatives.

A secondary limitation stems from the dual role of the lead author, who is both a teacher at the research site and an immigrant. While efforts were undertaken to mitigate any potential biases stemming from this dual role (e.g., co-author has no association with school), it remains an inherent source of potential influence that could inadvertently color the data interpretation. The researcher's employment at the same school as the study participants might conceivably have influenced the teachers' responses to interview inquiries and the experiences they shared. Nonetheless, it is crucial to emphasize that meticulous measures were diligently implemented to uphold the confidentiality of all interviews and responses, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the study's findings.

Implication for Practice

The first practical implication underscores the imperative need to expand professional development opportunities for teachers, equipping them with strategies tailored to effectively engage culturally and linguistically diverse families. Strategies to enhance family involvement encompass comprehensive assessments of the student body's diversity (Ramirez, 2003). Effective family engagement necessitates a nuanced understanding of the influence of ethnicity, prompting the development of inclusive programs aimed at fostering robust family-teacher partnerships (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). The cultivation of openness to novel experiences and ideas, coupled with unwavering dedication to nurturing school-home relationships, emerges as a pivotal endeavor to fortify the foundations of a robust home-school connection (Lockhart & Mun, 2020).

The second implication spotlights the urgency of incorporating coursework within teacher preparation programs, specifically targeting the nuances of collaboration with immigrant families. Addressing this issue hinges on the creation of training modules designed explicitly to equip teachers with the skills and knowledge essential for effective engagement with immigrant families. Research underscores the scarcity of training and accountability frameworks for teachers when working with families for whom English is a second language and who may grapple with a limited grasp of the intricacies of the US school system (Hill & Torres, 2010).

Lastly, an essential solution lies in the readiness of bilingual professionals to facilitate seamless communication between families and schools, effectively bridging language barriers (Ramirez, 2003). To bolster language access and communication channels, a recommended course of action involves the recruitment of a cadre of trained interpreters and translators within the school environment (Tang Yan et al., 2022). This would allow families to feel comfortable communicating with schools and sharing their concerns.

Conclusion

This study underscores the critical significance of cultivating culturally responsive collaboration between teachers and immigrant families of students with disabilities. By shedding light on teachers' experiences and perceptions, it illuminates a path forward towards enhancing these pivotal relationships. The findings strongly advocate for a multifaceted approach to address the challenges and capitalize on the strengths inherent in such collaborations. Firstly, we highlight the pressing need for expanded professional development opportunities, specifically designed to empower teachers with effective strategies for engaging with diverse student populations and their families. These strategies encompass acknowledging the rich tapestry of cultures within the school community, understanding the pivotal role of ethnicity, and fostering inclusivity through tailored programs for family involvement. By equipping teachers with these insights and tools, schools can lay a robust foundation for meaningful partnerships between teachers and immigrant families.

Secondly, it also stress the importance of specialized training within teacher preparation programs, addressing the unique dynamics of working with immigrant families. This calls for a

change in many teacher preparation programs. Programs should proactively equip aspiring teachers with the cultural competence and communication skills necessary for navigating the complexities of working with immigrant populations. This proactive approach can help bridge the gap between the classroom and the homes of immigrant families, facilitating more effective collaboration and support for students with disabilities. By fostering stronger home-school partnerships through these undertakings, schools hold the promise of providing every student with the supportive environment they need to thrive academically, socially, and emotionally.

References

Alsharaydeh, E.A., Alqudah, M., Lai Tong Lee, R. (2019). Challenges, coping, and resilience among immigrant parents caring for a child with a disability: An integrative review. Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 51(6), 670–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12522

Angell, A. M., & Solomon, O. (2017). If I was a different ethnicity, would she treat me the same?’: Latinx parents’ experiences obtaining autism services. Disability & Society, 32(8), 1142–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1339589

Bourke-Taylor, H., Howie, L., Law, M. (2010). Impact of caring for a school-aged child with a disability: Understanding mothers’ perspectives. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 57(2),127–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2009.00817.x.

Charmaz, K. (2000) Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods 2nd Edition, Sage Publications, London.

Chu, S.-Y., & Garcia, S. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching efficacy beliefs of in-service special education teachers. Remedial and Special Education , 35(4), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513520511

Clarke, B.L., Wheeler, L.S., Sheridan, S.M., Witte, A.L., Sommerhalder, M.S. & Svoboda, E.A. (2017). Supporting Latinx student success via family-school partnerships: Preliminary effects of conjoint behavioral consultation on student and parent outcomes. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation , 27(3), 317–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2017.1293543

Cohen, S.A., Lee, H.K., Kim, S., Guerra, A.W. (2020). A time-use study of immigrant mothers’ positive emotions raising a child with ASD. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 29(9), 2364–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01732-2

Cycyk, L. M., & Durán, L. (2019). Supporting young children with disabilities and their Families from undocumented immigrant backgrounds: Recommendations for program leaders and practitioners. Young Exceptional Children , 23(4), 212-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250619864916

Durán, R.P., Carruba-Rogel, Z., Solis, B. (2020). Latinx immigrant parents’ cultural communicative resources: Bridging the worlds of home, community, and school policy. Equity & Excellence in Education , 53(1-2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2020.1756535

Echave, P., & Gonzalez, D. (2022). Being an immigrant with disabilities: Characteristics of a population facing multiple structural challenges. Urban Institute, No. 4, 1-23.

Fellin M., Desmarais, Ch. & Lindsay, S. (2015) An examination of clinicians’ experiences of collaborative culturally competent service delivery to immigrant families raising a child with a physical disability. Disability and Rehabilitation , 37(21), 1961-1969. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.993434

Harrison-Bernard, L.M., Augustus-Wallace, A.C., Souza-Smith, F.M., Casey, G.P. & Gunaldo, T.P. (2020). Knowledge gains in a professional development workshop on diversity, equity, inclusion, and implicit bias in academia. Advances in Physiology Education , 44(3). 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00164.2019

Hatfield, J. (2015). Here’s how different the US education system is vs. other nations . American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/education/global-perspectivefeatures-american-education/

Higher Ed Immigration Porta (n.d.). National Data on Immigrant Students. Retrieved May 27, 2023, from http://higheredimmigrationportal.org/ Hill, N. E., & Torres, K. (2010). Negotiating the American dream: The paradox of aspirations and achievement among Latinx students and engagement between their families and schools. Journal of Social Issues , 66(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15404560.2009.01635

Hornby, G. & Lafaele, R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education: An explanatory model. Educational Review (Birmingham) , 63(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2010.488049

Kibria, N. & Suarez Becerra, W. (2021). Deserving immigrants and good advocate mothers: Immigrant mothers’ negotiations of special education systems for children with disabilities. Social Problems (Berkeley, Calif.) , 68(3), 591–607. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa005

Kizildag, D., Snadler Eilenberg, J., Blakey, A., Cardona, N., Feinberg, E., Broger-Fingert, S., Long, K.A. (2022). Family experiences with the autism developmental evaluation process: Perspectives of immigrant and US-born mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 32(3), 926–937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02428-5

Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: quantitative, qualitative, mixed Methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Lockhart, K. & Mun, R.U. (2020). Developing a strong home–school connection to better identify and serve culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Today Magazine , 43(4), 231–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217520940743

Miller, G.E., Colebrook, J., Ellis, B.R. (2014). Advocating for the rights of the child through family-school collaboration. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation , 24(1), 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.870483

National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Students with disabilities. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved August 2023, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/students-withdisabilities

Paccaud, A., Keller, R., Luder, R., Pastore, G. & Kunz, A. (2021). Satisfaction with the collaboration between families and schools – The parent’s view. Frontiers in Education (Lausanne), vol. 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.646878

Ramirez, F.A.Y. (2003). Dismay and disappointment: Parental involvement of Latinx immigrant parents. The Urban Review , 35(2), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023705511946

Riggio, N. & Avalos, B. (2017). Parenting challenges and resilience of Latinx immigrant parents. [Doctoral dissertation, California State University -San Bernardino]. Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/469

Soutullo, O. R., Smith-Bonahue T.M. & Sanders-Smith, S.C. (2016). Discouraging partnerships? Teachers’ perspectives on immigration-related barriers to family-school collaboration. School Psychology Quarterly , 31(2), 226–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000148

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tang Yan, C., Bachour, A., Perez, C.J., Ansaldo, L.P., Santiagio, D., Jin, Y., Li, Z., Mok Y.S., Weng, Y., Martinez, L.S. (2021). Partnering with immigrant families to promote language justice and equity in education. American Journal of Community Psychology , 70(3-4), 433–457. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12604

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Foreign Born. U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved May 27, 2023, from https://data.census.gov/

Urtubey, L. J. (2020). Supporting Latinx families in special education decisions. Educational Leadership, 77(4), p. 40–45.

Xu, Y., Zeng W., Wang, Y., Magana, S. (2022). Barriers to service access for immigrant families of children with developmental disabilities: A scoping review. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities , 60(5), 382–404. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-60.5.382

About the Authors

Marta Mohammad is a doctoral student in the Department of Special Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She has been a special education teacher for the past eight years. Her research interests focus on family-school collaboration especially when it comes to students with moderate and severe disabilities, inclusion, and teacher preparation to work with students with moderate and severe disabilities.

Marie Tejero Hughes is a professor of special education in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Her research includes working with teachers to enhance their literacy instruction for all students and collaborating with Latinx families to enrich the educational opportunities of their children. She teaches graduate courses in literacy instruction and disabilities, as well as an undergraduate course in children's literature.

Scale-Up of a Literacy Curriculum for Students with Significant Cognitive Disability

Joshua N. Baker, Ph.D., BCBA-D, LBA

The University of Nevada-Las Vegas

Dawn R. Patterson, Ph.D. West Chester University of Pennsylvania

Christopher J. Rivera, Ph.D. East Carolina University

Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell, Ph.D. University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Author Note: The study was originally conducted at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Since its completion authors Joshua N. Baker, Dawn R. Patterson, and Christopher J. Rivera have moved to the listed institutions where they are currently professors. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Joshua N. Baker Department of Early Childhood, Multilingual, and Special Education, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, 4505 S. Maryland Pkwy, Las Vegas, NV 89154. Contact information: 702-895-3238, josh.baker@unlv.edu. Support for this research was provided in part by Grant No. H324K040004 of the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, awarded to the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Education, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Abstract

In a qualitative descriptive study investigation, researchers identified the factors impacting scaleup: the process of taking research from individual sites, to regular implementation within those classroom sites, to the recommended district-wide early literacy curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. By conducting preliminary participant interviews, several factors were identified to create a survey for dissemination to district participants via SurveyMonkey®. With a 78% response rate, results identified seven common factors impacting the scale-up of the curriculum, a) preparation, b) implementation, c) support, d) adaptations, e) outcomes, f) administrator involvement, and g) parent involvement. Overall, the research suggests that developing a curriculum for a group of students with individualized learning needs requires a specific, systematic process including a thorough investigation of each of the identified scale-up factors. The knowledgebase from this research can serve as a starting point for future scale-up.

Keywords: significant cognitive disabilities; accessing the general curriculum; scale-up

Scale-Up of

a Literacy Curriculum

for Students with Significant Cognitive Disability

For more than 40 years, students with disabilities in the United States (US) have been entitled to a free and appropriate public education through special education legislation ( P.L. 94-142; EHACA, 1975). Historically, special education law in the US focused on the key principles of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Some of which are; child find activities, accessing education through the least restrictive environment, and due process. In the last revision of this legislation, the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004), aligned itself with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, 2015), previously known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001), through increased focus on accountability and improved outcomes that emphasize research-based instruction. The origination of NCLB has acted as a catalyst behind the recognition that all students, even those with most significant disabilities, can make progress through rigorous core academic subjects including reading, math, and science. Consequently, researchers have conducted investigations to align legislative requirements to classroom practices for students with disabilities. From this implementation science (Eccles & Mittman, 2006), current classroom curricula, targeting high expectations, have been developed.

Research on Reading for Students with Significant Cognitive Disability

Over the years, in order to improve the quality of literacy education in the US, the federal government has convened several groups of experts to synthesize research on reading for young learners. The National Reading Panel (NRP; 2000) is one such group that was created with prominent reading researchers, representatives of colleges of education, teachers of reading, educational administrators, and parents to further investigate the research conducted by the NRP to identify how essential reading skills are taught to meet the needs of all students. Within the investigations, the panel assembled hearings of consumers (e.g., teachers, parents, students, and policymakers) to supplement the knowledge gained from research in order to procure a comprehensive understanding of the needs and effective reading practices used in schools. According to the NRP, teaching children to read must include five essential components (a) phonemic awareness, (b) phonics, (c) fluency, (d) vocabulary, and (e) comprehension. In a follow-up to the meta-analysis conducted by the NRP, congress determined that further information was required to identify the components for emergent literacy for children, birth to five-years-old. As a result, the National Institute for Literacy (NIL; 2009) was established to identify precursors to reading development. From this meta-analysis, the panel detected six variables that were strongly correlated to literacy development (a) alphabet knowledge, (b) phonological development, (c) rapid automatic naming of letters or digits, (d) rapid automatic naming of objects or colors, (e) writing or writing name, and (e) phonological memory.

Research in reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities (SCD), individuals with an IQ < 55 and have two or more adaptive deficits, who receives 80% or more of their education in a separate setting by a certified special education teacher, has existed for almost three decades (Browder & Lalli, 1991). Compared to years past, a focus on aligning components of reading from the NRP and NIL for this student population has become more prominent. After the introduction of the NRP (2000) and NIL (2009) findings, research attempts have been more

inclusive of examining the instruction of various literacy components for students with SCD (i.e., going beyond sight word instruction; Browder et al., 2006). Moreover, these research investigations have also examined how to assist students learning to read across different academic content areas (e.g., Ahlgrim-Delzell et al., 2016; Allor et al., 2014; Coyne et al., 2010; Knight et al., 2015; Mims et al., 2012; Mucchetti, 2013). Research continues to include instruction with sight words, as vocabulary development improves comprehension (Nagy, 1988); however, research on other NRP (2000) and NIL (2009) components continues to grow as the implementation science for special education strives to close the research to practice gap.

These investigations are a sampling of how research has been recently extended; yet, many of these inquiries examine one or two isolated literacy components as primary dependent measures. Few comprehensive studies have been conducted to examine the combination of multiple components recommended by the NRP (2000) to teach reading to students with disabilities, including those with SCD. Allor et al., (2010) demonstrated that students with intellectual disabilities, including those with SCD, can make significant progress in reading skills. After two or three years of daily reading instruction lasting 40-50 mins in small group (1-4 students) settings, students receiving the intervention made progress in all five areas of reading, indicating that, despite an individual’s intellectual ability, acquisition of foundational reading components are attainable for students with more intense needs.

In a follow-up study examining the longitudinal effects of a reading program, Allor et al., (2014) investigated the use of a comprehensive reading program to teach elementary-aged students with moderate intellectual disabilities. During the time between one full school year and four, significant improvements were noted amongst participants in the areas of phonics, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. This study provides evidence that when consistent, explicit, comprehensive instruction is provided across time students with SCD can learn to read.

With a lack of comprehensive reading curricula specifically designed to systematically teach reading to students with SCD, a team of experts developed and researched a literacy intervention called the Early Literacy Skills Builder (ELSB; Browder, Gibbs, et al., 2007). This emergent literacy curriculum targeted essential elements of reading recommended by the NRP such as phonemic awareness, vocabulary, decoding and comprehension in reading connected text activities (i.e., reading sentences with meaning). During its initial implementation and only after one year of instruction, students in the treatment group (i.e., ELSB) made significant gains in phonemic awareness and phonic skills (Browder et al., 2008). These positive findings were later replicated in a three-year longitudinal study with additional participants (Browder et al., 2010) providing further evidence that students with SCD can learn more rigorous literacy skills.

Research on Scale-up of Curricula

Classroom curricula may begin with small scale research moving towards large scale classroom and district implementation, which, at times, can aid in the determination of an evidence-based practice. With legislation identifying the need for evidence-based practices, implementation science in special education has outlined several factors for regimented individual investigations in order to be deemed as an evidence-based practice. These factors include: (a) staff selection,

(b) training (i.e., preservice and in-service), (c) ongoing coaching and consulting, (d) staff evaluation, (e) program evaluation, (f) administrative support, and (g) the ability for systems to have the capacity for implementation (Cook & Odom, 2013). As educational reform continues to serve as the impetus to improve the quality of instruction, transitioning reputable experimental research to scale from an external agency to an internal agency requires multiple steps across levels. Scale-up is the process of closing the research to practice gap by intentionally expanding effective research-based methods initiated and supported in the university to classrooms district wide. During this process, there are several similarities between the processes of implementation and scale-up. Research on the topic of scale-up is limited, especially related to special education (Klingner et al., 2013); therefore, reviewing literature in general education settings was necessary to formulate best practices in scaling-up a literacy curriculum like the ELSB.

Coburn (2003) and McDonald et al. (2006) have developed guidelines for scaling-up exemplary practices. Coburn theorized an interrelated process including: (a) depth, developing a deep and lasting change in classroom practice; (b) sustainability after external funding sources have been depleted, (c) spread to build capacity from teachers to system administrators through an underlying belief of effectiveness; and (d) shift in reform ownership, to full acceptance by the school system. In order to gain a deeper understanding, McDonald extended Coburn’s research by outlining three general phases of the scale-up process. Phase one identifies the effectiveness with the specified population and the need for ongoing improvements for students. Phase two, dissemination of the practices to multiple sites and then upward to include the entire district. Phase three involves the sustainability and efficacy of the practice across multiple sites over time.

Blumenfeld (2000) echoed the need for sustainability to include professional development, collaboration, building capacity, and obtaining funding as critical elements during and after scaling-up curriculum for students with disabilities. In like manner, after completing the scale-up process for a special education curriculum, Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) indicated that several factors including (a) professional development, (b) use of large randomized control samples, and (c) maintaining fidelity of practice as essential in ensuring proper implementation of curricula over time.

Buy-in from stakeholders has also been determined a necessity (Klingner et al., 2003). After a six-year scale-up process, Lynch et al. (2012) learned that without capacity, especially in relationship to high-stakes testing, and sustainability after external support is withdrawn, even the most exemplary reform efforts can fail due to school dynamics. Thus, the overlap between scale-up and implementation science should include professional development/training, administrative support, and capacity. Thereby, supporting the fundamentals needed for largescale implementation of quality research.

Curriculum accessing grade-aligned academics for students with SCD is fairly limited compared to students in the general population (Browder, Wakeman, et al., 2007; Knight et al., 2010) and has been difficult to evaluate the scale-up of curricula in past as suggested by Coburn (2003) and McDonald et al. (2006). In an effort to close the research-to-practice gap and meet the rigors of

ESEA (2015), it is apparent that researchers must evaluate processes that ensure successful transfer of newly developed curricula into school districts. Although a literacy curriculum like the ELSB demonstrated success across three years of investigation; true scale-up includes several facets beyond simply increasing research to additional sites. As a shift in responsibility to teachers, school administrators, and district administrators takes place, the application of that curriculum must remain sustainable over time and continue to demonstrate favorable change in student performance (Coburn, 2003).

The multiple dimensions of scale-up must begin with the experimentation of the research conducted through the use of random selection of experimental and control groups. In addition, the curriculum must be disseminated to a larger group, therefore having a positive effect on a greater number of students with professional development as an integral part of the ongoing implementation. Once teachers have received adequate training, on-going fidelity of implementation must be collected to make certain students are receiving instruction as it was intended. Furthermore, progress monitoring must occur ensuring progress is being made. With the need to evaluate successful scale-up of curricula developed for SCD for future replication, the purpose of this study was to identify components that were necessary when bringing the ELSB to scale, with a focus on teacher input for this process.

Further description of both components can be found in Browder, Gibbs, et al. and further research on the Building with Stories component (sometimes referred to as story-based lessons) can be found in a literature review by Hudson and Test (2011). Interview and survey data were collected from special education teachers using the ELSB curriculum to understand perceptions of the ELSB as a literacy curriculum, challenges in implementing it with a classroom of students, degree of implementation, and challenges of maintaining full-Iscale implementation over time. Interviews were conducted at the beginning of the study to investigate teacher perceptions of and factors associated with the implementation of the ELSB curriculum. Outcomes of interview data analysis resulted in the identification of seven themes (i.e., preparation, implementation, support, adaptations, outcomes, administrator involvement, parent involvement) for categorizing participants’ responses. The interview protocol and seven themes were then used as the basis for developing a survey that was administered to all special education teachers from a single district implementing the ELSB curriculum.

After reviewing literature and past results of studies, the following research questions guided the investigation:

1. What factors impact the scale-up of a curriculum for students with SCD?

2. How do teachers report the impact of these factors?

3. What resources do teachers need to be successful to implement a scale-up curriculum?

Method

Procedures

This study attempts to ascertain perceived factors associated with the scale-up and implementation of the ELSB curriculum using a qualitative descriptive methodology. The ELSB has two components that consist of (a) building with sounds and symbols and (b) Building with Stories (Browder, Gibbs, et al., 2007). When the term ELSB was used it was assumed that the researchers were referring to both components unless otherwise specified.

In this investigation, there were two sets of data collection activities. The activities also included two sets of participants, 1) Preliminary and 2) Secondary. The preliminary participants were those teachers who had more than 2 years of implementation with the ELSB and provided preliminary information, through interviews, to develop the survey questions. The preliminary participants also piloted the survey, once it was developed. The secondary participants were the remaining teachers of students with SCD in the district who were implementing the ELSB. Subsequently, these terms are used to differentiate the two groups of participants. All of the procedures of this study took place at a large Urban district in the southeast United States.

Stage 1: Interviews

Five teachers were selected to participate in one-on-one semi-structured interviews about the ELSB during its initial research phase. These teachers (i.e., preliminary participants), were selected due to their knowledge and experience using the ELSB (i.e., more than 2 years of implementation). To control for researcher bias, the second and third authors, who were not associated with the larger project (i.e., during the first 4 years), led the interviews.

Data Collection and Analysis. One-on-one interviews were conducted with the five preliminary participants (i.e., teachers recruited). At the start of each interview, the participants were asked to sign an informed consent document to affirm and document their agreement to participate in the study. The informed consent procedure provided an opportunity for the second and third authors to describe the study and answer any related questions of preliminary participants. The nine questions developed for the interview protocol (see Table 1) were semi-structured, providing a general framework for the conversation. The semi-structured interview protocol was developed to guide preliminary participants in providing a description of their experience with the ESLB curriculum and factors that impact the scale up (e.g., What is your experience using the ELSB? What are some things you would like to improve with implementation? Before the ELSB, how did you teach literacy/ELA?). In summary, the protocol revolved around: (a) past ELSB training, (b) current context and strategies associated with the implementation of the ELSB curriculum in their classrooms, and (c) perceived success and effectiveness of the program on developing specific literacy skills for students. These focal points guided the development of the interview questions and also served as a means for analyzing the interview data using several points for comparison.

The goal of the semi-structured interview portion of this study was to develop an understanding of participant’s perceptions of their preparation and introduction to the ELSB curriculum,

implementation of the ELSB curriculum, and overall effectiveness of the ELSB In order to achieve this goal, strategies associated with educational grounded theory (Hutchinson, 1986) were used to facilitate the analysis of interview data collected. The process of data collection and analysis was synchronous and recursive, meaning it was on-going and broken into smaller subcomponents (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The initial coding and analysis of data began after the completion of the first interview to identify those concepts that were repeatedly present in the data. Open coding, focused coding (Braun and Clark, 2021), and the constant comparison of data sets facilitated the identification of concepts that were repeatedly present in the data and a means for forming categories (i.e., factors) and identifying analytic distinctions. Utilizing the constant comparison method provided a basis for establishing the study’s validity and demonstrated the symbiotic relationship between data collection and analysis. This recursive process continued until the data were ‘saturated’, and no new categories could be developed from the data gathered. In the final stage of analysis, the constant comparative technique was used to form a synthesis of consistent themes and categories derived from participant’s descriptions. A primary means for establishing internal validity was the triangulation of data sources that results in the formation of categories and themes (i.e., factors) grounded in the data (Boeije, 2002; Creswell & Miller, 2000; Denzin, 1970). The reliability of the developed codes and subsequent analysis was established through inter-rater reliability. Interviews were independently coded by two of the researchers, and then compared to determine the consistency between the two sets of coding schemes. The researchers reviewed the coding schemes together and addressed any discrepancies. In addition, member checks were conducted to strengthen the reliability of outcomes from the interviews. Each interview participant was sent a transcript of their interview session to review and given an opportunity to confirm the accuracy of the transcript or provide additional information for clarification.

The analysis of preliminary participants’ responses revealed varying factors associated with their implementation of the ELSB curriculum. The following seven themes represent a synthesis of preliminary participants’ perceptions of the factors related to the implementation of ELSB curriculum and serve as points for categorizing the common factors evidenced in the interview transcripts. According to preliminary participant interviews the following were factors that impacted the implementation of the ELSB curriculum: a) preparation, b) implementation, c) support, d) adaptations, e) outcomes, f) administrator involvement, and g) parent involvement.

In order to determine the generalizability of the themes and factors impacting the implementation of the ELSB curriculum, a survey was then developed based on the outcomes of the interviews and administered to all participants (i.e., special education teachers implementing the ELSB curriculum) from a single district that was targeted for scale-up.

Stage 2: Survey Generation, Design and Development

A survey instrument was designed based on the seven themes resulting from the analysis of the preliminary participant interviews and a collection of topics about the ELSB that were collected by the researchers over a four-year period (Browder et al., 2010). Utilizing methods for question design and a content-matter expert for validation, a 25-question survey was developed. The survey consisted of three sections (i.e., preparation, implementation, and satisfaction). The three

sections collected data by asking questions using: (a) a 25 question using a Likert scale related to the experience and effectiveness of ELSB training sessions, (b) a rank order scale that asked the participants’ experience implementing the ELSB curriculum, and (c) a rank order scale that asked the participants to rank the ELSB lesson objectives. All questions on the survey were associated with one of the seven factors addressed from teacher interviews (see Tables 2-8). The survey questioned targeted specific factors impacting a teacher’s implementation of the curriculum, as identified through interviews (e.g., ease of implementation, challenges the teachers faced).

Pilot. The survey was piloted with the five preliminary participants. The pilot survey was sent one month before the other participants were notified. Data from the pilot survey indicated that there was more concern about the clarity and directions of the questions and responses than the understanding of the content within the survey. Based on the outcomes of the pilot, the researchers revised the survey, response options on some of the questions, and the overall coherence and consistency of the instrument. The preliminary participants involved in the pilot were not included in final results.

Dissemination. Once the pilot survey was complete, the survey was updated and sent to teachers within a targeted urban school district in the southeastern US. The district consisted of 175 schools with 72 teachers of students with SCD, with approximately 147,000 students total of which 19,000 were considered English Language Learners and 15,000 had an Individualized Education Program (Common Core of Data, n.d.). A school liaison assisted with the recruitment of teachers that used the ELSB and helped provide emails, phone numbers, and schools to the researchers. Only special education teachers who taught students with SCD (i.e., students with moderate/severe disabilities and/or autism) at the elementary level were recruited as participants for this study, as the ELSB was designed specifically for this population. The researchers transferred the finalized survey questions into SurveyMonkey® (http://www.surveymonkey.com). Two days prior to survey dissemination, all participants were emailed an announcement of the forthcoming survey email containing a hyperlink. When the official survey email was sent, a descriptive message was included notifying participants of the purpose and objective of the survey. The message also made participants aware that participation was voluntary. Prior to completing the survey, participants were to complete a mandatory introductory page (i.e., consent form, confidentiality guidelines). Teachers who declined participation by not providing informed consent were not provided access to the survey. Two additional notifications were sent at the end of each week to remind non-completers of an incomplete survey attempt. Each reminder contained the objective and purpose of the study with the hyperlink to the survey. After the reminders, in order to receive robust data, some of the participants were called and sent personal emails requesting their participation. A drawing for a $200.00 gift card was used as an incentive for all participants who completed the survey by a certain date. The total number of teachers of students with SCD totaled 72 from the targeted school district. With the exclusion of the five teachers who took the pilot survey, this resulted in a sampling frame of 66 participants in the final analysis. Twelve of the participants partially responded. Out of the 66 contacted a total of 52 (i.e., 79%) participants responded to some extent. Forty participants (60%) responded to at least one portion of each question (i.e., fully

responded). Those that partially responded, responded to some questions and skipped over others. Despite this limitation, it was decided to aggregate all responses together since there was not an option for “not applicable” or “I do not understand the question.” Therefore, all responses are included in the reporting.

Results

The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to (a) identify the factors that impacted the scale-up of the curriculum for students with SCD, (b) identify how teachers report the impact of these factors, and (c) identify the resources teachers need to be successful to implement a scaleup curriculum? Initially, interviews were conducted to identify teacher perceptions and factors associated with the implementation of the ELSB curriculum, resulting in the identification of the following seven themes. Each of the seven themes were then transitioned into scale-up factors used as the basis for developing the survey that was administered to all special education teachers from the district implementing the ELSB curriculum. The following section identifies the seven themes or factors found across the three research questions including reports from the survey indicating the impact of each factor. In addition, student performance data in comparisons to previous years is reported.

Summary of Survey Responses of the Seven Factors

Questions on the survey addressed the seven factors of a) preparation, b) implementation, c) support, d) adaptations, e) outcomes, f) administrator involvement, and g) parent involvement. The descriptive statistics of the questions are discussed below.

Preparation

In order to implement a new curriculum, it is important that teachers are prepared. Of the responders, fifty-two percent of the participants reported that they were trained to use the curriculum in a large group setting at a local University ( N =24). If participants could not make the large training sessions, accommodations were made for small groups ( N =19) or one-on-one sessions (N=3) were provided. Every participant had at least one year of training using the ELSB, which consisted of a maximum of 10 training sessions with an average of 3 training sessions. The participants noted that a school district liaison was the individual who appeared to be the most involved with the ELSB training and district personnel was the least involved. Once the training was complete, participants reported that they were more comfortable teaching the literacy curriculum as they had become more familiar with its individual components.

Implementation

Since the literacy package was new to participants it was important to understand the difficulties they had when implementing its components. Participants were consistent in their ratings of the activities that impacted their implementation of the ELSB components. Descriptive data demonstrated that participants thought the length and format of training was adequate to learn the literacy package. Most participants expressed that the training session components that focused on teacher demonstrations with role-playing and videos of teachers instructing the curriculum to students, helped them to better implement the literacy package. Other components of the training such as informal discussions, detailed procedural fidelity checklists, and demonstration of

individual student accommodations helped to make this curriculum transition more comfortable for participants. Participants noted that finding the correct response option or response mode (i.e., the best method for students to demonstrate what they know) of the student was one of the toughest obstacles when preparing to teach the curriculum (28.9 for ELSB component 1; 26.7 for ELSB component 2). Furthermore, most participants (53.3%) found that making adaptations to materials was also difficult. Participants reported that demonstrations of adaptations are beneficial during trainings but that more support was still needed after trainings.

Support

As noted in the method section, participant support was documented through weekly procedural fidelity visits across 5 months. Through these regular classroom visits, researchers were available to provide one-on-one assistance to the participants if needed. During the procedural fidelity visits immediate feedback was provided to participants to discuss particular strengths and weaknesses regarding the accurate, consistent implementation of the literacy package. This support provided participants with validation in accuracy of implementation. During the year in which the survey was given to the participants, a procedural fidelity mean of 98% was found for both components of the ELSB thereby, securing the consistency of implementation.

Adaptations

In combination with accurate, consistent implementation of the ELSB components, participants were most concerned about providing the appropriate adaptations to meet the individualized learning of the students who were participating in the literacy package (see Table 2). Since many of the students had different response options (e.g., eye-gaze, point, pull-off), the participants found it difficult to make accommodations to the curriculum for each individual student. Although participants did express concerns on adaptations and implementation (see Table 2 & 3), they did note that the ELSB and the story-based lessons attempted to address and meet the individual needs of the students (see Table 4). Participants addressed that most of the resources needed (e.g., VelcroR, lamination, three-ring binders) were available and used (26.7 to 84.4%) compared to resources not available and would have used (2.2% to 24.4%; see Table 2). Although not all participants had students that needed assisted technology, many noted that voice outputs (77.8%), Velcro® pull-off boards (42.2%), and eye-gaze boards (28.9%) were used as adaptations to assist their students.

Outcomes

The participants were asked to rate student performance through ratings of motivation, participation, and progress. The survey found that participants were able to see student progress within the curricular components and found that this progress led to an increase in student motivation (see Table 4). It was found that there was a higher participation rate at the medium and high levels on the ELSB phonics section (75%) than on the lower end of the scale (25%). It was also found that there was a higher participation rate (93%) on the ELSB story compared to the lower scale (3%). Furthermore, participants noted that students progressed in the medium to high range on the ELSB phonics (78%) and ELSB story (85%) compared to the low range of the ELSB phonics (22%) and ELSB story (15%).

Administrator and Parent Involvement

Data showed that 100% of the participants communicated with their students’ parents about the ELSB. Only a few of participants (N=5) talked with parents more than once a week with most of them communicating with parents once a quarter ( N=16). Eight participants stated that they did not discuss the ELSB with their administrators. The remaining participants discussed the literacy program to their administrators at least once a semester. When examining the communication descriptive data, it appeared that parents were contacted more than school administration (see Table 6). Participants did not show concern for lack of parent and administrator support; however, a higher percentage of participants (28.9%) felt that paraprofessional support was a challenge to implementation (see Table 3). For example, during implementation, paraprofessionals were tasked with supporting the participant by providing assistance with student engagement during ELSB instruction or by working with a small group not receiving ELSB instruction. In both circumstances, if the paraprofessional was not effectively completing their duties, implementing the ELSB was challenging.

Student Performance Outcomes

Table 7 address the amount of time the participants spent on teaching literacy activities to their students with SCD. Data show that students who were instructed through the ELSB spent more time on IEP literacy objectives than those receiving other instructional methods (see Table 7). A range of 5 to 60 mins a day was spent teaching the ELSB components. Finally, Table 8 shows the means, standard deviations, and range of the overall difficulty for the 13 ELSB objectives. It was found that picture sounds, first/last sounds, and segmentation objectives were the most difficult for students. Sight word instruction, text pointing or following along with a finger point during reading, and story-based question objectives were found to be the easiest for the students to progress.

Discussion

The goal of this research was to (a) identify factors impacting the scale-up of an emergent literacy curriculum for students with SCD including (b) the impact of these factors reported by teachers and (c) student’s outcomes from previous years instruction. Overall, the results from this investigation further validates that closing the research to practice gap by scaling-up curricula involves many factors including: (a) professional development for teachers with ongoing coaching or follow-up (i.e., preparation, implementation, support, adaptations); (b) fidelity checks of teacher implementation across time (i.e., implementation, outcomes); and (c) stakeholder sponsorship for financial support and encouragement after researcher withdrawal (i.e., administration and parent involvement). By providing future researchers with knowledge for successful scale-up of curricula, classroom teachers can be better equipped to meet the demands of legislation mandated in the US. Thereby, offering -research-based materials to education professionals, which also includes elements of implementation science leading to evidence-based practices.

Findings in Relationship to Other Studies

Educational reform is a process that involves moving research to regular practice in classrooms

for intended students. This research investigated contributing factors for taking an emergent literacy curriculum for students with SCD to scale in the 18 th largest school system in the United States (Common Core of Data, n.d.). The primary question driving this research examined the components impacting the scale-up process.

The goal of the first question was to identify factors that impacted the scale-up process for a specific student population (i.e., students with significant cognitive disabilities); whereby, published curricula are limited. By interviewing preliminary participants and using grounded theory to identify common themes across interviews, the following seven themes were identified: a) preparation, b) implementation, c) support, d) adaptations, e) outcomes, f) administrator involvement, and g) parent involvement. Several of these themes align to previous scale-up research completed. For example, preparation, implementation, and support align to research completed by Blumenfeld (2000), Fuchs and Fuchs (1998), and Klingner et al., (2003). The effectiveness of the curriculum (Coburn, 2003; McDonald et al., 2006) is reported in outcomes and capacity themes from other scale up research (Blumenfeld, 2006; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Lynch et al., 2012) that found involvement from administrators and parents. From these themes 25 survey questions were developed to gain a deeper understanding of the effects of each of these themes from participants within the school district.

The second question sought to identify participant’s reports of these factors. From the 25question survey, three items continued to align with research previously conducted (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Klingner et al., 2013; Landry, et al., 2006; Lynch et al., 2012; Sarama, et al., 2008). One recurring component involved the need for teacher training (Blumenfeld, 2000; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Klingner et al., 2003). In order to best prepare teachers for independent implementation of the ELSB, the current research investigation employed large and small group professional development, along with one-on-one sessions. In addition, regular classroom visits by graduate assistants occurred to observe instruction while collecting fidelity of implementation and assistance with appropriate accommodations for individual students. This implementation training provided teachers with real-time assistance beyond the formal professional development sessions. Similar to Lynch et al. (2007) where students with disabilities were directly involved with the scale-up, it may be the result of these personalized sessions that lead the teachers to report an increased comfort level with the curriculum. When curriculum adaptations were integrated into large and small group professional development participants noted this as a benefit; however, due to the very individualized needs of students with SCD, many teachers required additional instruction in implementation for students requiring assistive technology.

Although not a specified theme, fidelity of implementation, role-playing, and videos of teachers using the curriculum was identified from the survey as an essential component for scale-up (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Klingner, et al. 2003; Landry, et al., 2006; Lynch et al., 2012; Sarama, et al., 2008). The fidelity of implementation was included in questions related to the themes of implementation, support, and outcomes. The current investigation reported very high scoring (i.e., 98%) during regular fidelity checks. Furthermore, maintaining the fidelity of implementation once the support is removed is essential and can be accomplished with data collection on student progress and motivation (Coburn, 2003; MacDonald, et al. 2006). Similar

results were noted with two of the three middle school science units (Klingner, et al., 2012), where consistent implementation produced improved student performance.

Stakeholder communication was further supported in the current investigation from the interviews and survey responses. Regardless of professional development, fidelity of implementation, and student performance, if stakeholder support is absent throughout the process—scale-up is nearly impossible. As suggested by prior research, maintaining communication with stakeholders is a key to success for scale-up. Stakeholder communication was further supported in the current investigation from the interviews and survey responses. Comparable effects of strong stakeholder support were evident as the elementary program monitoring tool (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998) was sustained after researcher withdrawal. However, without the necessary assistance from various stakeholders, the middle school science units (Lynch, et al, 2007; Lynch et al., 2012) dissipated; despite the professional development, fidelity of practice, and student progress. After researchers withdraw involvement, it is imperative that administration provide not only the funding but also the encouragement necessary for teachers to continue implementing new curricula (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Kingner, et al., 2012).

After compiling information from a survey completed by preliminary participants, there were three notable factors that affected the scale-up process of a curriculum designed specifically for students with SCD. First, personalized professional development for teachers led to an increased comfort level with the scale-up curriculum. Next, fidelity of implementation sustains robust results of ongoing student progress and motivation. Finally, stakeholder support is critical to the success of a literacy curriculum scale-up. By specifically addressing these general themes (McDonald, et al., 2006), which also include many elements of implementation science (Cook & Odom, 2013) classroom teachers are better equipped to meet the demands of legislation.

Limitations

Despite the positive results of this research investigation, several limitations were present. One limitation could be the response rate (i.e., 78%) and partial responses to the survey in relation to the target population. As noted in the method section, not all participants answered every question, nevertheless each question had at least a 61% response rate. In hindsight researchers could have forced responses for each question as well as conducted a follow up with those that did not respond. Unfortunately, following up would have prevented survey anonymity. Since the survey was anonymous it was not possible to ensure all questions could be completed. Although, in most survey design methodology this would be considered a high response rate, it would have been more desirable to have a higher response to be able to have high inferences in regard to the target population, although the response rate could be argued in regard to recommended sample size charts (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). One factor that could have affected the response rate is the novelty of the curriculum for some of the teachers. Since this was the first year some of the teachers had been introduced to the curriculum, they may have been uncomfortable to express their concerns. Also, most of the teachers had participated in the larger study for the previous four years. These teachers were more comfortable with the researchers, provided more feedback and were easier to contact.

Next, the electronic version of the survey could have been a limitation. The researchers did not want to place additional pressure on the teachers by hand delivering a survey, so the electronic version seemed appropriate. Some teachers may not have been comfortable or understood the directions completely with the online survey. Since only 40 teachers completed the entire survey it would have been beneficial if the survey were developed in a way that you had to complete every section of a question before you are allowed to move forward.

Another limitation was that the original five teachers that participated in the pilot surveys data were not included into the final results. These teachers had the greatest knowledge about the ELSB curriculum, so the researchers felt that it was imperative that they were included in the development of the survey. On the other hand, these teachers’ data were not included into the final results.

Lastly, despite the reporting of students increased attention, enthusiasm, and participation with the implementation of the literacy package from the survey, researchers acknowledge concern for these promising results. These noted students' attributes may be due to a novelty effect since this is one of the first curriculums teaching literacy skills to students with SCD. In the future, it would be interesting to see if the novelty of the curriculum would fade away and the students’ attention would decrease.

Recommendations for Future Scale-up Studies

Consistent with the results of previous scale-up research (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Klingner, et al., 2003; Landry, et al., 2006; Lynch et al., 2012; Sarama et al., 2008), the present research indicated training for professionals as a critical component to the success closing the research to practice gap. Future research should provide multiple multifaceted opportunities for training to include several occasions comprised of (a) large and small group face to face, (b) video or webinar structured, (c) mentoring, and (d) classroom coaching. In addition to the training format other variables such as length of training (i.e., full day formal professional development versus half day sessions) should be examined. This survey did not take into consideration the parametric (e.g., dosage of training and training components) of the intervention; therefore, future research could provide a more feasible time frame to meet teacher needs. Furthermore, involving other school personnel, such as school and district administration, in training would be a valuable contribution to research on scaling-up curricula. Finally, having a clear understanding of the impact of school-based versus district-based support is needed; whereby, the role of the person providing the support may assist the type of support provided.

Despite, the frequency of in-class observations from graduate assistants and research staff during the current research, closer investigation of this detail is required to understand its effect on success scale-up. In addition, information is needed to fully understand the effects of fidelity of practice and the extent to which problem-solving strategies are required from trainers during the actual implementation process.

Summary

Developing a curriculum requires a specific, systematic process which includes investigating the

recommendations of full-scale implementation. This research closes the chapter on developing a high-quality, rigorous pre-literacy curriculum for a select group of students with very individualized needs. By identifying each of the critical components needed to scale-up the research for full classroom and district-wide implementation, the doors open for other researchers to pursue curriculum development with a solid research base. In the age of using evidence-based practices in classrooms, it is important for researchers and curriculum developers to have a clear understanding of the process for efficiency and practical application. This research investigation has added to the knowledgebase of this process with the focus on a select group of students with SCD.

References

Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Browder, D. M., Wood, L., & Stanger, C. (2016). Systematic instruction of phonics skills using an iPad for students with developmental disabilities who are AAC users. The Journal of Special Education , 50, 86-97. doi: 10.1177/0022466915622140

Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Cheatham, J. P., & Al Otaiba, S. (2014). Is scientifically based reading instruction effective for students with below-average IQs? Exceptional Children, 80, 287-306. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0014402914522208

Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W. & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systematic scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist , 35, 149-164. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3503_2

Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality & Quantity, 36, 391-409. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis. Sage.

Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G., Gibbs, S. L., & Flowers, C. (2008). Evaluation of effectiveness of an early literacy program for students with significant developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 33-52. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001440290807500102

Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., & Baker, J. (2010). An evaluation of a multicomponent early literacy program for students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education , 33, 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741932510387305

Browder, D. M., Gibbs, S., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G., & Lee, A. (2007). Early Literacy Skills Builder (ELSB). Verona, WI: Attainment.

Browder, D. M., & Lalli, J. S. (1991). Review of research on sight word instruction. Research in Developmental Disabilities , 12, 203-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0891-4222(91)90008-G

Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Flowers, C., Rickelman, R. J., Pugalee, D., & Karvonen, M. (2007). Creating access to the general curriculum with links to grade-level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities: An explication of the concept. The Journal of Special Education , 41, 2-16. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00224669070410010101

Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S., Spooner, E, Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392-408. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001440290607200401

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through Qualitative Analysis. Sage: London.

Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32, 3-12. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X032006003

Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79, 135-144. doi: 10.1177/001440291307900201

Common Core of Data. (n.d.). Common Core of Data Public School District Data for the 20182019, 2019-2020 school years. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?Search=1&InstName=CharlotteMecklenburg+Schools&City=Charlotte&State=37&County=Mecklenburg&DistrictType =1&DistrictType=2&DistrictType=3&DistrictType=4&DistrictType=5&DistrictType=6 &DistrictType=7&DistrictType=8&NumOfStudentsRange=more&NumOfSchoolsRange =more&ID2=3702970&details=

Coyne, P., Pisha, B., Dalton, B., Zeph, L. A., & Smith, N. C. (2010). Literacy by design: A universal design for learning approach for students with significant intellectual disabilities. Remedial and Special Education , 33, 162-172. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741932510381651

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 124-130. doi: 10.1207/s1543042tip3903_2

Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Eccles, M. P. & Mittman, B. S. (2006). Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science, 1, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-1

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142. 89 Stat. 773. Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/senate-bill/1177

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. S. (1998). Research and teachers working together to adapt instruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice , 13, 126-137.

Hudson, M. E., & Test, D. W. (2011). Evaluating the evidence base of shared story reading to promote literacy for students with extensive support needs. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities , 36, 34-45.

Hutchinson, S. A. (1986) Education and grounded theory. Journal of Thought , 21(3), 50-68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42589190

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

Klingner, J. K., Boardman, A. G., & McMaster, K. L. (2013). What does it take to scale up and sustain evidence-based practices? Exceptional Children, 79, 195-211.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001440291307900205

Klingner, J. K., Ahwee, S., Pilonieta, P., & Mendez, R. (2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 411-429. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001440290306900402

Knight, V., Browder, D., Agnello, B., & Lee, A. (2010). Academic instruction for students with severe disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42 (7), 1-14.

Knight, V. F., Wood, C. L., & Spooner, F. (2015). An exploratory study using science etexts with students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities , 30, 86-99. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1088357614559214

Krecjcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 30, 607-610.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001316447003000308

Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., Smith, K. E., Assel, M. A., & Gunnewig, S. B. (2006). Enhancing early literacy skills for preschool children: Bringing a professional development model to scale. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 39, 306-324.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00222194060390040501

Lynch, S. J., Pyke, C., & Grafton, B. H. (2012). A retrospective view of a middle school science curriculum materials: Implementation, scale-up, and sustainability in a changing policy environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 49, 305-332.

https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21000

Lynch, S., Taymans, J., Watson, W. A., Ochsendorf, R. J., & Pyke, C (2007). Effectiveness of a highly rated science curriculum unit for students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 73, 202-223.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001440290707300205

McDonald, S. K., Keesler, V. A., Kauffman, N. J., & Schneider, B. (2006). Scaling-up exemplary research interventions. Educational Reader, 35, 15-24.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3700103

Mims, P., Lee, A., Browder, D. M., Zakas, T. L., & Flynn, S. (2012). Effects of a treatment package to facilitate English/language arts learning for middle school students with moderate to severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 4, 414–425. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23879635

Mucchetti, C. (2013). Adapted shared reading at school for minimally verbal students with autism. Autism, 17, 358-372. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362361312470495

Nagy, W. E. (1988). Teaching Vocabulary to Improve Reading Comprehension Urbana, Ill: Eric Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.

National Institute for Literacy. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NILReport09.pdf

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (NIH Pub. No. 004754).

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakeley, A. (2008). Scaling up the implementation of a pre-kindergarten mathematics curriculum: Teaching for understanding with trajectories and technologies. Journal of Research on educational Effectiveness, 1, 89-119. https//doi.org/10.1080/19345740801941332

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Inc.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency Universe Survey," 2010-11; "Local Education Agency (School District) Finance Survey (F33)," 2009-10; and unpublished Department of Education budget data. (This table was prepared January 2013.)

About the Authors

Joshua Baker, Ph.D., BCBA-D, LBA is an Associate Professor of Special Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He is also the coordinator of the Verified Course Sequence in the Applied Behavior Analysis Program. His research interest includes accessing the general education curriculum for students with extensive support needs.

Dawn Patterson, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor and Assistant Department Chairperson of special education at West Chester University in West Chester, PA. Her research interests include general curriculum access for students with severe disabilities and autism, literacy, and behavioral interventions for students with Autism.

Christopher Rivera, Ph.D. is a Professor and the Chair of special education at East Carolina University in Greenville, NC. He is also the regional director for the North Carolna New Teacher Support program. His research focuses on working with students who have extensive support needs, particularly those who are culturally and linguistically diverse.

Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell, Ph.D., is a faculty emeritus (Educational Research) at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research examines the issues pertinent to individuals with moderate-to-severe developmental disabilities. Her current research interests include literacy development and assessment, access to academic content, and research methods.

Table 1

Original 9 Semi-Structured Interview Questions on Preparation, Implementation, and Satisfaction Preparation

1. Did you feel prepared after completing the training?

a. How did the different activities impact your implementation of ESLB? (Video, role-playing, and modeling activities)

b. Did the training prepare you for making adaptations to the ESLB strategies to meet the needs of different students?

c. How the feeling of preparedness has changed since first being trained.

2. Describe the administrator’s role in your training experience.

3. What resources were available when you first began implementing ESLB?

a. Has your access to resources expanded?

b. What kind of resources would benefit your ability to implement ESLB?

Implementation

4. Describe the administrator’s role in your implementation of the ESLB curriculum.

5. What support have you had for the daily implementation of ESLB strategies?

a. Did you have a TA working with you to implement SLB strategies? How was your TA trained? Please describe the experience of working with a TA to implement the SLB strategies.

b. What kind of adaptations have you had to make for students? What are some of the cases that have presented challenges to your adaptation of the strategies?

6. Describe the experience implementing the ELSB What has influenced your experience implementing ELSB?

a. How have literacy specialist and administration impacted results (considering both students and teachers)?

Satisfaction/Perceptions of Success or Effectiveness

7. What are some of the factors that impact student’s acquisition of literacy skills?

a. Motivation/Interest?

b. Outside influences of literacy exposure are students receiving (e.g., parents reading to their children, incorporating reading as homework)?

c. What other literacy experiences are your students exposed to? How do you think they impact their overall development of literacy skills?

8. Did you have any students that are culturally and linguistically diverse?

a. How effective was the ELSB for these students?

9. Were parents satisfied with the ELSB?

Table 2

Summary of Adaptations that Teachers had Available and Not Available

Linguistically Diverse Students

Table 3

Percentage of Challenges Teachers Faced when Implementing the 2 Components of the ELSB

Table 4

Summary of Mean, Standard Deviation, Range on Student Concerns

Student Concerns*

Sounds and Symbols

Stories

* Teachers were asked to rate how well the curriculums meet the needs of students and rate the motivation to implement the curriculum based on student progress on a scale of 1-10, 1 being not well and 10 being extremely well.

Table 5

Summary of Resources That Teachers used with the Components of the ELSB

Table 6

Summary of how often teachers communicated with parents and principals about the Early Literacy Skills Builder Communication

7

Component

: Building With Sounds And Symbols

: Building With Stories

Table 8

Teachers Mean, Standard Deviation and Range of Rating of the Average of Difficulty Across the ELSB Objectives

*Objective Number And Component

Note. * See Browder et. al (2007) for complete description of objectives; ** Teachers were asked to rate the objectives on a scale of 1-10, 1 being not difficult and 10 being extremely difficult.

Supporting the Changing Context of Education for Students with Additional Needs

Lesley Eblie Trudel, PhD University of Winnipeg

Abstract

Canadian provinces have continued to revise their education funding structures with a goal of better supporting students and teachers in the changing context, conditions and pressures of a dynamic world. This article documents a study on the changes to a provincial funding approach for students with additional needs, within a system that aims to provide high-quality, equitable education for all students. Details highlight the successes and concerns of key stakeholders, as well as, conclusions on the role of funding and allocation of resources in linking inclusive philosophy with instructional practice.

Keywords: education, inclusion, funding, resources, change

Introduction

The main work of schools to educate children and youth to become responsible adult citizens has remained largely unchanged over the years in Canada. What has changed however is the practice and process of education, primarily reflecting the context, conditions and pressures of a dynamic world (Wallin et al., 2021). There has been an ongoing contrast between the demands for improved student performance amid global competition for employment and wealth, and the inherent need for schools to rebalance students’ relationships with peers, the planet and technology, through enhanced attitudes, expanded values and improved social emotional wellbeing (UNESCO, 2021). The pandemic magnified the latter, revealing how inadequately mental health and social emotional learning have traditionally been addressed. (Hamilton et al., 2021). The challenges for schools and school divisions are therefore reflective of this dilemma and designing financial structures to support and address the resonant needs of students in light of this discourse is vital.

The Provincial Context

The context for students in Manitoba, Canada is indicative of a similar narrative yet there are additional needs unique to this jurisdiction. According to the Manitoba Center on Health Policy (Brownell et al., 2015), Manitoban schools have comparatively larger numbers of newcomer youth who have immigrated to the province. Many students new to Canada must quickly acquire English as an additional language, and may experience complex trauma as refugees from war affected backgrounds. The province has one of the highest rates of children in care in the world. This is suggestive of a host of unacceptable living conditions such as poverty, poor housing, food insecurity, parenting difficulties and family dysfunction. Additionally, on the Program for International Student Assessment (OECD, 2018), Manitoban students did poorly, scoring the lowest of any province in Canada (CMEC, 2021).

Brownell and her colleagues (2015) drew attention to the high numbers of Indigenous children in care in the province. While ‘kids in care’ comprised approximately one quarter of Manitoba’s youth, Indigenous children represented ninety per cent of that total. This over-representation has been attributed to the destructive effects of colonization through government-sanctioned residential schools and the removal of children from their families (Ball, 2008; Blackstock, 2004; Sinha et al., 2011). Data from Manitoba Education and Early Childhood Learning (n.d.) has shown Indigenous students in the province graduating at approximately half the rate of their nonIndigenous peers. Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2015) highlighted the importance of identifying and understanding differences of this nature in their call to action to eliminate the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. In light of the context in Manitoba schools and when education is discussed, priorities of equity, diversity and inclusion are essential to address. Concurrently, funding structures that clearly acknowledge, account for and respond to additional student needs through the recognized lenses of social justice are essential.

Changing Philosophy and Approaches

While the term inclusion was originally focused on educating students with disabilities, in recent years it has widened in scope, referring to systems, processes and practices that involve youth with diverse and varying needs (Ainscow et al., 2012). With inclusion viewed more broadly in the literature and echoed in schools and classrooms, the system casts a wider net, ultimately increasing the numbers of students supported and expanding the need for and nature of resources received. Schools typically receive funding allocations to support inclusion from limited systemic budgets which is often seen as inadequate to support the high demand for additional resources (Meijer, 1999). Goldan (2019) indicates that it is unlikely for inclusion of all students to occur successfully in educational organizations in absence of systemic financial frameworks that balance factors of budgetary cost control with enhanced service provision.

Nonetheless, while sizes of overall budgets are critical, so are inclusive educator behaviours generated by appropriate supports (Fletcher-Campbell et al., 2003). Banks et al., (2015) indicated that inclusion is widely regarded as the most effective means to ensure that students receive a good education. In reality, however, inclusion is unlikely to occur without adequate preparation (Sharma et al., 2021). Structural approaches to funding and resourcing are key parts of the foundation necessary to ensure that schools can provide support for teachers and classrooms to offset the challenges facing students.

Funding Task Force and Recommendations

Within the foregoing ecological and philosophical context, the Manitoba Task Force on Special Needs Funding (2015) was convened to develop an updated systemic financial framework to provide high-quality inclusive education for all students in the province. Manitoba was the last jurisdiction in Canada operating on a traditional, categorical funding model to generate support for students with additional needs. The goal moving forward was to shift to a more progressive formula-based model and to achieve positive, fair and equitable service provision, while allowing for strategic management and flexibility of budgets.

Banks et al., (2015); Barrett (2014) and Jahnukainen (2011) revealed that traditional categorical funding practices were extremely time consuming and involved the labeling of individual students which resulted in negative and undesirable effects. The formula-based approach on the other hand, focused on systemic functions within the educational setting. Formula funding was typically provided to schools as a lump sum amount and allocations could be flexible in nature depending on the nature of support required. Students did not need to be identified as having deficits in order to receive necessary resources. Nonetheless, caution was advised that a formula-based funding model could also have unintended impacts, raising questions of accountability and negatively influencing the position of parents who typically wanted their children to receive predictable, consistent and designated categorical resource allocations to support appropriate educational programming. With the foregoing conceptual tensions in mind, this research study set out to explore the recommendations suggested by the provincial task force and the perspectives of school division leaders on the subsequent impact of the change in funding model on schools and students.

Methods

Data Collection

This qualitative study was undertaken with Student Services Administrators (SSAs) across Manitoba. In provincial school divisions, SSAs are personnel most familiar with the funding and support for students with additional needs. Participants were selected through a method of purposive sampling from a government listing of school division staff who were then contacted by email to obtain informed consent for their involvement. Through an interview process which consisted of ten, open-ended questions, the perspectives of SSAs were elicited to provide additional clarity and local context for this discussion. Questions were asked relating to successes and challenges of both categorical and formula-based funding. Perceptions of SSAs were also queried as to the effect of the funding model change on the practice of allocating support for students, as well as on student achievement, student mental health and well-being.

.

Data Analysis

Insights in this study were drawn from the data through a process of analytic abduction (Tavory & Timmermans, 2014). The process of abduction can occur alongside induction and deduction during qualitative analysis, however, it allows for the modification, extension or advancement of existing ideas based on new findings. This method is particularly beneficial for reorientation rather than replacement of perspectives in the literature. While regular methods of thematic coding were applied in this study, the abductive approach sensitized the researcher to ideas which appeared to be new or unique. In this Manitoban study, analytic abduction was helpful in recognizing the inimitable effects noted by SSAs in response to the change in funding approach. This study had a participation rate of 51 per cent, representing SSAs in both and rural school divisions in both the northern and southern regions of the province.

Findings

Categorical Funding

The previous system of categorical funding was described by SSAs as one which was both familiar and understood by educators, parents and collaborating agencies. For many years, the government had established annotated descriptors in addition to processes for obtaining funding based on the criteria found in each category. One SSA revealed, “Over time, staff in schools became quite adept at creating funding applications and felt that they knew students quite well and could predict whether a funding application would be approved.” Another reflected, “There was also a process in place to transfer funding for students new to school divisions, or staff could choose to develop new applications or access a higher level of funding at various points identified during the school year. If an application for student funding was denied, feedback was provided by the (government) funding review team and there was a possibility to re-submit (an amended application). There were also opportunities for schools to re-apply for funding with significant, new information about a student.” The categorical funding received by schools was often provided for multiple years, with the option for re-assessment to occur when entering the middle years or beginning high school. Another SSA expressed that they were able to, “plan more effectively knowing that categorical funding would be in place for designated students over a number of years.” Educational assistants (EAs) were an employee group that were identified as having a perceived sense of job security when multi-year funding for students was in place. Overall, SSAs believed that there was a sense of agency and control with categorical funding. One SSA summarized, “Decisions on funding for individual students were made by a government team, which allowed for greater collegiality to be maintained at the school division level.”

Despite the familiarity of the categorical funding approach, a veteran SSA explained that “Much time was taken in the process of resource teachers having to write funding applications on behalf of students.” Applications were also arduous for divisional student services staff when they were required to review, revise or appeal government decisions. The majority of SSAs felt that time could be better spent on collaboration and planning or by supporting students directly in classrooms. One SSA made the observation that, “Funding could be obtained based on creative writing rather than on the demonstration of genuine student needs.” School division staff were often left without discretion to shift categorical funds, regardless of whether there might be nonfunded students who were experiencing greater academic or social emotional learning challenges (for whom they were unable to obtain funding). It was also noted by an SSA that, “Staff were often discouraged when funding applications were denied – particularly if they felt that students met the criteria outlined by the government.” The SSA contended that, “The categorical funding application process was steeped in frustration, due to the requirement of creating worst case scenarios in order to achieve funding success." They described how the narrative for applications was required to be negative and based on a deficit model of function. One SSA reflected, “There was stigma associated with funding which resulted from staff assigning labels and pathologizing students in the name of obtaining necessary resources.” The SSA concluded that, “The applications were devastating for parents to read and created difficult conversations between schools and families.” When funding was approved by the government, it was

commonplace for the resources to be equated with the entitlement of EA support. An SSA related, “This employee group is overused and misused, at times absolving classroom teachers of the responsibility for all learners!” Accordingly the SSA found that, “Funded students inherently became the responsibility of student services staff (resource teachers, school guidance counsellors or clinicians) rather than teachers in classrooms.” A number of SSAs indicated that over time, the funding categories did not fit the changing demographics and needs in Manitoba schools. As a result, categorical funding seemed disconnected with the day to day realities in schools.

Formula-Based Funding

With a formula-based approach, SSAs identified that less time was spent away from classrooms as there was no longer the expectation for lengthy funding applications to be devised for individual students. One SSA summarized, “The stigma of funding due to labeling individual students was removed and the emphasis was placed on programming in classrooms and schools.” Depending on the needs of the students, one SSA identified that supports could be either lengthy and open-ended, or established for shorter, agile teaching and learning sprints (Breakspear, 2016). SSAs reported flexibility in the uses of funding which allowed schools to support diverse learning needs through programming such as, the Collaborative for Academic and Social Emotional Learning Program (n.d.), Response to Intervention Pyramid (Fuchs et al., 2008) or the Three Block Model (Katz, 2012). Along with the change in funding model, one SSA noticed a shift in conversations in schools, “from one of students meeting funding criteria, to that of achieving learning outcomes.” The SSA continued that this dynamic led to, “greater pedagogical dialogue and responsive instructional practices that were more inclusive of the whole school population.” With funds allocated to schools, an SSA shared that school division teams were responsible to monitor and shift supports during the year, as required. While a steep learning curve was identified for classroom teachers as they enhanced instructional practices for all students, the SSA identified that, “Teachers were becoming more comfortable with the process of requesting additional supports for their classrooms.” Schools had the autonomy and flexibility to use funding to access additional co-teaching time, clinician services, mental health or addictions supports, and place these critical resources in classrooms. Given the flexibility of formula-based funding, SSAs collectively reported supporting families of students through the engagement of outreach facilitators, attendance officers, social workers, and music, art, equine or other private therapists. SSAs reported that they were also able to shift funds to support private mental health or forensic assessments when further direction was required for complex student challenges. Investments were also noted by SSAs in terms of increasing school guidance counselling support, clinician time and proactive collaboration with services such as police, probations, mental health and other community social systems. Regrettably access to psychiatry and mental health nursing supports for students experiencing significant mental health events was reported as, “limited at best.”

Despite the perceived success of the formula funding model, SSAs encountered several concerns. One identified that, “There were no longer external government mechanisms through which to designate the funds.” As a result, SSAs described a multitude of internal frameworks established by school divisions to provide structures for the distribution of resources. Second, it became

apparent in the process that neither school divisions nor schools had common methods of gathering information on student needs. With report card data acknowledged by one SSA as, “unhelpful due to the lack of clarity in reporting the progress of all students,” divisions initiated a wide variety of school and classroom resource profiles to standardize data collection in preparation of allocating supports. A number of school divisions implemented locally developed data collection strategies, however those mechanisms could not be used for systemic analysis due to differences in document content, style and structure. Additionally, in some divisions resource documentation was invitational, whereas in others it was a requirement for funding allocations to schools. One SSA contended that the provincial government “had not yet established an algorithm by which funding could be allocated to each division.” Nonetheless, another SSA recounted how their division “continued to receive amounts similar to those under the previous system of categorical funding.” Given the widening scope of responsibilities for schools and resources essentially frozen by the government at the time of the study, the same SSA argued, “School divisions were in a state of chronic underfunding and were being forced to do more with less.”

Discussion

This qualitative study undertaken with SSAs after the Manitoba Task Force on Special Needs Funding (2015), provided additional insight, clarity and context for a much larger discussion to follow. A subsequent province-wide Education Funding Model Review (2022) was established to update the standardized method of overall accounting and financial reporting for school divisions and districts in Manitoba. The terms of reference for latter review identified the need to create a sustainable and fair funding system for schools that would not only simplify and create predictability for all students, but would more adequately provide the flexibility required to support students with additional needs. Engstrom Graversen (2015) cautioned however that with funds no longer categorically tied to identified students, it could become difficult to designate resources to those who might require specialized services. Accordingly in this study, SSAs suggested the development of a secondary referral system and funding process for students requiring intensive mental health or other specialized supports.

While SSAs believed that the shift in funding structure allowed for more universally inclusive and responsive service delivery and favoured the flexibility achieved through formula-based funding, they acknowledged the lack of internal (division) and external (government) data collection mechanisms for determining allocations to schools. Also, given the ambiguities around reporting student progress, SSAs found it challenging to gauge whether the change in funding model for students with additional needs had in fact influenced student achievement. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, "the way in which public investment in education is addressed is even more important in terms of outcomes and effectiveness than the amount spent” (EASNIE, 2016). Hence further research and refinement in this area is indicated. Given the findings of this study however, SSAs did reveal that the structural approach to formula-based funding generated an impetus for change in strategic instructional behaviours, and this effectively served to reduce the gap between inclusive philosophy and practice. With this in mind, SSAs perceived that with the shift from categorical

to formula-based funding, teachers were more adequately prepared to address equity and inclusion for their students due to enhanced service provision in classrooms and schools.

Limitations and Conclusion

Despite the increased understandings facilitated by qualitative studies, issues of generalizability, validity and reliability are often questioned due to unique scenarios and smaller sample sizes. While concerns of this nature might also impact this study, the authentic perspectives offered by SSAs provided rich and in-depth accounts of personnel who were most familiar with inclusive education in Manitoban school divisions. Equipped with this data, key feedback was proposed to the provincial Education Funding Model Review Team, to inform the creation of a fair and sustainable financial structure for all students, especially one that would provide flexibility and customization for those with additional needs. Moreover, although the processes drew on examples from one Canadian province, the successes, challenges and ideas arising from this discussion were addressed in a manner that could pertain beyond this specific jurisdiction.

Acknowledgement

This study met the standard of the TCPS-2 (certificate #12991) and was graciously funded by a Partnership Development Grant from the researcher’s university.

References

Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. (2012). Making schools effective for all: Rethinking the task. School Leadership and Management , 32(3), 197-213. Ball, J. (2008). Promoting equity and dignity for Aboriginal children in Canada . IRPP Choices, 14(7).

Banks, J., Frawley, D., & McCoy, S. (2015). Achieving inclusion? Effective resourcing of students with special educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education 19: 926-943.

Barrett, D. (2014). Resourcing inclusive education. In Measuring Inclusive Education , edited by C. Forlin & T. Loreman, 75–91. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Blackstock, C., Trocmé, N., & Bennett, M. (2004). Child maltreatment investigations among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal families in Canada. Violence Against Women, 10(8), 901–916.

Breakspear, S. (2016). Agile implementation for learning: How adopting an agile mindset can help leaders achieve meaningful progress in student learning (Occasional Paper No. 147). Centre for Strategic Education.

Brownell, M., Chartier, M., Au, W., MacWilliam, L., Schultz, J., Guenette, W., & Valdivia, J. (2015). The educational outcomes of children in care in Manitoba . Manitoba Centre for Health Policy.

Collaborative for Academic and Social Emotional Learning -CASEL (2019). https://casel.org/ European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education -EASNIE (2016). Financing of inclusive education background information report p.44.

Engstrom Graversen, M. (2015). Accounting for the Danish public school system: Incentives and practice. Institut for Økonomi og Ledelse.

Fletcher-Campbell, F., Pijl, S., Meijer, C., Dyson, A. & Parrish, T. (2003). “Distribution of funds for special needs education.” International Journal of Educational Management, (17): 220–33.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. & Vaughn. S. (2008). Response to intervention : International Reading Association.

Goldan, J. (2019). “Demand-oriented and fair allocation of special needs teacher resources for inclusive education -Assessment of a newly implemented funding model in North RhineWestphalia, Germany.” International Journal of Inclusive Education doi:10.1080/13603116.2019.1568598

Jahnukainen, M. (2011). Different strategies, different outcomes? The history and trends of the inclusive and special education in Alberta (Canada) and in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research (55): 489-502.

Katz, J. (2012). Teaching to diversity: The three-block model of universal design for learning. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Portage and Main Press. Klemm, K. (2015). Inklusion in Deutschland – Daten und fakten. Bertelsmann stiftung. Meijer, C. (1999). Financing of special needs education. A seventeen country study of the relation between financing of special needs education and integration. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education).

Manitoba Education and Early Childhood Learning (n.d.) Education funding model review team: terms of reference. https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/action_plan/docs/funding_model_review_team_tor_en.p df

Manitoba Education and Early Childhood Learning. (n.d.). High school graduation rates and student achievement statistics . http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/grad_rates/index.html

Manitoba Education and Training. (2015). Task force on special needs funding: Report for the minister of education and advanced learning . https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/edu/docs/spec_needs_fund_report.pdf

Sharma, U., Grové, C., Laletas, S., Rangarajan, R., & Finkelstein, S. (2021). Bridging gaps between theory and practice of inclusion through an innovative partnership between university academics and school educators in Australia. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1882052

Sinha V., Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Fast, E. & Prokop, S. (2011). Kiskisik awasisak: Remember the children: Understanding the overrepresentation of First Nations children in the child welfare system. Assembly of First Nations.

Tavory, I. & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research University of Chicago Press.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). The truth and reconciliation commission of Canada: Calls to action.

http://trc.ca/assets/pdf/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -UNESCO. (2021)

Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education . https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707.locale=en

Wallin, D., Young, J. and Levin, B (2021). Understanding Canadian schools: An introduction to educational administration (6th ed.).

https://openpress.usask.ca/understandingcanadianschools/

Special Educator Training in Norm-Referenced Academic Assessment: An Analysis of Syllabi

Adam B. Lockwood, Ph.D

Andrew Wiley, Ph.D

Richard Cowan, Ph.D

Kent State University

Abstract

Special education teachers frequently administer norm-referenced tests (NRTs) of academic achievement used in the special education eligibility determination process. This purpose of this study was to examine the content covered in special education academic achievement assessment courses to examine the training that students receive in NRT administration. Five researchers coded 75 syllabi from 63 university-based special education training programs. Courses from spring 2016 to fall 2019 were examined. Results suggest that most programs do not provide sufficient practice in NRT administration or report writing. More trainee observation with feedback is also needed. Greater instructor support for NRT courses also appears necessary. Additional implications for training are discussed.

Keywords: norm-referenced tests, academic achievement, assessment, special education, training

Special Educator Training in Norm-referenced Academic Assessment: An Analysis of Syllabi

Assessment using omnibus norm-referenced tests (NRTs) of academic achievement is extremely important to special educators. NRTs such as the Woodcock-Johnson IV Test of Academic Achievement (WJ IV ACH; Schrank et al., 2014), Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT; Wechsler, 2009), and Kaufman Test of Academic Achievement (KTEA-3; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014), are used by educators to plan interventions and measure student progress (Breaux & Lichtenberger, 2016). Data collected from NRTs are also frequently used to make high-stakes decisions, including whether a student is eligible for special educations services and the protections and rights afforded by federal law to students who have disabilities. A 2019 survey of 725 special education administrators suggested that roughly half of school districts in the United States primarily rely on NRTs to gather the academic achievement data needed to determine specific learning disability (SLD) -as opposed to primarily relying on curriculumbased measures used within a response to intervention (RtI) eligibility framework (Lockwood, Farmer, Bohan, et al., 2021). This was particularly true of Western states where RtI was primarily used to establish SLD eligibility in only 8% of districts (Lockwood, Farmer, Winans, et al., 2021). This is noteworthy as SLD is the most common eligibility category, accounting for roughly a third of all children enrolled in special education (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2019).

The Importance of NRT Administration to Special Education Teachers

Until recently, little was known about who administers the NRTs used to make special education eligibility decisions, other than school psychologists (Lockwood, Farmer, Bohan & colleagues, 2021). However, a 2019 survey of 725 special education administrators by Lockwood, Farmer, Bohan and colleagues (2021) found that special education teachers primarily fill this role in 27% of initial and 34% of triennial special education evaluations. In Western states, special education teachers filled this role in 60% of initial and 65% of triennial special education evaluations. As previously noted, NRTs are the most heavily utilized in Western states (Lockwood, Farmer, Bohan, et al., 2021). Together, these findings underscore the need to examine special educator training in NRT administration.

Moreover, because data collected from NRTs of academic achievement are used to make highstakes decisions (e.g., special education eligibility), ensuring correct NRT administration is critical. When significant errors in NRT administration and scoring occur, students may be mislabeled. Specifically, a false negative (i.e., failing to correctly identify a student with a disability when they do meet criteria) may deprive students of the interventions, services and protections they are entitled to (Fletcher, 2012). Alternatively, a false positive (i.e., mislabeling students as having a disability when they do not) may lead to stigmatization and self-fulfilling prophecies of failure (Gentrup et al., 2020), causing harm that follows students well into adulthood (Higgins et al., 2002).

The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) asserts that assessment plays a “foundational role in special education” and that special education teachers must be skilled and knowledgeable in using “the standardized assessments that are used in identifying students for special education services, developing students’ IEPs, and informing ongoing services” (McLeskey, 2017, p. 16). In 2020, the CEC released a new set of standards for the preparation of special education teachers. One of the seven standards focuses entirely on assessment for special education. Specifically, the standard requires the preparation of special educators who can “evaluate students to determine their strengths and needs, contribute to students’ eligibility determination, communicate students’ progress, and make ongoing adjustments to instruction….as appropriate (CEC, 2020, p. 3). The prominence of assessment within the CEC professional preparation standards makes clear the importance of high-quality training in assessment for special education teachers.

The Training of Special Education Teachers in NRT Administration

Given the CEC’s emphasis on assessment, the high-stakes nature of NRTs, and the possible harm caused by poorly administered NRTs, research examining the training of special education teachers and their fidelity when administering NRTs is needed. However, only three studies have examined NRT administration and scoring fidelity by special education teachers or teacher trainees. Harrison et al. (2018) examined NRT administration and scoring errors by special education teacher trainees across the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition (KTEA-2; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004), WIAT‐III, and Woodcock‐Johnson III Tests of

Achievement. These researchers found that of the 114 protocols examined, 112 contained one or more errors with an average of 28 errors per protocol.

Lockwood et al. (2020) examined 42 KTEA-3 protocols completed by special education teacher trainees and found three fourths of these protocols contained one or more errors. Additionally, they found an average of three errors (e.g., start point, end point, raw score) per protocol that could potentially invalidate subtest scores. These authors also noted that their finding likely underestimated the presence of errors due to their exclusion of Written Expression.

Lockwood et al. (2023) studied the errors made by 40 test administrators across 80 WJ IV ACH protocols. Eighty-five percent of these administrations were conducted by special education teachers (versus 15% by school psychologists). The purpose of these administrations was to establish special education eligibility. These authors found at least one error on every protocol (M = 37.2). Additionally, these authors differentiated between non-critical (e.g., failure to record verbatim) and critical (e.g., start point, standard score) errors; based on this distinction, they found that 98.8% of protocols (M =15.3) contained one or more of these egregious errors. In sum, these three studies suggest that administration and scoring errors by special education teacher trainees may be common and significant.

Reducing errors in NRT administration by special educators likely requires significant, highquality training. However, little is known about the training that special educators receive in NRT administration. While multiple recent studies have examined the training of school psychologists in NRT administration (e.g., Bumpus et al., 2022; Lockwood & Farmer, 2020; Lockwood et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2021) only one study has examined the training of special educators in this area.

Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al. (2021) surveyed 142 special education faculty about NRT coursework in their special education teacher preparation programs and compared these results to similar courses in school psychology programs. Only two-thirds of special education faculty required trainees to administer one or more NRT to a school-aged student. Also, just 11% of special education faculty surveyed were provided with a teaching assistant (TA) even though class sizes averaged approximately 17 students. Special education faculty reported a lack of access to test kits and the use of outdated assessment materials. Furthermore, faculty reported that special education training programs require limited pre/co-requisite coursework that is foundational to NRT administration, scoring, and interpretation (e.g., coursework in statistics and psychometrics). Finally, more than half of the special education teacher preparation programs offered assessment courses that were entirely online or hybrid. In short, the results of this study suggest that, in comparison to school psychology programs, special education programs had less instructional support, were less likely to provide training in person, and were less likely to require applied experiences (Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al., 2021).

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to increase our understanding of how university-based special education programs prepare teacher trainees to administer NRTs. Specifically, we conducted a content analysis of syllabi for assessment courses in 63 programs. Our goal was to answer the following research questions:

1. What instruction do special education trainees receive in NRT administration?

2. How does this instruction in NRT administration compare to Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al. (2021) special education teacher preparation findings?

Method

The only existing research on this topic (i.e., Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al., 2021) used survey methods, which are vulnerable to normative bias, social desirability (Larson, 2019), and recall bias (Barrett et al., 2015). To avoid these possible sources of error and to gain a more accurate picture of training practices, we analyzed course syllabi directly. Content analysis of syllabi has been used to examine multiple topics, including the training of school psychologist in cognitive assessment (Bumpus et al., 2020; Miller et al., 2020) and special education eligibility decision making (Barrett et al., 2015). Content analyses are especially useful for examining preor co-requisites, course objectives, professional standards, course content, and the values of the course instructors about class subject as these are generally stated explicitly (Parkes & Harris, 2002).

Procedures

The U.S. Department of Education’s data and research department provided the lead researcher with list of all 911 programs with Special Education degree or certificate completers in the 50 states and the District of Columbia for the 2016-2017 school year (Title II Research Department, personal communication, August 16, 2019). The 2016-2017 school year was chosen because it was the most recent year for which complete data were available. The 293 training programs with the highest enrollment were targeted in attempt to obtain information about the greatest amount of teacher trainees possible as these programs contained 73.4% of graduates for that year.

Additionally, to ensure that all states were included in this study, programs with low enrollments were included from each of the following seven states: Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Vermont, and Wyoming. Graduate prepared sizes ranged from six to 1,006 students (mdn = 45). Syllabi were obtained using the following procedures. First, emails were sent to 300 education program directors asking them to forward a request for syllabi to the person in their department who currently teaches academic achievement assessment. Two follow-up emails were sent approximately two weeks and three weeks later. If there was no response, Google searches were conducted to obtain syllabi (when possible) from university websites.

The criteria for including a course in this study were: a) the course was primarily offered to special education or dual general education/special education (as opposed to school psychology

or educational diagnostician) trainees, b) the syllabus was from a course taught within the last four years to ensure that data were recent and reflected the most updated assessment measures, c) the course included training in norm-referenced academic and d) the course focus was not solely on early childhood.

Coding

Data were coded using a priori codes that were derived from the extant literature on this topic (e.g., Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al., 2021; Overton, 2016; Pieragnelo & Giuliani., 2017; Salvia et al., 2012). Specifically, course syllabi were coded for elements related to class structure, characteristics of faculty (e.g., degree type), course topics and content, and course activities and assignments. To promote transparency the coding schemes and data used in this study can be accessed via the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/swfzk/?view_only=03c0140b27e8415d9c280786ae62d65f

Interrater Reliability

A team of researchers (four undergraduate and one graduate student) coded the syllabi. The first author, an assistant professor of school psychology with multiple publications on the topic of evidence-based assessment and experience teaching NRT administration courses to special education trainees, trained the five coders. Each researcher had to code with at least a 90% reliability on three consecutive syllabi before beginning to code independently. Thirty-three percent of syllabi (n = 25) were double coded to ensure interrater reliability. The researchers met each week to discuss coding and resolve inconsistencies. Overall interrater reliability was 95.3% and ranged from 80-100% across items.

Results

In total 83 syllabi from 71 teacher trainee programs were collected. Five syllabi were excluded because they were taught more than four years earlier and three others because they focused solely on pre-school assessment. Four syllabi (5.3%) were from spring or summer of 2016, four (5.3%) were from the 2016-2017 school year, eight (10.6%) were from the 2017-2018 school year, 11 (14.7%) from the 2018-2019 school year, and 48 (64%) from the 2019-2020 school year. Therefore 75 syllabi from 63 universities, representing 7% of training programs (21% of our targeted sample), met the inclusionary criteria and were subsequently used in this study. Syllabi from training programs in 33 states were represented in the study; 17.3% of syllabi came from training programs in the Northeast, 28% in the Midwest, 34.7% the South and 20% in the West. This sample aligns with the most recent U.S. Census data which show that 17.2% the population lives in the Northeast, 20.7% in the Midwest, 38.3% the South and 23.7% in the West (U.S. Census, 2021). All syllabi were collected prior to the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S.

Class Structure and Faculty

Detailed findings about class structure and faculty are contained in Table 1. A clear majority of the syllabi (n = 59, 78.7%) were from special education courses; the second highest number of syllabi were from general education courses (n = 14, 18.7%). One syllabus reflected a dual general/special education course, and one syllabus reflected a reading course. With regard to

mode of instructional delivery, a majority (n = 50, 68.5%) were offered in person. Other modes of delivery included online only (n = 16, 21.9%) and mixed/hybrid courses. Of the data that we were able to find (length of the course was absent from 41.3% of syllabi), 95.5% of classes were a semester in length. A clear majority of the 64 syllabi that listed the instructor (n = 53, 82.8%) indicated that the course was taught by a doctoral-level instructor. Roughly 12.5% of courses were taught by master’s level instructors and 4.7% by trainers with “other” degrees (e.g., Educational Specialist). Unfortunately, we were unable to gather these data from 14.7% of syllabi. Instructors generally appeared to have limited support; only 8.0% of syllabi listed a teaching/graduate assistant on the syllabus. Finally, 48.0% of courses were at the undergraduate level only, while 38.7% were at the graduate level only; 13.3% of courses were open to both undergraduate and graduate students.

Table 1

Class Structure and Faculty

Program/Department Represented by Syllabi*

Degree Held by Instructor****

Note. *n = 75 syllabi. **n = 73 syllabi. ***n = 44 syllabi. ****n = 64 syllabi. N varies because the extent to which syllabi contained information about the variable of interest varied.

Course Topics and Content

During coding focused on legal and ethical content in syllabi, we found that 58.7% of syllabi covered material related to both legal and ethical guidelines, 13.3% covered only legal content

while 2.7% only ethical guidelines; 25.3% of syllabi did not address either (see Table 2). Because we coded multiple syllabi from 11 Universities, we examined whether any of the syllabi that did not address this content were duplicates and found one -therefore, 18 programs (28.6%) had syllabi that did not cover legal or ethical issues related to assessment. Coding linked to the coverage of training/learning standards revealed that 33.3% of syllabi did not align their content with any standards. However, 10.7% aligned with Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC), CEC and state standards, 12.0% aligned with CEC, 13.3% with state guidelines, and 17.3% with both CEC and state standards (for a more detailed accounting see Table 2).

Table 2

Course Topics and Content Topic/Subtopic

Note. n = 75.

As illustrated in Table 2, approximately 51% of course syllabi (representing 57.1% of programs) had content related to psychometrics, while 49.3% (57.1% of represented programs) covered statistics. While issues related to psychometrics and statistics were not emphasized, issues related to diversity were noted in 68.0% of syllabi representing 73.0% of programs. Course material related to communicating assessment results were noted on nearly half (48.0%) of syllabi representing 54.0% of programs. Evidence-based/research-based practice was not heavily emphasized and was only mentioned on 30.7% of syllabi representing 33.3% of programs. Furthermore, 89.3% of syllabi, representing 90.5% of programs included references to CBM.

A myriad of text/materials were noted in these syllabi. A clear majority (84.0%) of course syllabi listed a required textbook. The most commonly required textbooks included: Assessing Learners with Special Needs (Overton, 2016; 37.3%), The ABCs of CBM (Hosp et al., 2016; 14.7%) Assessment in Special and Inclusive Education (Salvia et al., 2016; 13.3%) Assessment in Special Education: A practical Approach (Pieragnelo & Giuliani, 2017; 10.7%) and Assessing Students with Special needs (5.3%; Kritikos et al., 2018). Aside from assigned textbooks, 6.7% required journal article(s) and one (1.3%) listed select book chapters only. It is of interest to note that 13.3% of the syllabi did not list any required readings for the course.

Course Activities and Assignments

Table 3

Course Activities and Assignments

Tests/Exams/Quizzes

64 CBM Administration Required

38 NRT Required

48 Number of Admin = 1*

20 Number of Admin = 2*

Number of Admin = 3*

13

6

Number of Admin = 4* 4.2% 2

Number of Admin = 5* 2.1% 1 Number of Admin = 6* 2.1% 1

Number of Admin = 7*

0 Number of Admin = 8*

4 Number of Admin = 9*

Data Source: Student Administration*

1

40

Data Source: Mock Data Provided* 14.3% 8

Data Source: Both Student and Mock Data* 6.0% 3

Admin Observed by Instructor or TA 17.3% 13

Note. n = 75 syllabi. *These figures are derived from representation across syllabi containing information about the variable(s) of interest. n t = total of syllabi.

Detailed findings about course activities and assignments are contained in Table 3. The most commonly noted class assignments were tests, exams, and quizzes. CBM administration was required on approximately half of the syllabi and the administration of a NRT was required on 64.0% of the syllabi. Of the syllabi that indicated a need to administer an NRT, the average number of tests administered was 2.6 ( mdn = 2, SD = 2.24). The most commonly noted NRT was the WJ IV ACH, followed by the WIAT-III, KTEA-3, KeyMath-3 Diagnostic Achievement Test (KeyMath-3; Connolly, 2007), Wide Range Achievement Test-Fifth Edition (WRAT-5; Wilkinson & Robertson, 2017), and Mini-Battery of Achievement (MBA; Woodcock et al., 1994). See Figure 1 for detailed information about the percentages of syllabi associated with these measures. Written reports were required in 74.7% of syllabi. Of the syllabi that explicitly

stated the requirement of a report, 71.0% required students to collect their own data (i.e., data from their own administrations), 14.3% provided students with mock data to report and 6.0% required both; 8.9% of these syllabi noted that a written report was required but did not specify where the data for the report would come from. Finally, 17.3% of syllabi noted that students were observed conducing a NRT administration in the course.

1: Specific NRT Use

Note. Series one data (black bars) represent percentage of total coded syllabi ( n = 75). Series two data (gray bars) represent percentage representation across only those syllabi indicating a requirement for NRT administrations. Mini-Batt ACH = Mini-Battery of Achievement.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to analyze recent special education assessment course syllabi. NRTs of academic achievement are administered frequently by special education teachers and the data garnered from these tests are used to make high-stakes decisions. Additionally, recent research (e.g., Harrison et al., 2019; Lockwood et al., 2020) suggests that administration and scoring errors by special education trainees are common. Little is known about the training provided to special education trainees; only one publication (Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al., 2021) has examined the topic and this study used survey methodology, which is error prone. This study filled this gap by providing objective data from course syllabi regarding special education assessment courses in the United States.

Like Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al. (2021), we found that classes were generally open to undergraduates and taught by instructors with doctorates who are rarely provided with a TA.

Figure

Roughly half of course syllabi provided content related to psychometrics and statistics. Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al. (2021) did not collect data on whether this information is taught but did gather information regarding whether these classes were pre/co-requisites and found that each was required approximately 10% of the time. This indicates that most students’ only exposure to these concepts comes during this class. This is in contrast to school psychology programs that generally require students to take a course dedicated to psychometrics and statistics (Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al., 2021; Lockwood & Farmer, 2020).

Our findings for the most frequently required texts were commensurate with Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al. (2021). See Table 4 for a comparison of top-ranking texts across studies. Interestingly, only 6.7% of syllabi noted that journal articles were required for the classes which is vastly discrepant from Lockwood and colleagues survey findings which suggested at least 65% of instructors provide students with articles covering course content. This suggests that textbooks are the main written resources required of students and that instructors may provide recommendations of journal articles to supplement texts though they are not listed on syllabi.

Table 4

Comparison of Required Textbooks Reported by Survey Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al. (2021) V. Current Syllabi Study Title of Required

Like Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al. (2021), we found that test administrations were required in approximately three quarters of classes. We also found, like Lockwood Farmer, Schmitt, et al. that the median administrations required by programs was approximately two. We also found that the WJ IV ACH, WIAT-II, and KTEA-3 were the most frequently taught measures though our percentages were significantly lower than those reported on the survey; we attribute this difference to a lack of reporting of specific tests in the syllabi. Additionally written reports were only noted on roughly 75% of syllabi vs. 90% of respondents to Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al.’s survey. It may be that the report writing requirement was not listed on all syllabi, an artifact of our samples, or response bias. However, this too is significantly less than school psychology programs which require multiple administrations and report writing across all programs (Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al., 2021). Additionally, only 17.1% of syllabi noted a need for observations; this is significantly less than Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, and colleague (2021) who noted that slightly less than three-quarters of instructors observe administrations in some manner (i.e., in person, video or audio).

Limitations and Future Research

There are several limitations of this study. First, the data used in this study came from courses that were taught prior to COVID-19. Early research indicates that a significant percent of higher education instruction moved online over the past 2.5 years and that universities may increasingly provide instruction using a hybrid delivery method, post-pandemic (Benito, et al., 2021). Therefore, it is likely that this study does not represent the current training provided by teacher trainee programs (and certainly not describe future training). However, as the most recent available data indicate that roughly 72% of special educators have been teaching for three or more years (U.S. Department of Education, 2020), the current study is likely indicative of the training that the vast majority of special education teachers have received. Future research should examine this course post-pandemic to provide updated information.

The other significant limitation involves our use of syllabi. Missing data were noted with some frequency. For example, we were unable to obtain the terminal degree of instructors from roughly 15%, and the duration of the course from 41.3% of syllabi. Perhaps more problematic is the likelihood that some course content of interest was covered in these courses but not listed in the syllabi. For example, instructors may cover topics related to psychometrics and statistics but may not have noted this on their syllabi. Furthermore, content related to NRT administration may be covered in other classes that we did not obtain syllabi for (though Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al.’s [2021] results suggest that the bulk of programs cover NRT administration content in one, three credit course). Despite these limitations we believe that the strengths of this study outweigh the weaknesses of survey methods (e.g., normative bias, social desirability and recall bias). Additionally, when our results are supplemented with those of Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt et al. (2021), we believe that a fuller understanding of the training that special education trainees receive is provided. This is necessary as little is known about the training provided to these practitioners. However, future researchers should continue to examine the training of special education teachers in NRT; this may include examining syllabi and surveying or interviewing instructors/trainees to gain a more complete understanding of training practices.

Implications

There are implications for special education teacher training that can be inferred from this study. First, it would appear that more practice administration is warranted. Research suggests that six practice administrations with corrective feedback are required for school psychology students to obtain proficiency with a NRT (Cormier et al., 2019). It would seem likely that special education trainees would also require this much practice before administering a NRT to a child suspected of having a disability. Training programs are encouraged to consider increasing the number of practice administrations per NRT measure to a minimum of six during teacher preparation. Programs are also encouraged to require students to write up the results of each administration to obtain practice in report writing.

Second, and related, all students should be observed administering NRTs and provided with feedback. We found very few syllabi that noted that trainees must be observed. However, due to the complexity and high-stakes nature of NRT administration, all students should be observed on multiple occasions and provided with feedback. Furthermore, it would appear necessary for

students to be observed using video recording technology. This would allow trainees to receive feedback from instructors; it would also allow trainees to watch their own videos reflect on their experience. An additional benefit of using video recording is that these permeant products allow trainees to go back to watch these videos months, or even years, later. This ability to refresh their skills would seem especially important because, although many special education teachers administer NRTs as part of their job duties, they generally do so only a few times each year (Lockwood, Farmer, Bohan, et al., 2021).

We believe that the biggest take away from this study (and from Lockwood, Farmer, Schmitt, et al., 2021) is that more support for instructors of NRT courses is needed. As noted previously, TAs appear to be rarely provided. This is even though NRT administration courses are extremely time intensive. This lack of TAs is also in stark contrast to school psychology programs that almost universally provide NRT TAs despite having class sizes that are roughly half that of a typical special education course (Lockwood, Farmer, Bohan, et al., 2021). While we have provided several important implications of this study, it is unreasonable to ask course instructors to increase the number of required administrations or to engage in more report writing and observation of assessments without a dedicated course TA.

If instructors are not provided with the support needed to fully prepare special education teacher trainees to engage in NRT administration, then the onus of training may fall on school districts. Accordingly, district that use special education teachers to administer the NRTs used to make special education determinations may wish to provide pre-service training for new hires. Furthermore, it may be wise for these districts to provide yearly in-service training to avoid the examiner “drift” that is often observed in NRT administration (Gilmore & Campbell, 2009).

Conclusion

Data collected from NRTs are critical for making high-stakes decisions including eligibility for special education services. Furthermore, NRT administration is complex, and errors are common. However, our research indicates that most training programs do not provide enough practice in NRT administration or report writing. Furthermore, more observation with feedback would appear warranted. The likely reason for these shortcomings is a need for more support for instructors of special education NRT courses. Special education programs are encouraged to provide instructors with more dedicated course TAs to ensure that trainees receive the training the need to gain proficiency in NRT administration. School districts that use special education teachers to administer NRT may also wish to provide extra training to these staff.

References

Barrett, C. A., Cottrell, J. M., Newman, D. S., Pierce, B. G., & Anderson, A. (2015). Training school psychologists to identify specific learning disabilities: A content analysis of syllabi. School Psychology Review , 44(3), 271-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.17105/spr-140023.1

Benito, Á., Dogan Yenisey, K., Khanna, K., Masis, M. F., Monge, R. M., Tugtan, M. A., ... & Vig, R. (2021). Changes that should remain in higher education post COVID-19: A mixed-methods analysis of the experiences at three universities. Higher Learning Research Communications, 11 (1) 51-75. DOI: 10.18870/hlrc.v11i0.1195.

Breaux, K. C., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2016). Essentials of KTEA-3 and WIAT-III assessment. John Wiley & Sons.

Bumpus, E. C., Vinco, M. H., Lee, K. B., Accurso, J. F., & Graves, S. L. (2022). The consistency of expectations: An analysis of learning objectives within cognitive assessment course syllabi. Teaching of Psychology , 49(1), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0098628320965248

Connolly, A. J. (2007). Keymath-3 Diagnostic Assessment. Upper Saddle Creek. Council for Exceptional Children (2020). Field and clinical experience standard. https://exceptionalchildren.org/sites/default/files/202103/K12%20Initial%20Standards%20and%20Components.pdf

Fletcher, J. M. (2012). Classification and identification of learning disabilities. In B. Wong& D. L. Butler (Eds.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 1–26). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-388409-1.00001-1

Gentrup, S., Lorenz, G., Kristen, C., & Kogan, I. (2020). Self-fulfilling prophecies in the classroom: Teacher expectations, teacher feedback and student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 66 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101296. Gilmore, L., & Campbell, M. (2009). Competence in intelligence testing: A training model for postgraduate psychology students. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 26(2), 165-173. https://doi.org/10.1375/aedp.26.2.165.

Harrison, G. L., Goegan, L. D., & Macoun, S. J. (2018). Common examiner scoring errors on academic achievement measures. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 34 (2), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573518763484

Higgins, E., Raskind, M., Goldberg, R., & Herman, K. (2002). Stages of acceptance of a learning disability: The impact of labeling. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25 (1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511187

Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd edition). Guilford Publications.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2014). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, third edition (KTEA-3) Pearson.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition (KTEA-II). Pearson.

Kritikos, E.P., McLoughlin, J. A., & Lewis, R. B. (2018). Assessing students with special needs (8th edition). Pearson.

Larson, R. B. (2019). Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research, 61(5), 534-547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805305

Lockwood, A., Farmer, R., Bohan, K., Winans, S., & Sealander, K. (2021). Academic achievement test use and assessment practices: A national survey of special education administrators. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 39 (4), 436–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282920984290

Lockwood, A., Farmer, R., Winans, S., & Sealander, K. (2021). Specific learning disability identification practices in the U.S.A: A survey of special education administrators. Contemporary School Psychology . doi.org/10.1007/s40688-021-00375-4

Lockwood, A., Farmer, R., Schmitt, M., Sealander, K., Lanterman, C., & Adkins, M. (2021). The course on norm-referenced academic assessment: A survey of special education faculty. Psychology in the Schools, 59(2). 398–412. doi.org/10.1002/pits.22616

Lockwood, A., Klatka, K., Parker, B., & Benson, N. (2023). Administration and scoring errors on The Woodcock Johnson IV Tests of Achievement: Before and during COVID-19. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment doi.org/10.1177/07342829231166725

Lockwood, A., Sealander, K., Gross, T. J., & Lanterman, C. (2020). Teacher trainees' administration and scoring errors on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38 (5), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282919871144

McLeskey, J. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children.

Miller, L. T., Bumpus, E. C., & Graves, S. L. (2020). The state of cognitive assessment training in school psychology: An analysis of syllabi. Contemporary School Psychology , 1-8. National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). The Condition of Education . https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp

Overton, T. (2016). Assessing learners with special needs: An applied approach (8th edition). Prentice Hall.

Parkes, J., & Harris, M. B. (2002). The purposes of a syllabus. College Teaching , 50(2), 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550209595875

Pieragnelo, R.A. & Giuliani, G.A. (2017). Assessment in Special Education: A Practical Approach, (5th edition). Pearson.

Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J., & Witmer, S. (2016). Assessment: In special and inclusive education (13th Edition). Cengage Learning.

Schrank, F. A., Mather, N. & McGrew (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement. Riverside.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS) (2020). Public School Teacher Data File, 2017-18. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_209.50.asp

U.S. Census Bureau (2021) United States Population Growth by Region https://www.census.gov/popclock/print.php?component=growth&image=//www.census.g ov/popclock/share/images/growth_1561939200.png

Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (3rd ed.). Pearson. Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K.S., & Werder, J.K. (1994). The Mini-Battery of Achievement . Riverside.

About the Authors

Adam Lockwood, PhD is an assistant professor of school psychology at Kent State University. His current research focuses on improving educator training with an emphasis on training educators in evidence-based assessment.

Andrew Wiley, PhD is an associate professor of special education at Kent State University. Dr. Wiley’s research focuses primarily on controversial issues in special education; special education policy; supporting teacher use of highly effective, research-based academic and behavioral interventions; disproportionate identification of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education; and the under-identification and under-service of students with emotional and behavioral disorders.

Richard Cowan, PhD is an associate professor of school psychology at Kent State University. His research focuses on the development, implementation, and evaluation of educational and treatment programs for students with autism. His scholarly pursuits also focus on the implementation and evaluation of multi-tiered systems of support across the universal, targeted and intensive levels of intervention for a variety of students in educational settings.

Influences

of Teachers’ and Students’ Attitudes on Academic Performance of Students with Disabilities in the Inclusive Secondary Schools in Tanzania

Peter Elisha Mwamwaja, Ph.D. Catholic University College of Mbeya

Abstract

This study assessed the influence of teachers’ and students’ attitudes on academic performance of students with disabilities in inclusive secondary schools in Tanzania. The aim was to explore attitudes and related factors hindering performance of students with disabilities in the inclusive secondary schools. The study was guided by two research questions; firstly, what are the teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards students with disabilities in secondary schools? Secondly, how teachers’ and students’ attitudes influence academic performance of students with disabilities in secondary schools? This was a qualitative research using a descriptive case study. A total of 44 persons participated in the study: 8 students with disabilities, 24 students without disabilities and 12 teachers. Data was generated through interviews and observations. The findings showed that teachers and students had varied attitudes towards inclusion of students with disabilities in secondary schools. Findings based on the first question were divided into two sides. On one hand, attitudes of both teachers and students were supportive for students with disabilities to pursue studies and perform well. On the other hand, attitudes of others discourage inclusion and are less helping students with disabilities to study in inclusive secondary schools. With regard to the second question it was found that positive attitudes towards students with disabilities enabled them to learn and perform better academically. As far as inclusive education is concerned all students should learn together, wherever possible, regardless of difficulties or differences they may have. The study recommends for supportive teaching and learning environment and having school administration with positive attitudes towards education for students with disabilities. Lastly, it is a high time for the government to dwell on core issues of inclusive education such as medium of instruction for students with hearing impairment and sufficient supply of special needs education teachers in secondary schools in Tanzania.

Keywords: attitude, disability, inclusive education, academic performance and Tanzania

Background to the Study

Basing on its principles, education provided must therefore encourage development of enquiry mind, the ability to learn from what others do, and adapt it to his own need and confidence in his own positions as a free and equal member of the society (Nyerere, 1976). The interest on the quality education for students with disabilities stems on the basic principle of “special education” which implies that the profession concerned with the arrangement of education variables dealing

with the prevention or elimination of those conditions in one or more of the learning avenues (United Republic of Tanzania [URT], 2017).

Inclusive education in primary and secondary schools as the way of providing quality and accessible education to children with special educational needs has been emphasized worldwide. This is reflected by UNESCO which formally adopted the concept of inclusive education in 1994 and mandated all countries to implement it (Possi & Milinga, 2017; UNESCO, 2016). It is well stipulated in the Education and Training Policy of 2014 that, “Government shall guarantee access to various opportunity of education for all groups of individuals in the country, together with persons with special needs…” (URT, 2014). Thus, every citizen regardless of his/her ability or disability, social and economical status, should be educated in a proper manner that allows him/her to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills.

Inclusive education means that all children learn together in the same schools. This requires education systems that can adapt to the different learning needs of all students. Others define inclusion as meeting the social and academic needs of all students, and, at the most complex level, as creating communities that are based on “equity, care …, justice, honouring of subjugated knowledge and valuing diversity” (Göransson & Nilholm, 2014). Differences in teachers’ views on inclusion encompass beliefs about the learning characteristics of students and about who is responsible for instructing students with special education needs.

Inclusive education is widely seen as a philosophical approach to education which ensures that diverse students of all backgrounds learn together in the same classroom, and seeks to transform education systems in order to respond to these different needs -irrespective of abilities or disabilities (NORAD, 2021). Education for children with additional needs related to difficulties to learn or access education compared with other children of the same age, for example due to disadvantages resulting from gender, ethnicity, poverty, learning difficulties or disability. In order for an inclusive education approach to be successfully implemented, a number of stakeholders including teachers, students, and the school community itself must become fully involved. It should be also noted that the successful implementation of any inclusive policy is largely dependent on educators being positive about it (Kapinga, 2010; URT, 2018; UN, 2020) Negative attitudes impede the implementation of inclusive education in different settings of education and make pupils with disabilities face barriers to learning and participation in education (Tumbo, 2011; Dukman, 2013). Attitudes are one of the important factors for the successful implementation of inclusive education.

Africa is associated with ubuntu values such as inclusiveness and treating others with fairness and human dignity. Such values align with human rights and social justice principles and are also integral to a social approach to inclusive education. However, there are several contextual and interconnected dynamics—environmental, cultural, and systemic—which impact on education systems and must be acknowledged when considering inclusive and special education. Teachers are perceived as one of the most prominent factors when encouraging or obstructing inclusion

processes (Gallego-Ortega & Rodríguez-Fuentes, 2021). Their beliefs are going to be defining for the behaviours observed within the classrooms, as these conceptions have an enormous influence on the teachers’ attitudes and inclusive practices when it comes to meeting the needs of students with disabilities (Jordan, 2018).

With regard to attitudes of teachers towards students with disabilities, Alghazo & Naggar-Gaad (2004) argued that teachers maintained more affirmative attitudes towards students with specific learning difficulties, physical disabilities and visual impairment than those with cognitive. This therefore, indicated that many teachers maintained unfavorable attitudes towards including students with mental disabilities and behavioral difficulties. Similarly, Slikker (2009) found that teachers and students held that students with disabilities were performed poorly mainly due to unfavorable attitudes towards such students. Teachers’ attitudes are important in supporting learning for students with disabilities as indicated by Cochran (1998) and Forlin (2001), that the success of including students with disabilities into general education classrooms depend largely on the favorable manners of teachers towards and fellow students. Thus, negative attitudes towards students with disabilities act as barriers to the education.

Tanzania is among countries which agreed to meet the learning needs of all learners after acceptance of several United Nations agreements which fight for equal access to and quality of education for all children regardless of their sex, socio-economic status, cultural background, ethnicity as well as disability conditions (Possi & Milinga, 2017; URT, 2018). Such commitments were outlined in the 2004 National Policy on Disability and the 2010 Persons with Disabilities Act. The Policy outlines the Government’s commitment to persons with disabilities, and advocates for the training of special education teachers and other service providers in the identification of children with disabilities (Thompson, 2017). In 2009, Tanzania ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and launched NSIE [National Strategy on Inclusive Education] 2009-17, followed by NSIE 2018-21. (UN, 2019; URT, 2018)

Despite the ratifications of those agreements and declarations, studies show that many children with disabilities in the different parts of Tanzania who have accessed and few who attended secondary education poorly performed in their final examinations (NORAD, 2014; Tungaraza, 2015; URT, 2017). This study assessed the influence of teachers’ and students’ attitudes on academic performance of students with disabilities in inclusive secondary schools in Tanzania.

Questions that guided the study are as follows:

(i) What are the teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards students with disabilities in secondary schools?

(ii) How teachers’ and students’ attitudes influence academic performance of students with disabilities in secondary schools?

Methods

The study employed qualitative approach. With this approach the collection of in-depth information through interviews was possible. The information was based on influence of teachers’ and students’ attitudes on academic performance of students with disabilities in inclusive secondary schools. With the aid of descriptive case study helped in drawing on participant observation and interviews to understand the experiences perspectives and worldviews of people in relation to research questions (Creswell et al, 2007; Schwandt & Gates, 2018; Yin, 2018). This design appear suitable for this study since conclusions arrived at through personal engagement in life’s affairs or by vicarious experience so well constructed that the person feels as if it has happened to themselves.

The study was conducted in Mbeya and Iyunga secondary schools. A total of 46 participants were involved. This included 8 students with disabilities, 24 students without disabilities and 12 teachers. Data were collected through interviews and observations. Interviews are strong methods for capturing spoken and non-spoken information (Creswell, 2012; Stake, 2005). The interview is a technique that helped the researcher to draw out a vivid picture of the participants’ perspectives on the research topic. In that case, the researcher’s role didn’t influence or direct interviewees’ reaction to the questions but rather to probe the interviewees in order to make the question clear or to seek more information about the question and/or direct the interviewees’ responses to the research objectives.

Data were analysed thematically in accordance with the research questions. Data analysis involved three stages as stipulated by Austin and Sutton (2015). The first stage is data reduction, which involve transcribing and summarising data from all sources of data collection. The second stage entailed further organisation of the reduced data to generate major themes and sub-themes from the oral and written texts. Finally, the third stage involved interpretation and drawing of conclusions from the data analysed.

Findings and Discussions

Findings of the study are presented on the bases of the research questions:

Attitudes of teachers and students towards students with disabilities in inclusive secondary schools

It was found that teachers and students had mixed feelings with respect to inclusion of students with disabilities in secondary schools. One of the special needs education teachers elaborated attitudes of regular teachers, and said:

Unfortunately some of the regular teachers do not see them as intelligent and capable. Some of teachers had views that students with disabilities cannot learn and perform well comparing to students without disabilities. They even wish students with disabilities should have been registered in separate schools. Other regular teachers complain that students with disabilities pull them down to accomplish lessons as per the requirements

of their respective syllabi (Special needs education teacher, 7 th June, 2022)

On the other side, students had varied feelings on the issue of inclusive education. Others had doubt if students with disabilities can learn in the same way as those without disabilities. One student with physical disability lamented that:

I can comment that in students there are diverse feelings. There are those with positive attitudes, they are always willing assist students with disabilities in various learning tasks but many of the students see us as dirty and not ready to cooperate with us in the process of learning. Some of them are harsh and even hate to associate with students with disabilities in social life (Student with physical impairment, 30 th May, 2022)

In addition to that Matron commented that, ‘we actually observe them as when we ask them to share some of necessary requirements in the dormitories and in social aspects.’ In counter to the arguments towards students without disabilities, one student argued that not all faults should be posited to them. But students with disabilities were also responsible for behaviour and attitudes against them. He said:

We almost learn and work together in all academic related tasks. But it is disappointing when students with hearing impairments isolate themselves. I actually find it difficult to collaborate with them because of the communication breakdown. They always isolate from others due to our inability to use sign language (A male student, 26 th May, 2022).

Other participants viewed that for the education system to achieve total inclusion and improved education performance for students with disabilities the sign language has to be necessary language for parties in education. A regular teacher remarked that:

In order for the school to achieve total collaboration between students with disabilities and other students it is essential for the administration to provide training on sign language in order for students and regular teachers to associate with students with hearing impairment smoothly (Regular teacher, 2nd June, 2022).

It was found that some participants had views that students with disabilities are not intelligent and capable. These findings concur with De Boer & Munde (2015) that learners with disabilities were affected by people’s beliefs towards inclusive education which include thoughts, ideas, perceptions, opinions and the mental conceptualisation of this referent (e.g., the right for children with disabilities to attend regular schools). Morin et al (2013) also argue that affective component focuses on the feelings and alludes to the positive and negative emotions concerning

learners with disabilities. These attitudes result to low participation of students with disabilities in secondary education.

On the findings that students with disabilities fail to socialise with others in several occasions, tally with those by Dukman (2013) that negative attitudes impede the implementation of inclusive education in different settings of education and make learners with disabilities face barriers to learning and participation in education. Similarly, Lyakurwa and Tungaraza (2013) reported that teachers’ attitudes have been considered as one of the major factors that guarantee success when students without disabilities are studying together with students with special educational needs.

It was observed that some teachers and students had positive attitudes, and were willing assist students with disabilities in various learning tasks. It is thus, supported by Forlin et al (2011) that positive attitudes towards inclusion are increased and have a more beneficial impact the longer teachers have been working in a school. Furthermore, Kim et al (2020) exposed that younger people have more positive perceptions towards people with disabilities and make it easier for learners with disabilities to interact with others on educational related activities. For secondary schools therefore, in order to develop a sense of oneness among and students and those with disabilities it is essential to encourage all to participate in social related issues such as subject and other academic clubs. In so doing other students get to value fellow students with disabilities and realise the essence of togetherness.

Influence of teachers’ and students’ attitudes on academic performance of students with disabilities in inclusive secondary schools

Several participants in this study indicated that positive attitudes towards students with disabilities enable them to learn and perform better academically. This was evident from special needs education teacher testimony:

Special needs education teachers are aware and supportive to issues of learning for students with disabilities in inclusive schools. I personally encourage regular teachers to accommodate students with disabilities by giving them essential basics for the students with disabilities to learn with other students. The good thing is that some of my fellow teachers value students with disabilities and take care for their needs positively (Special needs education teacher, 8th June, 2022).

Another special needs education teacher showed concern of a regular teacher who was encouraging a student with visual impairment to work hard. She said, ‘…you young boy you need to leap your efforts in studies as for that it will diminish hardship in the career you wish to pursue...’ Such moral supports are helping students with disabilities to realize who they are and what they can achieve in life.

There were teachers who thought that poor academic performance of students with disabilities were directly associated with others’ attitudes but a combination of other factors. For instance, one teacher lamented on the hardship to communicate with students with hearing impairment, that:

In my teaching experience I have noticed that students with hearing impairment are perceived as those who fail or perform low academically. This actually demoralizes students under this category. Technically, their poor performances are related with communication barriers. Most of the times teachers are working without being aided by the sign language interpreter make sense of what they teach. So, they hardly comprehend concepts that teachers communicate to them. Despite all challenges facing students with disabilities, they must work hard to ensure that they perform well (Regular teacher, 27th May, 2022).

Other participants were on opinion that, in most of inclusive schools there are shortage of relevant personnel to carter to the needs of students with disabilities. One student argued that:

I must confess that teachers in inclusive schools perform more than one task while teaching. They have to translate and teach at the same time. This becomes tiresome and delay accomplishment of the assigned teaching goals as well as learning tasks (Student, 31 st May, 2022).

Students with disabilities academic performances are low because of challenges, such as learning environment and infrastructure which are less supportive (NORAD, 2021). These are one of key concerns that hinder good academic performance of students with disabilities in inclusive secondary schools.

One head of school pinpointed the role of parents to partner in provision of education. He argued that:

Some parents of students with disabilities are less concerned with their children learning facilities and cost to education. With this respect I must acknowledge that students with disabilities require specific facilities essential for their learning. These include working tools that fit to every learner’s educational needs. As for the assistive technologies which are currents crucial for enabling students with disabilities enjoy learning and perform accordingly (Head of schools, 3rd June, 2022)

In the same juncture, teachers had concern that there are still large numbers of learners are left out of the education system. Although, efforts made by the government of Tanzania were appreciated. It was reflected in this way:

Despite of the current efforts taken by the government in ensuring inclusion in secondary schools, still we are facing hardship to register students with health and developmental disabilities. This is mainly due to the fact that in our secondary schools we lack professionals who can deal with students with health problems (Special needs education teacher, 8 th June, 2022).

These findings have heightened the influence of attitudes on the teaching and learning for students with disabilities in inclusive settings. These findings were similar Morin et al (2013) that, teachers were willing and confident in learners with disabilities. This meant that the majority of class teachers had positive attitude about integrating inclusive education in schools. But contrary to that Galovic et al (2014), found that teachers from primary education had negative attitude towards inclusive education. With such negativity academic performance of learners with disabilities remains at risk.

Findings have also revealed issues potential for low academic performance of students with disabilities in inclusive secondary schools. Poor academic performances are also attributed by the communication barriers especially to learners with hearing impairment. This situation is associated with more other factors including the poor facilitation, insufficient number of sign language interpreters and negativity of the members of the communities that, people with disabilities cannot sustain studies. Thus, with less initiatives and low budget they restrain and draw back the progress toward inclusive secondary education (Uromi & Mazagwa, 2014; Possi & Milinga, 2017).

Conclusion & Recommendation

Inclusive education advocate for all children should learn together, wherever possible, regardless of any difficulties or differences they may have. Therefore, f or effective teaching and learning to occur in inclusive secondary schools presence of supportive school administration and with positive attitudes towards education for students with disabilities is essential prerequisite. Sometimes, special needs education teachers are taking initiatives to secure support from donors and stakeholders but head of schools and local government are reluctant to ensure facilitation of teaching and learning of students with disabilities are improved.

Students with physical disabilities were supported by the government funding and donors on purchase of clutches, wheel chairs and other means to support their mobility. For students with hearing impairment the government provided digital audiometer machine, hearing devices and hearing detective devices. The government has also disbursed spare parts for the devices brought in this school. More special needs education teachers should be added in this school so that every student with disabilities acquire all relevant support from professionals experienced in particular field. Having sufficient numbers of special needs education teachers and supporting staff in inclusive secondary schools could cater for all essential learning needs in classrooms.

Lastly, for students with hearing impairment modality of assessment for them should be improved. The education policy and curriculum insist that the medium of instruction is English and examinations are set in English but students with hearing impairment have been using Tanzania sign language. Such confusion on the medium of instruction used in inclusive secondary schools need to addressed in order to enable students with hearing impairment to pursue assessments comfortably.

References

Alghazo, E. M., & Naggar Gaad, E. E. (2004). General education teachers in the United Arab Emirates and their acceptance of the inclusion of students with disabilities. British Journal of Special Education 31 , 94-49.

Austin, Z. & Sutton, J. (2015). Qualitative Research: Data Collection, Analysis and management. The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 68 (3), 226-231.

Cochran, H. K. (1998). Differences in teachers' attitudes towards inclusive education as measured by the scale of teachers' attitudes towards inclusive classrooms (STATIC). Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W.E., Clark Plano, V. L. & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counselling Psychologist, 35 , 236-265.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research . Tokyo: Pearson.

De Boer, A. A. & Munde, V. S. (2015). Parental attitudes toward the inclusion of children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities in general primary education in the Netherlands. Journal of Special Education, 49, 179-187.

Dukmak, S. J. (2013). Regular classroom teachers’ attitudes towards including students with disabilities in the regular classroom in the United Arab Emirates. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning , 9(1): 26-39.

Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers. Educational Research , 43(3), 235-245.

Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loreman, T. & Umesh, S. (2011). The sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education revised (SACIE-R): Scale for measuring pre-service teachers’ perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 21, 50-65.

Gallego-Ortega, J. L. & Rodríguez-Fuentes, A. (2021). Teaching attitudes towards students with disabilities. Mathematics 9, 1-11.

Galovic, D. Bojicin, B. Glumbic, N. (2014). The attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education in Vojvodina. International Journal of inclusive education, 18 (12), 1262-1282. Göransson, K., & Nilholm, C. (2014). Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings: A critical analysis of research on inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 265-280.

Jordan, A. (2018). The supporting effective teaching project: 1. Factors influencing student success in inclusive elementary classrooms. Exceptionality Education International Special Issue, 28 (3), 10-27.

Kapinga, D. J. (2010). Regular Primary School Teachers Attitudes towards the Inclusion of pupils with intellectual disability in inclusive school in Iringa municipality , Tanzania.

Unpublished M.A (A.S.P) Dissertation University of Dar-es-Salaam.

Kim, S., Cambray-Engstrom, E., Wang, J., Kang, V. Y., Choi, Y. J. & Coba-Rodriguez, S. (2020). Teachers’ experiences, attitudes, and perceptions towards early inclusion in urban settings. Inclusion, 8, 222-240.

Lyakurwa, S. E., & Tungaraza, F. D. (2013). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education in Tanzania. Journal of Culture, Society and Development, 2 , 11-17.

Morin, D., Rivard, M., Crocker, A. G., Boursier, C. P. & Caron, J. (2013). Public attitudes towards intellectual disability. A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57, 279-292.

Norwegian Agency for Cooperation [NORAD]. (2021). The bedrock of inclusion: Why investing in the education workforce is critical to the delivery of SDG4 Tanzanian Study.

Nyerere, J. K. (1976). Freedom and Socialism/ Uhuru na Umoja, A Selection from Writings and Speeches, 1965-1967 . Dar-es-Salaam: Oxford University Press.

Possi, M. K. & Milinga, J. R. (2017). Special and Inclusive Education in Tanzania: Reminiscing the Past, Building the Future. Educational Process: International Journal, 6 (4), 55-73.

Romer, V. A. (2004). Attitudes of junior high teachers towards teaching students with learning disabilities in inclusive classes in public schools in New Providence, Bahamas. PhD Thesis. Andrews University.

Schwandt, T. A. & Gates, E. F. (2018). Case study methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th edn.). Melbourne: SAGE.

Slikker, J. (2009). Attitudes towards People with Disabilities in Ghana. Ghana, VSO. Special Education, 20(1), 14-19.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thompson, S. (2017) Education for children with disabilities Institute of Development Studies. Tumbo, J. (2011). Teachers’ Attitudes and Support towards Teaching Pupils with Intellectual Impairment in Tanzania School . Unpublished M.A (ED) dissertation. University of Dar es Salaam.

Tungaraza, F. D. (2015). The arduous march toward inclusive education in Tanzania: Head teachers' and teachers' perspectives. Africa Today, 61(2), 108-123.

URT [United Republic of Tanzania]. (2014). Education and Training Policy . Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Education and Vocational Training-MoEVT.

URT. (2017). National Strategy on Inclusive Education 2018-2021 . Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

URT. (2018). Education Sector Performance Report 2017/18.

UN (2019). Disability and Development Report: Realizing the Sustainable Development Goals by, for and with persons with disabilities

UN (2020) Global Education Monitoring Report 2020-21. Inclusion and education: All means all.

UNESCO (2016). Education 2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all . UNESCO.

Uromi, S. M. & Mazagwa, M. I. (2014). Challenges facing people with disabilities and possible solutions in Tanzania. Journal of Educational Policy and Entrepreneurial Research, 1 (2), 158-165.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study research and Applications: Designs and Methods (6th edn.). Melbourne: Cosmos Corporations.

About the Author

Peter Elisha Mwamwaja is a Lecturer at the Catholic University College of Mbeya, a Constituent College of Saint Augustine University of Tanzania. He holds a Bachelor of Education (Psychology) and Master of Arts in Education from University of Dar es Salaam and PhD (Education) from the Open University of Tanzania. He has teaching experiences at primary, secondary, teachers’ colleges and universities in Tanzania. He teaches courses in foundations of education, inclusive education, educational psychology and counselling. He has researched widely in the field of special needs education especially for learners with autism and intellectual impairment in Tanzani.

Does Accountability Make a Difference? An Analysis of State Performance Plans and Educational Environments

Michelle Powers, Ed.D Augustana University

Abstract

Accountability oversight for implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) is the responsibility of the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). To assess the level of IDEA compliance and performance, states annually report to OSEP on 20 indicators. Selected indicators are used to make status determinations. Educational environments for students with disabilities is an indicator in this accountability system, but these results are not included in decision-making. This study analyzed targets and results for educational environments for ten states “meeting requirements” according to OSEP, to identify the effect of setting targets over time. Results identified a disconnect between outcomes observed and the designation of “meeting” or “not” meeting targets for educational placements across states. Researchers observed a lack of rigor, progress, and even backwards movement in some states, despite receiving a designation of “meeting the requirements” of IDEA by OSEP for five years in a row.

Keywords: least restrictive environment, accountability, special education

Does Accountability Make a Difference? An Analysis of State Performance

Plans and Educational Environments

The federal Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is charged with enforcement and compliance monitoring of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). This law is designed to ensure all students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). OSEP accomplishes compliance monitoring through its results-driven accountability (RDA) system (Delisle, 2014). The RDA process is multi-faceted approach to oversight of state implementation of IDEA, combining long range planning for improvement and data on outcomes to drive the level of monitoring and support each state requires from OSEP (2023a). Within this system of accountability, OSEP requires each state to develop a state performance plan (SPP) once every six years. This SPP addresses current performance related to general supervision, technical assistance, professional development, parental engagement, public input, and reporting (OSEP, 2023a). Annually, states submit a comprehensive report of their performance to OSEP for review. This annual performance report (APR) is used in the issuance of annual determinations related to states efforts in meeting IDEA requirements and decisions related to the intensity and type of oversight OSEP will employ in each state (OSEP, 2023a).

State Performance Plans

A core component of the RDA and SPP/APR is the development of benchmark or targets for 20

special education indicators. The indicators measured in the SPP/APR are comprised of outcomes such as the participation and performance of students with disabilities on academic measures, student dropout rates, parental involvement and child find (OSEP, 2023b). Upon submission, each state APR is reviewed and issued a letter of determination from OSEP, which identifies the status of the state. The Department of Education makes their determination by applying a results matrix against state data on selected indicators in combination with other factors such as the timeliness and accuracy of data, timeliness of complaint and due process decisions and longstanding noncompliance (OSEP, 2023b).

Based on the states matrix results, OSEP identifies states in one of four categories: meets requirements and purposes of IDEA, needs assistance in implementing the requirements of the IDEA, needs intervention in implementing the requirements of the IDEA or needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA (OSEP, 2023b). As the amount of intervention need increases, the level of support and intervention provided by OSEP increases.

Of the 20 indicators, six are applied to the Compliance Matrix as part of the determination process. These include:

 Indicator 4b, the percent of local education agencies (LEAs) with significant discrepancy by race/ethnicity;

 Indicator 9, the percent of districts with disproportionate representation of race/ethnic groups due to inappropriate identification;

 Indicator 10, the percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups in a specific disability category due to inappropriate identification;

 Indicator 11, the percent of children evaluated within 60 days of parental consent or state timeframe;

 Indicator 12, the percent of children found Part B eligible with IEP implemented by third birthday; and

 Indicator 13, the percent of youth ages 16+ with measurable, annually updated IEP goals and appropriate transition assessment, services, and courses (Idea Data Center [IDC], 2020; OSEP, 2023a).

Additionally, participation and performance results from the National Assessment of Academic Progress (NAEP) in combination with drop out and graduation data on students with disabilities comprises the Results Matrix portion of the determination process. The Compliance and Results Matrix are combined to calculate each states percentage and ultimately, their RDA determination (OSEP, 2023b).

One indicator not included in making state determinations is Indicator 5. This indicator measures data on educational environments for school age students with disabilities. States are required to report the percent of children, ages 5 and enrolled in kindergarten and ages 6-21 receiving special education (A) inside regular class 80% or more of the day; (B) inside regular class less than 40% of the day and (C) in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements (IDC, 2020). Within the performance indicator itself and the SPP, states are expected

to establish rigorous targets for growth over time. These targets are measured by states annually and reported in the state performance plan.

Least Restrictive Environment

The very roots of IDEA and the least restrictive environments (LRE) can be found within the historical context that gave birth to the special education law. Families fought for the right of their children to be educated in public schools alongside their peers ( Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizen [PARC] v. Commonwealth, 1972; Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 1972). The fledgling Education for All the Handicapped Act (EHA, 1975) opened the door to the expectation of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for all children in need of special education. In 1997, the reauthorized and renamed law, now IDEA, further emphasized the least restrictive environment requirements by requiring all students in special education to have access to the general curriculum (IDEA, 1997). A subsequent reauthorization of IDEA, renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, added more accountability combined with language targeting improved educational results for students with disabilities (2004).

As the law has evolved, research in support of educational placements in the regular classroom for students with disabilities has emerged. In a longitudinal study of students with disabilities, researchers followed a group of students from third to eighth grade (Cole et al., 2020). This study observed students included in the regular classroom setting outperformed similar counterparts placed in more restrictive settings, in both English/Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics. In similar studies, the academic and behavioral skills of statistically similar groups of students on the autism spectrum were compared and consistently found more academic gains being made, fewer behavioral concerns occurring and higher social skill development in those students placed in the regular classroom compared to those in more restrictive settings (Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2010; Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2012; Lauderdale-Litton et al., 2013; Sansosti & Sansosti, 2012). Mansouri et al. (2022) also identified greater gains in academic and social skills for students with extensive service needs (ENS) when placed in the regular classroom with same-age peers.

Despite the evidence of the effectiveness of the regular classroom for students with disabilities, students with more ENS continue to be placed in more segregated settings (Morningstar & Kurth, 2016; Morningstar et al., 2017, Wehmeyer et al., 2021). Morningstar et al. (2017) in particular, observed that students with learning disabilities were much more likely to be educated in the regular classroom, as compared with students with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (I/DD). Additionally, the 43rd Annual Report to Congress also reported a continued reliance on the most segregated settings for students with more extensive service needs (OSEP, 2022c).

Rationale for the Study

While states dutifully set targets for LRE and report APR data each year, OSEP currently does not apply the educational environment data to any element of compliance determinations for IDEA (OSEP, 2023b). The exclusion of educational environment data from the RDA process

raises questions as to whether states identified as “meeting requirements” of IDEA are making strides towards greater inclusion of students with disabilities in the regular classroom and relying less on segregated settings. This absence also has implications for the authentic interpretation of ensuring states are, in effect, "meeting requirements" under IDEA when the only accountability system in place does not use reported data on LRE. The impact of the federal special education accountability system on educational environments has garnered limited exploration as a topic within the field of special education policy. This lack of attention supports further consideration of the influence of accountability measures on educational placements made under IDEA.

Analysis spanning five years of state APR educational environment targets and data was conducted to construct a better understanding of states’ efforts in meeting IDEA least restrictive environment requirements. Additionally, this study sought to observe the differences in targets and changes within state selected targets over time, as well as whether annually reporting data had any influence on the educational environments for students with disabilities. Marks et al. (2013) noted the potential power of federal policy to influence change; but we wondered if the simple act of setting targets and reporting outcomes could result in sustained changes over time on actual placement decisions made for students with disabilities.

The research questions were:

1. What change can be observed in educational environment targets reported from Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2017 to FFY 2021?

2. What change can be observed in actual educational environment data from FFY 2017 to FFY 2021?

3. What is the result of setting targets and measuring progress on educational environment placement rates for students with disabilities from FFY 2017 to FFY 2021?

Method

Data Sources

Each state educational agency (SEA) submits an annual performance report to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (2022a). These publicly available reports provided the educational environment targets and data reported by each state, which were used in this study. Annually, OSEP issues letters of determination based on the matrix applied for RDA and their federal agency website provides a compilation of states results in terms of meeting requirements of IDEA. This compilation of each state education agency status in meeting requirements was gathered from FFY 2017 through FFY 2021, representing the most recent publicly available results available at the time the study was conducted (2022b). It is important to note each federal fiscal year begins in October, with state performance plan data stemming from the December 1 child count which preceded the FFY, making the data approximately two years old by the time it is reported to OSEP (Congressional Budget Office, 2021).

Procedures

For this study, a review of state determinations was conducted to identify the states selected for

the study. Selection of states was based on data gathered from the OSEP letters of determination for each year in the study (OSEP, 2022b). Analysis of state data was framed around those states identified in the accountability system as “meeting requirements” to eliminate states with more significant compliance issues. By removing states with identified IDEA deficiencies, the study focused on states which OSEP had deemed to be meeting the purpose and regulations of federal special education law.

The researchers identified states which “met requirements” in each year, from FFY 2017 to FFY 2021. States which maintained this status across the five years of publicly available SPP reports were included in the study. This resulted in ten states identified as meeting IDEA requirements between FFY 2017 and FFY 2021. These states were: Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. These ten states provided all Indicator 5 data used in the study.

Data

Annual performance report educational environment data for each of the ten states was harvested and compiled into Excel spreadsheets. This placement data was comprised of targets for and results of the percent of children, ages 5 and enrolled in kindergarten and ages 6-21, receiving services in educational environments including: (A) inside regular class 80% or more of the day; (B) inside regular class less than 40% of the day and (C) in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements (IDC, 2020, OSEP, 2022a). These three indicators reflect where students were physically located to receive special education services and are progressively more restrictive from the regular classroom to separate schools, residential facilities, and homebound/hospital settings. In addition to this data, the state outcome for each established target in the three educational environment areas was gathered for the ten states (OSEP, 2022a) in terms of “meeting” or “not meeting” the target set for that year.

Analysis

To understand the frequency and consistency occurring in the state-selected targets, a frequency distribution was applied to the targets and actual results for each set of Indicator 5 data. Frequency distributions for the indicator 5A, 5B and 5C were calculated using Excel for educational environment targets and actual SPP results from FFY 2017 to FFY 2021 (ex. = FREQUENCY(C2:C51,W4:W9). Histograms based on frequency results of both targets and actual SPP data were developed to visualize and compare sets for each of the three educational environments. These charts were analyzed for skewness, range, and outliers.

A formula was applied in Excel to determine change over time, by taking the difference between the initial rate and the end rate of each target set and each actual data set. The difference was then divided by the initial rate of the original state target and the starting percentage of student with disabilities in each of the 3 educational environments from FFY 2017. These results were multiplied by 100 to convert to percentages. Data was collected and distributed from smallest to largest amounts of percentage change over time for each of the educational environment target and actual data sets for each of the ten selected states.

To determine result of setting targets and measuring progress on educational environment placement rates for students with disabilities from FFY 2017 to FFY 2021, researchers gathered target data from the ten identified states performance plans (SPP) for the percentages of students with disabilities in the regular classroom 80% or more of the school day, in the regular classroom 40% or less of the school day and placed in separate schools, residential settings or homebound/hospital placements from FFY 2017 to FFY 2021. The corresponding actual percentage of students with disabilities in each of the three settings was also gathered and presented.

Results

OSEP’s results-driven accountability system requires states to set targets and measure growth across 20 special education indicators. Educational environment data submitted in evidence of LRE requirements is absent from the RDA process. With this gap in oversight, this study sought to identify if states identified as “meeting requirements” of IDEA were making strides towards higher rates of placement in the regular classroom and less reliance on segregated settings for students with disabilities.

Table 1 provides a list of all states identified by OSEP as “meeting regulations” under the RDA system (2022b). Twenty-one states were identified in each year of the study with this designation. Between FFY 2017 to FFY 2021, ten states consistently met requirements according to OSEP. These ten states educational environment results comprised all data analyzed in the study.

Table 1

States meeting IDEA purpose and requirements FFY 2017-FFY 2021

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Alabama Connecticut Arizona Arkansas Florida

Connecticut Georgia Connecticut Florida Illinois

Delaware Indiana Florida Georgia Indiana

Iowa Kansas Indiana Illinois Kansas

Kansas Kentucky Kansas Kansas Kentucky

Kentucky Massachusetts Kentucky Kentucky Maine

Massachusetts Minnesota Maine Maine Massachusetts

Minnesota Missouri Massachusetts Massachusetts Minnesota

Montana North Carolina Ohio Minnesota Missouri

Nebraska North Dakota Minnesota Missouri Nebraska

New New New

Hampshire Nebraska Missouri Hampshire Hampshire

New Jersey New Hampshire Montana New Jersey New Jersey

North North

Carolina Ohio North Dakota Carolina North Dakota

North Dakota Oklahoma Nebraska North Dakota Oklahoma

Oklahoma Pennsylvania New Jersey Oklahoma Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania South Dakota Pennsylvania Pennsylvania South Dakota

South Dakota Virginia South Dakota South Dakota Tennessee

Tennessee Vermont Virginia Virginia Utah

Virginia Wisconsin West Virginia West Virginia Virginia

Wisconsin West Virginia Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin

Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming

NOTE: IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Frequency Distribution of Educational Environment Targets and Actual Results

Frequency distributions for state targets and actual data results from FFY 2017 to FFY 2021 were calculated for each category of Indicator 5 and are provided in Figures 1, 2 and 3. This distribution data captures how often each of the 10 states set a specific target for educational placements for students placed in the regular classroom 80% or more of their school day, students placed in the regular classroom less than 40% of their school day, and students placed in separate schools, residential programs, and home/hospital settings. It also provides the frequency of actual educational environments realized by the states in the study. Each bar on the respective figures provides the aggregate number of states which fell into the grouping of either targets set or actual data results.

Figure 1. Frequency of targets and actual data for students placed inside the regular classroom 80% or more of the school day between FFY 2017 to FFY 2021

Frequency Distribution for Indicator 5A

For students placed in the regular classroom 80% or more of the school day, Figure 1 indicates targets set by states were between the percentages of 60% and 69%, with only Kentucky and North Dakota setting targets above 70%. Kentucky maintained a target of 71.8% over the 5-year time span, while North Dakota targets ranged from 75.2% to 77.5%. Placement data reflected most states placed 60% to 70% of their students in the regular classroom 80% of the time, however some states placed students at a higher rate of 70% to 75%. The highest percentage achieved in this indicator overall was 73.93% in 2021 by Kentucky.

Frequency Distribution for Indicator 5B

Figure 2 frequency distribution shows a range of targets set for decreasing the number of students placed outside the regular classroom 40% or more of the school day. Targets ranged from 4.75% (North Dakota) to 14.5% (Massachusetts). Most states targets were set between 6% and 9% for students placed outside the regular classroom 40% of the day or more. Placement data reflected many states were placing students outside the regular classroom between 6% and 11% of the time. Across the ten states, Massachusetts set the highest targets, averaging 14.38% from FFY 2017 to FFY 2021, while reporting student placement in this setting consistently at 13% or higher.

Figure 2. Frequency of targets and actual data for students placed inside the regular classroom 40% or less of the school day between FFY 2017 to FFY 2021

Frequency Distribution for Indicator 5C

Figure 3 shows Indicator 5C frequency distributions demonstrated greater variability than Indicators 5A and 5B. While the state projected targets ranged from 0.95% (Wisconsin) to 5.5% (Massachusetts) for students placed in separate settings, residential programs, and homebound/hospital settings, most state targets were between 1% and 2.5%. Actual SPP state placement data reflected most states are placing between 1% and 2.5% of students with disabilities in these environments. Three states, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, reported between 4% and 5.5% percent of their students in placements outside the regular school setting. Massachusetts again presented as an outlier, with a target average of 5.44% of all students with disabilities placed in these segregated settings and a placement average of 6.7%.

Figure 3. Frequency of targets and actual data for students placed in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital settings between FFY 2017 to FFY 2021

Changes in Targets Over Time

The amount of change in targets and actual data results for each of the ten states is shown in Table 2. This information reflects a range of gains and losses in each of the three educational environments. States with a negative percentage under Indicator 5A and/or a positive percentage under Indicators 5B and 5C had backward movement on the targets and/or results.

Table 2

Percent of change across education environment targets and actual data from FFY 2017 to FFY 2021

Note: 5A= percentage of students in regular classroom 80% or more of the school day, 5B= percentage of students in the regular classroom 40% or less of the school day, 5C= percentage of students in separate schools, residential programs, or homebound/hospital settings.

Change in Targets over Time for Indicator 5A

Table 2 reflects all ten states Indicator 5A targets increased over the span of five years, except for Kentucky, which maintained a target of 71.8% as their goal for the percentage of students with disabilities placed in the regular classroom 80% or more of the school day. The amount of change for states with a projected increase ranged from 0.82% (Massachusetts) to Wisconsin (7.36%).

The overall percentage of students placed in the regular classroom 80% or more of the day decreased between FFY 2017 and FFY 2021 for two states (North Dakota, Pennsylvania). Increases ranging in 0.23% (Kentucky) to 13.08% (Wyoming) were noted for the remaining eight states.

Change in Targets over Time for Indicator 5B

Seven states projected targets for indicator 5B to decrease the percentage of students placed in the regular classroom 40% or more of the school day. Table 2 provides the change over time for these targets which ranged from 0.0% (Kentucky) to -20% (Virginia). Minnesota (9.5% target), Kentucky (8.7% target) and South Dakota (6% target) did not adjust their state target for 5B during the time span of FFY 2017 to FFY 2021.

SPP reported data for Indicator 5B reflects 4 states with an increase in the percentage of students placed outside the regular classroom 40% or more of the school day (Kansas, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and North Dakota). A decrease in the percentage of students placed outside the regular classroom 40% or more of the school day was observed in 6 states with decreases in actual percentages ranged from -17.94% (Virginia) to -1.59% (Minnesota).

Change in Targets over Time for Indicator 5C

Three states did not project a reduction in their state percentage of students placed in separate schools, residential programs or in homebound/hospital settings. Kentucky (1.9% target), Minnesota (4% target) and Pennsylvania (4.6% target) maintained their Indicator 5C goals from FFY 2017 to FFY 2021. For the other seven states, a wide range of targets was observed in this indicator, with North Dakota projecting a reduction of -46% while Massachusetts projected a decrease of 1.82% over the five years of SPP reporting. Wyoming increased their target for Indicator 5C by 49.2%, representing a jump from 1.34% to 2% in their target goal.

Actual changes in the percentage of student placed in the most restrictive settings under IDEA ranged from a decrease of -16% (Wyoming) to an increase of 8.41% (Virginia). 3 other states also showed an increase, including Kansas (0.45%), Minnesota (1.45%) and Kentucky (8.33%). In total, six states decreased the percentage of students in segregated settings between 2017 and 2021.

Educational Environment Targets, Data and Status Results

Table 3 displays the targets set for educational environments and APR data reported from each state SPP/APR from FFY 2017 to FFY 2021. The results are broken down, showing the sets of

targets and the actual data results for each federal fiscal year and by each educational environment: the percentages of students with disabilities in (5A) the regular classroom 80% or more of the school day, in the regular classroom, (5B) 40% or less of the school day and (5C) placed in separate schools, residential settings or homebound/hospital placements.

Results for Indicator 5A

As shown in Table 3, for students placed in the regular classroom 80% or more of the school day, five states reported meeting their targets across all 5 years of SPP reporting: Kentucky, Massachusetts, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Kansas met 4 years of SPP targets for this indicator but reported no data in FFY 2021. Conversely, between FFY 2017 and FFY 2021 Minnesota and Virginia did not achieve or meet their state-established targets in any year. Pennsylvania did not meet goals set between FFY 2017 and FFY 2020 but did not submit any data for this indicator in FFY 2021. North Dakota met their target goal in FFY 2017 but did not meet any other SPP targets set in federal fiscal years 2018 through 2021.

Table 3

SPP educational environment targets, actual data, and status for each state from FFY 2017 to FFY 2021

Note: S= status, * = no target reported, **= no status determination, SPP= state performance plan, Met = state met target, DNM= state did not meet target, 5A= percentage of students in regular classroom 80% or more of the school day, 5B= percentage of students in the regular classroom 40% or less of the school day, 5C= percentage of students in separate schools, residential programs, or homebound/hospital settings.

Results for Indicator 5B

For students placed in the regular classroom 40% or less of the school day, four states met their targets consistently for the 5 years of SPP reporting in study: Kentucky, Massachusetts, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Kansas met 4 years of SPP targets but reported no data in FFY 2021. Minnesota, North Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin consistently failed to meet their target for students in this environment from FFY 2017 to FFY 2021. Table 3 shows Pennsylvania did not meet goals set between FFY 2017 and FFY 2020 but did not submit any data for this indicator in FFY 2021.

Results for Indicator 5C

As seen in Table 3. Kentucky and South Dakota were the only states which met their state target for the percentage of students placed in separate schools, residential programs, and homebound/hospital settings. As with the other indicators, Kansas had met their targets set between FFY 2017 and FFY 2020 but did not provide any FFY 2021 data. North Dakota met the targets from FFY 2017 to FFY 2019 but did not meet their targets for FFY 2020 or FFY 2021 for this indicator. Massachusetts, Minnesota, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming did not meet any of their state-set targets for this indicator across the five years of data collected.

Analysis

The results of state performance in meeting their own targets for educational environments could be classified as underwhelming. Of the ten states analyzed, only 2 states, Kentucky and South Dakota were identified as meeting or exceeding their targets set each year between FFY 2017 to FFY 2021. These results lack authenticity, however, as both states set performance targets which were meeting or exceeding their current percentage rates for Indicator 5A and below their current percentage rates for Indicators 5B and 5C. Furthermore, Kentucky data for performance in Indicators 5B and 5C show the state percentage of students spending time outside the regular classroom and in segregated settings increased from FFY 2017 to FFY 2021, even as they reported meeting their targets for educational environments. Three of the ten states, Minnesota, Virginia, and Pennsylvania did not meet any of their targets set for educational environments. These states, however, had set targets which showed potential for improvement in the percentages rates of students in each of the educational environments.

While these three states did not meet their targets, SPP reports show each state made gains. Minnesota and Virginia increased the percentage of students with disabilities in the regular classroom 80% or more of the school day and reduced the percentage spending 40% or less of the school day in the regular classroom in at least one or more of the educational environments. Pennsylvania reduced their number of students educated in separate schools, residential programs, and homebound/hospital settings.

Over the five years spent setting and measuring performance targets for the three educational environments, the majority of the ten states did show progress in increasing the percentage of students with disabilities placed in the regular classroom for most of the school day (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023; OSEP, 2022a), States such as Wyoming and Wisconsin moved a significant number of students into this educational environment, with starting percentages already above a number of other states in the study. Other states made minimal gains or even moved backwards in their efforts to increase the number of students in the regular classroom. Kentucky, as one example, maintained the same target from FFY 2017 to FFY 2021, and their actual percentage increase was only 0.23%. North Dakota and Pennsylvania did adjust their targets for Indicator 5A over the five years, but still ended up in the negative in terms of gains for the percent of students with disabilities in the regular classroom.

A reduction in students served in the regular classroom for 40% or less of the school day (Indicator 5B) does not automatically equate to an increase in student with disabilities placed in the regular classroom (Indicator 5A) nor does it prove there was an increase in students placed in separate schools, residential programs, or home/hospital settings (Indicator 5C). The potential for movement up and down the continuum of placements is a possibility and complicates drawing conclusions on the data for Indicators 5B and 5C. Kansas and Kentucky increased the percent of students in both educational environment categories, while Massachusetts, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming decreased their percentages in both. North Dakota and Pennsylvania increased students who receive their services outside the regular classroom 40% of the day,

while decreasing the percent of students placed in separate schools, residential programs, and homebound/hospital settings. Minnesota and Virginia had the inverse occur; the percent of students reported as spending less than 40% of their day outside the regular classroom decreased while percentage of students placed in the most restrictive settings increased.

In summary, the analysis of SPP/APR data appears to show improvement in students reported as spending 80% or more of their day in the regular classroom and decreasing the number of students in segregated classrooms and settings. This conclusion must be tempered with the knowledge of minimal or backwards movement on targets set over a period of five years by numerous states which are “meeting expectations”, as well as a lack of clarity for which students are experiencing movement or a lack of movement across the continuum. Ultimately, designations of “meeting” or “not” meeting targets appear to have little connection to the actual result each state is experiencing.

Discussion

Misra (2006) conducted an analysis of state performance on LRE in 2006. They determined state efforts in professional development and other activities targeting educational environments had minimal effect on increasing the rate of students with disabilities in the regular classroom or reducing reliance on more segregated settings. Kozleski (2020) pulled no punches in labeling the progress made since the inception of IDEA as “grim” (p. 346) and discussed the lack of congruence between research, practice, and policy. She urged the contemplation of what is meant by “inclusion” and whether simple percentages of the time spent in or outside the regular classroom provided anything more than protecting “the status quo” (p. 348).

In 2006, Kurth et al. (2016) found the targets set by states were lacking in rigor related to improving statistics of the educational placements specific to students with low-incidence disabilities, noting students with more significant needs were disproportionally placed in the most restrictive settings. Our study further supported a lack of rigor when analyzing states “meeting expectations” according to OSEP. In their work, Kurth et al. (2016) also observed the lack of inclusion for data collected under Indicator 5 as a compliance measure. A review of placement data from 1992 to 2015, conducted by Wehmeyer et al. (2020), revealed minimal change in the placement of students with intellectual/developmental disabilities (I/DD) in the regular education setting. While viewing the current situation with concern, these researchers leaned heaving on the potential influence of the 2018 Supreme Court ruling on Endrew F. (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District ) as having the highest potential to impact where students with disabilities are educated (Wehmeyer et al., 2020). This remains to be observed.

Beliefs and Biases

As a federal entity, the limitations and impact of the RDA accountability system are highly dependent upon the engagement of the state level agency (SEA) and its stakeholders (Hickman, 2022). Research supports many of the stakeholders (parents, teachers, administrators) believe restrictive settings provide more effective instruction and are safer than the general classroom;

however, these beliefs are unsupported by research (Causton-Theoharis et al, 2011; Gee, 202; Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2012). As Causton-Theoharis et al. (2011) noted, much the opposite is true, with poorly designed systems of instruction, and interventions reliant on isolation and threats which induced more negative behaviors.

Turnbull and Turnbull (2020) found administrators limited special education knowledge consistently contributed to the selection of more restrictive settings. Principals and superintendents wield significant influence in decisions made related to placements, including the physical design of learning spaces, hiring of staff, job descriptions, and overall philosophy of the school and/or district (Gee, 2020). Additionally, flawed policy interpretations may lead to biased beliefs about the curriculum and where students are “supposed to be” [emphasis added] (Ryndak et al, 2014). Institutionalized biases about the competency of students with disabilities to participate in the general curriculum further influences decision-making in the IEP process (Agran et al., 2020; Gee, 2020; Karpen, 2018; Shume, 2019). Perceptions of competency become entangled in the decision-making process, resulting in self-perpetuating systems of segregation (White et al., 2007).

Educator beliefs about self-efficacy also impact the selection of educational settings for students with disabilities (Agran et al., 2020; Gee, 2020; Karpen, 2018). If teachers do not have confidence in their ability to provide adequate instruction, they are unlikely to support more inclusive educational environments for students (Ruppar et al., 2020). They urged an emphasis on teacher education in terms of practical application and problem-solving to aid understanding the roles each educator can play in ensuring access to classrooms for students with and without disabilities. A lack of knowledge on the part of educators and administrators complicates placement selection (Agran et al, 2020; Turnbull & Turnbull, 2020). If these stakeholders believe segregated settings are adequate and effective, demands for change at the local and subsequently, state level are unlikely.

Actionable Steps

The RDA process is not an optional activity; but the depth to which states and local education agencies seek to impact placements in the regular classroom for their students with disabilities is a choice that can be made. When attempting to affect systemic change, the role of the administrators is critical as their influence is pervasive across the school building (Shume, 2019). Their leadership can make or break decisions made about whether a district will prioritize the least restrictive environment for its students with disabilities. In her study of the RDA system, Hickman (2022) observed the importance of leadership in relation to the RDA accountability system, and concluded any successful initiative must come from the local education agency, rather than the state agency. This study also underscored the important of high-quality leadership, vested in accountability, who can take control and drive the process. She observed the tendency of administrators to be spread across many initiatives and responsibilities and urged a more focused approach when tackling large-scale change efforts. Exposure to research through ongoing professional development, which demonstrates the effectiveness of high leverage

practices and solid education outcomes for students with disabilities in inclusive settings, is also needed (Vandercook et al., 2020).

At the federal level, the data currently captures only a portion of the continuum of alternative placements. To grasp the potential ebb and flow of educational placements more fully, the RDA system should be expanded to collect data across all settings. In addition, states and districts should set educational environment targets by disability, race, and gender to identify and address potential disproportionality. The current system of data collection provides a nebulous set of indiscrete data points that fail to allow states and stakeholders to understand the actual students placed in the settings. Having knowledge of the types and severity of disabilities across the educational settings over time would provide real insight into the impact and effectiveness of special education policy.

Incorporation of a growth model analysis could be used as a component of the state performance plan to equalize the amount of change expected over time, and to identify stagnation in state targets. This approach would also provide the lens to view whether states are taking too much leverage in the rigor of their selected targets or dismissing a lack of progress over time. Again, this approach provides more clarity in understanding the true picture of educational environments for students with disabilities.

Elevating the results of Indicator 5 in the RDA to a component of the matrices used for determinations may provide some incentive for elevated attention and activity by states and local school districts. Additionally, expanding the RDA system to study indicator correlational data is recommended. Research supports the strong connection between academic achievement and educational environments for students with disabilities (Agran et al., 2020; Causton-Theoharis et al, 2011; Gee, 2020; Karpen, 2018; Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2010; Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2012; Lauderdale-Litton et al., 2013; Mansouri et al., 2022; Sansosti & Sansosti, 2012), but currently states and school districts are not required to consider the relationship between these factors.

Apart from reframing Indicator 5 as an RDA matrix component indicator, any of these recommendations can be adopted by states if they wish to demonstrate a more assertive approach to the inclusion of students with disabilities in the regular classroom. As the director of OSEP noted in her “Dear Colleague” letter on general supervision responsibilities of IDEA, the state agency holds the ultimate responsibility for implementation of IDEA regulations (Williams, 2023). The letter accompanied an extensive 45-page guidance document on general supervision requirements. In it, Director Williams underscored “each State’s general supervision responsibility to ensure that all school age children, regardless of the nature or severity of their disability, can access FAPE in the least restrictive environment” (Williams, 2023, para. 4). With this directive, the federal agency overseeing IDEA makes clear the responsibility of effective implementation rests squarely on the shoulders of each state. It is up to each SEA to consider their own progress and the action needed to meet these expectations.

Limitations

This study provided a focused look at the trends and results of established targets for education environments for students with disabilities. The analysis concentrated on a small portion of all states, and provides descriptive, rather than causal, evidence. The work done with these ten states is limited to state level self-reported information and accuracy of the data must be considered as a factor in the results. Human error in reporting data, both at the local and state level, has the potential to affect data quality, as well as timeliness of data that is several years old by the time it is available to be analyzed. Additionally, the placements reported may not reflect what is manifesting when services are delivered (Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011). This means a school district may report students are placed in the regular classroom, but actual instruction, if observed, would reveal ongoing isolation resulting in lack of access to peers and critical curriculum.

Recommendations for Future Research

Additional research should consider analysis of state-level demographics, funding mechanisms, and policy guidance which have the potential to be variables influencing the selection of educational environments in each state. Additional study of the educational placement trends observed by disability, gender and race would provide a more informed picture of state and local level decisions. Future research on these findings could also include the amount of movement, or lack of movement occurring between more and less restrictive settings at the student level. White et al. (2007) observed the tendency of students to remain static in their educational placements over time, meaning little change is expected once a student begins school, whether in a segregated setting or a more inclusive regular classroom setting. Identifying the movement of students between educational environments, including grade level comparisons, may provide more insight into the adequacy of targets set by states for growth in students placed in the regular classroom and reduced reliance on the most segregated settings.

Conclusion

The ten states in this study were noted consistently by OSEP as “meeting the requirements” of IDEA. Each state in the current accountability systems sets their own performance goals and OSEP provides no feedback or guidance on the amount of progress, or lack of progress being made towards goals for greater inclusion of students with disabilities into the regular classroom. In announcing the RDA system, Delisle (2014) highlighted the need for an enhanced approach to accountability to better address the ongoing and ever-increasing gap in achievement for students with disabilities. At the time of her remarks, she noted that 60% of students with disabilities were placed in the regular classroom for 80% or more of the school day and 80% of students spent at least 40% of their day with their peers. Delisle (2014) attempted to elevate this data point, however, the current system of accountability leaves assessment of the least restrictive environment to chance (OSEP, 2023b).

The connection between the academic achievement and the regular classroom as the setting which delivers the most impactful instruction cannot be understated (Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2010; Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2012; Lauderdale-Litton et al., 2013; Mansouri et al., 2022;

Sansosti & Sansosti, 2012); however, in the RDA system, OSEP does not make connections between the indicators. With no incentive from the federal agency providing the oversight, states are left to determine whether their performance for placement of students in the LRE is acceptable.

The value of considering whether states “met” or did “not meet” targets for the least restrictive environment established from within each state is limited at best and provokes questions of authenticity about the current accountability system. On paper, it provides assurances states meet the requirements of IDEA, but by allowing states to select and measure their own performance, the act becomes a simple data exercise. A more critical review with actual weight and force of compliance is needed to determine whether states are given too much leverage in the rigor of selected targets, especially when data reveals mostly minimal change and even backwards movement on targets set over a period of five years by states deemed as “meeting requirements” of IDEA.

References

Agran, M., Jackson, L., Kurth, J. A., Ryndak, D., Burnette, K., Jameson, M., Zagona, A., Fitzpatrick, H., & Wehmeyer, M. (2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in regular education classrooms: Examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 4–13.

Causton-Theoharis, J., Theoharis, G., Orsati, F., & Cosier, M. (2011). Does self-contained special education deliver on its promises? A critical inquiry into research and practice. Journal of Special Education Leadership , 24(2), 61–78. Cole, S. M., Murphy, H. R., Frisby, M. B., Grossi, T. A., & Bolte, H. R. (2020). The relationship of Special education placement and student academic outcomes. The Journal of Special Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920925033

Congressional Budget Office. (2021). Common budgetary terms explained. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57660

Delisle, D.S. (2014). Dear colleague letter to Chief State School Officers on Results-driven Accountability (RDA) [letter]. United States Department of Education https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda/050914rda-lette-to-chiefs-final.pdf Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142). (1975). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-89/pdf/STATUTE-89-Pg773.pdf

Hickman, B. J. (2022). The implementation of result driven accountably: A systemic approach for large scale initiative. Journal of Education, 202 (1), 3-14.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (1997). Part 300 (Part B) Assistance to the states for the education of students with disabilities [Regulations]. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ17/html/PLAW-105publ17.htm

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2004). Part 300 (Part B) Assistance to the states for the education of students with disabilities [Regulations]. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b

IDEA Data Center. (2022). Part B FFY 2020-2025 SPP/APR. https://ideadata.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/202010/58103_IDC_LmntdCrds.pdf

Gee, K. (2020). Why indeed? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45 (1), 18–22.

Karpen, S. C. (2018). The social psychology of biased self-assessment. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 82(5), 6299. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe6299

Kurth, J., Born, K. & Love, H. (2016). Ecobehavioral characteristics of self-contained high school classrooms for students with severe cognitive disability. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41 , DOI: 10.1177/1540796916661492

Kurth, J. & Mastergeorge, A.M. (2010). Academics and cognitive profiles of students with autism: implications for classroom practice and placement. International Journal of Special Education, 25, 8– 14.

Kurth, J., & Mastergeorge, A.M. (2012). Impact of setting and instructional context for adolescents with autism. The Journal of Special Education , 46(1), 36–48.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910366480

Kurth, J. A., Morningstar, M. E., & Kozleski, E. B. (2014). The persistence of highly restrictive special education placements for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39 (3), 227–239.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796914555580

Kurth, J., Mastergeorge, A., & Paschall, K. (2016). Economic and demographic factors impacting placement of students with autism. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 51 (1), 3-12.

Kozleski, E. B. (2020). Disrupting what passes as inclusive education: Predicating educational equity on schools designed for all. Educational Forum, 84(4), 340–355.

Lauderdale-Litten, S., Howell, E. & Blacher, J. (2013). Educational placements for children with autism spectrum disorders in public and non-public school settings: The impact of social skills and behavior problems. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48(4), 469 – 478.

Mansouri, M. C., Kurth, J. A., Lockman Turner, E., Zimmerman, K. N., & Frick, T. A. (2022). Comparison of academic and social outcomes of students with extensive support needs across placements. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 47 (2), 111–129. https://doi-org.augie.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/15407969221101792E

Marks, S., Kurth, J. & Pirtle, J. (2013). The effect of “measurable and rigorous” state performance goals for addressing “Free and Appropriate Public Education Within the Least Restrictive Environment ”. Inclusion. 1 . 209-217. 10.1352/2326-6988-1.3.209.

Misra, S. (2006). SLIIDEA: Placing and serving children with disabilities in the LRE. inForum. In Project Forum. Project Forum. https://www.nasdse.org/project_forum.php

Morningstar, M. E., & Kurth, J. A. (2016, April 8-12). Examining the past decade of education settings for students with significant disabilities. AERA, Washington, D.C.

Morningstar, M. E., Kurth, J. A., & Johnson, P. E. (2017). Examining national trends in educational placements for students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516678327

Mills v. Board of Education of Dist. of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ?

National Center for Education Statistics (2023). Fast facts: Inclusion of students with disabilities. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens [PARC] v. Commonwealth of Pa., 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972), ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13899614143166836081&q=Pennsylvania+ Ass%27n,+Ret%27d+Child.+v.+Commonwealth+of+Pa.,+343+F.+Supp.+279+&hl=en& as_sdt=803 (Accessed June 14, 2022).

Ryndak, D. L., Taub, D., Jorgensen, C. M., Gonsier-Gerdin, J., Arndt, K., Sauer, J., Ruppar, A. L., Morningstar, M. E., & Allcock, H. (2014). Policy and the Impact on Placement, Involvement, and Progress in General Education: Critical Issues That Require Rectification. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39( 1), 65–74. https://doi-org.augie.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/1540796914533942

Ruppar, A. L., Knight, V. F., McQueston, J. A., & Jeglum, S. R. (2020). Involvement and progress in the general curriculum: A grounded theory of the process. Remedial and Special Education, 41(3), 152–164.

Sansosti, J. M., & Sansosti, F. J. (2012). Inclusion for students with high functioning autism spectrum disorders: Definitions and decision making. Psychology in the Schools, 49 (10), 917–931. https://doi. org/10.1002/pits.

Shume, T.M. (2020). Conceptualizing disability: A critical discourse analysis of a teacher education textbook. International Journal of Education, DOI:10.1080/13603116.2020.1839796

Turnbull, A., & Turnbull, R. (2020). Rights, wrongs, and remedies for inclusive education for students with significant support needs: Professional development, research, and policy reform. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45 (1), 56–62.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2022a). State performance plans/Annual performance reports (SPP/APR). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/spp-apr/

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2022b). State determination letters of state implementation of IDEA. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/determination-letters-onstate-implementation-of-idea/

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2022c). 43rd Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2021 [Report]. Washington, D.C. 2022.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2023a). State monitoring and support. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/state-monitoring-support/#DMS

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2023b). How the department made determinations [Letter]. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/how-the-department-made-determinations-part-b2022.pdf

Vandercook, T., Taub, D., Loiselle, T., & Shopa, A. (2020). Why students with severe disabilities are not being placed in regular education classrooms: Using the frame of a basic change model to expand the discussion. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 63–68.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K. A., & Kurth, J. (2020). The state of inclusion with students with intellectual and developmental dis/abilities in the United States. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Dis/Abilities, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12332

White, S. W., Scahill, L., Klin, A., Koenig, K., & Volkmar, F. R. (2007). Educational placements and service use patterns of individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37 , 1403–1412.

Williams, V. (2023). Dear Colleague: General Supervision Responsibilities. Office of Special Education Programs. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/dear-colleague-letter-generalsupervision-responsibilities-july-24-2023/

About the Author

Michelle Powers, Ed.D., has over 30 years’ experience in the field of special education policy as a former state and local special education director, and taught special education law, methods, process, and procedures as an assistant professor at Augustana University. Currently, she is the chief executive officer for Northern Hills Training Center, in Spearfish, South Dakota.

Environmental Sensory Accommodations for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): A Scoping

Review

Maggie Carey, MPH

Chelse Spinner, MPH, CPH

Julia VanderMolen, Ph.D CHES

Grand Valley State University

Abstract

The obstacles individuals with autism face in public spaces differ and are difficult to predict, so navigating public spaces may be an arduous task. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagram was used to conduct a scoping review to systematically map and analyze articles on the leading practice of providing sensory-friendly environments and identify gaps in the research on grocery store-specific environments for individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Ten articles were included in the final analysis, six from electronic databases and four from journals. Five articles focused on a school or work environment and five focused on community environments and community participation. Articles revealed that accommodations were beneficial and generated positive outcomes for those with ASD. More research should be aimed at addressing programs in grocery store-specific environments to support the benefits of sensory accommodations for individuals with autism and families.

Keywords: Autism Spectrum Disorder; built environment; sensory; accommodations

Environmental Sensory Accommodations for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): A Scoping Review

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – 5 (DSM-5), autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a dynamic neurodevelopmental disorder marked by chronic deficiencies in social communication and interaction and stereotyped attitudes, desires, and activities (De et al., 2021; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). With diagnoses rising globally (Baio et al., 2018), researchers have placed increasing importance on identifying best interventions and practices for improving the quality of life (QoL) for individuals diagnosed with ASD. Since autism is a spectrum disorder, the obstacles that individuals with autism face when trying to enter public spaces differ and are difficult to predict. Moreover, navigating public spaces can present sensory sensitivity and social issues for individuals with ASD. Individuals with autism have a literal understanding of language, and the unwritten rules of what ‘can’ and ‘cannot’ can be challenging to understand (De et al., 2021). Environments can also introduce new stimuli that can be overwhelming to individuals with autism. So, navigating public spaces may be difficult for some individuals with ASD due to those social and sensory differences.

Sensory Sensitivity

Sensory issues are common in individuals with autism and are even included in the diagnostic

criteria for ASD. Everyone with autism is unique, as are the sensory processing challenges of the individual. Individuals with autism can experience both hypersensitivity (over-responsiveness) and hyposensitivity (under-responsiveness) to a wide range of stimuli within the environment, with most individuals having a combination of both (Ghazali et al., 2019). Individuals with ASD can experience hypersensitivity to bright lights or specific light wavelengths (LED or fluorescent lights), and certain sounds, smells, textures, and tastes can be overwhelming (Autism Speaks, n.d.). Individuals with ASD can experience hyposensitivity by seeking stimulation for their senses, such as making loud noises, rocking back and forth, or touching various objects and items within an environment (Autism Speaks, n.d.).

Sensory Design and Accessible Spaces

Accessible, well-designed, and maintained public space is critical to the health of any city. Sensory-friendly spaces provide low-input environments and accommodations to promote engagement in social activities for those with sensory sensitivities (Hanna et al., 2019). There continues to be an increase in sensory-friendly locations, times and days, for those who cannot self-regulate from the stress produced by noises, lights, and social and language expectations in environmental settings (Shrikant, 2018; Spohn, 2022). However, public spaces, like grocery stores, are generally created for an individual without a disability or limitation. Public space belongs to all and is a right for every citizen. Nevertheless, people with a disability, who are societal stakeholders, are often excluded from this right (De et al., 2021).

Grocery stores are an area where accessibility is crucial. Grocery stores also contain many hypersensitive elements such as loud noises, bright lights (LED or fluorescent), heavy smells, and various textures. Shopping at a grocery store is an everyday community activity reported and rated as important by individuals with autism (Shea et al., 2021). Those on the spectrum require additional time and support to complete grocery shopping (Hwang et al., 2022). These findings have opened a new avenue for research on sensory accommodations and solutions within grocery stores for individuals with ASD and their families.

Grocery Stores and Quiet Hours

The National Autistic Society (2021), a charity based in the United Kingdom, provides detailed information about “autism hour” (or a Quiet Hour) within a grocery store setting. A Quiet Hour within a grocery store works with people with autism, their caregivers, and professional providers in this field. The National Autistic Society (2021) explains why a Quiet Hour is important and its positive impact on individuals and families that struggle with autism by asking many who have been affected. A Quiet Hour is an effort that falls within some of the solutions of a social model of disability. Yeginsu (2018) describes a Quiet Hour at Morrison’s, a supermarket chain in the United Kingdom. Morrison’s is the first major chain to institute this initiative. The chain implemented the guidelines of the National Autistic Society in all of the store’s 500 locations every Saturday morning from 9-10 am. Yeginsu (2018) explains how a Quiet Hour at Morrison’s includes dimming the lights, turning off checkout sounds, and not using the PA sound system. All this is done to make the grocery more approachable for those with autism.

Additionally, grocers in Australia have instituted a Quiet Hour for individuals with ASD. Chung

(2018) details how Coles Supermarkets, located in Australia, created a Quiet Hour. The main features of the Quiet Hour are similar to those of Morrison’s.

Chung (2018) further explains that “during Quiet Hour, lighting is reduced, Coles Radio is switched off, register and scanning volume reduced to the lowest level, and PA announcements are stopped except in emergencies. Trolley collections are also paused and roll cages removed from the shop floor, while additional customer service staff are available and free fruit is offered” (Chung 2018, para 14).

De et al. (2021) implemented “An Initiative to Make Shopping Hassle Free for Individuals with ASD Steps Towards Sustainable Development” in 2020 that used United Nations Development Programs to address inequality in shopping centers in India. It was found that implementing reasonable accommodations resulted in ASD shoppers feeling more seen and welcomed in their environment. Moreover, the program successfully removed barriers and made the daily living act of shopping more inclusive and accessible for individuals with ASD. The idea of Quiet Hours in supermarkets is a progressive and positive step toward better serving a population and promoting a more inclusive environment (Leary, 2017). The built environment touches all aspects of our lives and can be described as the man-made or modified structures that provide people with living, working, and recreational spaces (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2023). Though progress toward a more inclusive built environment is recognized, most environments are not sensory-friendly and lack inclusivity for those with ASD.

This gap has opened a new area of research looking at the built environment and sensoryfriendly environments. A scoping review was conducted to map, analyze, and systematically research articles on the leading practice of providing sensory-friendly environments and identify any gaps in the research or knowledge on grocery store-specific environments for individuals with ASD.

Research Question

Research Question 1: What are the leading practices of sensory-friendly environments?

Research Question 2: What are the gaps in the research on grocery store-specific environments for individuals with ASD?

Methods

Study design and protocol

A scoping review method was used to identify gaps in the research (Pham et al., 2014). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) were used when reporting results (Tricco, 2018). The steps are the following: (i) the literature searching, (ii) the selection of studies according to defined eligibility criteria (reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA) flowchart), and (iii) the extraction and synthesis of data.

Information Sources and Search Strategy

Searches were conducted from January 2023 up to March 2023. Articles or papers published from 2017 to 2023 were included. The search strategy was determined by following the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018). A preliminary search of two electronic databases, Applied Social Science Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) and Linguistics and Language Behavior provided the initial articles. Once the two primary databases were searched, two researchers searched the following electronic databases, PsychInfo, Social Sciences Full Text, Web of Science, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and ERIC. The search strategy consisted of a set of keywords strictly related to the research question combined with Boolean operators are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Search settings.

Search Topic

Search Term

Built environment built environment, friendly environments

Autism Spectrum Disorder autism spectrum disorder, autism; autistic

Sensory sensory, sensory friendly

Additionally, two researchers hand searched the following journals for articles meeting the inclusion criteria, Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders , Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , Autism Research and Treatment , and Good Autism Practice (GAP).

After articles were gathered for review, the authors went back and completed a hand search of references from included articles to yield more potential articles for inclusion.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies referred to the general population of people with ASD without any limitation in the age and the severity within the spectrum. The researchers included studies reporting and describing outcomes for designing a sensory-friendly built environment. The primary outcome variable of interest for the studies included was a sensory accommodation effort or program to provide an inclusive environment for individuals with ASD. Thus, for inclusion, the study had to contain a sensory accommodation implemented to address barriers in the built environment for individuals with ASD. Only papers published in peer-reviewed English language journals between 2017 and 2023 were included in this review. Papers being selected between the years 2017 and 2023 was decided due to that range representing when research would be most meaningful and relevant to the subject of study (Falconer, 2017). Inclusion and exclusion criteria have been defined according to the research question and are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2

Eligibility criteria.

Inclusion Criteria

The papers are peer-reviewed studies and review articles

The studies outcomes are built environments, design autism-friendly environments, and sensory environments.

The outcomes are referred to the needs of people with ASD without any limitation in age and severity within the spectrum.

Study Selection Process

Exclusion Criteria

Dissertations, conference proceedings, editorials, and comments

Studies sensory to other disciplinary fields whose outcomes are not strictly related to built environments, such as medical and clinical studies.

All papers were extracted and placed in the computer software EndNote Online for management. EndNote was also used to manage duplicates within the references. The first (M.C.) and third (J.V) authors screened all returned papers for inclusion by year, peer-reviewed, abstract, and title. There was little to no disagreement between the authors for what articles should be included, the authors mutually agreed on all inclusion criteria and collaborated effectively while extracting articles to be included in the review.

Results

The scoping review search results are explained and supplemented with a PRISMA diagram, as shown in Figure 1. From the preliminary search of identified databases, 1,042 papers were identified. A hand search of the four research journals: Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders , Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , Autism Research and Treatment , and Good Autism Practice (GAP), returned a further 686 papers. A total of 1,728 papers were found, and following the removal from exclusion criteria, 69 papers were screened by title and abstract. Seven duplicate articles were further excluded, and 56 did not meet the inclusion criteria of being strictly related to “built environments” providing accommodations for individuals with ASD. After abstract and title screening, eight articles remained for full-text screening. Following the full-text screening, a total of six articles remained for analysis. The authors further examined the references of the six articles and produced another 266 additional articles. Of the 266, 220 articles were excluded due to the publication year outside of the inclusion criteria of 2017-2022. This left 46 articles to be screened by title and abstract; 42 articles were excluded due to outcomes not strictly related to “built environments”. In March of 2023, one last hand search was

conducted from the included databases for any new information or missed studies and one additional article was found from Web of Science. That left five articles remaining for full-text screening, and five remaining for final analysis. This concluded a total of ten articles analyzed in this review.

Figure 1: RISMA Flow Diagram of Study Selection for the Scoping Review

Study Characteristics

(n = 10)

Of the ten articles, five were literature reviews (Clouse et al., 2020; Ghazali et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2022; Malcolm, 2022; Nieman & Wood-Nartker, 2019), one was a case study (Martin et al., 2019;), three were survey studies (Amos et al., 2019; Marsack & Samuel, 2017; Tint et al., 2017) and one was a secondary data study (Healy et al., 2020).

This scoping review aimed to evaluate environments and their sensory accommodations for individuals with ASD. Five of the included articles focused on a school or work environment (Amos et al., 2019; Clouse et al., 2020; Ghazali et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2022; Martin et al., 2019), and five studies focused on community environments and community participation (Healy et al., 2020; Marsack & Samuel, 2017; Malcolm, 2022; Nieman & Wood-Nartker, 2019; Tint et al., 2017). Five articles were completed in the United States (55.6%), two in Australia (22.2%), one in Canada (11.1%), and one in Malaysia (11.1%). Table 3 summarizes the characteristics of the included studies.

Table 3

Study characteristics of Sensory-friendly built environments and accommodations for individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

Author Year Country Aim/Purpose

Amos et al. 2019 Australia

The aim was to School and Findings suggest a evaluate the Workplace role for the theoretical models introduction of proposed by Green sensory neutral and Ben-Sasson environments (2010) by within schools, quantifying the workplaces, and strength of other extreme associations sensory between autistic environments to traits, SOR, stress, reduce anxiety and anxiety in an symptoms often adult sample from associated with the general high autistic traits. population using structural equation modeling (SEM)

Clouse et al. 2020 United States The purpose is to School ADA guidelines demonstrate ways have not addressed of designing the needs of people beyond ADA to with mental, address needs of emotional, and/or people with autism developmental spectrum disorder disabilities. (ASD).

et al. 2018 Malaysia

Healy et al. 2020 United States

This paper aims to School Sensory design is develop a design for living conceptual sensory and how a space design of the feels, sounds, Autism Physical looks, smells, and Learning functions. The Environment. The environment has a objective is to large impact on identify sensory those with Sensory issues for design Sensitivity. consideration in a Sensory Sensitivity physical learning can lead to feelings environment. of anxiety, stress, and occasionally physical pain

This study aimed Home/ Participation in the to examine how Neighborhood/Co community was environmental mmunity negatively factors are associated with the associated with number of reported physical activity barriers in the (PA) and screen- community time (ST) among environment. children with and without ASD

Ghazali

Jones et al. 2022 Australia This paper reports School and on two Australian Workplace studies which explored and examined the inclusion of people with autism in their local communities

Main reasons for avoidance related to physical aspects of the environment, such as the number of people (80.4%) and the level of light or noise (67.8%). Employers were considerably less likely to have provided a quiet room/area (11.3%), adjusted lighting and/or sound levels and/or other sensory triggers (9.4%).There is a need for advocacy to increase the range of sensoryfriendly experiences.

Malcolm 2022 United States This article focuses Community Critical disability on accessibility for theory views individuals with disability as a autism, specifically social, cultural, and the lack of political accessibility phenomenon rather they experience in than a direct result built environments of the individual’s due to limited impairments. autism awareness People with among disabilities have professionals and unique experiential the public. knowledge which makes them experts about accessibility issues and should be included in the design process. The reduction or removal of particular sensory inputs altogether may have the greatest positive impact for people with autism.

Marsack & Samuel 2017 United States

Martin, et al. 2019 United States

The aim of this Home/ Social isolation study was to Neighborhood/Co from unfavorable examine the mmunity environments can mediating effect of be diminished with formal and community informal social education and support on the awareness to relationship of promote a caregiver burden destigmatized and quality of life environment for all (QOL) participants

An alliance of School Projects building schools and communities of researchers formed practice involving a collaborative people with autism community of as core team practice in order to members are rare. understand and Staff training, and improve the resource guides sensory school were available as environment for well as a quiet play pupils on the area. autism spectrum. The aim was to incorporate the findings into school improvement planning.

Nieman & Wood-2019 United States Nartker

The primary goal Home/ 70% of those with of this article is to Neighborhood/Co ASD have some apply an emerging mmunity sort of sensory framework of sensitivity and design guidelines there are few to an guidelines that intergenerational target their specific center that houses and unique needs. children and aging The ASPECTSS adults with autism. Design Index can be used as a guide for the design process.

Tint et al. 2017 Canada

Individual and Community Events Youth with ASD environmental and ID were factors that may reported to be foster successful significantly less community involved due to the participation number of reported among youth with barriers within the ASD community.

School and Work Environment

A total of five interventions were focused on a school or work environment (Amos et al., 2019; Clouse et al., 2020; Ghazali et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2022; Martin et al., 2019). The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has effectively established building standards that create accessible spaces for people with physical impairments, but the guidelines do not address the needs of people with mental, emotional, and developmental disabilities (Clouse et al., 2020). Sensory problems can seriously affect an individual's quality of life (QoL) and well-being, and the environment greatly impacts those with sensory sensitivity (Ghazali et al., 2018). Project building communities that make accessible spaces involving individuals with autism are rare, even though the service is crucial (Martin et al., 2019). Project building communities pertain to individuals working in architecture, design, and city planning. Schools and workplaces should introduce sensory-neutral environments to reduce anxiety symptoms and overstimulation (Amos et al., 2019). Alterations to the environment allow for the control of intense stimuli and advocacy for increasing the range of sensory-friendly experiences (Jones et al., 2022).

Community Environment

The other five included articles focused on the community environment (Healy et al., 2020; Marsack & Samuel, 2017; Malcolm, 2022; Nieman & Wood-Nartker, 2019; Tint et al., 2017). Tint et al. (2017) conducted a community participation study to evaluate the environmental barriers for youth with ASD. Participation in the community was negatively associated with the number of reported barriers in the community environment (Tint et al., 2017; Healy et al., 2020). Additionally, the frequency of adverse sensory experiences was a precursor to negative affectivity. Moreover, the heightened levels of negative affectivity also increased ASD symptom severity, behavioral problems, and social avoidance (Tint et al., 2017). Community engagement can prompt unpredictable, sensory-stimulating, and uncomfortable experiences, so many individuals with autism engage in sedentary pursuits and forfeit community engagement (Healy et al., 2020). Malcolm (2022) found that a frequent coping strategy presented by individuals with autism during times of uncertainty is avoidance which can lead to lack of engagement with services and the community. Social isolation from unfavorable environments can be diminished with community education and awareness to promote a destigmatized environment for all participants (Marsack & Samuel, 2017). Clouse et al. (2020) and Nieman & Wood-Nartker (2019) addressed the ASPECTSS Design Index as a guide for designing accessible and sensoryfriendly environments. The Autism ASPECTSS Design Index allows for altering the built environment with specific sensory design interventions to produce positive behavior changes of individuals with autism (Clouse et al., 2020; Nieman & Wood-Nartker, 2019).

Discussion and Implications

Due to little or no research on the combination of sensory-friendly and grocery store-specific environments, the research aims are exploratory for this review. This scoping review synthesized the available research and literature related to the leading practice of providing sensory-friendly environments within grocery stores for individuals with ASD. A total of ten articles were included in the final analysis. No articles were found using the keywords [grocery store] and/or [quiet hour]. This suggests that there is limited research addressing accommodations for individuals with ASD in grocery specific environments.

The significant findings from the scoping review were that environments without accommodation for sensory problems negatively affect the life and well-being of an individual with ASD. (Amos et al., 2019). Individuals with ASD had low participation in the community due to the number of reported barriers in the community (Tint et al., 2017; Healy et al., 2020). The guidelines from the ADA do not address the needs of people with mental, emotional, or developmental disabilities (Clouse et al., 2020). Suitable environmental modifications allow for the control of intense stimuli and advocacy for increasing the range of sensory-friendly experiences (Jones et al., 2022). Environments such as public outdoor spaces, workplaces, libraries, and supermarkets can be difficult for people with autism to navigate due to inaccessibility (Malcolm, 2022). There is a lack of sensory accommodations for individuals with ASD in our community grocery stores, and little research has addressed this barrier in our built environment.

The findings showcase a lack of sensory accommodations in our built environment to assist those with ASD. Inclusivity for all individuals in our built environments is crucial, and lacking inclusivity is a serious issue. The built environment must allow all individuals to complete acts of daily living and face little to no barriers while doing so. Persons with disabilities (PwD), including those with ASD, face barriers in the built environment. There is a gap in the research addressing the need for sensory accommodations and inclusivity in the environment, especially in environments that enable individuals to complete acts of daily living.

Quiet Hour (or Environmental Modifications)

Though not included in the initial search, a study was found addressing an initiative in India that was developed specifically for grocery stores to make shopping hassle-free with an autism Quiet Hour (De, Basu & Saraiwala, 2021). The studies initiative of a Quiet Hour aims to reduce grocery store stimuli to make it a more inclusive environment for individuals with autism disorder. De, Basu & Saraiwala (2021) proposed dimming the lights, turning down the music, turning off the ringers at the cash registers, and pausing cart collection within a designated time frame at a local grocery store. The Quiet Hour initiative is a step towards a foundational program to be implemented across all grocery stores. Dimming the lights, reducing noise, pausing cart collection, and turning off the beepers at cash registers are all simple things that can be implemented without the financial burden or additional stress on grocery store employees.

As a concrete case, ALDI, a popular grocery change within the U.S. has already taken the necessary steps to provide accommodations similar to those from the proposed Quiet Hour from De, Basu & Saraiwala (2021). None of the 1600 ALDI stores in the United States play music over their store speakers, and the reason is to save costs (Rossen, 2020). ALDI is most popular for its mission to provide cost-effective groceries for the consumer. But little do they know within their business plan, they offer a sensory environmental modification that can benefit individuals with autism. This further strengthens the argument that little changes can be made within grocery store settings to accommodate individuals without putting a barrier of cost on the business. In the end, it is mutually beneficial for both parties, individuals with autism can complete an act of daily living without stress from the environment and the grocery store has potential to even save money in the long run.

From the scoping review, Ghazali et al. (2018) did not use the exact phrase Quiet Hour but

mentioned how spaces with a quiet, sensory-neutral environment or ‘quiet room’ can provide relief from overstimulation and are beneficial for individuals with ASD. Overstimulation can be a term that is interchangeable with hypersensitivity, something many individuals with autism face (Ghazali et al., 2018). By creating spaces like ‘quiet rooms’ there can be an elimination of the unwanted negative outcomes associated with overstimulation for individuals with autism. Martin et al. (2019) also mentioned the use of ‘quiet play spaces’ and ‘quiet playtimes’ to ensure pupils feel comfortable and have a sense of safety and belonging while participating in a school environment.

While the Ghazali et al. (2018) and Martin et al. (2019) studies did not directly mention a “Quiet Hour,” there is the shared idea that modifications to the environment can be made to make it a more suitable space for those who face sensory issues, regardless of the type of environment. This can stem to grocery stores, a critical environment that must be accessible to all to complete an act of daily living. The Quiet Hour initiative from India, as well as modification supported by Ghazali et al. (2018) and Martin et al. (2019), could provide the framework for other grocery stores to replicate to ensure their store is an inclusive environment where individuals with ASD can come and complete their activities of daily living.

Malcolm (2022) goes deeper into the idea of environmental modifications by proposing environmental accessibility strategies such as an infographic that can be used as a standard for promoting autism-friendly practice in the environment. Infographics are visual representations of information, data, or knowledge, which can be an efficient way to communicate information to an audience (VanderMolen & Spivey, 2017). The infographic hones in on the main message of how the reduction or elimination of particular sensory inputs has the greatest positive impact for individuals with autism (Malcolm, 2022). An infographic also allows for a more inclusive method of presenting information and it can be better understood by individuals with autism.

Sensory Accommodations

From the scoping review, six studies introduced sensory environmental modifications to enable accommodations for individuals with ASD, including quiet flush mechanisms for doors to address hypersensitivity to sound (Nieman & Wood-Nartker, 2019), calm and low stimulus spaces (Ghazali et al., 2018; Martin et al., 2019), sensory zoning and design indexes (Clouse et al., 2020; Nieman & Wood-Nartker, 2019), sensory neutral areas (Amos et al., 2019), and sensory environments (Jones et al., 2022). These accommodations can help reach the needs of those with ASD and eliminate barriers that keep them from participating in the community, like going to the grocery store.

Amos et al. (2019) addressed the need for sensory neutral areas within cities to reduce anxiety caused by sensory extreme environments for individuals with ASD. There is a commonality between the sensory neutral area introduced by Amos et al. (2019) and the calm and low stimulus areas brought up by Ghazali et al. (2018) and Martin et al. (2019). Ghazali et al. (2018) focus on the design of a space and ensuring those spaces have ‘sensory quality’, meaning there are ‘high stimulus’ areas and ‘low stimulus’ areas with a transition zone in the middle of the stimulus areas so individuals with ASD do not face sensory overloads that can induce anxiety, stress, and occasionally physical pain. Martin et al. (2019) discusses how avoiding visual busy

displays and facilitating quiet time reduces anxiety and positive outcomes are produced when there is attention paid to sensory overloads. Malcolm (2022) introduces an escape room tactic that is a separate room in an environment purposefully designed with minimal sensory input to help manage sensory overload.

All four articles have the common goal of creating an accommodating space that neutralizes unwanted sensory input for individuals with ASD. The ideas from these articles can be applied to environments like grocery stores. High stimulus areas like check-out counters can be sensory neutralized by turning off beepers and flashing lights. Or, grocery stores can implement sensory transition areas when planning building models, meaning the potentially loud check-out lanes can be separate from direct shopping areas. This would give individuals time to adjust to the new senses as they approach them rather than being mixed in with their normal shopping atmosphere. Other small things stores could do include brightly colored visual displays being taken down or having a time where music is turned off to reduce sensory overloads and accommodate individuals with ASD.

Healy et al. (2020) evaluated physical activity and environmental factors for individuals with ASD and found that dynamic and static physical activities were unpredictable, sensorystimulating, and uncomfortable and could elicit an increased stress response. Grocery shopping can be viewed as physical activity and necessary for day-to-day life. Grocery shopping should not be unpredictable or uncomfortable for any population. It should be a welcoming environment for all and eliminating sensory inputs to provide sensory accommodation to meet the needs of individuals with ASD would not negatively impact other populations.

Clouse et al. (2020) and Nieman & Wood-Nartker (2019) spoke on the ASPECTSS Design index that addresses the seven design criteria essential for creating a sensory space for individuals with ASD. The seven designs include acoustics, spatial sequencing, escape space, compartmentalization, transition spaces, sensory zoning, and safety. The use of Autism ASPECTSS Design Index allows for the alteration of the built environment with specific sensory design interventions to produce positive behavior changes for children with autism. While neither article highlighted grocery stores specifically, this Index can be used directly in grocery stores during the development of a store to promote sensory-friendly solutions and provide an accommodating environment that allows individuals with ASD to complete an act of daily living without facing barriers in the built environment.

Jones et al. (2022) found that some environments run by employers restrict sensory accommodations and are 9.4% less likely to adjust lighting and/or sound levels and/or other sensory triggers. This shows the blatant need for a change in the way society views disability and its accommodations in environments that are crucial for daily living. It also shows that employers are less open to the idea of change to the environment to provide accommodation and this can feed into the stigma those with disabilities face in our social and built environment. The refusal to remove sensory triggers like cart collection, loud music, and light levels within a grocery store creates barriers within the environment that restrict individuals when trying to complete acts of daily living. One method to address this barrier, and the need for change, within the environment is to incorporate community-based participatory research.

Community-Based Participatory Research

Clouse et al. (2020) state that the goal of designers and architects should not be to remove all sensory stimuli but to provide flexible solutions to meet the needs of those with ASD so they are able to interact with society in all environments independently. One way designers could better meet that goal is to integrate ASD individuals into the design process. Morgan (2019) suggests that for effective sensory integration, individuals with autism must be a part of the collaboration in the form of community-based participatory research (CBPR). Malcolm (2022) further supports this by stating that people with disabilities have unique experiential knowledge which makes them experts about accessibility issues and should be included in the design process. This collaboration results in improved quality of life for individuals with autism because they can represent a population and assist in the problem only seen through their eyes to create a suitable environment.

Tint et al. (2017) found that community engagement from individuals with ASD is significantly low due to reported barriers. Grocery shopping is community engagement and having an individual with high-functioning autism sit on the planning committee would allow that individual to point out the environmental barriers and potentially lead to a more significant change for our nation regarding the inclusivity of the environment for people with disabilities. Tint et al. (2017) also highlights the unique population of caregivers of individuals with ASD. Caregivers reported significant environmental barriers in the community that impact their community participation while assisting an individual with autism. They are likely to be present with the individual when grocery shopping and can provide real life experiences of how the environment impacts an individual with sensory sensitivities and ASD. Caregivers could speak of the barriers they see and the social isolation they face from unfavorable environments, including a grocery store (Marsack & Samuel, 2017). Having their unique perspective on the planning committee of a grocery store would be beneficial to providing and promoting an inclusive grocery shopping experience.

The scoping review shows that four studies originated in countries outside the United States (Amos et al., 2019; Ghazali et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2020; Tint et al., 2017). The four studies suggest that other developed countries are more advanced in researching the topic of inclusive environments than the United States. De et al. (2021) provided evidence for a robust program located in India offering grocery store-specific sensory accommodations. The evidence suggests that India is ahead of the United States in providing grocery store-specific accommodations. Each nation has its agenda regarding accessibility within the physical environment and while the United Nations pushes for all countries to create an inclusive environment for individuals with disabilities, based on the articles reviewed, many countries are moving more quickly towards providing that environment for individuals with disabilities when compared to the United States.

Limitations

No study is without limitation. There were several limitations associated with this review. First, the inclusion criteria defined that only English text studies were to be included in this review. The lack of inclusion of non-English studies and an unequal representation across countries may present a biased view on the factors impacting accommodations for shopping experiences for persons with ASD. Additionally, only journals and databases associated with ASD were explored

and reviewed. The researchers could have expanded the search by including databases and journals related to architecture and built environments. Next, given that “built environments” and ASD is an emerging area of research, much of the ASD articles that exist is either at a national level under the broader umbrella of disability, with many resources, services and programs lacking scientific rigor and an evidence-based approach in their development and implementation. Furthermore, limitations included a lack of programs in grocery store specific environments and little scientific support for the benefits of having sensory accommodations in grocery stores for individuals with ASD and their families. Most of the gathered articles for this review have a school-specific environment accommodation program or interest. While the foundation and theory of the accommodation programs can be applied elsewhere, there must be more focus on environments impacting daily living, such as a grocery store.

Conclusion

This review promoted a more balanced approach in working with persons with ASD, encouraging the consideration of contextual factors, both environmental and personal, and their potential to influence community participation such as grocery shopping. Further research is required to accommodate individuals with ASD in grocery store-specific environments successfully. Based on the results of this scoping review, the authors identified pre-existing programs that make out-of-the-home environments accessible to individuals with autism. Furthermore, new research aimed explicitly at grocery store environments can benefit the autism community. None of the gathered articles addressed grocery store-specific accommodation, a gap in inclusivity in the built environment for those with ASD.

More peer-reviewed studies on sensory-friendly solutions or accommodations, like Quiet Hour and CBPR, are needed in specific environments like grocery stores. Overall, there is a lack of research on the particular shopping experience for those with ASD. Nevertheless, the existing evidence found in this review corroborates those sensory-friendly solutions that can influence the shopping experience for individuals with autism and their families in various ways.

Further research should also explore the idea of universal design to accommodate all and promote inclusivity in all built environments to avoid social barriers that hinder those with disabilities. Society and research have made progress in changing pre-existing structures into inclusive settings, but future construction of buildings should also be considered. Research must be shifted towards more inclusive and universal built environment designs, so all individuals feel welcome outside their designated hours (Leary, 2017). Universal design can open a door to promoting inclusivity of all environments for all individuals within the society. It is imperative that future research acknowledges the defined gaps in this review and amend future practices and research designs.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.) https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

Amos, G. A., Byrne, G., Chouinard, P. A., & Godber, T. (2019). Autism traits, sensory overresponsivity, anxiety, and stress: A test of explanatory models [Article]. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders , 49(1), 98-112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-0183695-6

Autism Speaks. (n.d.). Sensory Issues. Autism Speaks https://www.autismspeaks.org/sensoryissues#:~:text=Many%20autistic%20people%20experience%20hypersensitivity,people% 20can%20easily%20tune%20out

Baio, J., Wiggins, L., Christensen, D. L., Maenner, M. J., Daniels, J., Warren, Z., KurziusSpencer, M., Zahorodny, W., Robinson Rosenberg, C., White, T., Durkin, M. S., Imm, P., Nikolaou, L., Yeargin-Allsopp, M., Lee, L. C., Harrington, R., Lopez, M., Fitzgerald, R. T., Hewitt, A., Pettygrove, S., … Dowling, N. F. (2018). Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder among children aged 8 Years -Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 Sites, United States, 2014. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002) , 67(6), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6706a1

Chung, F. (2018, September). Coles expands autism-friendly quiet hour nationwide. NewsComAu https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/coles-expands-quiethour-to-173-stores/news-story/9bd7ed203caf4d8213ebc37cc1fe23f9

Clouse, J. R., Wood-Nartker, J., & Rice, F. A. (2020). Designing beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Creating an autism-friendly vocational center. Herd-Health Environments Research & Design Journal , 13(3), 215-229, Article 1937586719888502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586719888502

De, M., Basu, I., & Saraiwala, V. (2021). An initiative to make shopping hassle free for individuals with ASD steps towards sustainable development. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management and Technology , 1(4), 22-26. https://doi.org/10.46977/apjmt.2021v01i04.004

Falconer, J. (2017, September 19). Constructing a literature search for a systematic review: part 1, preparation. Library, Archive & Open Research Services Blog . https://blogs.lshtm.ac.uk/library/2017/09/19/litsearchingforsrs1/

Ghazali, R., Md Sakip, S. R., & Samsuddin, I. (2019). Creating positive environment for autism using sensory design. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal , 4(10), 19-26. https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v4i10.1618

Ghazali, R., Sakip, S. R. M., & Samsuddin, I. (2019). Sensory design of learning environment for autism: Architects awareness?. Journal of ASIAN Behavioural Studies , 4(14), 53-62. 10.21834/jabs.v4i14.338

Hanna, C., Weisberg, S., & Loesche, S. (2019). Inclusive community: Exploring the benefits of sensory friendly environments. Thomas Jefferson University . https://jdc.jefferson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=jscpsposters

Healy, S., Garcia, J. M., & Haegele, J. A. (2020). Environmental factors associated with physical activity and screen time among children with and without autism spectrum disorder [Article]. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders , 50(5), 1572-1579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3818-0

Hwang, Y.J., Foley, KR., Elley, K. Brown S., Joy-Leong, D., Li, X., Grove, R., Troller, J., Pellicano, E., & Zheng, L. (2022). Experiences of performing daily activities in middleaged and older autistic adults: A qualitative Study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-022-05473-7

Jones, S. C., Gordon, C. S., Akram, M., Murphy, N., & Sharkie, F. (2022). Inclusion, exclusion and isolation of autistic people: Community attitudes and autistic people’s experiences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 52(3), 1131-1142. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-04998-7

Leary, E. (2017, 23 Feb). Supermarket quiet hour: It’s great for those with autism but more must be done. Metro. https://metro.co.uk/2017/02/23/supermarket-quiet-hour-its-great-forthose-with-autism-but-more-must-be-done-6467448/

Malcolm, M. (2022). Environmental accessibility for autistic individuals: Recommendations for social work practice and spaces. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work , 34 (3), 103-115. https://anzswjournal.nz/anzsw/article/view/948

Martin, N., Milton, D. E. M., Krupa, J., Brett, S., Bulman, K., Callow, D., . . . Wilmot, S. (2019). The sensory school: working with teachers, parents and pupils to create good sensory conditions. Advances in Autism , 5(2), 131-140. https://doi.org/10.1108/aia-09-2018-0034

Marsack, C. N., & Samuel, P. S. (2017). Mediating effects of social support on quality of life for parents of adults with Autism. Journal of autism and developmental disorders , 47(8), 2378–2389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3157-6

Morgan, H. (2019). Connections between sensory sensitivities in Autism; the importance of sensory friendly environments for accessibility and increased quality of life for the neurodivergent autistic minority. PSU McNair Scholars Online Journal , 13(1), 11. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/mcnair/vol13/iss1/11/

National Autistic Society (2021, May 20). The Entertainer extends its autism friendly quiet hour to run every morning. https://www.autism.org.uk/what-we-do/news/the-entertainerextends-its-autism-friendly-quiet

Nieman, J., & Wood-Nartker, J. (2019). Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): Designing Empowering Environments for Sensitive People. Journal of Aging & Social Change , 9(2), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.18848/2576-5310/CGP/v09i02/67-82

Oxford Dictionary (n.d.). Infographic. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/infographic

Pham, M. T., Rajić, A., Greig, J. D., Sargeant, J. M., Papadopoulos, A., & McEwen, S. A. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods , 5(4), 371-385. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123

Rossen, J. (2020, April 28). The surprising reason ALDI doesn't play music. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/623729/reason-why-aldi-does-not-play-music

Shea, L. L., Katherine, V., Stacy, N., Song, W., & Salzer, M. S. (2021). Self-reported community participation experiences and preferences of autistic adults. Autism, 25(5), 1295-1306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362361320987682

Shrikant, A. (2018). How museums are becoming more sensory-friendly for those with autism. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/how-museums-arebecoming-more-sensory-friendly-for-those-with-autism-180967740/ Spohn, S. (2022). Sensory awareness programming is offered throughout the community. Rapid Growth. https://www.rapidgrowthmedia.com/features/KDL-sensory-programming.aspx

Tint, A., Maughan, A. L., & Weiss, J. A. (2017). Community participation of youth with intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder [Article]. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 61(2), 168-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12311

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of internal medicine , 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2023, February 27). Basic information about the built environment. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/smm/basic-information-aboutbuilt-environment

VanderMolen, J., & Spivey, C. (2017). Creating infographics to enhance student engagement and communication in health economics. The Journal of Economic Education , 48(3), 198205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2017.1320605

Yeginsu, C. (2018, July 19) U.K. supermarket to have 'quieter hour' for people with autism The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/europe/uk-supermarketautism-morrisons.html

About the Authors

Maggie Carey, MPH , graduated from Grand Valley State University with her Master of Public Health degree with an emphasis on health education and promotion. Her research interests include disability advocacy, community inclusion, and health education policy. She currently works in Grand Rapids, MI in the public health sector directly serving community members.

Chelse Spinner, MPH, CPH , graduated from the University of South Florida with her Master of Public Health degree in Epidemiology and Maternal and Child Health. She is currently an Adjunct Instructor for the Grand Valley State University’s Master of Public Health (MPH) program. Her research focuses on addressing health disparities among the maternal and child health (MCH) population.

Julia VanderMolen, Ph.D CHES ® is an Associate Professor for the Grand Valley State University’s Master of Public Health (MPH) program. Her research aims to examine the benefits of assistive technology, UD and UDL, and disabilities in public health. She is an active member of the Disability section of the American Public Health Association (APHA), and is a board member of the Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired (ABVI) and the Disability Advocates of Kent County in Grand Rapids, MI.

Strategies for Enhancing the Implementation of Sign Language Policies in Zimbawean

Special

Schools for the Deaf

Chegovo Reward Wedzero, Ph.D.

Mary Runo, Ph.D.

Martin Musengi, Ph.D., M. Ed, B. Ed, C. E.

Great Zimbabwe University (GZU)

Abstract

This qualitative study investigated strategies that can improve the implementation of Zimbabwean sign language policies in institutions for the Deaf. With a total of 29 participants completing the study, the qualitative study found that despite the Zimbabwe Education Amendment Act No. 15 (2019) being in effect, no strategies were implemented to enhance sign language policies in Zimbabwean special schools, and the implementation of sign language policies was not effective. The study suggests that sign language policy implementers must be involved in the formulation and ratification of the policy for it to be better implemented and more effective. The study also recommends that the government should consider involving local sign language specialists and implementers in the formulation and adaptation of sign language policies. Additionally, some implementers suggested advocating directly to the government for adequate funding to ensure the effectiveness of the sign language policy.

Keywords: strategies, sign language, d/Deaf special schools, mother tongue, policy implementation

Strategies for Enhancing the Implementation of Sign Language Policies in Zimbawean Special Schools for the Deaf

Implementing sign language policies in Zimbabwean special schools for the Deaf can greatly benefit students who are Deaf by promoting their language and communication development. However, this can only be achieved if there are strategies that can be used to implement the use of Zimbabwe Sign Language (ZSL) in Zimbabwean special schools to equip policy implementers with the required skills in sign language (Graves, 2023). For example, providing training programs and professional development opportunities for teachers, administrators, and support staff to learn sign language and acquire the necessary skills to effectively communicate with and teach students who use sign language. The other aspect entails modifying the curriculum to incorporate sign language as a language of instruction and ensuring that educational materials, resources, and assessments are accessible and inclusive for sign language users.

Despite having policies that support the use of Zimbabwean Sign Language as a medium of instruction for the Deaf, the Zimbabwean government has yet to capacitate policy implementers on the strategies that could be used to enhance the implementation of sign language policies in Zimbabwean special schools (Fischer, 2015). By providing training programs and professional development opportunities, special schools can equip teachers, administrators, and support staff

with the necessary skills and knowledge in sign language. This enables effective communication and instruction for students who are Deaf, fostering a more inclusive learning environment.

Understanding the importance of implementation strategies in supporting policy adoption and sustainability is paramount. It is crucial to explore specific approaches that can facilitate the successful implementation of sign language policies in special schools in Zimbabwe. Implementation strategies can be defined as methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation and sustainability of a policy (Proctor et al., 2013). For example, one implementation strategy that can facilitate the successful implementation of sign language policies in special schools in Zimbabwe is establishing a collaborative network of stakeholders. This approach involves bringing together representatives from special schools, government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the deaf community, and relevant experts to collectively work towards policy implementation and sustainability.

Most often, several strategies are combined to form a multifaceted strategy such as training, consultation, audit and feedback. Haitembu (2014), postulates that the implementation strategy can also involve the operational plan that guides the process to make policy happen in effect. In line with this, Gottlieb et.al. (2019), confirmed that a clear separation of policy formation from policy implementation with an inline model lists six criteria factors for effective policy implementation.

To support effective policy implementation, several key criteria should be considered. First, policies should be clear and specific, with well-defined goals, objectives, and guidelines to ensure a shared understanding among stakeholders (Akoth, 2021). Adequate allocation of resources, including financial, human, and technological resources, is crucial to provide the necessary infrastructure, training, and support systems for successful implementation. Engaging relevant stakeholders and fostering collaboration throughout the process promotes ownership, buy-in, and shared responsibility. Capacity-building efforts, such as training and professional development, equip policy implementers with the knowledge and skills needed to execute the policy effectively (Akoth, 2021). Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms allow for tracking progress, identifying challenges, and making necessary adjustments, while flexibility and adaptability enable policies to accommodate contextual variations and changing circumstances. By considering these criteria, policymakers can enhance the chances of successful policy implementation.

Policy strategies can only be effective if the following attributes exist in the policy: the policy objectives are clear and consistent, the program is based on a valid causal theory, implementing officials are committed to the program’s goals and interest groups and (executive and legislative) sovereigns are supportive (Tomlinson, 2017). Many public policies do not get successfully implemented, and the reasons for failure include absent incentive structures (Béland 2016), resistance from different stakeholder groups (McConnell, 2015); and poor communication or policy support (Borrelli 2018; Hudson et al., 2019). Therefore, effective strategies must be implemented when using Zimbabwe Sign Language in Zimbabwean special schools to address the potential challenges and increase the likelihood of successful policy implementation. By considering the reasons for policy implementation failure identified in the literature, such as absent incentive structures, stakeholder resistance, and poor communication or policy support, policymakers can develop targeted strategies to overcome these barriers. For instance,

establishing incentive structures that motivate and reward stakeholders for their active involvement in policy implementation can help overcome resistance and enhance collaboration. Effective communication and policy support mechanisms, including clear guidelines, training programs, and ongoing monitoring and evaluation, can address communication gaps and ensure the necessary resources and support are provided to implementers. By proactively addressing these challenges through well-designed strategies, the adoption and implementation of Zimbabwe Sign Language policies in special schools can be enhanced, leading to improved educational opportunities and outcomes for students who are Deaf.

Special Education Staffing Requirements

Different countries have different requirements concerning the staffing of teachers who will be responsible for teaching Deaf learners. For instance, in America in Virginia State, the following are the qualification requirements for personnel providing services for learners who are Deaf. The personnel providing educational interpreting services for learners using sign language shall have a valid Virginia Quality Assurance Screening (VQAS) Level III, or have a passing score on the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) Written Test along with a minimum of a Level 3.5 on the EIPA Performance Test or any other state qualification or national certification (excluding Certificate of Deaf Interpretation) recognized by the Virginia Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing as equivalent to or exceeding the VQAS Level III. Each student shall receive special education services from special education personnel assigned following the Virginia Licensure Regulations for School Personnel (8VAC20-22) (Majoka & Khan, 2017). Special education teachers who are teachers of the Deaf shall be highly qualified. Under no circumstances shall local educational agencies or private special education schools hire interpreters who hold qualifications below a VQAS Level II, EIPA Level 3.0 or the equivalent from another state (Majoka & Khan, 2017). The question now is: does Zimbabwe have any strict staffing requirements when staffing teachers for learners with hearing impairments who use sign language as their mother tongue?

Sign language teachers and interpreters must be certified by a professional body set up by the Ministry of Education (Sibanda, 2015). In the same vein, according to Section 3.33.3 of the Zimbabwe National Disability Policy (2021), it is outlined that persons who intend to provide Sign Language interpretation shall submit their application to the Department of Disability Affairs in the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, who shall issue them with a Zimbabwean Sign language License. Section 3.33.4 of the Zimbabwe National Disability Policy (2021) alludes that the Department of Disability Affairs in the Ministry of Public Service Labour and Social Welfare shall establish and maintain a register of persons entitled to perform the Zimbabwean Sign language interpretation services. This measure aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCPR), to which Zimbabwe became a signatory in September 2013. Chapter 24:4, alludes that the governments shall ensure that teachers of Deaf learners shall be qualified in sign language. Zimbabwe has a policy document, the Guidelines to Staffing of Special Needs Provision that states that there is a need to staff centers for learners with special needs with appropriately qualified teachers (Secretary for Education, 2007a). This implies that teachers for Deaf learners should be qualified in sign language.

However, the circular, unlike other frameworks in other countries, is silent-on how it will test the proficiency of teachers in sign language. A previous study at KG VI Memorial School by

Mpofu and Chimhenga (2013), showed that there was a need for the schools to appoint a sign language interpreter and there was a need for King George VI Memorial School to increase the number of teachers with sign language proficiency. This initiative aims to ensure that individuals with expertise in sign language interpretation can effectively support and complement other teachers who may not possess the necessary skills in sign language and by maintaining a register of qualified interpreters, the Department of Disability Affairs can facilitate inclusive educational environments and enhance the communication and learning experiences of students who are Deaf in Zimbabwe.

The study also suggested that teachers who were not proficient in sign language, but teaching Deaf learners should be encouraged to get staff development courses on sign language. This goes against CRPD chapter 24:4, which states that teachers of Deaf learners should be qualified in sign language. Zimbabwean’s Policy document on Guidelines for the Staffing of Special Needs Provision (Secretary for Education 2007a) alludes that there is a need to staff centers for learners with Special Needs with appropriately qualified teachers. While the study focused on one special school in Zimbabwe, the current study focused on all the special schools in Zimbabwe. Appropriate credentialing for teachers of the Deaf is essential to effectively implement strategies using Zimbabwe Sign Language in Zimbabwean special schools for several reasons. First, credentialing ensures that teachers possess the necessary knowledge, skills, and competencies to effectively teach and communicate using sign language. This expertise is crucial for creating inclusive learning environments and meeting the unique needs of students who are Deaf or hard of hearing. Second, credentialing provides a standardized framework for assessing and validating the qualifications of teachers, ensuring a level of quality and professionalism in sign language instruction. It helps establish a baseline standard for instructional excellence and promotes consistency in the delivery of educational services. Lastly, credentialing instils confidence and trust among students, their families, and the broader community, as it assures that teachers have undergone rigorous training and evaluation to meet established standards. By upholding appropriate credentialing, Zimbabwean special schools can enhance the effectiveness of strategies using Zimbabwe Sign Language and contribute to the overall educational success and empowerment of students who are Deaf or hard of hearing.

Availability of Specialized Personnel in Deaf Education

Ensuring the availability of specialized personnel in Deaf education is a critical component in effectively implementing strategies using Zimbabwe Sign Language in Zimbabwean special schools for the Deaf. Deaf education is the education of learners with any manner of deficit in hearing which addresses their differences and individual needs (Akour, 2016). This process involves individually planned, systematically monitored teaching methods, adaptive materials, accessible settings and other interventions designed to help learners achieve a higher level of self-sufficiency and success in the school and community than they would achieve with typical classroom education.

According to Garton and Graves (2014), teachers should adapt the curriculum according to who their students are, the resources they have, and the culture of their classrooms. However, most teachers are not taught how to adapt materials (Tomlinson & Rahmani 2017; Graves et al., 2019). New teachers can learn, for example, how to adapt activities or sequences in the same textbook for different kinds of learners or different contextual constraints (Graves, 2023). Mandyata (2018), noted that curricula content and textbooks used in Deaf education are the same

as those used in regular schools and, therefore, do not consider the needs of Deaf learners. Making and adapting the curricula helps them to see the curriculum as a tool they use to support their learners. Adapting the curriculum is important for teachers of the Deaf to effectively implement strategies using Zimbabwe Sign Language in Zimbabwean special schools because it ensures that instructional materials and methods are accessible and tailored to the unique needs of students who are Deaf or hard of hearing.

Teachers can align learning objectives, content, and activities with the linguistic and cultural context of Zimbabwe Sign Language by adapting the curriculum and this enables students to fully engage with the curriculum, comprehend concepts, and participate actively in the learning process. Moreover, curriculum adaptations can address specific communication and language challenges faced by students, providing appropriate scaffolding and support to enhance their comprehension, expression, and overall academic achievement. Moreso, teachers can create inclusive and meaningful learning experiences that empower students who are Deaf or hard of hearing to reach their full potential in Zimbabwean special schools by embracing curriculum adaptations.

Challenges and Considerations in Implementing Strategies Using Zimbabwe Sign Language in Zimbabwean Special Schools

In Zimbabwe, a teacher can be called a specialist teacher of the Deaf because the teacher holds a degree or diploma in special needs education. Likewise, in Zambia, according to the University of Zambia (UNZA), they only teach sign language as a component of Special Needs Education without specialization in sign language and, as a result, teachers will not be fluent in sign language (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2013). Yell et al. (2013), pointed out that Deaf education majors and degree programs offer training and certification in the education of learners with a variety of hearing abilities, addressing learners' differences and needs. He further argues that Deaf education also includes the study of special education, Deaf studies, education, sign language and culture. However, in Zimbabwe, most of the degree programs do not have a component in sign language.

Instead of having a specific component in sign language, degree programs in Zimbabwe may focus on special needs education or inclusive education for teachers working with learners who have diverse needs, including those who are Deaf. These programs typically provide training on inclusive teaching strategies, classroom management techniques, and educational interventions for students with various disabilities or learning differences. The emphasis is on equipping teachers with the knowledge and skills to create inclusive learning environments and cater to the individual needs of students with diverse abilities, including those who are Deaf.

Mapepa and Magano (2018), argue that, internationally, the single most important contributing factor to the poor academic performance of Deaf learners is the use of the wrong medium of instruction. Teaching using oral methods constrains curriculum access by Deaf learners (Sibanda, 2015). According to El-Zraigat (2013), specialist teachers of the Deaf should possess or develop expert skills in the language and should become an important element in the learning environment of the learners. El-Zraigat (2013), points out that the learners who are Deaf are affected by factors such as a lack of qualified and proficient teachers, poor services, and curriculum inaccessibility.

Teachers in Zimbabwean special schools face challenges in implementing strategies using Zimbabwe Sign Language due to limited specialized training and exposure to education. To address these, teachers should seek professional development opportunities, collaborate with qualified sign language interpreters, and advocate for the inclusion of sign language components in teacher education programs (El-Zraigat, 2013). This will help teachers better understand students' unique needs and deliver instruction that maximizes learning outcomes. Advocacy efforts can also contribute to long-term systemic changes that support the implementation of strategies using Zimbabwe Sign Language. By addressing these challenges, teachers can create more inclusive learning environments and effectively implement strategies using Zimbabwe Sign Language.

Availability of Financial and Human Resources

Financial and technical resources, along with quality human resources, are key factors that contribute to the proper implementation of any policy. Low education funding is, thus, considered a major obstacle to realizing the implementation targets of education policy in Pakistan's educational policies (Majoka & Khan, 2017). A unique problem of education policy in developing countries like Zimbabwe is their dependence on foreign aid and loans to bridge the budget deficit and finance their development plans. The success of implementation of policies ultimately depends on the way people perceive, make sense of, and act on, policy provisions. If teachers can make sense of the policy, they will be able to use it confidently (Banegas, 2020).

Teachers can use policies confidently by familiarizing themselves with the relevant policies and guidelines concerning the education of students who are Deaf, including those related to the use of Zimbabwe Sign Language. By having a comprehensive understanding of these policies, teachers can gain confidence in their ability to implement strategies using Zimbabwe Sign Language in Zimbabwean special schools. Furthermore, teachers can actively engage in professional development opportunities and seek additional training in sign language and Deaf education. This proactive approach allows teachers to enhance their skills and knowledge, enabling them to effectively utilize Zimbabwe Sign Language as a medium of instruction and communication in the classroom. In addition to acquiring the necessary skills, teachers can collaborate with qualified sign language interpreters or specialists to provide comprehensive language support to students. By working together, teachers and sign language professionals can ensure effective communication, linguistic development, and educational access for students who are Deaf.

Human and material resources are other handicaps in Zimbabwe that could hinder the full implementation of the 2006 mother tongue education policy. Snoddon and Hendar (2013), observe that most education systems that attempt to institute policies that encourage learning through a child’s home language suffer from an acute shortage of teachers who speak the language as L1 or have access to these languages. One of the criteria for the effective usage of local languages as languages of instruction is that there must be enough teachers to teach that language (Denzin & Lincoln 2011). The lack of instructional materials also hinders the transmission of content in local languages (Snoddon & Hendar, 2013). Shortages of relevant materials such as sign language dictionaries can critically undermine the implementation of the requirements of the education policies. Thus, it is useful to ask whether the resources necessary for the implementation of the (2006) mother tongue education policy are available.

Mapepa and Magano (2018), asserted that there is great importance in support services to successfully address the barriers to learning for learners who are Deaf. Mapepa and Magano (2018), argued that support services needed to address barriers to learning for learners who are Deaf include the provision of appropriate teaching materials. Visual materials appropriate for learners who are Deaf include pictures, diagrams and illustrations that are used to enhance their understanding. It also includes slides and DVDs (Mapepa & Magano, 2018). The schools under study revealed that there were no learners’ books in sign language and all the books were in word print that learners used for reading, studying and learning. This makes it difficult for Deaf learners to read books in word print. Nyawinda (2015), states that the central role of learning materials is to support teaching by making ideas and concepts clear and making learning interesting and vivid. Despite the importance of the visual materials, the special schools in Zimbabwe still relied more on donors than the Ministry for the provision of funds and the visual materials.

Another study which was carried out by Mapolisa and Tshabalala (2013), confirmed the above findings that there were limited resources and facilities in special schools to cater for Deaf learners. Lack of adequate resources impacted negatively the learning of Deaf learners. According to Birinci and Saricoban, (2021), Deaf learners tend to struggle with understanding abstract concepts when the explanation is not linked to something visual such as a drawing or photo. The specialist teachers’ explanations should be accompanied by visual materials and visual interactive methods. Correspondingly, Nyawinda, (2015), states that learning materials play a crucial role in teaching by clarifying ideas and concepts and making learning engaging. Haitembu (2014), noted that without relevant materials, Deaf learners will always face challenges in their learning. Despite the importance of the visual materials, the special schools are still relying more on donors than the Ministry of Education for the visual materials.

Research Methodology

Given the objective of the study which was to explore the strategies that could be put in place to enhance the implementation of Zimbabwean Sign Language policies in Zimbabwean special schools, a qualitative approach was used to conduct the study because it enabled the research to be done within a natural environment of social factors. In this study, the natural environment was the special schools for the Deaf. Some scholars such as Denzin and Lincoln (2011), have argued that human learning is best researched by using qualitative data.

The study used three sources of data which were in-depth interviews, semi-structured interviews and non-participant observation to obtain data from teachers, headmasters, school inspectors and school psychologists. The researcher aimed to understand how Zimbabwe Sign policies were being implemented by the participants through participant observation before describing the phenomenon from the participants’ perspectives. This implies that the researcher studied participants in their natural settings attempting to make sense of or interpret a phenomenon in terms of the meaning the participants brought to them (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). The researcher managed to gain a better understanding of the extent to which teachers were equipped to implement Zimbabwean Sign Language policies in Zimbabwean special schools.

Research Design: The Case Study

A case study research design was used in this study. A case study research involves an in-depth

investigation of a contemporary real-life phenomenon in its context. Case study research is good for understanding complex issues in real-life settings, and it is often used to understand the perspective of participants in those settings (Lohman, 2021). According to Lohman (2021), a case study employs multiple methods of data collection to gather information from one or a few entities or groups. In this research, data were collected from teachers of Deaf learners, School Heads of four special schools for the Deaf, District school inspectors and school psychologists who dealt with learners who are Deaf in special schools for the Deaf. This research used multiple methods such as observation, in-depth and semi-structured interviews to collect data from the participants. According to Coombs (2022), it is valid and generalizable to include multiple cases to permit cross-case analysis. In multiple cases, the sites or locations where the phenomenon is examined are different. In this research, the phenomenon was examined in four different provinces (locations) which made it a multiple case study.

According to Coombs (2022), the evidence that is generated from a multiple case study is strong and reliable. A multiple case study helps the researcher to have a better understanding of the phenomenon under study (Yin, 2018). According to Yin (2018), a multiple case study will help the researcher to analyse the data both within each situation and across situations. One of the strengths of a multiple case study design is that evidence is considered more compelling and the overall study is regarded as more robust and reliable (Coombs, 2022). The other advantage of multiple case studies, according to Eisenhardt et al. (2016), is that it allows wider exploration of the research questions and theoretical underpinnings. In this study, the multiple case studies enabled the researcher a wider chance to explore sign language policy implementation challenges faced by teachers. The case study also enabled the researcher to answer the research questions using detailed descriptions rather than statistics (Lohman, 2021).

The sample comprised of 29 participants selected from the target population. These were 17 teachers from four special schools, four School Heads, four district school inspectors and four school psychologists. School Heads, school inspectors, school psychologists and special school teachers were purposively sampled as they were in a position to influence policy change and implementation at the individual class, school and district levels respectively. The type of purposive sampling that was used was what Rai and Thapa (2015), call homogeneous sampling. Selected participants such as the hearing teachers shared similar teacher-training traits and job experiences of more than five years in the special schools for the Deaf. The idea was to focus on this precise similarity, analyzing how it relates to the implementation of the Sign Language regulatory framework. In Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), homogeneity refers to a probable shared perspective on the phenomenon of interest (Larkin et al., 2019). All four special schools in the four provinces were represented in the sample. The researcher established the trustworthiness of the data collection tools, instruments and procedures through a pilot study. Ethical considerations were observed throughout instrumentation, data collection and analysis procedures.

Findings of the Study

The study found a large number of strategies that could be used to enhance the implementation of ZSL. These strategies include improving the qualifications of teachers and improving resource availability, collaboration with Deaf communities and improving the frequency and quality of

continuous professional development. Each of these strategies is presented as a sub-theme in the following sections.

Ensuring the qualifications of teachers are relevant to sign language

The study found that the use of qualified personnel was one of the strategies that could be used to enhance the implementation of sign language policies in Zimbabwean special schools. The following network view showed that most of the participants who had degree qualifications in Special Needs Education did not have the qualifications relevant to sign language. This is evidenced by the following extract:

I only did Special Needs l don’t have any qualification related to sign language (Tr A1).

The participant’s response revealed that, although the majority of the policy implementers had degree qualifications in Special Needs Education, they did not have the requisite component of sign language.

Results of the study revealed that seven (7) policy implementers held degree qualifications in Special Needs Education (1) had a degree in Sign language, 2 had a Master's degree in Special Needs Education, while the other 3 had a Master's degree in Counselling, ECD and Administration. Two of the policy implementers did not have any professional development after the initial phase of the Diploma in Education (Dip. Ed). Three of the policy implementers had short courses in sign language. Qualifications of policy implementers relevant to sign language helped the researcher to find out the extent to which policy implementers were qualified to teach learners who are Deaf.

If the policy was to be effectively implemented, then the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education should ensure that the teachers have relevant qualifications to teach Deaf learners. Results of the study revealed that some of the teachers were taught sign language by the Deaf learners as shown by the following quote:

Teachers are taught sign language by the Deaf learners. If you spend two or three days with the Deaf learners, they will teach you more. What we have is bookish sign language. These learners, because they were born Deaf and were brought here when they were still young and at ECD level and maybe up to form four, are now proficient in sign language (HC).

UNCRPD (2006) 24:3b, states that teachers of Deaf students should be qualified in Sign

Language Zimbabwe has also policy document Guidelines for the Staffing of Special Needs Provision (Secretary for Education 2007a) that states that there is a need to staff centers for learners with Special Needs including those with Deaf learners with appropriately qualified teachers. Despite all the policies the government was still deploying teachers who were not qualified as illustrated by the following verbatim:

In most cases, they are not serious about it. We as a school always emphasize that we need teachers who are qualified in Special Needs Education and who are specialized in sign language but then sometimes they send us teachers without the required

qualifications. It becomes tough for us to start training the individuals to be conversant with sign language (HA).

School head H A went on to argue that the problem with Zimbabwean Universities was that they teach the theoretical aspect, when it comes to practice it’s another thing. There was a need for an individual to pursue the practical part of it to be proficient in sign language.

The District officers, however, argued that even if they wanted to follow the policy, few teachers were qualified in sign language. This was evidenced by the following verbatim text.

The government might want to consider the policy guidelines but few teachers are qualified or who are fluent in sign language (HB).

They might like to follow the guidelines, but there are very few teachers who are qualified in sign language. They might be qualified theoretically but not practically, so it becomes difficult for them to follow the guidelines (HA).

It is difficult to follow the guidelines because there is no adequate number of teachers who are proficient in sign language (HC).

In Zimbabwe, a teacher could be called a specialist teacher of the Deaf not because the teacher had relevant qualifications in sign language, but because the teacher would be a holder of a degree or diploma in special needs education. In Zimbabwe, most of the degree programs did not have a component of sign language. That is why most of the teachers were not fluent in sign language although they had degree qualifications in Special Needs Education.

Improving Resources at the School Level

Ensuring the availability of adequate resources is one of the strategies that could be used to enhance the implementation of sign language policies. Policy implementers had the following to say about the availability of resources:

We have laptops from which they can learn by seeing the videos, and the projectors are still being installed. We do not have enough resources, and even sign language dictionaries (Tr B10).

The school is in the process of installing projectors in every classroom. Pictures, we source our pictures. (B13).

The school does not get help from the government, so the school is financially constrained to provide all the resources, so, we share the little resources we have with other teachers. These learners need a lot of resources and materials for them to understand. With adequate resources and materials, these learners respond positively. You cannot teach Deaf learners without concrete objects or pictures, you will be doing nothing. (Tr B11).

We need more resources. They are not enough, like models. You know when you are teaching about brushing teeth, we need models to demonstrate that. I think that, since they are visualisers, they need a lot of models (Tr C14).

All the verbatim statements above reflected that the resources were not adequate since the schools were not being financially helped by the Ministry of Education. Deaf learners are visualizers so without adequate resources no learning would take place. Another participant pointed out that a teacher cannot teach about the river without showing the picture of the river for Deaf learners cannot learn in the abstract. According to the participants, Deaf learners need visual materials in everything they learn. The inadequacy of visual resources would impact negatively the academic performance of the learners. Videotapes, CD-ROMs and other visual materials containing sign language examples provide an alternate form of training materials, as the dynamic nature of a visual language is best shown using images. The idea that material resources had an impact on the learning of Deaf learners was expressed in the following statements from the participants:

Without teaching materials, Deaf learners will never understand anything since they do not learn in the abstract. They need to see the real object to understand (Tr A2).

Teaching materials provide memory for Deaf learners since they are visualizers (Tr C16).

Resources influence the use of sign language because the learners need a lot of illustrations for them to understand; they do not think in an abstract way (Tr C14).

The above verbatim reports from teachers reflected the need for the MoPSE to provide resources in special schools for the Deaf for effective learning of Deaf learners, for without visual materials no learning would take place. School heads and District officers also confirmed that the lack of educational material resources was a hindrance to the effective implementation of the 2006 Amended Education Act. These findings are exposed in the following excerpts by the school heads:

Teachers do not have sufficient resources. We are still finding the resources and we are buying them slowly by sloly because of the financial constraints We are in the process of putting projectors in each class for e-learning but it’s still a process to be completed (HB ).

No clear budget to implement the policy because of financial problems and a lack of resource materials (PsyC).

We should have text books in sign language to guide us on what we are teaching. That’s my take (DSIB).

The researcher observed that no meaningful teaching and learning took place in terms of policy implementation because of inadequate resource materials. There is a need for the government and the Ministry of Education to supply schools with adequate resource materials such as text books adopted for learners who are Deaf to enable teachers and learners to effectively implement the policy.

Identification of the Training Needs by the District Officers

It emerged from the results of the study that identification of the training needs of the policy implementers was one of the strategies which were essential to enable the capacity development of the teachers,

There are many strategies through which we can identify their needs. First, through needs analysis. As we monitor, we will be discussing with the teachers what they want to be developed. Number two, we should monitor the program, and identify the gaps that may call for human capacitation. Also, the reports from the school heads and the inspectors should be utilized. That’s how we get to know the needs of the teachers (PsyA)

Through teachers themselves, during supervision, the teachers are asked about their training needs. We can also get the training needs of teachers from their administrators (PSYB).

According to the school heads, they can identify through discussing with teachers to identify their needs, and also through monitoring the program to identify the gaps and also get the reports from the headmasters.

Through those monitoring, we identify gaps by asking the teachers because they are the experts in that area (PsyD).

When we go there, we supervise them and come up with the training needs for teachers. (DSIB).

The above participant pointed out that they obtained the training needs of teachers by supervising them and then identifying their training needs although the specialist teachers pointed out that they rarely saw their district officers making follow-ups on the implementation of the policy.

We are not specialist teachers in sign language so it will be difficult to identify teachers’ needs. However, to be informed depends on the teacher to identify the training need unless it is the basic things. We will have to depend on the teachers to find the training needs for them. (DSIC).

District officer DSlC pointed out that it was difficult to identify the training needs of the teachers because they were also not conversant with sign language or the needs of the policy. The results of the study revealed that the Ministry was not doing anything about the policy in terms of the capacity development of the policy implementers.

Challenges Faced in Staff Development and In-service Training

Findings from the study showed that some challenges were being faced in staff development for teachers of learners who were Deaf. It is the responsibility of district officers to provide opportunities for staff development to teachers who specialize in ZSL. This implies that the district officers should be proficient in ZSL for them to assist in offering training services to teachers. The challenge experienced, however, was that the district officers were not proficient in

sign language and, as a result, staff development in their districts was facilitated by specialist teachers from some of the special schools. According to the district schools’ inspectors, many challenges were being faced in staff development among the teachers of learners who were Deaf. The following are responses from the officers:

We do not have qualified personnel to do the training. Though there is adequate availability of transport to enable us to visit our special schools, we do not visit the schools because we do not know sign language. For example, if we visit a school with specialist teachers in sign language, what will l tell a teacher after his/her lesson? (DSIC).

We do not train them, instead, they train us so that we can gain some basic communication skills in sign language. We always go to schools for training just for basic communication skills (DSlD).

The above information means that the district officers were not selected based on their qualifications in sign language even though policies and circulars stipulate that teachers and administrators of learners who are Deaf should be qualified in sign language. Another challenge faced in staff development for teachers of learners who are Deaf was that of financial resources. The government and the Ministry of Education did not provide financial resources to enable schools to organize capacity-building workshops on sign language for teachers .

We normally prepare the budget for training purposes but we don’t get the funds. Availability of funds is a serious challenge we face when we want to train our teachers in workshops. Therefore, we are forced to look for willing partners to assist us but BSPZ is overwhelmed by the numerous workshops it is supposed to support. The fees-free policy in schools (circular no 5 of 2014) whereby we are not allowed to send learners away from school for fees has also affected our BSPZ undertakings. The little revenue we receive from the government is used for other issues such as facilitating communication (DSIB).

The big problem hindering our functions is the problem of inadequate finance. If this problem can be addressed, it will be possible for us to conduct in-service training at least once every term instead of doing it once a year. (PsyC).

The lack of financial resources for teachers’ workshops could have contributed to the nonimplementation of the policy as teachers continued with the challenge of how to teach learners who are Deaf. The lack of workshops led to variances in the types of sign language that were used at the school level. There was no standardized sign language for all the learners. The district officers also observed that teachers sought green pastures after attending some in-service training for they were not given incentives for teaching the Deaf learners.

We provide in-service training to new teachers every time. However, after such training, they seek green pastures so we are forced to keep giving in-service training to new teachers every time. The other challenge is that of lack of finance. We do not accomplish our goals because of a lack of finance (PsyB).

Use of Sign Language as the Only Language of Teaching and Learning for Deaf Learners

Most of the administrators concurred that sign language was good for learners who were Deaf, however, some advocated for the use of total communication since the learners were going to communicate with the larger community. So, the idea was to normalize the Deaf learner to fit into the larger society. One of the DSI argued:

I feel that it should be extended up to the” A” level so that when one proceeds to the A level one will have all that is needed to communicate in sign language (DSIC).

This language also needs to be in the mainstream because these children need to communicate with the outside world, hence, those in the mainstream schools should also learn the spoken languages (PsyB).

Some administrators supported the use of sign language as they argued that there was no other language that could be used when teaching Deaf learners. They also argued that it was advantageous to use sign language because it was their language and therefore, they could understand it better. On this observation, psychologist PsyA had this to say:

We support the idea since there is no other language that the Deaf can use besides sign language. So, it’s their medium of instruction and there is no other medium of instruction that they can use to communicate. I strongly support the idea that the use of sign language as the medium of instruction be emphasized in schools (PsyA).

Collaboration with the Deaf Community

The study findings revealed that collaboration with the Deaf community was one of the strategies that could enhance the implementation of sign language policies in Zimbabwean special schools. Participants pointed out that the Deaf community helped in aspects such as taking teachers to workshops, and helping them in signing new words since not all words are found in the Sign language dictionary. Participants also observed that Deaf learners felt confident when being taught by other Deaf people because there was no language barrier. This was revealed by teachers who said:

Deaf teachers can help by teaching us how to sign new words since some of us are not qualified in sign language, especially with this new curriculum (Tr B11, Tr B13).

We don’t have sign language books. So, when we want to learn how to sign new words, they will help us because it’s their language. We have Deaf teachers who help us. They help by explaining the concepts we do not understand. If l can’t sign a word, I usually go to them and they help me or they come to my classroom to explain the concepts (B10).

Some participants also pointed out that they involved the elders in the training, a strategy which worked at their workshops. They also involved the chaplains to teach their Deaf learners.

It’s necessary because they will help in explaining concepts or ideas better to Deaf children. We have a chaplain who is Deaf and helps in teaching the word of God. They also offer some counselling services to someone who is Deaf (Tr A1, Tr A3).

They also involved the Deaf community when it was storytelling time. They argued that the Deaf community were the best people to teach the Deaf learners about their culture since it was their culture and they understood it better than the ordinary people. When it was time for the heritage, they called the Deaf to teach the Deaf learners about relationships since they understood best when they were being taught by other Deaf people. The members of the Deaf community were also invited to facilitate some of the lessons which were difficult to teach especially their Deaf colleagues.

They help by explaining the concepts we do not understand. If l can’t sign a word I go to them and they help me or they come to my classroom to explain the concept and then they go away (Tr B10).

We have assistant teachers, some of the assistant teachers are qualified while others have children who are Deaf (Tr B13).

Specialist teachers sometimes used interpreters who were not qualified to help them to teach Deaf learners. The Ministry of Education in Zimbabwe introduced the new curriculum so that the Deaf interpreters who lacked the subject content knowledge which would negatively impact on learning of the Deaf learners could be assisted. One district inspector, however, pointed out that they will not take anyone to teach the learners just because the person is Deaf. The following excerpt supported the above sentiment:

We do not involve Deaf communities. How can we just take anyone from the street, do you just take a Shona person from the street to teach the Shona language? If that person is Deaf and educated or a former classmate, then we can involve him/her (PsyB).

In those special schools which have included sign language on their timetables, Deaf teachers were taken to teach new words to the learners when it was time for indigenous languages. Sometimes, the members of the Deaf communities visit this school to teach the learners, especially when it is time for indigenous language lessons . (Tr C15).

Yes, we have DEAF associations which include the Deaf teachers and also Deaf parents. Deaf teachers are here in school and the Deaf parents also come here to help us in carrying out some of the tasks and helping in teaching some of the difficult concepts. (HD).

When the other learners were taking indigenous languages such as Shona or Ndebele, the Deaf learners would also be doing sign language. If this idea was put into practice in all the special schools, it was going to help the Deaf learners. This is demonstrated by what one of the school heads said:

We involve the Deaf community so that they can teach us how to go about certain concepts. We don’t understand some of the concepts being taught. For example, we have a Deaf teacher who helps us a lot in elaborating on most of the concepts we don’t understand (HA).

I don’t even know how the Deaf community are involved but in other schools in the United Kingdom, they are in partnership with other people or special groups. However, for our schools, I don’t even know whether they involve the Deaf community or not (DSIA).

The above sentiments revealed that it was the initiation of the individual schools to involve the Deaf communities. The Ministry of Education was not involved in deploying Deaf assistants in special schools for the Deaf.

During the non-participant observation, the researcher observed that, in other special schools, the hearing learners were sent out to discuss or learn their indigenous languages, but the Deaf learners were doing something else with Deaf assistants as shown by the following quotation:

When I am teaching Shona, Deaf learners are taken away by my assistant here to pre-teach or to do something else (Tr C18).

This implies that even though sign language was there on the timetable as an indigenous language to be taught as a subject, it was not considered one. Special schools were given textbooks which were meant for hearing learners and because teachers were not fluent in Sign language, it was difficult for them to sign the narrations in the stories in the books.

Discussions of Findings

The study found a large number of strategies that could be used to enhance the implementation of ZSL policies in Zimbabwean special schools. These strategies include improving the qualifications of teachers, ensuring resource availability, collaborating with Deaf communities and improving the frequency and quality of continuous professional development.

The study found that the use of qualified personnel was one of the strategies that could be used to enhance the implementation of sign language policies in Zimbabwean special schools. It was revealed that, although the majority of the policy implementers had bachelor's degree qualifications in Special Needs Education, their qualifications did not have a component of sign language. Similarly, in Zambia, the two major institutions that train teachers of the Deaf, the Zambia Institute for Special Education (ZAMISE) and the University of Zambia’s (UNZA) Department of Psychology, Sociology and Special Education (EPPSE), only provide sign language as a component of special education implying a medical view of Deafness.

The kind of training offered, therefore, is general since there is no specialization in sign language. Graduates from these training institutions join the teaching service with very limited skills in sign language and general interaction with Deaf children. They lack both the linguistic and communicative competence in sign language required to effectively teach the Deaf. Akoth (2021), notes that in Ghana, problems that led to poor quality education persist because of the shortage of both qualified and properly trained teachers in Ugandan Sign Language (UgSL). Akoth (2021), further argues that, if a teacher is not competent in UgSL, then he/she will have a barrier in delivering content to Deaf learners which later affects UgSL development.

In Zimbabwe, some of the specialist teachers of the Deaf had certificates in sign language while only 1 specialist teacher had a degree. Some of the school heads felt that Zimbabwean universities were also only teaching the theoretical aspect, but not the practical aspect. Graduates

in the country, just like those in Zambia, join the teaching service with no skills in sign language that can enable them to teach Deaf learners. This is contrary to the requirements of the UNCRPD (2006) 24:3b, which states that teachers of Deaf students should be qualified in sign language. Zimbabwe has also policy document guidelines for the staffing of Special Needs Provision (Secretary for Education 2007a) that states that there is a need to staff centres for learners with special needs including those with Deaf learners with appropriately qualified teachers. Despite all the policies put in place, the government was still deploying teachers who were not qualified. If the policy was to be effectively implemented, then the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education should have ensured that the teachers had appropriate qualifications to teach Deaf learners. Results of the study revealed that some of the teachers were taught sign language by Deaf learners.

On the use of sign language as the only language of teaching and learning for learners who are Deaf the study findings showed that most of the school heads thought that sign language was good for learners who are Deaf. However, some were advocating for the use of total communication since the learners were going to communicate with the larger community; so, the idea of using total communication was to normalize the Deaf learner to fit into society. In Zimbabwe, Deaf learners are mostly educated in special schools and the predominant medium of instruction is total communication which is predominantly based on speech. However, the researcher observed that Deaf learners preferred to use ZSL instead of total communication. In the same vein teachers in Botswana use total communication in teaching Deaf learners (Mpuang et al., 2015).

It is important for teachers to effectively implement strategies using Zimbabwe Sign Language in Zimbabwean special schools for several reasons. Firstly, Zimbabwe Sign Language is the primary language of communication for many individuals who are Deaf or hard of hearing in Zimbabwe and by utilizing Zimbabwe Sign Language in the classroom, teachers can ensure effective communication and understanding between themselves and their students. This promotes a sense of inclusivity, allows for meaningful interaction, and fosters a positive learning environment. Secondly, effective implementation of strategies using Zimbabwe Sign Language enhances the educational experience and academic outcomes of students who are Deaf or hard of hearing. Zimbabwe Sign Language serves as a bridge for accessing information, expressing thoughts, and engaging in learning activities. Teachers can facilitate the comprehension of subject matter, promote active participation, and support students in achieving their educational goals through using this language effectively.

Summary of Findings

This research focused on data presentation and analysis. It focused on data obtained from teachers and administrators who dealt with learners who are Deaf through the themes identified based on the research questions. The data that was collected were shown through, themes and sub-themes and quotations from the participants. Data was presented starting with the views of teachers, school administrators, the district school inspectors and school psychologists on the strategies that could be put in place to enhance the implementation of Zimbabwean Sign Language policies in Zimbabwean special schools.

The study found that there were no strategies that were put in place to enhance the implementation of the Zimbabwean Sign language policies in Zimbabwean special schools as was evidenced by the findings of the study. The study found that policy implementers were not capacitated on the meaning of the policy and how the policy should be implemented. Information was not flowing on each underlying link, hence, confusing stakeholders on how the policy should be implemented. Because of goal ambiguity and means ambiguity, there were variances in the way the policy was implemented. Policy implementers who were the district officers, school administrators and teachers were not aware of their roles in the implementation of the policy. Each special school was implementing the policy according to the way they understood it. Most of the teachers were not well equipped to implement the policy because they did not have the relevant qualifications in sign language to enable them to teach the learners who were Deaf and as a result, they ended up using total communication. The study also found that the teachers did not have enough competencies to use sign language and even use total communication correctly since they were not trained for such a system. Though most of the teachers assumed that they were proficient in using sign language, they observed that they lacked adequate vocabulary, expressiveness and understanding of the nature of sign language and how to combine it with speech.

The Ministry of Education was not capacitating the teachers through in-service training so that they would be equipped adequately to implement the policy. The study also found that the district officers had challenges in providing training opportunities to teachers because they also did not have the relevant qualifications in sign language to workshop the teachers. Some of the district officers were being trained in workshops by specialist teachers. The district officers were also facing challenges in providing funds for workshops because they were financially constrained or financially limited. There were no financial resources from the Ministry of Education to cater for the workshops. School administrators were also financially constrained because the Ministry of Education was not providing them with financial resources to implement the policy. The study also found that teachers were facing a lot of challenges in implementing the policy. For teachers to effectively implement the policy, they needed adequate resources to use when teaching since Deaf learners learn through sight; hence, they needed a lot of visual resources. There was a lack of visual materials like charts, videos prepared with sign language, motion pictures, and other material despite the crucial roles these visual materials play for visual learners. The teachers could not use them because of their scarcity.

Results of the study also showed that there was no sign language curriculum to be used in the teaching of Deaf learners. Additionally, there were no textbooks that were prepared or adopted for Deaf learners as the ones they had lacked sign language descriptions. All the special Schools did not have sign language syllabuses, as some of the special schools used school-made syllabuses which were developed from the mainstream syllabuses by the Deaf teachers at the schools. Some of the schools did not have even sign language dictionaries which led to variations in the sign language that was used in the classrooms.

While some of the special schools made use of the Deaf community to help them sign difficult words, some of the special schools were not even aware of the roles of the Deaf community in the implementation of the policy. Results of the study also showed that there were a lot of factors that were influencing the implantation of sign language policies in special schools.

Limitations of the Study

Due to the small sample used in the study, the results might not be adequate to be generalized beyond the specific population from which the sample was taken. This study was restricted to language policy and the use of mother tongue instruction with special reference to natural sign language.

The empirical study was also constrained by examining only special schools in four provinces which were Harare, Masvingo, Midlands, and Bulawayo, but did not include resource units for Deaf learners. While this constraint may limit the generalizability of the findings to the entire country, the four were the only provinces with fully functioning special schools. Nevertheless, there were numerous resource units for Deaf learners located throughout the ten provinces of Zimbabwe; thus, the study might have been undertaken in any of them. However, this research specifically aimed at examining the implementation of sign language policies only in special schools. The findings of the study may, therefore, not be generalized to the resource units since the delivery of teaching and learning sign language may have been influenced by socialization with hearing learners.

Conclusion

This research examined the strategies that could be used to enhance the implementation of sign language policies in Zimbabwean special schools. The study found that policy implementers were not capacitated on the strategies they could use to implement the sign language policies in Zimbabwe special schools. The study found that policy implementers were not well-equipped to implement the policy, with information not flowing on each underlying link, confusing stakeholders, and causing variances. The Ministry of Education was not providing adequate training for teachers, and district officers and school administrators faced financial challenges in providing training opportunities. Teachers also faced challenges in implementing the policy due to a lack of visual resources, such as charts, videos, and motion pictures. The study also found that there was no sign language curriculum for teaching Deaf learners, no textbooks, sign language syllabuses, or sign language dictionaries, leading to variations in sign language used in classrooms. For teachers to effectively implement the policy, they needed adequate resources to use when teaching since Deaf learners learn through sight; hence, they need a lot of visual resources. There was a lack of visual aids like charts; videos prepared with sign language, motion pictures, and other materials, despite the crucial roles these materials play for visual learners. Some special schools used the Deaf community to help them sign difficult words, but some were not aware of their roles in the policy implementation. The study revealed that the policy lacked strategies to enhance the implementation of the sign language policies.

Recommendations

The following are the recommendations to enhance the implementation of sign language policies in Zimbabwean special schools:

 Develop a comprehensive sign language policy: The policy should clearly outline the goals, objectives, and strategies for the implementation of sign language in special

schools. It should also provide guidelines on the training and professional development of teachers, the use of resources, and the involvement of the community.

 Establish a sign language department: Special schools should have a dedicated department or unit for sign language instruction and support. This department can be responsible for training teachers, providing resources, and ensuring the implementation of the sign language policy.

 Provide ongoing support for teachers: Teachers who are learning sign language need ongoing support to develop their skills. This can include mentorship from experienced sign language teachers, access to online resources, and regular professional development opportunities.

 Provide access to technology: Schools should provide students with access to technology such as computers, tablets, and smartphones that have sign language software and applications installed. This will allow students to practice their sign language skills and communicate with others using technology.

 Involve parents and the community: Parents and the wider community should be involved in the implementation of sign language policies. This can include organizing community workshops, inviting sign language experts to speak to parents, and creating opportunities for parents to practice sign language with their children at home.

 Monitor and evaluate implementation: Regular monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of sign language policies is critical to ensuring that the policies are effective. This can include conducting surveys with students, teachers, and parents, and using the feedback to adjust the policy and implementation strategies.

By implementing these recommendations, special schools in Zimbabwe can create a more inclusive learning environment for students who are Deaf and ensure their access to the language and communication skills they need to succeed

References

Akoth, J. (2021). Factors influencing the development of Ugandan sign language in the learning environment: a case study of Uganda school for the deaf Kampala city (Doctoral dissertation, Kyambogo University).

Banegas, D. L. (2020). Teacher professional development in language-driven CLIL: A case study. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning , 12(2), 242-264.

Béland, D., & Howlett, M. (2016). The role and impact of the multiple-streams approach in comparative policy analysis. Journal of comparative policy analysis: research and practice, 18(3), 221-227.

Birinci, F. G., & Saricoban, A. (2021). The effectiveness of visual materials in teaching vocabulary to deaf students of EFL. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies , 17(1), 628-645.

Borrelli, L. M. (2018). Whisper down, up and between the lanes: Exclusionary policies and their limits of control in times of irregularized migration. Public Administration , 96(4), 803816.

Coombs, H. (2022). Case study research: single or multiple [White paper]. Southern Utah University. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7604301

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage. Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E., & Sonenshein, S. (2016). Grand challenges and inductive methods: Rigor without rigor mortis. Academy of management journal , 59(4), 1113-1123.

El-Zraigat, I. A. (2013). Assessing Special Needs of Students with Hearing Impairment in Jordan and Its Relation to Some Variables. International Education Studies , 6(2), 63-75.

Fischer, S. D. (2015). Sign languages in their historical context. The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 442-465.

Garton, S., & Graves, K. (2014). Identifying a research agenda for language teaching materials. The Modern Language Journal , 98(2), 654-657.

Gottlieb, J. F., Benedetti, F., Geoffroy, P. A., Henriksen, T. E., Lam, R. W., Murray, G., & Chen, S. (2019). The chronotherapeutic treatment of bipolar disorders: a systematic review and practice recommendations from the ISBD task force on chronotherapy and chronobiology. Bipolar disorders, 21(8), 741-773.

Graves, K. (2023). Mind the gap: A tale of two curriculum fallacies. Language Teaching, 56(2), 197-209.

Graves, K., Garton, S., Walsh, S., & Mann, S. (2019). Materials use and development. The Routledge handbook of English language teacher education , 417-431.

Haitembu, R. K. (2014). Assessing the provision of inclusive education in the Omusati region (Doctoral dissertation).

Hudson, B., Hunter, D., & Peckham, S. (2019). Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: can policy support programs help? Policy design and practice, 2(1), 1-14.

Larkin, M., Shaw, R., & Flowers, P. (2019). Multiperspectival designs and processes in interpretative phenomenological analysis research. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 16(2), 182-198.

Loflin, T. (2016). Relationship between Teacher Fidelity and Physical Education Student Outcomes. Physical Educator, 12, 359-383.

Lohman, L. (2021). Case Study Design: Examples, Steps, Advantages & Disadvantages. Study. com.

Majoka, M. I., & Khan, M. I. (2017). Education policy provisions and objectives. A review of Pakistani education policies. Italian Journal of sociology of education , 9(Italian Journal of Sociology of Education 9/2), 104-125.

Mandyata, J. (2018). Stakeholders' Views on Use of Sign Language Alone as a Medium of Instruction for the Hearing Impaired in Zambian Primary Schools. International Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 62-76.

Mapepa, P., & Magano, M. D. (2018). Support to address barriers to learning for learners who are deaf. African Journal of Disability , 7(1), 1-8.

Mapolisa, T., & Tshabalala, T. (2013). The impact of inclusion of children with hearing impairment into regular schools: A case study of Dakamela primary school in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Asian Social Science , 3(7), 1500-1510.

McConnell, A. (2015). What is policy failure? A primer to help navigate the maze. Public Policy and Administration , 30(3-4), 221-242.

Mpofu, J., & Chimhenga, S. (2013). Challenges faced by Hearing Impaired pupils in learning: A case study of King George VI Memorial School. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 2(1), 69-74.

Mpuang, K. D., Mukhopadhyay, S., & Malatsi, N. (2015). Sign language as medium of instruction in Botswana primary schools: Voices from the field. Deafness & Education International , 17(3), 132-143.

Nyawinda, C. W. (2015). Influence of learning materials on learner achievement in number work activities of pre-schools in Kisumu east sub-county, Kisumu County, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).

Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb‐Kangas, T. (2013). Linguistic imperialism and endangered languages. The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism , 495-516.

Proctor, E. K., Powell, B. J., & McMillen, J. C. (2013). Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implementation science, 8(1), 1-11.

Rai, N., & Thapa, B. (2015). A study on purposive sampling method in research. Kathmandu: Kathmandu School of Law , 5.

Secretary for Education (2007a). Special examination arrangements for learners with disabilities and other special needs. Harare: Government Printers.

Sibanda, P. (2015). Analysis of sign language proficiency among teachers of the deaf in primary schools in Bulawayo (Zimbabwe): Implications for learning and inclusion. Scientific Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences , 4(9), 157-165.

Snoddon, R., Hendar, O. (2013). Shifting contexts and practices in sign bilingual education in Northern Europe. Bilingualism and bilingual deaf education , 218-310.

Tomlinson A., Rahmani J. (2017). Economics Across the School Curriculum-Benefits and Drawbacks of Some Related Approaches. International Journal of Education, Culture and Society . 6(1), 9-14; ISSN: 2575-3363 (Online); Doi: 10.11648/j.ijecs.20210601.12.

UNCRPD. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol. Geneva: United Nations.

Yell, M. L., Conroy, T., Katsiyannis, A., & Conroy, T. (2013). Individualized education programs and special education programming for students with disabilities in urban schools. Fordham Urb. LJ , 41, 669.

Yin, R. K. (2018). The Acquisition of a Functional Vocabulary in Severely Disabled Children Using Systematic Sign Language Instruction. JADARA, 17(3), 4. Zimbabwe Education Amendment Act. (2006). Harare: Government Printers. Zimbabwe Education Amendment Act No. 15 (2019). Harare: Government Printers.

About the Authors

Chegovo Reward Wedzero, (Ph.D.), works in the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education as a specialist teacher. With 20 years of experience, she has been dedicated to teaching learners who are Deaf and those with learning disabilities. Her focus lies in implementing Zimbabwean Sign Language policies within special schools for the Deaf in Zimbabwe. Additionally, Chegovo is passionate about promoting Zimbabwean Sign Language as an indigenous language, aligning with national policies. Currently, she collaborates with the Sign

Language Association of Zimbabwe (SLAZ) to advocate for Deaf individuals’ rights to their language and education in their native sign language.

Mary Runo, Ph.D. (Kenyatta University-KU), holds M.A. and B.A. degrees from New Jersey City College. She serves as a Senior Lecturer and consultant in the field of special needs education at the Institute of Teachers’ Professional Development (I.T.P.D). Throughout her career, she has worked in various institutions of higher learning, holding positions at universities in both Kenya and Tanzania. Her roles have included head of department, director of a university campus, and Dean of the School of Education and Social Sciences (FESS). Mary has authored over 18 articles, a book on reading disabilities, and a chapter in a book on inclusive education. Additionally, she has successfully supervised 24 postgraduate students at both the doctoral and master’s levels.

Martin Musengi, PhD (Wits), M. Ed, B. Ed, C. E. (UZ) is Associate Professor of Deaf and Special Needs Education at Great Zimbabwe University (GZU) where he was Chairperson of the Jairos Jiri Centre for Special Needs Education from 2015 to 2018. Currently he is Director of Quality Assurance and Academic Planning at GZU. He is on the editorial board of GZU’s JoNVER and Dzimbahwe journals and is also board member of the journal Deafness and Education International. A teacher of the deaf since 1986, his abiding research interests are in Deaf Education from school to higher education levels. He currently serves on the oldest conference in education the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf. Martin is a Fulbright Scholar (Gallaudet University -Washington, DC), who has published 50 articles and book chapters as well as two books.

The Effectiveness of Error Correction Procedures in Discrete Trial Training

Darian Sepulveda (Derck), MA, BCBA, LBA

Christopher Smith, PHD, LBA, BCBA-D

LIU-Post

Abstract

There is currently a limited number of published studies that look at the effectiveness of error correction procedures in Discrete Trial Teaching (DTT). In this study we looked at three different error correction procedures (repeated S D five step, prompted four step, and errorless teaching) in succession to evaluate if one procedure leads to mastery quicker than another during DTT sessions with four children with developmental disabilities. For each new target skill to be addressed in this study, a different error correction procedure was used in succession. All four participants yielded different results with the error correction procedures. Not only did they have varied lengths of time that it took to master a target skill, but they also required varying amounts of time exposed to each error correction procedure prior to skill mastery.

Introduction and Review of Literature

Discrete-trial training (DTT) has been the topic of much research over the past several decades within the field of applied behavior analysis (Rodgers & Iwata, 1991). It is a method for individualizing and simplifying the instructional procedures to promote skill acquisition in children with disabilities (Koegel, Russo, & Rincover, 1977). Children with special needs often require specialized learning procedures, and discrete trial training is one procedure shown to be effective with children with autism (Lovaas, 1987). DTT is one of the primary teaching methods used in intensive behavior interventions and has been used to teach children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and other developmental disabilities communication, academic, social, and self-help skills (Downs et al., 2007). Although DTT is not the only method of teaching children with ASD and children with other developmental disabilities, discrete trial training helps teach important skills the children need to acquire. Discrimination training is a critical element of systematic skill instruction in domains such as pre-academics (e.g., matching, sorting, and imitation), academics (e.g., reading and writing), language, social skills, and activities of daily living (Smith et al., 2006). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), children with ASD and other developmental disabilities often learn differently from typically developing children; therefore, breaking down the skills they need to acquire through systematic skill instruction helps to aid their development in learning critical life skills.

To summarize the typical features of DTT, the following 5 components are commonly used in discrete trial training: the cue, the prompt, the response, the consequence, and the intertrial interval. The first component is the cue, which is called a discriminative stimulus (S D). This involves the teacher presenting a brief, clear instruction or question (Smith, 2001). An example of a cue or SD can be “do this” or “what’s this?” The second component is the prompt. At the

same time as the cue, or immediately after it, the teacher assists the child in responding correctly to the cue (Smith, 2001). The purpose of a prompt is to help ensure that the individual will respond correctly to the SD The prompt immediately follows the S D in order to ensure a correct response. There are different types of prompts, such as vocalizations/verbalizations, gestures, modeling, and physical guidance to teach complex skills (Libby et. al., 2008). An example of this would be the teacher asking the student to pick up a pen on the floor and then pointing to the pen on the floor. Pointing to the pen would be a gesture prompt. The third component is the response. The child gives either a correct or an incorrect answer to the teacher’s cue (Smith, 2001). The fourth component is the consequence. If the child gives a correct response, the teacher immediately reinforces the response with praise, hugs, small bites of food, access to toys, or other activities that the child enjoys. If the child gives an incorrect response, the teacher then typically uses an error correction procedure to correct the child’s incorrect response (Smith, 2001). For example, the teacher may use the “no-no prompt” error correction procedure (to be described later) to correct the child’s error. The fifth and final component of a discrete trial is the inter-trial interval. After giving the consequence, the teacher pauses briefly (e.g., 1-5 seconds) before presenting the cue for the next trial (Smith, 2001). During the inter-trial interval, the student is given access to the reinforcer, and the teacher may be recording data based on the previous trial.

Teachers use a number of behavioral techniques to motivate students, and several procedures become so common that they are considered basic elements of instruction (Rodgers & Iwata, 1991). These researchers explained that there are two basic elements of instruction: one is the delivery of rewards (e.g., praise, materials, and other reinforcing stimuli presented contingent on correct performance), which, if effective, function as positive reinforcement, and the other is often some type of corrective technique to reduce the frequency of future errors. Prompting techniques are procedures for facilitating skill acquisition (Wolery et al., 1992). Prompting techniques are also common when using error correction procedures.

Where there is teaching and learning there will also be mistakes and missteps. How therapists correct errors that their clients make should constitute an important part of any instructional system (Heward, 1997) and may play an even more important role for students with special needs such as ASD, who can present significant challenges to even the most skilled teachers (Scott et al., 2000). When looking at how clients with developmental disabilities learn, we must not forget to pay attention to how they are learning the correct responses when they give incorrect ones. One may consider error corrections as one type of feedback that teachers give students; this feedback is designed to increase the probability that the students will respond accurately in the future (Fabrizio & Pahl, 2007). The therapist desires to increase the likelihood that the client will accurately produce the target behavior in the future, leading to the student eventually learning the target behavior.

Rodgers & Iwata (1991) explain their four general strategies that are followed when a client makes an incorrect response:

The first is characterized by the absence of a programmed consequence and is equivalent to the extinction component of differential reinforcement. A second method for reducing errors also does not entail the delivery of consequences per se, and differs from extinction in that, following an incorrect response, a delay imposed prior to the next learning trial. The third, the teacher presents discrete events following the errors, fourthly involves a presentation of remedial trials contingent on errors (p.775-776).

These strategies were reported by the authors to help to aid the clients to learn the correct response and reduce future errors. The first strategy focuses on differential reinforcement, such as positive reinforcement for correct responses; there is no reinforcement for incorrect responses. The second strategy provides brief time delays between trials. Their third strategy looks at no response from the client; the teacher responds to the error. For example, the teacher pauses for two seconds before presenting the next SD. The fourth and last strategy involves repeating trials until the criterion is met. Rodgers and Iwata (1991) believe that one should continue repeated trials until the client makes three consecutive correct responses. For example, if the S D is “clap hands” and the client does not respond by clapping their hands, they would then continue the same trial of clap hands until they respond correctly three consecutive times.

To date there are various different error correction procedures that are used during the acquisition and maintenance of skills with clients with developmental disabilities. Some forms of these error correction procedures include vocal feedback on the accuracy of the response (Lovaas, 2003), the teacher’s demonstration of the response (Barbetta, Heron, & Heward, 1993), and requirements to practice the correct response (Frost & Bondy, 2002). An example of one way a student would practice the correct response would be by the teacher hand-over-hand prompting the student to “touch their head” when asked to touch their head after the student made an incorrect response. To have an appropriate error correction that is going to help aid the clients in acquiring skills they must have descriptive feedback on what it is exactly that needs to be done and time to rehearse it without making another incorrect response. One hypothesis is that error-correction procedures that provide more information about the correct response or that require more responding from the learner are more effective than those that provide less information or require less learner responding (McGhan & Lerman, 2013). There’s an old saying that “practice makes perfect” and the more opportunities that the client gets to practice the correct response after getting specific feedback the more likely it is that they are going to learn and master the skill that is being taught to them. That is, if simply telling a learner that the answer is incorrect may be less effective than demonstrating the correct response (McGhan & Lerman, 2013).

Worsdell, Iwata, Doizer, Johnson, Neidert, and Thomason (2005) hypothesized that errorcorrection procedures may increase correct responding by, in part, providing additional opportunities for the correct response to occur in the presence of a relevant antecedent. Worsdell et al. (2005) conducted a series of studies to evaluate the effects of different error-correction procedures. Their results showed that participants acquired more sight words when incorrect responses were followed by multiple-response repetition than single-response repetition. Worsdell et al. (2005) explained single-response repetition as the experimenter modeling the correct pronunciation of a word and requiring the participant to repeat the word once. When a participant made an incorrect response, the experimenter corrected the client and prompted them

to the correct answer. Following the participant's correct or incorrect vocal imitation of the word, the experimenter presented the next card. Worsdell et al. (2005) explained multiple-response repetition as the experimenter modeling the correct pronunciation of a word and prompting the participant to repeat the word five times in the presence of the card. These researchers found that participants acquired more sight-word reading words when incorrect responses were followed by a multiple response repetition than when incorrect responses were followed by single response repetition.

McGhan & Lerman (2013) looked at four error-correction procedures to identify the most effective and efficient strategies. The goal of their study was to see which error correction procedure was most effective and also the most efficient. The first error correction procedure they used was an error statement (i.e., the therapist said “no, it’s not”), the second error correction procedure was a modeled prompt (i.e., therapist shows child how to do what they asked), the third error correction procedure was an active response (i.e., the client is prompted to give the correct response after a modeled prompt) and the fourth error correction procedure was a directed rehearsal (i.e., the client is required to engage in correct unprompted responses after the error). Their findings were inconsistent with other studies done on error corrections, as the results of this study showed that requiring a learner to respond actively during error correction is more effective than just giving the correct response (McGhan & Lerman 2013).

Lovaas (2003) focused on the potential avoidance function and recommended associating ‘no’ with the withholding of a positive reinforcer, thus establishing the word ‘no’ as an aversive stimulus. Harris & Weiss (1998) recommended responding to errors by saying ‘no’ to some students but modeling the correct response for others. For example, if the teacher tells the child to touch their head and they touch their nose, the teacher would turn their head and simply say “no;” this would happen for a few trials. This correction procedure does not teach what the teacher wants, just that their answer is incorrect. The more recently published studies that examined the effect of error correction procedures on learning compare treatment packages involving multiple components (Magee & Ellis, 2006). There have been many different studies done on various different error corrections; none proving one is the superior error correction procedure. To compare error correction procedures, investigators have conducted discrimination training in which prompting, reinforcement, and error correction procedures were used across all conditions, with an additional error correction procedure that varied between conditions (Smith et al., 2006). There are all different learners; therefore, there is a need for different ways to acquire skill acquisition.

Purpose of Research

The purpose of this study was to investigate three different error-correction procedures (repeated SD five step, prompted four step, and errorless teaching) in succession to evaluate if one procedure leads to mastery quicker than another during discrete trial training with children with developmental disabilities.

Method

Participants

Participants were students from a school for preschool-age children on Long Island providing a

variety of educational services for children with disabilities. To participate in the study, each child was required to be in an applied behavior analysis (ABA) preschool class.

Four parents of preschool children currently in an ABA preschool class consented to allow their children to be a part of this study to look at the effectiveness of three different error correction procedures to see if one leads to mastery faster than another. Two of the participants were preschool age males and two were preschool aged females, with a mean age of 4.3 years. All had Individual Education Plans (IEPs). Two of the children were classified as a student with disabilities. One child had a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The last child had a diagnosis of Smith Magenis Syndrome (SMS). All four participants remained in the study throughout its duration.

Intervention and Procedures

Prompted Four Step Error Correction. The prompted four step error correction takes place after the child makes an error. The teacher would state the S D , and the child would either answer incorrectly or not answer. After that occurs the following steps were followed: (1) Prompt the correct response, (2) restate the S D (differentially reinforce a correct independent response following the initial error), (3) following a correct response, run one maintenance trial (i.e., a trial of a previously mastered skill), and (4) then repeat the original S D (differentially reinforce a correct independent response following the initial error). For example: The teacher asks the student to “touch head,” the student doesn’t respond, so the teacher (1) prompts the correct response: (prompting the child to touch head while saying “this is touching your head”), (2) teacher restates SD: “Touch head” (child touches head, teacher gives student verbal praise), (3) maintenance trial: S D: e.g., “clap hands” (student claps hands), (4) restate the original S D: “Touch head” (child touches head, gets cheerio as a reinforcer). If the child responds incorrectly, the error correction sequence is done again. The error correction sequence will be done no more than three times in a row. If after the third time the child is still incorrectly responding, the teacher will move on to another target and will not go back to the original target until another learning time (i.e., a different time during the teaching session).

Repeated SD Five-Step Error Correction. The repeated SD five-step error correction occurs after the child makes the initial error. The consequence for the error in this correction sequence is to restate the SD; there is no correction after the initial error. The teacher states the S D; the child either doesn’t respond or responds incorrectly. For this procedure, (1) the teacher restates the S D , and then (2) prompts the child to emit the correct response; (3) the S D is stated again (2 second delay for an independent response; the child is given a lesser reinforcer for a correct response following the first error), (4) run a maintenance trial, (5) state the original S D again (2 second delay for an independent response, the participant is given a lesser reinforcer for a correct response). For example: The teacher asks the student to “touch head;” the student doesn’t respond, so the teacher (1) redelivers the S D : “Touch head;” (2) the teacher then prompts the child to touch head, (3) teacher restates S D : “Touch head” (give the child 2 seconds to respond, child touches head, teacher gives student verbal praise), (4) maintenance trial: S D : “clap hands” (student claps hands), (5) restate original S D: “Touch head” (give the child 2 seconds to respond, child touches head, gets cheerio as a reinforcer). If the participant responds incorrectly, the error

correction sequence has to be done again. This error correction sequence should be implemented no more than three times in a row. If, after the third implementation of the error correction procedure and the participant are still responding incorrectly, the teacher will move on to another target and will not go back to that target until another learning time.

Errorless Teaching. The errorless teaching method works by the teacher delivering the SD (what they would like the participant to do), and then they either immediately prompt the student to emit the correct response, or the teacher waits 1-2 seconds to see what the participant will do. If the child begins to move to an incorrect response, or does not respond, the teacher then immediately blocks the error and prompts the correct response and praises the participant. The same SD (antecedent) is then presented again, with the participant responding correctly without a prompt or less of a prompt (transfer trial). If the participant is correct, the teacher immediately praises the participant and strongly reinforces the participant and moves on to other target skills. If the participant begins to respond incorrectly again when the targeted skill is being addressed, then the teacher will prompt the child to emit the correct response and then will move on to other mastered targets. For example, if the targeted S D is “touch head” the teacher would then prompt the participant to touch their head, blocking any possible errors if needed. Then the S D would be stated again, and the participant correctly responds independently (earning a highly preferred reinforcer).

General

Procedures

In this study, 4 children of around the same cognitive ability were included to master skills from the same discrete trial teaching program (expressive action identification) during learning times. For example, the instructor would show the participant a picture of an action and the participant would name the action. These programs will have already been considered to be established in that the participants have already at least one mastered target within the given program. For each new target to be addressed in this study, a different error correction procedure was used in succession. For example, if the program was body part identification, identifying head would use the prompt four step error correction, identifying toes would use the repeated S D five step error correction and identifying ears would use the errorless teaching method. After each of the targets have been mastered, there will be a comparison to measure the difference, if any, in how long it takes for the participants to master each of the targets with the different error correction procedures.

In the DTT learning condition, trial-by-trial data were taken for ten trials in a given session. Learning times were scheduled for 2-3 times a day. The criterion for mastery of a target was 90% correct out of the ten trials for three consecutive sessions. The experimental design for this study was a multiple baseline across participants (Barlow et al., 2009). Inter-observer agreement was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of the agreements plus the disagreements and converting that to a percentage. Interobserver agreement was in place for each student to ensure reliability of intervention components. Approximately 30% of the sessions involved data collection by a second observer. Inter-observer agreement was achieved for 100% of the sessions where IOA data were recorded.

Results

This study examined whether there was a difference in the effectiveness of one error correction procedure over the others in terms of leading to faster mastery. The goal of the study was to see whether one error correction procedure leads to faster mastery compared to the other procedures. Table 1 shows the number of times the error correction procedure was used and table 2 shows trials to criterion. Figures 1, 2, and 3 are the multiple baseline data for each error correction procedure. The results showed that participant 1 required 7 sessions to acquire the picture using errorless learning; this participant required the correction on 11 occasions during those 7 sessions. Participant 2 required 6 sessions to acquire the picture using errorless learning; this participant required the correction on 12 occasions during those 6 sessions. Participant 3 required 6 sessions to acquire the picture using errorless learning; this participant required the correction on 18 occasions during those 6 sessions. Participant 4 required 7 sessions to acquire the picture using errorless learning; this participant required the correction on 17 occasions during those 7 sessions.

For the 4 step prompted error correction procedure, participant one required 4 sessions to achieve mastery and required the correction procedure on 3 occasions during those 4 sessions. Participant two required 3 sessions to achieve mastery and required the correction procedure on 2 occasions during those 3 sessions. Participant three required 3 sessions to achieve mastery and required the correction procedure on 2 occasions during those 3 sessions. Participant four required 8 sessions to achieve mastery and required the correction procedure on 14 occasions during those 8 sessions.

For the repeated SD five step error correction procedure, participant one required 4 sessions and required the error correction procedure on 3 occasions in those 4 sessions. Participant two required 7 sessions and required the error correction procedure on 7 occasions in those 7 sessions. Participant three required 3 sessions and required the error correction procedure on 1 occasion in those 3 sessions. Participant one required 4 sessions and required the error correction procedure on 4 occasions in those 4 sessions.

Discussion

Rationale and Summary of Results

The goal of the current study was to investigate three different error-correction procedures (repeated SD five step, prompted four step, and errorless teaching) in succession to evaluate if one procedure leads to mastery quicker than another during discrete trial training with children with developmental disabilities. Each participant had a different experience with the error correction procedures. According to the data, the 4 step prompted error correction procedure and the repeated SD 5 step error correction procedure worked equally well for participant one. The 4 step prompted error correction procedure was more effective for participants two and three. The repeated 5 step error correction procedure was more effective for participant four.

Based on the data above, different error correction procedures may be more effective for certain individuals compared to others. All four participants yielded different results with the error correction procedures. Not only did they have varied lengths of time that it took to master a

target, but they also required varying amounts of time exposed to each error correction procedure.

Strengths

Strengths of this study included that the error correction procedures used were already error correction procedures that the participants were already exposed to. The used error correction procedures have been used with the participants during daily intensive teaching times (ITT) throughout the current school year.

A second strength of this study was that there were multiple people taking data. The children had exposure to different therapists conducting the sessions. Based on the reliability data for each of the three error correction procedures, each error correction procedure was implemented with a high degree of accuracy.

A final strength of this study was that the participants were familiar with the person running the trials with them. When the participants have a strong relationship with their therapist it affects their learning. The better the relationship the participant has with their therapist the more willing the participant is to do what the therapist is asking of them.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

One of the limitations of this study was time constraints to complete this study. If given more time, more teaching programs (other than focusing on expressive identification of actions) could have been tested with more target skills within those programs. In addition, it may have been possible to select other teaching programs to further examine the effectiveness of each of the error correction procedures on skill acquisition. For future research it would be recommended to use similar procedures used in the current study with a receptive language program or a motor imitation program. The results of this study could have differed if another type of program was used. Future research may also want to use technology to show the actions actually happening instead of a photograph of the action, as was used in the present study. Seeing the actual action take place instead of a stagnant picture may yield different results compared to the current study.

Another possible limitation of this study was using the same sequence of error correction procedures. Each child did the error corrections in the same order. The participants required the errorless procedure more often than the other procedures. While the participants needed the errorless procedure more often it could have been the order in which the procedures were taught that caused them to pick up the other error corrections quicker. For future research it is suggested that the error correction procedures be done in randomly determined orders to see if that would lead to different results compared to the results of the current study.

Conclusion

The results from this study showed that there may not be one error correction procedure that works for all participants in the same way in terms of skill acquisition. Error correction procedures used with children with ASD may need to be tailored to the individual child. There isn’t always a “one size fits all” answer to teaching, and error correction procedures are no exception from that. Therefore, based on the results of this study, it may be helpful to assess

students using different error correction procedures to determine which procedure(s) lead to faster mastery of targeted skills.

**Note: Please contact authors for graphs and tables showing Errorless Learning, Sessions and Interventions (Photo was unable to be replicated in this journal)

References

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/facts.html

Barbetta, P.M., Heward, W.L., & Bradley, D.M.C. (1993.). Relative effects of whole word and phonetic error correction on the acquisition and maintenance of sight words by students with developmental disabilities Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 26, 99-110.

Barlow, D.H., Nock, M.K., & Hersen, M. (2009). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change . Boston MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Carroll, R.A., Joachim, B.T., St. Peter, C. C., & Robinson, N. (2015). Comparison of error correction procedures on skill acquisition during discrete-trial instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 48, 257–273.

Downs, A., Downs, R. C., Johansen, M., & Fossum, M. (2007). Using discrete trial teaching within a public preschool program to facilitate skill development in students with developmental disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children , 30, 1–27.

Fabrizio, M.A., & Pahl, S. (2007). An experimental analysis of two error correction procedures used to improve the textual behavior of a student with autism. The Behavioral Analyst Today, 8, 260-271.

Frost, L., & Bondy, A. (2002). The Picture Exchange Communication System training manual. Newark, DE: Pyramid Educational Products Inc.

Harris, S. L., & Weiss, M. (1998). Right from the start: Behavioral intervention for young children with autism. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability , 27, 346-350.

Koegel, R. L., Russo, D. C., & Rincover, A. (1977). Assessing and training teachers in the generalized use of behavior modification with autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 10, 197–205.

Libby. E.M., Weiss. S.J., Bancroft. S., & Ahearn H.W. (2008). A comparison of most-to-least prompting on the skill acquisition of solitary play skills. Behavior Analysts in Practice, 1 , 37-43.

Lovaas, O. I. (2003). Teaching individuals with developmental delays: Basic intervention techniques. Austin TX: PRO-ED, Inc.

Magee, S. K., & Ellis, J. (2006). The role of error-correction procedures in the reinforcement of errors. Behavioral Interventions , 21, 205–226.

Marvin, K. L., Rapp, J. T., Stenske, M. T., Rojas, N. R., Swanson, G. J., & Barlett, S. M. (2010). Response repetition as an error-correction procedure for sight-word reading: a replication and extension. Behavioral Interventions , 25, 109-127.

McGhan, A. C., & Lerman, D. C. (2013). An assessment of error-correction procedures for learners with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 46, 626–639.

Rodgers, T. A., & Iwata, B. A. (1991). An analysis of error correction procedures during discrimination training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 24, 775–781.

Smith, T., Mruzek, D. W., Wheat, L. A., & Hughes, C. (2006). Error correction in discrimination training for children with autism. Behavioral Interventions , 21, 245-263.

Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies . New York: Long-man.

Wolery, M., Bailey, D. B., Jr., & Sugai, G. M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional students . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Worsdell, A. S., Iwata, B. A., Dozier, C. L., Johnson, A. D., Neidert, P. L., & Thomason, J. L. (2005). Analysis of response repetition as an error-correction strategy during sight-word reading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38 , 511-527.

Author Guidelines

AUTHOR GUIDELINES

SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE welcome manuscript submissions at any time. Authors are completely responsible for the factual accuracy of their contributions. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to quote lengthy excerpts from previously-published articles.

Authors will be notified of the receipt of their manuscripts within seven (7) business days of their receipt by the Chief Editor and can expect to receive the recommendation of the review process within 75 days.

All submissions must have a cover letter indicating that the manuscript has not been published, or is not being considered for publication anywhere else, in whole or in substantial part. On the cover letter it will be noted to the authors to be sure to include their name, address, email address, and phone number.

Typescript should conform to the following:

 Method of Manuscript Submission : Send Manuscripts should be submitted electronically with the words " Submission to SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE " in the subject line

 Language: English

 Document: Microsoft Word

 Font: Times New Roman or Arial

 Size of Font: 12 Point

 Page Limit: None

 Margins: 1” on all sides

 Title of paper: Top of page Capitals, bold, and centered

 Author(s) Name: Centered under title of paper

 Format: Manuscripts should follow the guidelines of the most recent edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association

 Figures and Tables: All should be integrated in the typescript

 Abstract: An abstract of no more than 150 words should accompany each submission

 References: Insert all references cited in the paper submitted on a Reference Page

Publishing Process

PUBLISHING PROCESS

The following are the steps through which a submitted article moves from initial submission to actual publication in SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE .

2. The article is submitted in Word format by the author(s) to the Editor, Dr. George Giuliani, at George.A.Giuliani@hofstra.edu

3. The Editor then sends an email to the author stating that the article has been received and a final answer will be given within 90 days of receipt.

4. The article is then placed in an online folder that holds all articles up for review.

5. The article is then removed of all author names, affiliations, etc. so that when it is sent out for review, it is a blind review and no peer reviewers have any indication who wrote the article or from what university it was submitted.

6. An email is then sent by the Editor to all members of the Editorial Board with a request to review an article. Only the title of the article is given.

7. Peer reviewers then email the Editor as to their interest in reviewing the specific article. A minimum of three (3) blind reviewers is selected. An email to each blind reviewer is then sent reviewing the peer review process.

8. The peer reviewers have 60 days from receipt to return a recommendation to the Editor.

9. Once all of the reviews have been obtained, the Editor determines whether to:

 Accept, with or without editorial revisions

 Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached

 Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission

 Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems

10. An email with the decision (and rationale for it) is then sent to the author(s).

11. Before publication, the article is then passed through three functions: copy editing (grammar, references), proofing (typographical errors, spelling errors), and layout (creating a Microsoft Word and PDF version of the article).

Copyright and Reprint Rights

SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE is published by Hofstra University.

SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE retains copyright of all original materials, however, the author(s) retains the right to use, after publication in the journal, all or part of the contribution in a modified form as part of any subsequent publication.

If the author(s) use the materials in a subsequent publication, whether in whole or part, SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE must be acknowledged as the original publisher of the article.

All other requests for use or re-publication in whole or part, should be addressed to the Editor of SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE.