Colleenbarryportfolio.files.wordpress.com



The IEP Gap: A Qualitative Examination of Disproportionality as Reflected in Individualized Education Programs Colleen BarryGeorge Mason UniversityThe IEP Gap: A Qualitative Examination of Disproportionality as Reflected in Individualized Education Programs Disproportionality, by definition, is any difference that is not fair, reasonable, or expected (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). When this concept is applied to the field of special education, it refers to the disproportional representation of students receiving special education programming who vary on dimensions such as race, language status, socioeconomic status, gender, and parental level of education (Sullivan & Bal, 2013). From a historical perspective, this unequal representation has existed for a greater part of the 20th century but was not brought to light in the special education literature until Dunn in (1968). His commentary began on a poignant note by taking a supportive stance for an inclusive mindset before the concept even existed,; “It is my thesis that we must stop labeling these [socioculturally] deprived students as mentally retarded. Furthermore we must stop segregating them by placing them into our allegedly special programs” (Dunn, 1968, p. 6). Since that time, special education policy has amassed increasing amounts of attention. What began as The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) eventually evolved into the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990), which subsequently underwent a series of amendments in 1997 and 2004. With its most recent 2004 amendment, IDEA now has provisions that address disproportionality, requiring each state to collect and report data regarding the representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education [20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C); 34 CFR §300.600(d)(3)]. Further, states are obligated to evaluate this data to determine if there is a “significant disproportionality” with respect to identification of children as individuals with disabilities, placement in educational settings, and the frequency and duration of disciplinary suspensions and expulsions [20 U.S.C. 1418(d) and 34 CFR §300.646]. Case law has also served to bolster policies and laws surrounding disproportionality in special education. A landmark case in special education, Guadalupe v. Tempe (1978), led a U.S. district court to agree to the condition that children may not be placed in ‘educable mentally retarded classes’ unless they scored more than two standard deviations below the population mean on an approved intelligence test administered in the child’s native language. Additional stipulations require that other types of assessments must be used in addition to intelligence tests and parental permission must be obtained for placements into special classes. With similar respect to assessment, the Larry P. v. Riles case (1972) led the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to rule that schools must provide intelligence tests that do not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity. The primary underlying argument rests upon the court’s findings that tests involved in the tracking of students into special classes were standardized on an all-white population and had not gone thorough the prescribed validation processes mandated by law. Data regarding the representation of students in special education is easily available through public domains. National data reveal that as of 2007 there has been a stark disparity of students served under IDEA by race and ethnicity, with Black students making up 12.2% and American Indian/Alaska Natives at 14.4%, whereas White and Hispanic students represent 8.5%, and Asian/Pacific Islander make up a mere 4.8% of students receiving special education (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2010). However, it would be remiss to solely discuss the representational disproportionality of students with regard to their special class placement, as this represents only a fraction of an incredibly complex, multiply determined problem. Several questions remain: What happens to a student after the interplay between environment, genetics, social, cultural, and economic forces ushers them into a special education classroom? Do these forces follow them, hinder them, or support them? Hence, the acknowledgement of, and findings that support disproportionality among special education students fuels the need to explore how these students are serviced. The purpose of this inquiry is to explore disproportionality as reflected in the Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) of students with special needs through a qualitative lens. How does an IEP of a student with greater access to resources and higher socioeconomic standing differ from that of a student from the other end of the spectrum? How does the delivery of services and accommodations differ from a low-income school versus a high-income school within the same district? This study will scrutinize case examples of IEPs that represent those students who “have” versus those who “have not” in an effort to answer these questions and qualify the IEP gap. The IEP and its Process The IEP is first and foremost, individualized, meaning that the unique needs of the child should be reflected and the program should be tailored to meet and accommodate such needs. IEPs are mandated by IDEA (2004) with the objective of providing the student with a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). In order to ensure FAPE, the IEP operates on what is referred to as the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). The principle of LRE states that children are educated alongside typically developing peers as much as possible and are not removed from the general education environment because of the nature or severity of their disability, unless the supplementary aids and services cannot support them effectively (IDEA, 2004). The IEP process begins with an eligibility determination wherein the school team determines if the child’s disability has an adverse effect on the child’s academic, social, or behavioral progress. Once a child is found eligible by meeting the criteria set forth by one or more of the 13 disability categories, the IEP team is assembled and an IEP is formulated. The IEP team is generally made up of the child’s parents/guardians, one special education teacher, one general education teacher, and a school-based administrator. The IEP begins with a review of the child’s present level of educational performance and proceeds with the development of proposed, measurable annual goals and objectives to include a progress indicator of how these goals will be monitored and reported. In order to substantiate the need for goals and objectives, factors such as previous student progress, assessments, testing data, parental input, and teacher narratives are taken into consideration. Further, all relevant information regarding the student, including academic, medical, social, and community factors, as well as parental concerns are all documented on the Present Level of Performance (PLOP) page. Accommodations and supplementary aids such as assistive technology devices, math aids (e.g., calculator, abacus), a bilingual dictionary, behavioral intervention plans/positive reinforcement systems, etc., are also discussed and selected as needed. Upon completion of the IEP draft, the team moves toward what is perhaps the most crucial aspect of an IEP: the determination of placement and service delivery. Placement is the academic environment in which the IEP can best be implemented; this usually includes the general education classroom, resource setting, special education classroom, public day school, private day school, or residential facility (IDEA, 2004). Service delivery is the model of instruction that will occur within the specified placement. Options for service delivery are spread along a continuum and encompass approaches directed at how to best service a population of students. For example, a student with a severe learning disability may benefit from a service delivery option in a resource setting, whereas a student with profound emotional disabilities may be best served in a public day setting. Prior to discussion surrounding placement and service delivery options, all goals, objectives, and accommodations must be completed within the IEP. This impervious caveat is intended to protect students, twofold; first, it protects a student’s rights by requiring that the needs of the child drive the IEP, and second, it prevents schools from designing the IEP to fit into a particular program (Sullivan & Bal, 2013).Procedural safeguards: Addressing disproportionality. Educational research shows consistent evidence that parental involvement is a strong predictor of success in a child’s education (Gomez Mandic, Rudd, Hehir, & Acevedo-Garcia, 2012). Once inducted into the system of special education, procedural safeguards are put into place to help parents of students with disabilities understand their rights and their children’s rights (National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 [NLTS-2], 2011). These safeguards are a vital requirement within the context of IDEA (2004) and provide parents with guarantees to their rights such as mediation, due process, and formal state complaints if they are not satisfied with the services their child is receiving. Overall, the intent of the procedural safeguards is to ensure equal collaboration between parents and school teams to share in the decision making regarding eligibility, assessments, placement, services, IEP planning, and transition to adulthood (IDEA, 2004). Schools are required to provide parents a set of written procedural safeguards in the parents’ native language prior to all formal meetings regarding their child’s education (i.e., eligibility meeting, IEP meeting, IEP addendums, etc.). However, these procedural safeguards may not reach all parents in an equitable way. Data from the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS,; 2006) suggest that parents of children who are most at risk for poor educational and socio-emotional outcomes are those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Factors such as race, income, parent level of education, mothers age at child’s birth, household composition/size, and home language all contribute to the disproportionality seen among special education students and parents’ ability to meaningfully participate in their child’s IEP (SEELS, 2006). Disproportionality: Contributing Factors Structural and cultural barriers such as limited paid leave, rigid work schedules, cultural perceptions of disabilities, school-home relationships, and parent literacy add complexity to this disparity between parents’ desired and actual levels of involvement in their child’s IEP (Gomez Mandic et al., 2012; Harry, 2008). Taken together, the blending of any or all of these factors put an increased strain on parents’ ability to become and remain involved in their child’s education, thus furthering the gap between “The Haves” and “The Have Nots.” Culturally diverse. African American children and youth represent the greatest proportion of students with disabilities in the United States (NCES, 2010). They are also markedly more likely to be found eligible under the emotional disability and intellectual disability categories than children of any other race/ethnicity (NCES, 2010; NTLS-2, 2011). Further, students of African American, Hispanic, and Native American groups are the most likely to receive special education services and the least likely to be found eligible for gifted education (Harry, 2008). Numerous factors account for this marginalization, including the United States’ history of prejudices toward these groups (Harry, 2008; Lo, 2012). These prejudices can still be seen embedded within the educational system and are magnified when dealing with culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) parents of children with special needs. Active parental participation is a cornerstone of IDEA (2004); however, it can be argued that this is a belief that resides within the “Americanized” mindset that values individual rights and equality (Lo, 2012). These values can be in stark contrast to the ideals held by diverse families, especially when faced with the “requirement” of their participation. These families may not be able to fulfill their role in an expected way, thus exacerbating the gap between them and non-minority families. The utilization of a cross-cultural language plays a key role in the success or failure of communication among school staff and parents on the IEP team. The risk of miscommunication increases dramatically when the cultural frameworks of the school staff differ from the families whom they serve (Harry, 2008). A solid understanding of the contexts from which CLD families come is an important element to bridging this gap. Individuals from Anglo-European backgrounds are said to be “low-context” cultures, meaning they put a large focus on verbal components of conversation. In contrast, Lo (2012) argues that “high-context” cultures, such as Asian and Hispanic, focus less on verbal interactions and more on nonverbal elements of communication (e.g., body language, facial expressions, etc.; Lo, 2012). Although translation and interpretation services are made available to these parents throughout the IEP process, this does not take into consideration the unspoken behavior of the school staff that may be misinterpreted. According to the NCES (2010), approximately 20% of school professionals come from diverse backgrounds, while nearly 42% of students who receive special education services come from a diverse background, which highlights quite a disparity in the cross-cultural communication gap that exists between educators and students. There are approximately 380 languages spoken in the United States (Lo, 2012). What is sometimes not considered, either due to a lack of awareness or simply lack of availability, is that these languages have a multitude of dialects within them. In order to ensure a successful communication bridge to minimize the gap, the correct fit between interpreter and parents is needed. The interpreter must not only speak the correct dialect of the parents’ native language, but also ideally has familiarity and experiences working within the scope of special education. Often, terminology and vocabulary do not have a functional equivalent in the parents’ native language, creating increased difficulty in parental understanding and, hence, limiting their involvement in the IEP process (Lo, 2012). As mentioned above, the regulations that make up IDEA (2004) require communication to the parents be in their native language; however, translated material is highly susceptible to errors and linguistic structures of the text may not have direct equivalents in the translated language. Further, readability, or the ease with which one can read and understand text of the special education procedural safeguards extends beyond cultural boundaries and is linked to socioeconomic status and parent level of education. Socioeconomic status. Throughout the literature, the harsh statistic that students from low-income backgrounds are more likely to be placed in special education settings than their middle- and upper-class counterparts is pervasive (Gomez Mandic et al., 2013; Lo, 2012; Harry, 2008; NCES, 2010; Lo, 2012). These families are mostly comprised of single parents (i.e., single mothers) who work multiple jobs and receive below poverty level income. Logistical and structural barriers such as lack of paid time off and inflexible work schedules prevent these parents from being able to attend their child’s IEP meeting (Gomez Mandic et al., 2013; Harry, Allen, McLaughlin, 1995). Further, these families tend to live in neighborhoods that feed into high-poverty, high-need schools with disproportionally elevated levels of teacher turnover, lack of resources, and limited funding (Gomez Mandic et al., 2013; Harry, 2008). Oftentimes, families living in poverty have large numbers of individuals sharing a common, crowded living space, with the heads of households working extended, night, and/or weekend shifts at work. These factors represent a mere fraction of what can contribute to an overall lack of consistency at home. Unfortunately, this lack of consistency and meeting of basic needs can manifest in behavioral or socio-emotional difficulties on the part of the child. The child’s display of problem behavior, whether the result of the environment, a disability, or a combination of the two, may result in the parent being called into school for meetings, forcing the parent to miss work, and resuming the cycle of inconsistency (Harry et al., 1995). Parent education and literacy level. Despite the legislation that requires parents be provided procedural safeguards and all IEP documents in a language or other mode of communication they can readily understand (34 C. F. R. §300.503-504), there is contradictory evidence suggesting this does not always occur. Gomez Mandic et al., (2013) used regression equations to predict the readability of IEP text and the associated reading grade levels to passages. These readability formulas were then applied to the procedural safeguards distributed to parents throughout the United States. It was found that the readability of such documents was written at an “excessively high level,” with nearly 40% of states’ reading materials scoring at the graduate or professional reading level. Examples of an IEP terminology and phrasing used in informed consent and LRE clauses are located in the Appendix. Parental level of education has clear links to parent understanding of eligibility labels, vocabulary used at meetings, and even the function of meeting as an IEP team. Harry (2008) noted that parents who did not have the equivalent of a high school diploma had striking differences not only in their level of comprehension for the special education process, but also in the verbiage used throughout it. The IEP process is comprised of several meetings, including, eligibility testing, eligibility determination, annual IEPs, addendums, and reevaluations. The function of each of these is unique, which may further cloud parent understanding of the process. Moreover, most of these parents were CLD individuals, meaning they contend with an added layer of language barriers. Not only do the literacy level and experiences of the parent bring to light gaps in communication, they can also exacerbate parents’ perceptions of their child as a child with a disability (Harry, 2008; Tucker & Schwartz, 2013). Harry (2008) reported that the comprehension of disability constructs vastly differ among racial and socioeconomic groups. Labels such as “mentally retarded” (now “intellectually disabled”), “learning disabled,” and “emotionally disturbed” were shocking to Hispanic and African American families. When a parent learns that his or her child has a disability, it can be emotionally draining. Parenting alone is difficult; however, additional stressors such as copious amounts of paperwork, interviews with psychologists and social workers, and meetings with several school staff, combined with limited literacy, can be completely overwhelming to CLD parents. Further, these families’ limited access to resources like educational advocates and attorneys fuels the gap between parental comprehension and the IEP process. Under IDEA (2004), parents have the rights to seek out “individuals who have knowledge or special expertise.” However, these advocates come at a cost; parents must have both social and financial capital to have the means to hire such an individual. Educational advocates charge upwards of $75-100 per hour, usually requiring a retainer fee of $600 or more. Purpose Statement and Research Questions Taken together, the factors discussed above, among many others, contribute to the disproportionality seen on many dimensions of the American education system. Based upon these premises, the present study seeks to examine this disproportionality as reflected in the IEPs of students who access special education services in a large public school district. Specifically, the IEPs of students from various socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds will be examined to explore if their amount of access to resources, school neighborhood/school type (i.e., Title 1 vs. magnet school), and parental factors play a role in what services and accommodations are provided via the IEP. It is hypothesized that IEPs from high income neighborhoods with well-educated parents will have more robust services, detailed goals and objectives, and addendums/data reviews as part of the IEP than students’ IEPs which come from contradictory factors (e.g., low income, higher Free and Reduced Price Lunch, etc.). The IEPs will be analyzed by designation of “The Haves” versus “The Have-Nots.” MethodSettingThe study was conducted in a large, suburban school district located along the East Coast of the United States. The district has a total of 209 schools, comprised of elementary, middle, secondary, and high schools, along with alternative centers, special education sites, and interagency private schools. For the 2014-2015 school year, there were 186,785 students enrolled with the following demographics: 41.4% White, 23.6% Hispanic/Latino, 19.5% Asian, 10.3% African American, and 0.2% American Indian/Alaska Native. Nearly 28% of the students in the district receive Free and Reduce Price Lunch and approximately 8% of students serviced have an IEP. Sampling StrategiesA total of four IEPs were purposefully selected from contrasting regions of the school district. IEPs were derived from four geographically distinct neighborhoods of the county; these neighborhoods were chosen because they are characterized by dramatic socioeconomic and CLD differences among them. In order for an IEP to be selected, it must be written for a student who is at least 10 years old, is currently being serviced in the designated county’s public school (e.g., not private day placement, alternative center, etc.), and may not be the student’s initial IEP (i.e., the first IEP after the student was found eligible for special education). Data AnalysisFamily demographics and social histories were derived from historical documents and eligibility packets located in the child’s web-based cumulative file. IEPs were analyzed along the following dimensions: number of goals and objectives, information on how progress monitoring was measured, the student’s strengths and needs as a basis for goal/objective rationale, service hours for special education and general education, number of addendums (i.e., addendum with and without meetings), number of accommodations, and presence of an educational advocate, lawyer, or non-school related personnel on the cover page. Further detail regarding goals, objectives, and their rationales were obtained by examining the substantiate evidence provided by the IEP team through a line-by-line text analysis. Additionally, the PLOP pages were analyzed by word count, parent requests to the IEP team (e.g., for related service consults, updated testing, etc.), and recommendations to reconsider current special education placement. A summary of this information is provided in Table 1. Case Examples: “The Haves” Case #1: Andy. Demographics and family history. Andy is a 12-year-old Indian-American boy with an educational and medical diagnosis of autism. He is enrolled in the 7th grade and attends his neighborhood middle school, a magnet school for the arts and sciences. Five percent of the students qualify for Free and Reduced Price Lunch. Andy lives with his mother and his 15-year-old sister. His mother and father were born in West Bengal and moved to the United States in 1994. The home language is Bengali; however, all family members are fluent English speakers. Andy’s parents divorced in 2005, and his father moved to the west coast. Both parents have advanced degrees in law and finance. Andy’s father is employed as a CFO for a large corporate firm and his mother is an attorney who works in a local law office. IEP. Andy’s IEP includes 20 hours of autism services exclusively delivered in a special education setting, with the remaining 10 hours of his academic week in the absence of special education support. Andy also receives 30 minutes of weekly counseling services and 45 minutes of weekly speech and language therapy. His IEP is made up of 11 annual goals with a total of 10 short-term objectives in the areas of math, reading, writing, communication, behavior, and receptive language/following directions. Progress monitoring for each of the goals indicates data are to be collected via probes, checklists, or permanent products. The areas that describe student strengths and needs are verbose, with multiple paragraphs written to substantiate the need for each goal. References to previous classroom data, private testing, and parental input are also included and were used to make decisions about the goals and objectives. There are 13 identified curricular and classroom accommodations, including a behavior intervention plan, small group size, and assistive technology support. Since being found eligible in 2006, Andy’s IEP team has reconvened and held a full IEP or addendum meeting 21 times. Andy’s mother was in attendance (either in person or via telephone) for each of these meetings, along with an educational advocate and/or a private psychologist. The PLOP page for his most recent IEP is 12 pages long and contains 6,112 words. The PLOP page indicates 16 parental requests for additional services and/or modifications to existing services, one change of placement, and two disagreements with IEP team decisions. The most recent disagreement put forth by the parent, advocate, and private psychologist indicated that the public school system continues to fail to meet Andy’s needs as evidenced by lack of progress on goals and concerns related to bullying. Therefore, a request for multiagency private placement was made and approved by the entire IEP team. Andy’s mother stated that a private day school would support his behavioral, social, academic, and emotional health needs in a comprehensive way that is not attainable via public schooling. Case #2: Matt.Demographics and family history. Matt is a 13-year-old Caucasian boy with an educational and medical diagnosis of autism. Matt is enrolled in the 7th grade and attends a middle school with an Advanced Academic Placement (AAP) center. Matt qualified for AAP when he was in the 3rd grade and attended a magnet school for the arts and sciences until 6th grade. Due to his AAP placement, Matt does not attend his neighborhood middle school as per his IEP. Seven percent of the student population at Matt’s middle school qualify for Free and Reduced Price Lunch. Matt’s father is an aerospace engineer and works for a government contractor and his mother is self-employed as an educational advocate. Matt lives with both of his parents and his 22-year-old sister, who also has a diagnosis of autism, in a very affluent region of the county. IEP. Matt’s IEP includes 16 hours of special education support, with 4 of those hours in a special education setting only. The remaining 14 hours of his 30- hour academic week is spent without special education support. As a related service, Matt receives 30 minutes of counseling per week. Matt’s IEP has 8 annual goals with 11 short-term objectives in the areas of writing, social skills, self-regulation, task completion, and attention/focus. Progress toward these goals are monitored via writing samples, checklists, self report/anecdotal notes, and probe data collected through his Behavioral Intervention Plan. The strengths and needs aligned with each of the goals and objectives consist of an average of five paragraphs of evidence consisting of parental input, previous data on goals, and private testing and assessments provide a solid justification for each goal. Specifically, the ratio of paragraphs on strengths to paragraphs on needs is 1:4. Graphic organizers, spell checkers, and shortened assignments are among the 14 classroom and curricular accommodations Matt receives. As a successful educational advocate, Matt’s mother is very invested in her son’s education and attends all IEP meetings in person. Since his initial eligibility in 2004, Matt’s educational record reflects 24 IEPs and addendaums, with his most recent PLOP page amassing 6,212 words and spanning 12 pages. The PLOP page contains 23 parent requests regarding educational placement, accommodations, and possibility of a late start for middle school. Case Examples: “The Have Nots”Case #3: John.Demographics and family history. John is a 10-year-old Caucasian boy who receives special education services under the label of Emotional Disability. He is in the 5th grade and attends his neighborhood base school, where 15% of students qualify for Free and Reduced Price Lunch. John’s mother is incarcerated and his father struggles with extended bouts of unemployment; however, John’s father has recently found a job and works long hours and night shifts. Due to these unstable family dynamics, John resides with his paternal grandmother, 16-year-old half-sister, and 13-year-old brother in a low-income apartment complex in an ethnically diverse neighborhood. John’s mother and father married in 2003 and have moved numerous times. John was enrolled in a Head Start program when he was a toddler and has since attended seven different public schools in six years. As noted in the social history, John’s mother received special education support throughout her academic career, John’s father has a diagnosis of ADHD for which he is prescribed medication, and John’s half-sister also currently receives special education support. Additionally, there are prominent learning disabilities among both immediate and extended family members on both maternal and paternal sides of John’s family. IEP. According to John’s IEP, he receives 27 hours of special education support and 30 minutes of weekly Occupational Therapy as a related service. John’s IEP contains five goals and eight objectives in the areas of reading, writing, mathematics, and behavior improvements, along with 16 curricular and classroom accommodations that include a number line, Behavior Intervention Plan, and use of a calculator. Progress monitoring on goals and objectives occurs through the use of classwork and checklists. Strengths and needs sections are each confined to no more than one paragraph, with an average of 10 sentences per goal area. John’s IEP has had 12 revisions since his initial eligibility in 2009. John’s father has never attended a meeting due to work and family conflicts and John’s mother participated once via telephone from prison; she has otherwise not attended meetings. The PLOP page indicates multiple attempts on the part of the school team to conduct IEP meetings with John’s parents; however, it is noted “the team did not have a [phone] number to contact mom in order to have her participate by phone.” The IEP is succinct, with a mere 572 words comprising the PLOP and contains no parent requests. Most of the content of the PLOP revolves around John’s maladaptive classroom behaviors, including aggression, noncompliance, and elopement. Case #4: Charlie.Demographics and family history. Charlie is described as a shy, easy going 10-year-old boy. He is enrolled in 5th grade at one of the lowest performing schools in the district where 37% of students receive Free and Reduced Price Lunch. Charlie’s parents are originally from El Salvador and moved to the United States in 1995. Charlie resides with his mother, father, and five siblings; he also has a half-sister who lives in El Salvador with her grandmother. Charlie’s mother is a homemaker and his father is a maintenance worker; both parents have the equivalent of a 6th grade education from their country of origin. Spanish is primarily spoken in the home and all IEPs and IEP meetings are written and communicated, respectively, through translation services. Both parents report that they are supportive of any additional services that Charlie may benefit from to help him become a more skilled reader and writer.IEP. Charlie’s IEP requires 15 hours a week of special education services, with 9 hours in a pull-out special education setting. He receives no related services and has a total of six goals with four objectives. Three of his goals specifically target reading, while the rest address writing, math, and behavior. Goals are monitored solely through classroom participation and classwide assessments. Charlie’s IEP has 13 curricular and classroom accommodations that include extended time, frequent breaks, and reduced language level. Regarding the data to support areas of strengths and needs, each of the goal areas has one brief paragraph with an average of seven sentences. His PLOP page is just as sparse, totaling 169 words, with zero parent requests. Information contained within the PLOP outline his accommodations for language and a calculator, as well as qualification for extended school year. The IEP team has reconvened two times over the span of three years, with both parents in attendance along with a school provided Spanish interpreter. Results The cases put forth each distinctly highlight the gaps in special education services among students from diverse backgrounds. The intent of this study is to bring those gaps forward and address possible contributing factors that exacerbate them. “The Haves” vs. “The Have Nots” Andy and Matt reside in primarily White, middle-class neighborhoods and attend schools with relatively low rates of Free and Reduced Price Lunch (5% and 7%, respectively). Both boys have equally weighty IEPs, with Matt’s at 47 pages and Andy’s at 46, each aggregating massive amounts of documentation. John and Charlie, reside in more ethnically diverse regions of the county, both of which have lower median home values and lower median income per family unit. Free and Reduced Price Lunch rates for John’s neighborhood school is reported at 15%, while a sizeable 37% of the population at John’s school qualify. These “have not” IEPs weigh in at 27 pages for John and 23 pages for Charlie. There is no direct connection to indicate that the number of words or pages covered inherently makes a “better” IEP; rather, the sheer breadth and depth of these IEPs are directly related to the frequency with which the IEP team convened and held meetings. It is important to note that the procedural safeguards provided at each IEP indicate the parent’s right to convene an IEP meeting at any time, for any purpose, regardless of the annual review date (IDEA, 2004). Subsequently, this may indicate that factors such as the readability of the safeguards and parental ability to take leave from work may bolster the IEPs of the “haves.” Additionally, embedded within the safeguards is the parental right to have an educational advocate, lawyer, or other professional attend and support at IEP meetings (See Table 1). Contained within PLOP pages for Andy and Matt are statements directly related to federal law that contain words such as “FAPE” and “LRE,” as well as direct quotes from private psychologists and educational advocates. The frequency with which the “haves” convened an IEP over the span of 5 years resulted in 16 parental requests on behalf of Andy and 23 for Matt. This is in a stark contrast in the PLOP page for John, where nearly all of the 572 words are directly related to his negative classroom behavior and contain phrases such as “elopes from classroom,” “hisses and growls at others,” and “becomes aggressive and antagonizes classmates.” Further, it is reported that he often comes to school tired and falls asleep for hours at a time. Similarly, descriptions of the calculator and read aloud accommodations, as well as a brief paragraph on Charlie’s eligibility for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) services, are the only documentation on his PLOP. Neither of the “have-nots” had non-school personnel attend their meetings. Documentation related to disability eligibility is a requirement for inclusion in an IEP file and generally consists of sociocultural reports, educational testing, and psychological testing. Charlie’s and John’s IEPs include the minimum amount of eligibility documentation and assessments required. Conversely, in addition to annual school generated testing reports, numerous private neuropsychological, educational, and medical reports are attached to the IEP for both Matt and Andy. Typically, school teams will only offer to conduct testing every three years, yet it is clear that the parents of the “haves” understand the nuanced language of the procedural safeguards and have requested not only yearly testing, but also sought independent evaluations. This is further evidence of parental capability to seek outside consultation in order to provide more information to the school team for the construction of goals that most accurately represent the child’s present level of functioning. It is clear by examining all four IEPs side by side that there is substantially more robust information about Andy and Matt, whereas John and Charlie’s IEPs meet minimum standards. Correspondingly, the progress monitoring indicators are directly tied to not only reporting how well the students are doing, but also provide documented evidence to substantiate the need for each goal area. There are several options for school teams to report progress for each goal and objective, such as data collection, classwork, checklists, anecdotal notes, and classroom participation. It is critical that the nature of the goal lends itself to its measurement; for example, a math goal may be monitored by a percentage of problems correct, and a writing goal may be monitored via completed classwork. Progress monitoring for Andy and Matt included data collection and classroom assessments, while John and Charlie’s IEPs relied upon more qualitative means such as participation and anecdotal notes. Critically, there is alignment between all goals and progress monitoring for the “haves,” while there is a clear disconnect among the “have-nots.” For example, one of John’s goals indicated he will “follow directions 80% of the time” and is to be monitored via classwork. Not only is it impossible to monitor a percentage of time unless every direction given was recorded within a predetermined time frame, but monitoring this through classwork is inappropriate. Following directions cannot be wholly captured through classroom work; countless teacher directions are logistical in nature and do not require the student to generate a product (e.g., put your math folder away and come to the back of the room). A more useful means of tracking this behavior would be through yes/no probe data recorded at various intervals daily. Without such probe data points, less “hard evidence” is required from the teacher. In turn, this allows grading and performance documentation to be dependent upon more subjective methods. For some goals, this is acceptable; however, it is best to provide a variety of informational sources to substantiate goals. Despite Charlie’s documented limited proficiency with English, his IEP contains a goal for him to demonstrate age-appropriate “attending” behaviors for 25 minutes in a large group setting. Specific behaviors are not identified or described, nor is there evidence of a comparative peer sample from which the 25 minute time frame was drawn. The only documentation for this goal indicates that he is unable to sustain attention for long periods of time, especially during challenging instruction. It is clear that this goal is incongruent with Charlie’s receptive abilities in English and is likely not a manifestation of his disability. In contrast to John and Charlie’s lower-level behavioral and receptive language goals, areas of need for Andy and Matt both contain higher level thinking skills. For example, Andy has an extensive reading goal that is designed to teach him how to use logical inferences from text information to support his thinking. In addition to addressing the content of each child’s IEP goals, it is also vital to note the number of goal areas with respect to the total number of service hours per week. Herein lies a potential disadvantage on behalf of the “haves”: Andy has 11 goal areas reflected in his IEP, which are to be addressed through 20 hours per week of services. Progress monitoring for each of the goals requires weekly or biweekly measurement, an incredibly daunting task for any teacher. This is further complicated by the nature of middle school schedules that allow only brief moments of time in which teachers can provide class-wide instruction, attend to each of the students’ specific areas of need, and uphold the responsibility of rigorous data collection. Unfortunately, any or all of these roles often become diluted due to time constraints and delegated to less qualified paraprofessionals (Tucker & Schwartz, 2013). In contrast to Andy’s IEP, John’s IEP contains 5 goals areas to be addressed over 27 hours of special education services. John’s progress monitoring is to be recorded across 9 consecutive weeks, a much more realistic expectation. The examination of weekly IEP loads is a direct link to the expectations put upon the teacher. DiscussionThe intent of this paper is to highlight the juxtaposition of IEPs for students who “have” versus those who “have-not.” The issue of unequal access to educational opportunities has been entrenched in the American educational system for decades. Part of this unequal access is directly related to school funding, which is regulated by IDEA for special education students. IDEA mandates that all schools receiving public funds are responsible for providing all students with disabilities FAPE; however, federal funding makes up roughly 17% of special education costs, leaving the districts to cover the rest (Caruso, 2010; IDEA, 2004). The remaining factors contributing to the disproportionality lie within the social schema of race, ethnicity, and family structure. According to IDEA (2004), parents or guardians are entitled and encouraged to participate actively in the development of their child’s IEP; however, the respective abilities of these families to advocate for their children varies widely. Positively, cases of inequitable access to resources prompted American “haves” to dispute law and incite special education litigation with the intent to create social and legal change for individuals with disabilities (Caruso, 2010). One of the most fundamental arguments that may be derived from the dissection of the IEPs above is how the “appropriate” contained within FAPE is defined and implemented within the school setting. The idea behind this is that all children will receive an “equal floor” from which to access educational opportunities. As outlined in the Hendrick Hudson Central School District Board of Education v. Amy Rowley (1982), this “equal floor” is subjective. The case battled the cryptic statutory definitions within IDEA and sought a more comprehensive outline of the law’s intent. Yet what remains is still no exact definition for how much is “enough” regarding IEP services, leaving the “haves” able to take advantage of legal loopholes, which allow them leverage to request more services. The above content analyses of the IEPs are a direct reflection of the bargaining power of each of the families, as well as a byproduct of active parent participation. Assume for a moment that all four IEPs were drafted from an “equal floor.” An enormous amount of pressure falls upon the families to ensure that their child is accessing FAPE and that their IEPs are in compliance with IDEA requirements. This is where Matt and Andy’s parents are at a particular advantage as they are well educated, have sought out as much support as they know how to, and have learned how to expertly advocate for their children. Meanwhile, John’s family unit is fractured and Charlie’s parents have restricted time to attend meetings, limited education, and rely upon a school-provided translator. These “have not” factors combine to result in less active parent participation and highlight quite a disparity between the IEPs of the “haves” and the “have nots.”A 2007 Supreme Court decision in Winkelman v. Parma City School District was one of the first special education litigation cases spearheaded by a “have-not” family with limited financial resources. The resulting decision ruled in favor of allowing families to bypass legal counsel and represent themselves in court. Without the assistance of an attorney, families are able to avoid the burden of immense legal fees and allow their voices to be heard in the court of law. Despite this seemingly landmark decision for “have-not” families, there are clearly limitations. The law accounts for the financial component, yet in order to advocate for their children effectively, these families require resources that are unable to be purchased; time, energy, knowledge of the legal system, and competence. Implications Despite the small victories from overturned federal statutes and case law decisions that ruled in favor of children with disabilities, the fundamental architecture of the American educational system is deeply rooted and resistant to being restructured. Therefore, potentially promising practices on how to narrow the disproportionality in special education are reliant upon extant literature regarding barriers to unequal access to educational opportunities. The following section is geared toward recommendations for practice, with particular attention paid to those families who “have-not.” As Tucker and Schwartz (2013) write, “Fostering successful parental participation is intentional, planned, and ultimately the responsibility of the educational agency” (Tucker & Schwartz, 2013, p. 11). However, time constraints and limited leave from work isare germane issues faced by parents and are nearly impossible for the school team to control. In the present study, the disproportionality represented in the IEP analyses was due in large part to lack of parent attendance and involvement at IEPs. Therefore, enhancing the quality of parental involvement is something that can be applied in practice. Parental empowerment is perhaps the most salient issue in addressing unequal access to educational opportunities. Oftentimes, school bureaucracy connotes a demarcation between the school team and the parent. This “us-against-them” mentality is destructive, especially to low-income parents of diverse backgrounds. Adding a child with a disability into this mix places these parents at a significant disadvantage, which Harry (1992) denotes as the “double deficit.” This position is a toxic blend of the deficit view held by special education and a societal belief that those from diverse or poor backgrounds are inherently flawed. The parent is a critical member of the IEP team and, just as the IEP is individualized, the school staff should attempt to create a more personalized approach for the parent. The rigorous bureaucracy of the IEP process needs to be replaced by problem solving team members committed to collaborating with families and demonstrating respect, acceptance, and empathy (Harry et al., 1995). School teams should recognize that certain practices might denigrate the role of the parents in the IEP process. It is a common practice for the school team to come to an IEP meeting with a draft of the goals, objectives, and PLOP. Presenting parents with what appears to be a finished product places undue stress on them as they have not had an opportunity to review it in advance, which further puts them in a position of being unprepared and, most unfortunately, undervalued in the IEP meeting process (Tucker & Schwartz, 2013). Similarly, the sheer amount of paperwork involved in an IEP may easily overwhelm a CLD parent, especially when the documents are not written in their primary language or at the parents’ educational levels (Lo, 2012). One simple practice is to adequately prepare these parents prior to the IEP by providing them with information about the process, such as the purpose of the meeting, who will be in attendance, and providing ideas for preemptive preparations. Further, delivering the procedural safeguards prior to the meeting can familiarize parents with their rights and encourage their participation. In addition, scheduling an informal meeting with the parents to discuss their rights can not only clarify questions they may have, but also bolster relationships between them and the school team. If needed, a translator should be in attendance to provide the information in the parents’ primary language. Taken together, the issues surrounding disproportionality are part of a wider network of socially constructed dysfunction. To a great extent, the values reflected in IDEA are wholly American. Practices surrounding special education must be adapted in order to shape a culturally competent environment where schools are supporting and empowering parents, while providing rich, diversified instruction to students. Educators must adopt a heterogeneous view of students in order to see them as unique individuals. It is essential that this heterogeneous perspective addresses race, ethnicity, class, and culture to replace the longstanding homogenous view embedded within our society. As every student enters the classroom, he or she brings different experiences and prior knowledge to the group environment. It is important to recognize these differences in order to combat the social stratification of schools and classrooms. The families presented in this study reflect a paradox between hope and doubt within the current state of special education. A solution for disproportionality may not be possible at this time, yet it is hoped that the themes discussed throughout this paper offer a forum for researchers, educators, and families to discourse about how diverse backgrounds of students must be considered and reflected in their individualized instruction. Colleen, this is very impressive work. The lack of comments means that I learned a great deal about the world of IEPS and CLD students. Even your reference list is perfect. Two minor changes to your table below. AReferencesCaruso, D. (2010). Autism in the U.S.: Social movement and legal change. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 36, 483-539. Retrieved from: . (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary online. Retrieved from Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded-- is much of is justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35, 5-22. Retrieved from: Mandic, C., Rudd, R., Hehir, T., & Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2012). Readability of special education procedural safeguards. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 195-203. doi:10.1177/0022466910362774 Guadalupe Organization v. Tempe Elementary School District, 587 F.2d 1022, U.S. Dist. Court of Arizona. (1978). Harry, B. (1993). Restructuring the participation of African-American parents’ in special education. Exceptional Children, 59, 123-131. Retrieved from , B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality. Council for Exceptional Children, 74, 372-388. Retrieved from , B., Allen, N., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Communication versus compliance: African-American parents’ involvement in special education. Exceptional Children, 61, 364-377. Retrieved from: Hudson Central School District Board of Education v. Amy Rowley, 458 U.S. 176. (1982).Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 34 C. F. R. §300.503-504 (2004). Larry P. v. Riles, 343 F. Supp. 1306 (N.D. Cal. 1972) aff’d 502 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1974); 495 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal. 1979); appeal docketed, No. 80-4027 (9th Cir., Jan 17, 1980). Lo, L. (2012). Demystifying the IEP process for diverse parents of children with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44, 14-20. Retrieved from , A. L., & Bal, A. (2013). Disproportionality in special education: Effects of individuals and school variables on disability risk. Exceptional Children, 79, 475-494. Retrieved from: , V., & Schwartz, I. (2013). Parents’ perspectives of collaboration with school professionals: Barriers and facilitators to successful partnerships in planning for students with ASD. School Mental Health, 5, (3-14). doi:10.1007/s12310-012-9102-0U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2011). National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 [NLTS-2] (Report No NCSER 2011-3005). Retrieved from . Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2006). Special education elementary longitudinal study [SEELS] (Project No P10656). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, IDEA Regulations. (2004). [20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C); 34 CFR §300.600(d)(3)]. Retrieved from . Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, IDEA Regulations. (2004). [20 U.S.C. 1418(d) and 34 CFR §300.646]. Retrieved from . Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities. (Table 8.1.a). Retrieved from Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. 516. (2007). AppendixExamples of IEP Clause Phrasing and Terminology Prior Notice of IEP and Placement DecisionABC Public Schools propose to implement this IEP and the placement decision as written. This proposed IEP and placement decision will allow the student to receive a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. This decision is based upon a review of current records, current assessments, and the student’s performance as documented in the Present Level of Performance. Additionally, other factors, if any, that are relevant to this proposal are outlined on the Information Related to Present Level of Performance form of this IEP. When you were notified of this meeting to develop this IEP, you were provided a copy of the procedural safeguards that explains your rights. If you need assistance in understanding this information, please call Due Process and Eligibility (555)-123-1234Least Restrictive EnvironmentIn general, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.Table 1 Breakdown of Student Demographics and Pertinent IEP Information StudentAgeEligibilityIEP Hours/Related ServiceNumber of Annual Goals & ObjectivesProgress MonitoringAccomm-odationsPLOP Word Count/Parent RequestsTotal IEPsAddendumsNon-school personnel at IEPFRLPAndy12Autism 20 hours/weekSL, Counseling11 goals/10 objectivesData probes, checklist, work samples136,112 words/16 requests21 in 5 years Advocate, psychologist 5%Matt13Autism16 hours/weekCounseling 8 goals/11 objectives Data probes, work samples, checklists, self-report, anecdotal notes146,212 words/23 requests 25 in 5 yearsAdvocate7%John10Emotional Disability 27 hours/weekOT5 goals/8 objectives Work samples, checklists16572 words/0 requests 12 in 5 yearsn/a 15%Charlie10Learning Disability 15 hours/week6 goals/4 objectives Classroom assessment, participation14169 words/0 requests2 in 3 years n/a37%*FRPL: Free and Reduced Price Lunch ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download