Volume 16, Number 1
May 2003
Journal of
Special
Education
Leadership
The Journal of the Council of Administrators of Special Education
A Division of the Council for Exceptional Children
Special Issue: Critical Issues in Urban Special Education
Articles
Access to a Schoolwide Thinking Curriculum:
Leadership Challenges and Solutions ............................................................................5
—Catherine Cobb Morocco, Ed.D., Andrea Walker, M.A., and Leslie R. Lewis, M.A.
Schoolwide Behavior Support: Creating Urban Schools
that Accommodate Diverse Learners ..........................................................................15
—Robert March, Ph.D., Leanne Hawken, Ph.D., and Judith Green, Ph.D.
Understanding Factors that Contribute to Disproportionality:
Administrative Hiring Decisions ................................................................................23
—Janette K. Klingner, Ph.D., Beth Harry, Ph.D., and Ronald K. Felton, M.S.
Special Education in the City: How has the Money Been Spent
and What Do We Have to Show for It? ......................................................................34
—Thomas B. Parrish, Ed.D., and Catherine Sousa Bitter, M.A.
Looking for Answers in All the Right Places: Urban Schools and
Universities Solve the Dilemma of Teacher Preparation Together ..............................41
—Elizabeth Kozleski, Ed.D., Sue Gamm, J.D., and Barbara Radner, Ph.D.
Superintendent’s Commentary: Issues of Collective Collaboration Between
Special Education, General Education, Title I Programs, and Bilingual
Education within the Context of the No Child Left Behind Act ................................52
—Carlos A. Garcia, M.Ed.
CASE IN POINT: A Special Education Lawsuit: Catalyst
for Positive Systemic Change? Maybe. Maybe Not. ..................................................55
—Gayle V. Amos, Ed.D.
ISSN 1525-1810
Editorial Board
Editor
Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin
University of Massachusetts at
Amherst
Assistant to the Editor
Heather Goukler
University of Massachusetts at
Amherst
Board of Associate Editors
Dr. Margaret E. Goertz
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA
Ms. Charlene A. Green
Clark County School District
Las Vegas, NV
Dr. Susan Brody Hasazi
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT
Dr. Robert Henderson
University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign, IL
Dr. Thomas M. Skrtic
University of Kansas • Lawrence, KS
Dr. William Swan
University of Georgia • Athens, GA
Dr. Martha Thurlow
National Center on Educational
Outcomes, University of
Minnesota • Minneapolis, MN
Dr. Deborah A. Verstegen
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA
Dr. William Hickey
Avon Public Schools • Avon, CT
Dr. David Wood
Florida Southern College
Lakeland, FL
Dr. Judy Montgomery
Chapman University • Orange, CA
Dr. Dawn L. Hunter
Chapman University • Orange, CA
Dr. Jim Yates
University of Texas at Austin
Dr. Carl Lashley
University of North Carolina
at Greensboro
Dr. Shirley R. McBride
Canadian Government • Victoria, BC
Dr. Patricia Anthony
University of Massachusetts-Lowell
Lowell, MA
Dr. Edward Lee Vargas
Hacienda La Puente Unified
School District
City of Industry, CA
Review Board
Dr. Kenneth M. Bird
Westside Community Schools
Omaha, NE
Dr. Rachel Brown-Chidsey
University of Southern Maine
Gorham, ME
Dr. Leonard C. Burrello
Indiana University • Bloomington, IN
Dr. Colleen A. Capper
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Dr. Jean B. Crockett
Virginia Tech • Blacksburg, VA
Dr. Pia Durkin
Boston Public Schools
Dorchester, MA
CASE Executive Committee 2002–2003
Dr. Eileen McCarthey
Henry Viscardi School • Albertson, NY
Brenda Heiman, President
Dr. Harold McGrady
Division of Learning Disabilities
Columbus, OH
Beverly McCoun, Past President
Dr. Jonathan McIntire
Orange County Public Schools
Orlando, FL
Dr. Margaret J. McLaughlin
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
Steve Milliken, President-Elect
Christy Chambers, Secretary
Cal Evans, Treasurer
Emily Collins, Representative
of CASE Units
Thomas Jeschke, Representative to CEC
Cheryl Hofweber, Canadian
Representative
Dr. Tom Parrish
American Institutes For Research
Palo Alto, CA
Eileen McCarthy, Membership Chair
Dr. David P. Riley
The Urban Special Education
Leadership Collaborative
Newton, MA
John Faust, Publications and
Product Review Chair
Dr. Kenneth E. Schneider
Orange County Public Schools
Orlando, FL
Luann Purcell, Executive Director
Jerry Hine, Policy & Legislation Chair
Mary Lynn Boscardin, Journal Editor
Jim Chapple, Professional
Development Chair
The Editorial Mission
The primary goal of the Journal of Special Education Leadership is to provide both practicing administrators
and researchers of special education administration and policy with relevant tools and sources of information based on
recent advances in administrative theory, research, and practice. The Journal of Special Education Leadership is a journal
dedicated to issues in special education administration, leadership, and policy issues. It is a refereed journal that directly
supports CASE’s main objectives, which are to foster research, learning, teaching, and practice in the field of special
education administration and to encourage the extension of special education administration knowledge to other fields.
Articles for the Journal of Special Education Leadership should enhance knowledge about the process of managing special
education service delivery systems, as well as reflect on techniques, trends, and issues growing out of research on special education that is significant. Preference will be given to articles that have a broad appeal, wide applicability, and
immediate usefulness to administrators, other practitioners, and researchers.
Journal of Special Education Leadership
Volume 16, Number 1
Subscriptions
The Journal of Special Education Leadership is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Education
in conjunction with Sopris West. Copy requests should be made to CASE, 1005 State University Drive, Fort
Valley, GA 31030. Single copies may be purchased. Orders in multiples of 10 per issue can be purchased at a
reduced rate. Members receive a copy of the Journal of Special Education Leadership as part of their membership
fee. See back cover for subscription form.
Advertising
The Journal of Special Education Leadership will offer advertising for employment opportunities, conference
announcements, and those wishing to market educational and administrative publications, products,
materials, and services. Please contact the editor for advertising rates.
Permissions
The Journal of Special Education Leadership allows copies to be reproduced for nonprofit purposes without
permission or charge by the publisher. For information on permission to quote, reprint, or translate material,
please write or call the editor.
Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin, Editor
Journal of Special Education Leadership
175 Hills South
School of Education
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
Copyright
The Journal of Special Education Leadership, a journal for professionals in the field of special education administration, is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Education in conjunction with Sopris West to
foster the general advancement of research, learning, teaching, and practice in the field of special education
administration. The Council of Administrators of Special Education retains literary property rights on copyrighted articles. Any signed article is the personal expression of the author; likewise, any advertisement is the
responsibility of the advertiser. Neither necessarily carries CASE endorsement unless specifically set forth by
adopted resolution. Copies of the articles in this journal may be reproduced for nonprofit distribution without permission from the publisher.
Sopris West Educational Services
4093 Specialty Place
Longmont, CO 80504
Phone: (303) 651-2829
Fax: (888) 819-7767
www.sopriswest.com
Published in partnership with:
A Letter from the Editor
This issue of the Journal of Special Education Leadership is intended to provide insight into how administrators
in urban environments can act as catalysts for improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities
through the dimensions of instructional leadership that have an impact on outcomes for students with disabilities and teachers responsible for their education. Urban concerns include, but are not limited to, resource
allocations, issues of disproportionality, personnel preparation, curriculum access, and the provision of supportive environments. While all issues facing urban special education administrators are not necessarily
unique to the urban setting, the fact is that these challenges become amplified because of the sheer number of
students who span the disability and diversity continuum. Because of the larger number of students with disabilities from diverse backgrounds, it is imperative that urban special education directors are not the only
sources of leadership for these students. All school administrators, instructional leaders, and administrative
team members must be trained to improve instructional programs in urban schools so outcomes are
enhanced for students with disabilities and their teachers.
Dr. David Riley, director of the Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative, is guest editor of this
issue of the Journal of Special Education Leadership. Dr. Riley, in the letter that follows, introduces a series of
articles in this special issue that are intended to challenge our thinking about the different facets of the
administration of urban special education programs. The compendium of five articles is certain to generate
much discussion and debate. In addition to these articles, there are two commentaries, CASE IN POINT and
the Superintendent’s Commentary, representing perspectives on issues facing the administration and management of urban special education programs. CASE is very appreciative of the time, effort, and contribution
made to this issue of JSEL by Dr. Riley and the cadre of authors. On behalf of the CASE Executive Committee,
I hope you enjoy this special issue of JSEL.
Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D., Editor
[email protected]
2
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
A Letter from the Guest Editor
I am delighted to have had the opportunity to organize this special issue of the Journal of Special Education
Leadership devoted to critical issues in urban special education. Space restrictions limited my selection of topics to five: students with disabilities accessing the general education curriculum, special education finance
and accountability for student outcomes, schoolwide behavior supports, special education teacher preparation, and disproportionality. Most certainly, there are other issues that would have been appropriately labeled
“critical” (e.g., interagency collaboration, English language learners with disabilities, family engagement,
inclusive practices). In the aggregate, however, I believe that the convergence of the issues presented by
these five topics—together with the CASE IN POINT on the impact of litigation on student outcomes and
the Superintendent’s Commentary on barriers to general education-special education collaboration—offer an
important glimpse of the programmatic and operational decision-making challenges of a contemporary urban
special education leader.
As Larry Cuban wrote in an essay for the Institute for Educational Leadership, “Crucial differences
distinguish urban school leaders from those of other districts” (Cuban, 2001). The racial and ethnic diversity, economic disparities, bureaucratization, organizational unpredictabilities, community and university
partnerships, media and interest group scrutiny, and, yes, the often raw politics of our urban centers, add
layers of complexity to the role of urban special education leaders not found in that of their suburban or
rural colleagues.
The Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative was founded in 1994 under the auspices of
Education Development Center, Inc., to provide leadership development and networking opportunities
to these school administrators. Two basic tenets have guided the organization: (1) special and general
education must become unified in their efforts to improve outcomes for all students, including those
with disabilities, and (2) these efforts can be enhanced and accelerated by structured opportunities for
urban educational leaders to share with and learn from each other. The Collaborative has now grown to
an organization of more than 80 large, medium, and small urban school districts, representing approximately 15% of the nation’s special education enrollment. The organization’s semiannual meetings bring
together some 200 urban special and general education leaders in search of a common goal—improving
outcomes for an increasingly diverse population of students both with and without disabilities.
As the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) begins in earnest, our
policymakers would do well to consider stories like the ones told in this issue of JSEL. They describe some
of the challenges educational leaders in urban school districts are struggling with and the successes the leaders are achieving as they attempt to carry out the requirements of the current IDEA, along with those of the
equally demanding No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Any proposals to amend IDEA should be scrutinized
for their ability to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of urban schools and districts to implement what
has already been promised to students and families by these two revolutionary federal education policies.
The relative wisdom of these policies should be judged by how well they work together to improve educational results and, thereby, life’s opportunities for children and youth with and without disabilities in urban
school districts.
I would like to acknowledge the work of the authors and coauthors of the articles included in this issue.
The lead authors—Elizabeth Kozleski from the University of Colorado-Denver, Tom Parrish from the American
Institutes for Research, Rob March from New York University, Cathy Morocco from Education Development
Center, and Janette Klingner from the University of Colorado-Boulder—have all contributed greatly to our
understanding of the dynamics of creating change in educational practice that benefit all learners. Worthy of
particular note is the fact that four of the five articles are coauthored by currently practicing urban special education leaders: Ron Felton of Miami-Dade County Public Schools; Sue Gamm of the Chicago Public Schools;
Judith Green of Flossmoor School District 161, in Chicago Heights, Illinois; and Leslie Lewis of the St. Louis,
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
3
A Letter from the Guest Editor
Missouri, Public Schools. Additionally, the CASE IN POINT was written by Gayle Amos of the Baltimore City
Public Schools, and the Superintendent’s Commentary was written by Carlos Garcia of the Clark County Public
Schools in Las Vegas, Nevada. Practicing school administrators can well appreciate the extra effort it took for
these education leaders to be able to lend their perspectives and “voice” to a journal article. It is my hope that
our efforts to produce this special issue of JSEL will contribute to a greater appreciation of the complex challenges currently faced by urban special education leaders and, thereby, to a renewed commitment by federal
and state agencies, institutions of higher education, and community leaders to support and encourage these
leaders in their work.
David P. Riley, Ph.D., Executive Director
Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative
Education Development Center, Inc.
55 Chapel Street
Newton, MA 02458
617-618-2340
Fax: 617-969-3440
E-mail: [email protected]
References
Cuban, Larry. (2001). Urban School Leadership: Different in Kind and Degree. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational
Leadership.
4
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Access to a Schoolwide Thinking Curriculum
Leadership Challenges and Solutions
Catherine Cobb Morocco, Ed.D.
Andrea Walker, M.A.
Leslie R. Lewis, M.A.
Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC)
Newton, Massachusetts
Compton-Drew Investigative
Learning Center (ILC) Middle School
St. Louis, Missouri Public Schools
St. Louis, Missouri Public Schools
• An urban middle school designed to reflect a Schools for Thought model has demonstrated that urban
schools can achieve excellent results on statewide testing for all students, including those with disabilities.
• School leaders problem-solve with teachers regarding the challenges of changing from didactic to studentcentered teaching and including students with disabilities in investigative learning in the regular
classroom.
• District leaders identify several factors that are critical to developing inclusive school models, including sufficient
special education staff, financial and professional development support, and strong school leadership.
• District leaders identify several characteristics of effective school leaders of high-performing, inclusive
schools. These leaders: 1) make a long-term commitment to the school, 2) respond actively to change,
3) use assessment data to develop programs and partnerships, 4) promote shared responsibility for
student learning among faculty, and 5) distribute leadership across staff and faculty.
tudents in Colleen Peters’ sixth grade communications class have been researching a number of
African societies as part of a world cultures unit taking place across the entire sixth grade. They have
been reading about the customs, arts, and geography
of various African societies, reading folk tales, and
writing about their findings. Ms. Peters calls the
class together in a large circle so that they can talk
about what they have learned about culture. Unlike
many conversations that take place in middle-grades
classrooms, this one is directed by the students. The
teacher poses a question, and then students take
turns speaking and listening. They are using a format that the school calls “cross-talk.”
S
Ms. Peters: So the question once again is, what did you
learn about cultures? You all did research on a culture,
and you all had a chance to write a paper on what you
learned about a culture. So now I want you to do a
cross-talk and tell us what you learned about the culture
that you researched. And I pass to Nathan.
Nathan: Thank you, Ms. Peters. Culture sort of, like,
describes the rituals and beliefs, and the way they dress.
And I pass to Jonathan.
Jonathan: Thank you, Nathan. I think culture is beliefs,
the way you act around your family, the things that you
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
eat, and the environment you grow up in. And I pass to
Seth.
Seth: Thank you, Jonathan. I believe it is everything you
do every day. Like your daily life. And I pass to Karen
(big shy grin on his face).
Karen: Thank you, Seth. I think culture is everything:
traditions, customs, beliefs...how they get their education. And I pass to Kinshasa.
Kinshasa: Thank you, Karen. What I learned about my
culture is that Africans like music, and they like to do a lot
of dancing, and they wear special clothing like Kente cloth.
The cross-talk continues until each student who
wishes to speak has spoken. Students address each
other by name and thank each other when they have
been “passed off to.” They focus rapt attention on
the speaker until he or she has finished and passed
on the “speaking turn” to another student. No one
interrupts a speaker.
At Compton-Drew Investigative Learning Center
(ILC) Middle School in St. Louis, all students—in every
content area and at every grade level—know how to
engage in cross-talk. They use it to build ideas and
share their thinking during challenging investigations
of important questions about science and society.
5
Access to a Schoolwide Thinking Curriculum
“What is culture?” is the umbrella question for this
sixth grade unit. Other units are organized around
questions such as, “What causes pollution, and what
can we do about it?” or “What is it like to live in a
city? How is St. Louis the same or different from
other cities?” Students use cross-talk to summarize
learning, as they are doing above, or to evaluate the
results of an extended project. One group of students
used cross-talk to present arguments to their teacher
about what they should read for a unit.
Cross-talk reflects several ideas about learning
that thrive in the school:
• Learning is active and intentional.
• Learning focuses on issues that are important
beyond school.
• Staff and students take risks, reflect, and revise
their ideas.
• Dialogue is essential between staff and students
and among students.
• Collaboration occurs consistently.
• Students and teachers together build deep content
knowledge.
When Compton-Drew students talk about what
their school is like, they use a language of investigation—words such as “scientific,” “investigate,”
“research,” “hard learning,” “thinking,” “talking
about what we learn,” and “different from other
schools.” They also use specialized words, such as
“cross-talk,” “anchor,” “culminating tasks,” and
“Knowledge Forum,” words particular to the way
interdisciplinary units unfold in this school. To help
acculturate new students, and also adults, to the
school, teachers post a glossary in each classroom
that defines these terms about learning.
Meet a School for Thought
The tradition of investigations at Compton-Drew
began with the founding of the school in 1993. The
school of 496 students in grades 6–8 (as of 2002–03)
is named for two distinguished scientists who lived
and worked in St. Louis. Dr. Arthur Holly Compton
was a physicist and Nobel laureate whose studies of
X-rays led to the discovery of the so-called Compton
Effect (change in wavelength of high-energy electromagnetic radiation). Dr. Charles Richard Drew was
an African American surgeon and pioneer in developing techniques for processing and storing blood
6
plasma for use in transfusions. He helped establish
blood banks during World War II and became the
first director of the American Red Cross Blood Bank.
Biographies of both men reflect the linking of science
and social responsibility that underlies curriculum
and instruction at Compton-Drew.
When Compton-Drew students talk about what their
school is like, they use a language of investigation—
words such as “scientific,”“investigate,”“research,”
“hard learning,”“thinking,”“talking about what we
learn,” and “different from other schools.”
By design, the school is adjacent to the St. Louis
Science Center, and most curriculum units have a
science core. Staff members from the Science Center
assist teachers during the summer in designing
interdisciplinary units with strong content and active
learning approaches. Physically, the school is light,
colorful, and welcoming. The main office, gym, and
cafeteria open off a large atrium with a high ceiling
and lots of glass to let in light. Impeccably clean,
light-colored floor tiles are interspersed with tiles in
primary colors. Classrooms are housed on three
floors, with the sixth grade on the first floor, seventh
grade on the second, and eighth grade on the third.
The racial composition is stipulated by court
order. Students who identify themselves as African
American comprise 61%. Most of the other students
(37%) are Caucasian, and a very small percentage of
students (2%) fall within the categories of Asian,
Latino/Hispanic, or Native American. Sixty-three
percent of the students are eligible for free or
reduced-price lunches. There are no students who
are learning English as a second language.
Of the total population of students in the school
(496), 87 students (17.6%) have identified disabilities
and an Individual Education Plan (IEP). Consistent
with the school’s commitment to including students
with disabilities in the general education curriculum
and classroom, these students are fully integrated into
heterogeneous regular classrooms. About 19 students
with more severe disabilities are educated in a separate classroom at the urging of the students’ parents.
All students attending the St. Louis public schools are
eligible for the lottery for magnet schools.
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Access to a Schoolwide Thinking Curriculum
Compton-Drew was founded as an experiment
in applying cognitive science research to daily life
and learning in schools. Approaches such as crosstalk come from three innovative research-based
programs: The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury, a CDROM-based problem-solving mathematics units
developed by John Bransford and associates at
Vanderbilt University; Fostering a Community of
Learners, a collaborative science program developed
by the late Ann Brown and associates at Berkeley;
and Knowledge Forum, developed at the Ontario
Institute. There are applications of these programs in
schools in the U.S. and abroad, but Compton-Drew
is the only school to integrate practices from all three
models across an entire school.
In planning the school, the founding principal and
teachers saw these approaches as tools to engage St.
Louis students—many of whom were coping with
risks associated with poverty—in building the knowledge and tools for socially responsible, life-long
learning. In their application to participate in a study
of “Beacons of Excellence” schools1 they wrote: “We
refuse to believe that the connection between poverty
and academic failure is a cycle that cannot be broken.”
Academic Success in an Area of
High-Stakes Assessment
At a time when many argue that high-stakes testing
decreases students’ motivation to learn (Amrein &
Berliner, 2003), Compton-Drew leaders took the
position that students could perform well on
statewide tests without sacrificing the Schools for
Thought curriculum to excessive test preparation.
The school’s strong results on statewide testing, the
Missouri Assessment Program (MAP), proved the
school leaders correct.
In 2000, in language arts, 69% of CD seventh grade
general education students scored at the Nearing
Proficiency, Proficient, or Advanced Proficient levels in
language arts, in contrast to 51% of students in other
magnet schools. As for students with disabilities, 31%
of seventh grade students with disabilities scored at
the Nearing Proficiency, Proficient, and Advanced
Proficient levels in language, versus 19% in other magnet schools. Twenty-four percent of students with
disabilities performed at the lowest level—”Step 1”—
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
versus 55% of students with disabilities in other magnet schools.
“We refuse to believe that the connection between
poverty and academic failure is a cycle that cannot
be broken.”
In science in that same year, eighth graders without disabilities scored at the 57th percentile, versus the
24th percentile in other magnet schools. Students with
disabilities scored at the 22nd percentile, versus the
3rd percentile, on average, in other magnet schools.
In social studies in 2000, 50% of CD eighth grade
students with disabilities scored at the Advanced or
Proficient level, versus 4% of students with disabilities
at other magnet schools. The school’s mathematics
achievement has always been above the 50th percentile, and in 2002 the school’s rankings were at the
60th percentile. Social studies and communication arts
also exhibited dramatic gains in 2002.
Support for Students
with Disabilities
Why are students with disabilities achieving a relatively high level of academic success at ComptonDrew? Several features of the school’s investigative
approach make rigorous learning accessible to students with disabilities in all of the subject areas. These
1 The Beacons of Excellence Project at Education
Development Center, Inc. (EDC) was funded by the U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) to study middle schools that are highperforming and include students with disabilities in the
general education program. Compton-Drew Investigative Learning Center Middle School was one of three
schools selected from a national search to participate in
the Beacons study. Over 18 months, research staff from
EDC used surveys of students, parents, and teachers;
shadowing of individual students; interviewing; and
focus groups to learn how the school supports students
with disabilities. The Compton-Drew culture is also
discussed in Morocco, Clark-Chiarelli, and Aguilar,
(2002). Discussions of other Beacons of Excellence
Schools studied by EDC can be found in Morocco and
Aguilar (in press).
7
Access to a Schoolwide Thinking Curriculum
features include a predictable structure, task rotation,
cooperative learning in pods, coteaching and other
forms of adult support, and technology scaffolding.
Motivating Themes, a Predictable Structure
students learning about the Pythagorean Theorem in an
Alaskan context, while studying the cultural, historical,
and economic aspects, and indigenous cultures of the
state: “It was a beehive of activity!” (Andrea Walker,
Interview, October 2002).
Students with disabilities know what to expect and
how to learn at Compton-Drew. Each interdisciplinary unit takes 10 to 12 weeks and includes these
elements:
• Anchor. An initial experience immerses students in
a common core of background knowledge about
the topic and motivates them to learn more. The
anchor for a recent unit on the environment, with
Alaska as the focus, began with students attending an IMAX feature at the Science Center that
raised the dilemma: Does man impact the environment or does the environment impact man?
• Student questions. Next, students generate questions
that intrigue them (200 for the Alaska unit!), sort
them into subtopics, and select ones for serious
study.
• Pod-based research. In small groups, students work
cooperatively on one or more questions. They gather
and read information from reference books, literature, interviews, selected Internet sites, and other
technology-based databases or resources. Students
write preliminary drafts about their findings.
• Assessment rubric. At the beginning of the unit,
students receive a list of the criteria for excellent
work and the points that are available to individuals and to a pod for various aspects of the work.
Students are expected to participate actively in
conversation, as well as to develop a well-written
final paper.
• Culminating tasks. Every unit has one or more
instructional tasks that require students to pull
their information and ideas together. Often, it is a
written report that students may complete individually or distribute across members of the pod.
In the unit on cities, each pod selected another
city in the world to compare with St. Louis, and
each student wrote a section of a group report.
• Knowledge Form. Using specially designed software,
students enter ideas and information related to key
questions they are investigating.
In cross-talk sessions, all students have an opportunity to be heard and to hear the ideas of other students.
For students who are reluctant to speak out during
cross-talk, the pod is a protected context for conversation. Ms. Peters, the teacher in the opening example of
cross-talk, describes the benefits of peer talk in the pod
in this way:
The unit provides a challenging context for students
to learn science and social science information and concepts. Principal Andrea Walker described watching
“In a pod they are likely to have a voice, to speak, and to
feel more secure about where they are because they work
every day with these same students. It gives them more
8
Task Rotation
Three to four activities take place at any one time in a
classroom, requiring different levels of teacher support.
When a pod completes one task (e.g., a vocabulary
exercise) they move on to the next task (e.g., reading
reference materials or searching the Internet for information). A chart assigning pods to activities is always
posted on the board. As a result, students are never
waiting; as soon as they complete one activity, they
progress to the next one. The rotation system allows
teachers to circulate to observe students’ work and to
provide assistance to pods as needed. It also enables
students to share materials.
Cooperative Learning in Pods
In traditional classrooms, where students are
expected to work individually and quietly, students
with disabilities may struggle along on their own.
The opposite is expected at Compton-Drew. Pod
activities are often “jigsaw” forms of cooperative
learning, where each student assumes responsibility for an important piece of the investigation and
all members help each other. If a member of a pod
has a question, he or she is expected to ask the pod
before asking the teacher. Students with disabilities
have strong peer models, peer and teacher support,
and opportunities to take leadership in the pod.
Students with disabilities know what to expect and
how to learn at Compton-Drew.
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Access to a Schoolwide Thinking Curriculum
comfort with the peers around them. [They learn that]
with politeness, with respect, that you treat someone the
way you want to be treated....That gives them a confidence, a trust, that when they do speak they are not
going to be ridiculed, that they will be listened to, that
even if they are wrong it is going to be okay” (Colleen
Peters, Interview, 2000).
Another image from the World Cultures unit
illustrates the way a pod may support members
with disabilities.
Near the end of the unit, four students—Eric,
Jillian, Amber, and Diana—sit on the floor of the
hallway outside their sixth grade classroom, each
with a copy of He-Lion, an African folktale for their
unit on World Cultures. In the story, He-Lion imitates the other animals in the forest. The students are
getting ready to rehearse a scene for a read-aloud to
their classmates the next day. Jillian has specific disabilities that affect her reading and writing, attention
to learning activities, and information processing,
and is quieter than the other three. Reviewing the
book, Amber announces, “Oh we gotta have animals.” Diana agrees and reads aloud part of the
narrative in dialect: “So they went to Bruh Bear and
Bruh Rabbit and said, ‘We have some trouble. Ol’
He-Lion him scaring everybody.’”
In a pod they are likely to have a voice, to speak, and
to feel more secure about where they are because
they work every day with these same students.
Amber agrees that they need to take the parts of
different animals and suggests that Eric should be the
lion. Amber herself offers to read the narrator’s part
until she realizes that she will need to pronounce the
dialect. Then she changes her mind and offers to be
the lion. Eric agrees to shift to the narrator role. She
draws Jillian into the conversation and asks which
animal she would like to read. Jillian agrees to read
the rabbit’s part, and they begin rehearsing. When it
is time for Jillian to read her lines, she is silent. Eric
leans over and points to her lines, saying quietly and
in a reassuring tone, “It’s your turn.”
These students expect to work as a group and
assume the responsibility of helping each other
negotiate roles and participate successfully in the
preparation.
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Coteaching and Adult Support
Earlier on the day that this hallway pod work took
place, Ms. Peters’ sixth graders worked in the classroom on several rotation activities. One pod worked
on a language arts activity—synonyms and
antonyms—while Jillian’s pod edited essays on what
they had learned about their African cultures. The
classroom teacher, a special education teacher, and a
student teacher circulated among the pods, assisting
students who needed help. The student teacher saw
Jillian struggling with the opening of her essay and
worked with her on forming a “lead” sentence until
she understood the concept and expanded her essay.
Technology Scaffolding
The Alaska unit illustrates the many roles that technology can play in a unit cycle. The IMAX experience
provided a dramatic introduction to a remote part of
the country. During the unit the teacher identifies Web
sites that can provide students with useful information.
The teacher (a “guide on the side, rather than a sage on
the stage,” as teachers put it) is available to observe
and assist students at their computer workstations.
Some units link directly to technology-centered
exhibits at the museum, and students simply walk out
the door of the school to the Science Center. During
the Alaska unit, students used a Jasper adventure
story about the rescue of a wounded eagle in a remote
area. The adventure was designed like a good detective novel, where all the data necessary to solve the
problem is available to the reader. Students with disabilities are a part of a group where many ideas are
considered, and the group solves problems together.
Persisting Challenges of Meeting
All Students’ Needs
While pod work benefits students by exposing them
to many ideas and continual peer support, teachers
are on the lookout for ways that a pod structure can
also inhibit a students’ learning. In one session on a
Jasper adventure, a boy in one pod assigned three of
the students to work on mathematical calculations
and one girl the job of sketching an ultralight plane.
While the girl enjoyed this task, she was learning to
draw at the expense of learning mathematics.
9
Access to a Schoolwide Thinking Curriculum
Organizing the School to Support
Investigations
dramatic change in how students learn and how
students, teachers, and parents interact.
Cooperative student investigations, within wellcrafted and content-rich curriculum units, are
embedded within a web of community partnerships.
The close relationship—physical and educational—
with the Science Center provides a continual source
of content resources and professional consultation
for teachers as they design all of their own curriculum units. In addition, the Science Center, several
other science institutions, and a representative from
the McDonnell Foundation are members of a broadbased advisory board for the school that helps
buffer and support the school within a district
that needs to make many demands on its schools.
Partnerships with the University of Missouri and
Washington University provide professional development support for teachers. A program with the
University of Missouri is teaching Compton-Drew
teachers to serve as peer coaches for one another.
As a “professional development school”—dedicated
to helping develop a new generation of well-prepared teachers— Compton-Drew has interns from
Washington University and Principia College who
get their first teaching experience in Schools for
Thought classrooms.
Fundamental Role Change
Being a Compton-Drew teacher required painstaking
change for many teachers. Long blocks of time
replaced the familiar 50-minute class period; active
student participation in constructing knowledge
replaced didactic teaching. Teachers had to acknowledge they are not the bearers of all knowledge.
Teachers who were used to working alone found
themselves sharing their expertise with other teachers. Compton-Drew teachers arrived with varying
levels of knowledge about using technology in the
classroom, yet all teachers had nine computers in
their classrooms and were expected to help students
use the Internet to gather information, word processing to write extended papers and reports, graphics
and PowerPoint to prepare presentations, and
Knowledge Forum to link ideas. The school helped
teachers rethink their roles and build new expertise
by ensuring that the sixth, seventh, and eighth grade
teams each included a technology “expert.” A network specialist worked on-site to give assistance as
needed. An education professor at Washington
University joined the faculty’s weekly professional
development sessions on Knowledge Forum.
Paradigm Paralysis
Cooperative student investigations, within wellcrafted and content-rich curriculum units, are
embedded within a web of community partnerships.
Thinking Past Barriers: The Principal’s Story
Asked what is most important to young adolescents’ learning, Andrea Walker, the principal of
Compton-Drew, quotes a Chinese proverb: “A
child’s life is like a piece of paper on which every
passerby leaves a mark.” She believes that those
indelible marks should be transforming—increasing
the student’s confidence, lifting her aspirations, or
just touching her human feelings. From the school’s
inception, Principal Walker could envision a supportive, investigative environment that would have
a transforming effect for all students, including
those with disabilities. Yet, this vision required a
10
One of the principals’ early challenges was coordinating a staff of people who had never worked together
to include students with disabilities in heterogeneous
classrooms. Although sharing responsibility for all
students’ learning is critical to student achievement
(Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996), collaboration was a new
thought for many special education and classroom
teachers. A host of problems arose related to the appropriateness of the classroom setting for some students
with disabilities, reluctance of regular education teachers to take on responsibilities they thought belonged to
the special education teacher, and scheduling of special
education teachers and assistants. The principal likes to
refer to this potentially overwhelming set of issues as
“paradigm paralysis,” meaning that teachers feel
caught between old and new ways of teaching and
working with one another.
Administrative team members saw themselves as
facilitators of problem-solving around all of these
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Access to a Schoolwide Thinking Curriculum
issues. They worked with grade-level teams to identify problems and analyze student data from the
teams. They provided additional professional development resources, worked with each grade level team
to build a sense of community, and encouraged teams
to come up with their own solutions. Administrative
staff and faculty organized block scheduling to allow
for team planning time. They developed an advisory
system that brought each teacher and staff member
together with a consistent small group of students
three times a week for character development and
interest-building activities. The goal was for each student to have a staff member who was intimately
familiar with her and could advocate for her.
Parents, as well as teachers, had mixed reactions
to the Schools for Thought vision. When the school
opened, administrative staff and faculty held parent
meetings and workshops to introduce them to the
schools’ philosophy. Most parents responded favorably; others took a “wait and see” attitude. Unfazed
by these teacher learning challenges and the parent
skepticism, Ms. Walker believed it was her role to
continually work on implementing the school’s
vision: “A vision or a great idea does not evolve
without patience, persistence, and a gentle push.”
Christina: A Case in Point2
Ms. Walker tells the story of one student as an
example of how students with disabilities can
thrive in the school, although with some stumbles.
“When I first met Christina, she appeared uncomfortable and timid, and then the flow of tears began, and
came frequently during the early months. Your heart is
touched by a child who is consumed with despair and
lacking self-confidence.
Christina came to us as a sixth grader with an IEP written for self-contained learning disabled. Prior to
meeting her in the fall, I received a visit from both of her
parents—a good sign, I thought, of interested, concerned parents. Yet this was the first of many visits from
very protective parents who wanted their child to
remain in our one small separate classroom. By the end
of the first quarter, the mother reluctantly agreed to
allow her daughter to be mainstreamed in one content
area. Introducing Christina to a new group was a delicate undertaking. An instructional assistant and the
regular classroom teacher coordinated their efforts to
modify the scoring guide and assign her to a pod of students where she would experience some success.
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
By the seventh grade, Christina’s IEP was written for full
inclusion. The parents were beaming and singing our
praises. The father was vocal about his daughter’s progress.
Christina was a child with many interests and experiences
and limited oral language expression and reading ability.
Yet she was motivated to choose novels with a greater level
of difficulty, and her mother would help her read and complete the required response for her class.
The goal was for each student to have a staff
member who was intimately familiar with her
and could advocate for her.
In the eighth grade, Christina demonstrated average skills
in algebra. Her study partner was a male student whom
she had come to admire and with whom she shared a
friendship. In school she was a member of the concert
choir. She was also a member of a Girl Scout troupe where
her mother was the leader. Her parents, a grandparent,
and a neighbor attended her eighth grade promotion ceremony. Christina was not only acknowledged for her
participation in concert choir and the after-school focus
group, she was one of a group of students who were commended for being the most improved student. There was
a rousing applause from the student body. At the close of
the ceremony, I was walking across the quadrangle and
making small talk with her mother. I gave Christina a big
hug. As I was walking away, I overheard her say to her
mother, not a rebuke but an insightful thought, ‘You just
didn’t have confidence in me.’”
Mrs. Walker says that “there are over five hundred stories” like Christina’s. She believes that each
student experiences a measure of success due to the
talents of a caring team of teachers who leave that
indelible mark on their students.
Supporting and Exporting the Results:
Roles of District Leadership
District special education leaders view Compton-Drew
ILC Middle School as emblematic of the district’s
progress in including students with disabilities in the
general education curriculum and classrooms. Less
2 The student’s name and some details of the student’s
history are changed to preserve anonymity. The main
information in the story is true.
11
Access to a Schoolwide Thinking Curriculum
than five years ago, 54% of students with identified disabilities in the St. Louis School District were educated in
self-contained classrooms; that percentage is 32% this
year. Although district leaders have been promoting
inclusion for several years, St. Louis schools began to
embrace this goal when it became clear that students
with disabilities were legally required to participate in
the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) and therefore
had to be engaged in learning the same curricula as the
general education students. According to Leslie Lewis,
Executive Director of Special Education for St. Louis
Public Schools, MAP and the reauthorized Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), brought the
special education teacher and the general education
teacher together to provide students with disabilities
academic support to meet state standards (Leslie Lewis,
Interview, February 2003).
District leaders are clear that the process of inclusion needs to start at the elementary level and continue
through the middle and high schools. One of the challenges that Compton-Drew ILC Middle School faces is
that many students with disabilities enter the school
straight out of substantially separate classrooms. Not
only do they need to learn the Schools for Thought
ways of learning, which are new to most incoming students, but they also need to learn how to work within
a regular classroom setting. Lisa Cox, who regularly
visits schools and includes Compton-Drew in her
school case load, observes that students with disabilities need a semester in the school to learn to negotiate
a heterogeneous classroom (Lisa Cox, Interview,
February 2003).
Critical Factors in Building
Inclusive Practices
Despite a growing districtwide commitment to
inclusion, several system barriers slow the process,
including hiring and keeping special education
teachers, implementing schoolwide inclusion, and
developing strong school leadership.
Retaining Special Education Teachers
St. Louis School District struggles to recruit and
retain certified special education teachers. It is not
only that there are fewer teachers being certified, but
also that St. Louis teachers are drawn to teaching in
the more affluent St. Louis County Special School
12
District. The area surrounding St. Louis proper
includes 23 county districts and has its own special
district—Special School District of St. Louis
County—with its own tax base and school board.
Students in the 23 county districts receive special
education services from the Special School District of
St. Louis County. While special education teachers in
the Special School District receive the same beginning salaries as the St. Louis district, their
increments are considerably higher. Teachers leave
the St. Louis School District after two or three years,
go to the Special School District, and get eight to
twelve thousand dollar raises. Teachers perceive that
the schools may be better and the teaching less challenging there. “We cannot compete. Essentially, I
have teachers to hire if all their positions are filled”
(Leslie Lewis, Interview, February 2003).
While special education teachers in the Special
School District receive the same beginning salaries
as the St. Louis district, their increments are considerably higher.
The retirement system of the Special School
District also draws teachers. According to the “rule
of 85,” a teacher can retire when the combination of
his/her age and number of years of teaching total
85. After 30 years in the urban district, a teacher may
go to Special Education District, and after five years
qualify for retirement from both systems. “In the
past they would have stayed on to retire in St. Louis,
but they get large raises and more retirement in the
Special Education District” (Leslie Lewis, Interview,
February 2003).
Magnet middle schools have fewer students with
disabilities than the non-magnet schools due to the
student configuration when the magnet program
was established. Because of physical limitations of
the schools, increasing the numbers of students with
disabilities would require reducing the number
without disabilities. Many non-magnet schools have
25–30% of their students with IEPs; in one middle
school 42% of the students have IEPs. While ComptonDrew has a total of 19 students across two small
separate classrooms for special education students,
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Access to a Schoolwide Thinking Curriculum
many non-magnet schools have 8 to 10 self-contained classrooms.
Compton-Drew maintains six full-time special
education teachers, a number agreed upon between
the special education division, magnet school division, and others when the school was founded. Other
schools with a similar ratio of special education students would be lucky to have three to four special
education teachers. In addition, the school has teacher
assistants to help special education students. The special education teachers at Compton-Drew are
long-term members of the faculty.
Other schools with a similar ratio of special
education students would be lucky to have
three to four special education teachers.
The city district has had to stretch to provide the
additional 25 special education teachers needed to
reduce teachers’ caseloads as required by the state.
Providing the ratio of special education teachers that
is present in Compton-Drew would require even
more resources. An 11 million dollar cut in state revenue for St. Louis School District (with more cuts
pending), together with the pull of county school
district salaries, poses huge challenges for replicating the ratio found in Compton-Drew.
Implementing Schoolwide Inclusive Models
Elementary and middle schools are beginning to
develop inclusive practices to support students with
disabilities in the regular classroom. Compton-Drew
students’ success on district tests is well recognized.
Other schools have adopted some aspects of the
Schools for Thought Model, although not, according
to Cox, with the same level of consistency and intensity as Compton-Drew. Some factors that are a part of
Compton-Drew’s success have been difficult to replicate. Founded out of a desegregation mandate, the
school participated in a yearlong planning process
that involved district staff, faculty, and the head of
the St. Louis Science Center and Botanical Gardens.
The faculty forged a vision of active student investigations by traveling to meet with cognitive science
researchers (Ann Brown at Berkeley and John
Bransford at Vanderbilt University) who discussed
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
with them ways to translate research knowledge
into intellectually challenging instruction. Intensive
professional development—organized around the
Schools for Thought principles and around curriculum development supported by science
specialists—has been a continuing part of the
Compton-Drew approach and has been challenging
to replicate in other schools.
Early funding from the McDonnell Foundation
and sustained professional support from science
institution leaders and university partners have
helped the school buffer some of the pressures of
high-stakes testing. The school leaders chose their
staff by interviewing teachers who applied, a practice that is rare in other St. Louis middle schools. The
district staff thinks that because of this complex
combination of factors, Compton-Drew faculty members are invested in making the school work and
helping all of their students be successful. “It’s hard
to find a total staff like that. I think that if everyone
else had the supports that Compton-Drew has—the
staffing, the resources, the professional development
support, the leadership—they could be equally successful” (Lewis, Interview, February 2003).
School Leadership
According to district staff, school leadership is a key
factor in becoming an “inclusive district.” St. Louis
district leaders point to characteristics of ComptonDrew leadership—at the principal, administrative
staff, and faculty levels—that appear to be critical to
the success of Schools for Thought as a model for
schoolwide inclusion.
• Sustained leadership. The average length of service
for current St. Louis principals is 4.9 years at the
middle school level. Ninety-eight new principals
have been appointed (of 112 schools) between 1998
and 2003. In contrast, the principal of ComptonDrew has been present since the school’s founding.
• Use of assessment data to develop programs and partnerships. District staff members view community
organizations as more “data-driven” than schools
and want to see concrete results before they support school programs. The Compton-Drew principal is “adept at using research data to back up
what she is asking for; she can show agencies the
numbers” (Lisa Cox, Interview, February 2003).
13
Access to a Schoolwide Thinking Curriculum
• Active response to change. One of the ComptonDrew feeder schools has a separate class of
students with autism whose parents expect the
students to move into Compton-Drew. The
principal’s response was, “Sure, fine. These kids
need to be a part of the school. What do we need
to do to be ready for them in the fall?” District
leaders see this as an example of the school leaders’ willingness to take on new challenges and do
whatever it takes to be successful. “Problemsolving is a way of life there [at Compton-Drew]”
(Lisa Cox, Interview, February 2003).
• Shared responsibility for student learning. Students
with disabilities “belong” to the regular classroom
teachers as much as to the special education teachers. Joint professional development and coteaching
in the classroom contribute to a shared sense of
responsibility for all students’ learning (Louis,
Marks, & Kruse, 1996).
• Distributed leadership. District staff members think
that great school leaders build the capacity of all
of their administrative staff and faculty to implement the school’s vision on a daily basis. They
predict that if the Compton-Drew principal
should leave, “the people who are working with
her would do a good job and could fill her shoes
and carry on the program. She is the key, but if
she does leave, her staff could pick up and go
on” (Leslie Lewis, Interview, February 2003).
Persisting with a Vision
Compton-Drew’s vision and practices were forged in
a particular crucible of change—desegregation mandates, cognitive learning research, and visionary
partnerships. Yet, district leaders think that the fundamental ideas of the school are practical and possible.
They view the school as a lever for change, a contin-
14
ual reminder that an economically and culturally
diverse group of students, including students with
disabilities, can engage in rigorous thinking about
hard questions. Finding the resources to support
districtwide change is extraordinarily difficult for district leaders at this time. Yet having a strong middle
school example helps to inspire continuing progress
toward schoolwide, inclusive practices.
References
Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). The effect of highstakes testing on student motivation and learning.
Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32–38.
Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, K. (1996). Teacher
professional community in restructuring schools.
American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757–798.
Morocco, C. C., Clark-Chiarelli, N., & Aguilar, C. M.
(2002). Cultures of excellence and belonging in urban
middle schools, Research in Middle Level Education OnLine, 25(2).
Morocco, C. C., & Aguilar, C. M. (in press). Schoolwide
coteaching in the middle grades. Journal of
Consultation and Collaboration.
About the Authors
Dr. Catherine Cobb Morocco is a consultant for the
Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), 55
Chapel Street, Newton Massachusetts 02458. E-mail:
[email protected].
Andrea Walker is a Principal at the Compton-Drew
Investigative Learning Center (ILC) Middle School,
5130 Oakland Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63110.
Leslie R. Lewis is the Executive Director of Special
Education, St. Louis Public Schools, 5017
Washington Place, St. Louis, Missouri 63108. E-mail:
[email protected].
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Schoolwide Behavior Support
Creating Urban Schools that Accommodate Diverse Learners
Robert March, Ph.D.
Leanne Hawken, Ph.D.
Judith Green, Ph.D.
New York University
University of Utah
Flossmoor School District 161
Chicago Heights, IL
• Increasing numbers of students are coming to school without the self-management, social competence, or
literacy awareness skills to readily respond to the instruction and behavioral practices that schools typically
employ.
• Urban educators face tremendous challenges in trying to ensure a safe learning environment for all students.
However, the primary strategy used for creating a safe and civil school has been the use of reactive and punitive
strategies, primarily detention, suspension, expulsion, and exclusion, which reduce the educational opportunities of the very students often most in need of educational services.
• Blaming students, their families, or the community for the poor outcomes of individual students is ineffective
and does not lead to improved outcomes for students. Schools need to develop a climate that places students’
well-being as a top priority and includes effective discipline practices to produce change.
• Schools are beginning to successfully employ strategies for fostering a positive school climate, increasing
capacity to initiate and maintain research-validated practices, and implementing universal prevention programs designed to teach social competency, self-management, and problem-solving.
oday’s educators face a growing challenge to
meet both the instructional and behavioral needs
of all students (Kame’enui & Carnine, 1998; Martella,
Nelson, & Marchand-Martella, 2003; Sugai,
Kame’enui, Horner, & Simmons, 2002). The No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has called for educational practices that will prepare all children to be
responsible and positive contributors to society.
Unfortunately, many students come to school
without the self-management, social competence, or
literacy awareness skills to readily respond to the
instruction and behavioral practices that schools typically employ (Sprague, Sugai, & Walker, 1998;
Sugai, Kame’enui, Horner, & Simmons, 2002). With a
more diverse student population (e.g., students with
English as second language, low socioeconomic status, or significant learning and behavioral
challenges) than two decades ago, educators are presented with enormous curricular and instructional
challenges (Kame’enui & Carnine, 1998). Educators
must also face the increase in numbers of students
who display severe problem behavior (Rutherford &
Nelson, 1995; Sugai & Horner, 1999; Skiba &
Peterson, 1999). One of the most troubling responses
T
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
has been the use of zero tolerance policies, which
often serve as a mechanism for removing the students most in need of the educational services we
provide. Trends in school discipline indicate a disturbing movement towards more frequent use of
suspension with urban African American males and
students identified as needing special education services (Casella, 2001; Losen & Edley, 2001).
The purpose of this article is to present the challenges urban special education administrators face in
serving students who present frequent behavior
problems in a time of zero tolerance. We will share
new strategies that show promise of creating supportive environments for educating a student
population with increasingly diverse needs. We will
also provide practical recommendations and a look
at the future of urban schools and special services.
The Challenge Urban Educators Face
The increase in the numbers of students who
engage in severe problem behavior in schools
parallels statistics of rising rates of violence among
youth. According to a recent Surgeon General’s
15
Schoolwide Behavior Support
Report (2001), although adolescent and youth arrest
rates for robbery and homicide were lower in 1999
than in 1983, the rates for aggravated assaults were
nearly 70% higher than in 1983. Furthermore, the
report summarizes data from self-report studies that
indicate that more youth say they are engaging in
violent behavior than in 1983. A 1997 report by the
Center for Disease Control’s Center for Injury
Prevention and Control indicated that 8.3% of high
school students surveyed had carried a weapon to
school (e.g., gun, knife, or club) during the 30 days
prior to the survey. Of the students surveyed, 7.4%
had been threatened or injured by a weapon during
the past year, and 4% reported that they had missed
at least one school day because they felt unsafe at
school or traveling to school. The New York City
Police Department reported “a 6.6 percent increase
in major crimes in the schools from July 1, 2001, to
March 2001, over the same period the year before.
Reports of weapons offenses increased by 11 percent,
and reports of misdemeanor assaults increased by 34
percent” (Steinhauer, 2002). Not only do students
fear for their safety, but teachers report that they are
hesitant to confront students who are engaging in
severe problem behavior for fear of violent repercussions (Biglan, 1995). In summary, problem behavior
is on the rise, and its presence in urban schools is
threatening effective instruction and the overall educational climate (Casella, 2001).
According to a recent Surgeon General’s Report
(2001), although adolescent and youth arrest rates
for robbery and homicide were lower in 1999 than
in 1983, the rates for aggravated assaults were
nearly 70% higher than in 1983.
No one would deny the tremendous challenge
urban educators face in trying to ensure a safe learning environment for all students. However, the
primary strategy used for creating a safe and civil
school has been the use of reactive and punitive
strategies, primarily detention, suspension, expulsion, and exclusion. What all these strategies have in
common is that they wait for a problem to occur and
then respond with punishment. Moreover, the use of
discipline strategies that are reactive, punitive, and
16
exclusionary has “... come down hardest on poor
and non-white students” (Casella, 2001, p. 16).
Overreliance by Schools on
Punishment as a Behavior
Management Practice
Overreliance on punishment as the primary behavior
management practice employed by schools is in direct
contradiction to the goals set in the No Child Left
Behind Act. The need to educate all students, especially
those who display chronic problem behavior, has put a
tremendous burden on school personnel, especially in
urban settings (Casella, 2001). Unfortunately, few educators are adequately prepared to address the needs of
students who display chronic behavior problems
(Biglan, 1995; Horner, Diemer, & Brazeau, 1992; Skiba,
2001; Sprague, Sugai, & Walker, 1998). The answer for
many schools has been to focus on the removal of challenging students (Ayers, Dohrn, & Ayers, 2001; Casella,
2001; Skiba, 2001). Some specific examples recently
cited in USA Today (Toppo, 2003 January 13) include:
• In Philadelphia, the first part of the 2002–2003
school year brought the suspensions of 33
kindergartners.
• Minneapolis schools have suspended more than 500
kindergartners over the past two school years for
fighting, indecent exposure, and “persistent lack of
cooperation,” among other offenses. Statewide,
Minnesota schools have suspended nearly 4,000
kindergartners, and first and second graders,
mostly for fighting, disorderly conduct, and the like.
• In Massachusetts, the percentage of suspended
students in prekindergarten through third grade
more than doubled between 1995 and 2000.
• In 2001–2002, Greenville, South Carolina, schools
suspended 132 first graders, 75 kindergartners,
and two preschoolers.
In New York City, the newly created Office of
School Safety and Planning will develop what
Mayor Bloomberg has described as a “graduated
scale of punishment” for students who violate rules.
In addition, a new state law was adopted in New
York in April, 2001, giving teachers the power to
remove disruptive students from their classrooms
and send them to “in-school suspension centers” for
up to four days (Steinhauer, 2002).
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Schoolwide Behavior Support
This widespread use of punitive reactive strategies indicates that educators continue to operate
from a crisis intervention perspective when dealing
with problem behaviors. Not only are the “get
tough” approaches employed by many educators
ineffective in dealing with severe problem behavior,
but there is also some evidence indicating that when
schools rely exclusively on punitive responses to
severe problem behavior they may actually be contributing to the increased rates of problem behavior
both in and out of school (Ayers, Dohrn, & Ayers,
2001; Nieto, 1999; Mayer, 1995).
Special Education: Truly Special or
Merely Exclusionary Placement?
Another common strategy for addressing problem
behavior has been the placement of students who display challenging behaviors into restrictive special
education environments. General education teachers
make referrals to special education in an effort to
remove students who display challenging behaviors
from their classes. In fact, one of the main reasons cited
for placing students in more restrictive settings (i.e.,
self-contained classrooms) is the presence of severe
problem behavior (Reichle, 1990). The improper use of
special education, especially its disproportionate use
with minority students, is a “national concern formally
recognized by Congress” (Losen & Edley, 2001, p. 231).
Another common strategy for addressing problem
behavior has been the placement of students who
display challenging behaviors into restrictive special education environments.
Some features of schools that are ineffective in
supporting students who display challenging behaviors and that have high rates of referrals for special
education services include: a) unclear behavioral
expectations; b) inconsistent implementation of
consequences for rules infractions or harsh punishments on a routine basis; c) lack of staff agreement
on expectations; and d) a failure to accommodate
individual student differences (Gottfredson,
Gottfredson, & Skroban, 1996; Mayer, 1995).
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
In fact, schools that have these characteristics are
more likely to produce greater numbers of students
who engage in severe problem behavior and meet criteria for special education services under the disability
category of emotional and behavioral disorder. (Walker,
Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). The outlook for students
receiving a label indicating an emotional or behavioral
disorder is particularly grim. In addition to having the
highest dropout rates, students with emotional and
behavioral disorder labels are at the greatest risk for
being placed in alternative (more restrictive) settings
(Eber & Nelson, 1997; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, &
Hybl, 1993). It has been determined that among students suspended from school, those with a special
education label often represent more than one-third
(Losen & Edley, 2001). It seems more than a bit ironic
that the students most likely to be suspended or
expelled are the very students that can least afford to
miss school (Gordon, Della Piana, & Keleher, 2001).
Promising New Strategies for
Creating Supportive and Effective
Educational Environments
Furlong and Morrison (2000) state that “severe problem behavior and violence in the schools cannot be
seen as something that somebody or something (e.g., a
metal detector) will take care of (p. 78).” Schools need
to develop a climate that places students’ well-being as
a top priority and includes effective discipline practices
to produce change. An excellent summary of how
school contexts have changed and how we as educators must change our thinking and practices in order to
support students was provided by Bratten (1997). He
stated that schools first need to recognize that they are
part of the problem and play a role in the development
of social behavior. Blaming students, their families, or
the community for the poor outcomes of individual
students is ineffective and does not lead to improved
outcomes for students. Second, he noted that schools
are now being held accountable not just for the number
of students that graduate, but for what is happening to
the students who are not fitting in (i.e., engaging in
severe problem behavior, dropping out, being defiant
to adults). The “get tough” approaches that schools
often use to handle violence and other severe forms of
problem behavior do not take into account the diverse
needs of the student population today. If we are going
17
Schoolwide Behavior Support
to create safe and effective school environments, we
need to stop looking for “quick fixes” and look at supporting students in schools as a long-term commitment
(Zins & Ponti, 1990; Sugai & Horner, 1999).
In 1996, Gottfredson et al. identified several specific strategies that schools have successfully
employed to reduce antisocial behavior. These strategies included creating a positive school climate,
increasing a school’s capacity to initiate and maintain research-validated practices, and implementing
programs designed to teach social competency, selfmanagement, and problem-solving.
Creating a Positive School Climate
Schools that are effective in supporting a student
population with diverse needs have: a) positively
stated expectations that promote student learning; b)
expectations that are clearly communicated and frequently taught to all students; c) schoolwide
reinforcement and encouragement of prosocial
behavior; and d) mild consequences for rule infractions that do not exclude the student from the
academic environment (Sprague, Sugai, & Walker,
1998; Sugai & Horner, 1994; Sugai & Horner, 1999;
Sugai, Horner, & Gresham, 2002; Walker, Irvin, &
Sprague, 1997).
Increasing the Capacity of Schools to Initiate
and Maintain Research-Validated Practices
The adoption and sustained use of researchvalidated practices is a critical part of our efforts
to improve schools. We have the empirically validated strategies necessary to support students with
severe problem behavior in schools. In a review of
over 600 studies, social skills instruction, academic
modifications/restructuring, and behavioral interventions were seen as the most effective responses to
prevent and remediate severe problem behavior
(Kuper, 1999; Lawrence et al., 1998; Lipsey, 1992;
Tolan & Guerra, 1994). Although we have the strategies, schools often state that they are struggling with
money and resources, which impedes their ability to
effectively support all students behaviorally and academically. The answer is to provide schools with the
empirically validated practices that a) require
schools to make the smallest change to produce the
largest effect and b) involve implementing a continuum of support that matches the intensity of the
18
intervention with the severity of the problem behavior presented (Walker et al., 1996).
The adoption and sustained use of researchvalidated practices is a critical part of our
efforts to improve schools.
A framework for improving and sustaining an
effective school climate to meet the behavioral and
educational needs of all students has been provided
by Sugai, Kame’enui, Horner, & Simmons (2002, p. 5):
Six major features characterize an effective behavioral
and instructional “systems” approach to thinking about
schools as complex, host environments of change: (a) the
adoption and sustained use of research-validated practices, (b) data-based decision-making, (c) team-based
problem-solving and decision-making processes, (d)
active administrator involvement and leadership, (e) an
instructional design analysis of teaching social and academic skills, and (f) a continuum of instructional and
behavioral support.
The link between problem behavior and academic achievement is clear. Students who are attending
school and engaged in the academic content are less
likely to engage in severe problem behavior and
more likely to have high academic achievement outcomes (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995).
Implementation of Programs Designed to
Teach Social Competency, Self-Management,
and Problem-Solving
To be effective in supporting all students, as well as
efficient with time, money, and resources, schools
need to implement a continuum of behavior support,
from less intensive to more intensive, based on the
severity, intensity, and chronicness of the problem
behavior presented (Walker et al., 1996). The continuum of behavior support is detailed in Figure 1. The
triangle represents all students in the school and is
divided into three levels of intervention. The bottom
portion of the triangle represents the 80% of students
who will benefit from universal interventions alone
(Colvin, Kame’enui, & Sugai, 1993; Sugai & Horner,
1999; Taylor-Greene et al., 1997). Universal interventions are implemented with all students in all settings.
The most popular universal intervention involves
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Schoolwide Behavior Support
Figure 1: Continuum of Schoolwide Instructional and Positive
Behavior Support
three elementary schools served; reviewing archival
records, such as office discipline records and school
attendance; meeting with the students’ parents or
guardians; and direct observations (Walker, Colvin, &
Ramsey, 1995). Students served through the BEP
receive daily feedback from each of their teachers on
their behavior, with an emphasis placed on what is
expected in order to be successful at school. Teachers
and parents are trained to provide specific and positive feedback and acknowledgement when students
demonstrate prosocial behaviors and skills required
to be successful at school (Crone, Horner, & Hawken,
2003; Hawken & Horner, in press).
The top portion of Figure 1 represents the
approximately 5% of students who are engaging in
the most severe forms of problem behavior and thus
require intensive, individualized interventions. For
these students, a functional behavioral assessment is
conducted, and the information is used to develop
an individualized behavior support plan (Lane,
Umbreit, & Beebe-Frankenberger, 1999).
Conclusion
adopting a schoolwide approach to discipline that is
designed to create a positive school environment.
The middle portion of the triangle represents the
estimated 15% of students that are at risk for engaging in severe problem behavior. These students need
intermediate , targeted, group interventions.
Intermediate level interventions are highly efficient,
“packaged” interventions that can be implemented
with a group of students needing similar levels of
support (Crone, Horner, & Hawken, 2003; Hawken &
Horner, in press; March & Horner, 2002). An example
of an intermediate level intervention is the Behavior
Education Program (BEP) developed at Fern Ridge
Middle School in Elmira, Oregon. The BEP allows the
school to efficiently identify and serve students at
risk for school failure. The identification of students
includes surveying all fifth grade teachers in the
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Twenty-first century urban educators face a growing
challenge to support the instructional and behavioral
needs of all students. Statistics indicating increased
rates of violence among youth correspond with an
increase in the numbers of students engaging in severe
problem behavior in schools. Research has clearly identified school characteristics that lead to increases in
problem behaviors. Teachers and paraprofessionals
who are unprepared to educate students with severe
problem behavior continue to struggle to support them.
Ineffective behavior management practices that
focus on removing students from the educational
environment will only serve to increase the number of
children left behind, thus increasing the number of
adults in the future who lack the skills necessary to be
positive and productive citizens. The common practice of referring children with challenging behaviors
to special education programs appears to have the
long-term effect of removing those students most in
need of educational services from the general education environment where peers are more likely to be
modeling prosocial behavior. There are critical steps
that schools can take to change the current ineffective
practices of exclusion and punishment.
19
Schoolwide Behavior Support
It is essential for schools to effectively support all
students. Empirically supported practices that support students with severe problem behavior are
available (Lipsey & Wilson, 1993; Tolan & Guerra,
1994; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). Schools must
start with a preventive approach that is universally
applied to all students. This proactive strategy must
focus on clarifying the positive behaviors needed to
be successful at school and provide multiple opportunities for educators to teach those behaviors and
support them by frequently acknowledging students
when they perform the behavior. The implementation of a continuum of positive behavior support
based on the severity of the problem behavior students present should be part of the school’s behavior
management plan. For this to be effective, it must be
supported by administrators with the necessary
time, money, and resources.
It is clear that implementing proactive universal
strategies for improving school discipline in urban
schools will fall far short of addressing the many challenges that exist, such as poverty, transience, and high
incidence of abuse, to name but a few (Casella, 2001).
The goal of a schoolwide behavior support plan is to
create an educational environment that focuses on
desired behaviors and includes mechanisms for teaching and acknowledging socially competent behavior.
Thus, when students come to school ill-prepared to
meet the behavioral and academic expectations
placed on them, educators will be provided an environment and opportunities to teach the desired social
behaviors instead of merely punishing and excluding
the students most in need of educational services.
References
Ayers, W., Dohrn, B., & Ayers, R. (2001). Resisting the drive
for punishment in our schools: Zero tolerance. New York:
New Press.
Biglan, A. (1995). Translating what we know about the
context of antisocial behavior into a lower prevalence
of such behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
28(4), 479–492.
Bratten, S. (1997). Creating safe schools: A principal’s perspective. In A. P. Goldstein & J. C. Conoley (Eds.),
School violence intervention: A practical handbook (pp.
46–57). New York: Guilford Press.
Casella, R. (2001) Being down: Challenging violence in urban
schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
20
Center for Disease Control National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control. (1997). Facts About Violence
Among Youth and Violence in Schools. Retrieved January
8, 2002, from http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/fact/
violence.htm.
Colvin, G., Kame’enui, E. J., & Sugai, G. (1993).
Schoolwide and classroom management: Reconceptualizing the integration and management of students
with behavior problems in general education.
Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361–381.
Crone, D. A., Horner, R. H., & Hawken, L. S. (2003). The
behavior education plan (BEP) handbook: A school’s systematic guide to responding to chronic problem behavior.
Manuscript in preparation.
Eber, L., & Nelson, C. M. (1997). School-based wraparound planning: Integrating services for students
with emotional and behavioral needs. American
Orthopsychiatric Association, 67(3), 385–395.
Furlong, M., & Morrison, G. (2000). The school in school
violence: Definitions and facts. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 8(2), 71–82.
Gordon, R., Della Piana, L., & Keleher, T. (2001). Zero tolerance: A basic racial report card. In W. Ayers, B.
Dohrn, & R. Ayers. (Eds.), Resisting the drive for punishment in our schools: Zero tolerance. (pp. 165–175). New
York: New Press.
Gottfredson, D. C., Gottfredson, G. D., & Hybl, L. G.
(1993). Managing adolescent behavior: A multiyear,
multischool study. American Educational Research
Journal, 30, 179–215.
Gottfredson, D. C., Gottfredson, G. D., & Skroban, S.
(1996). A multimodal school-based prevention demonstration. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11, 97–115.
Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (in press). Evaluation of a
targeted group intervention within a school-wide system of behavior support. Journal of Behavioral
Education.
Horner, R. H., Diemer, S. M., & Brazeau, K. C. (1992).
Educational support for students with severe problem
behaviors in Oregon: A descriptive analysis from the
1987–88 school year. The Journal of the Association of
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17(3), 154–169.
Kame’enui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (1998). Effective teaching
strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Columbus,
OH: Prentice Hall.
Kuper, L. (1999). Interventions for chronic behavior problems
(Report No. BBB29829). Washington, D.C.: National
Information Center for Children and Youth with
Disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED435162).
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Schoolwide Behavior Support
Lane, K. L., Umbreit, J., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E.
(1999). Functional assessment research on students
with or at risk for EBD: 1990 to the present. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(2), 101–111.
Lawrence, S. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L.,
Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. D. (1998). Preventing
crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising.
Research brief. (Report No. NCJ-171676). Washington,
D.C.: National Institute of Justice. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service NO. ED423321).
Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A
meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T.
D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H., Hartman, L. V.,
Hedges, R. V., Light, T. A. Louis, & F. Mostellar (Eds.),
Meta-analysis for explanation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment:
Confirmation from meta-analysis. American
Psychologist, 48, 1181–1209.
Losen, D. J., & Edley, C. (2001). The role of law in policing
abusive disciplinary practices: Why school discipline is
a civil rights issue. In W. Ayers, B. Dohrn, & R. Ayers.
(Eds.), Resisting the drive for punishment in our schools:
Zero tolerance. (pp. 230–255) New York: New Press.
March, R., & Gorevic, M. (2001). Administrators’ strategies
for addressing behavior management. Unpublished raw
data.
March, R. E., & Horner, R. H. (2002). Feasibility and contributions of functional behavioral assessment in
schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
10(3), 158–170.
Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the
schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28,
467–478.
Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E.
(2003) Managing disruptive behaviors in the schools: A
schoolwide, classroom, and individualized social learning
approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Nieto, M. (1999). Security and crime prevention strategies in
California public schools. (p. 56). Los Angeles: ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 438 704.
Reichle, J. (1990). National working conference on positive
approaches to the management of excess behavior: Final
report and recommendations. Minneapolis, MN: Institute
on Community Integration, University of Minnesota.
Rimer, S. (2002, December 14). Critics attack suspension of 33
Philadelphia kindergartners. New York Times. Retrieved
December 15, 2002, from http://www.nytimes.com.
Rutherford, R. B., & Nelson, C. M. (1995). Management of
aggressive and violent behavior in the schools.
Exceptional Children, 27(6), 1–15.
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Skiba, R. (2001). When is disproportionality discrimination? The overrepresntation of black students in
school suspension. In W. Ayers, B. Dohrn, & R. Ayers.
(Eds.), Resisting the drive for punishment in our schools:
Zero tolerance (pp. 176–187) New York: New Press.
Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe schools? Phi
Delta Kappan, 80(5), 372–376.
Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., & Walker, H. M. (1998).
Antisocial behavior in schools. In S. Watson & F.
Gresham (Eds.), Handbook of child behavior therapy:
Ecological considerations in assessment, treatment, and
evaluation (pp. 451–475). New York: Plenum Press.
Steinhauer, J. (2002, September 18). When it comes to
school discipline, Bloomberg’s motto is safety first.
New York Times. Retrieved September 20, 2002, from
http://www.nytimes.com.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (1994). Including students with
severe behavior problems in general education settings: Assumptions, challenges, & solutions. In J.
Marr, G. Sugai, & G. Tindal (Eds.), The Oregon
Conference Monograph, 6, 102–20. Eugene, OR:
University of Oregon.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (1999). Discipline and behavioral support: Practices, pitfalls, and promises.
Effective School Practices, 17(4), 10–22.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Gresham, F. (2002).
Behaviorally effective school environments. In M. R.
Shinn, G. Stoner, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions
for academic and behavior problems: Preventive and remedial approaches. Silver Springs, MD: National
Association of School Psychologists.
Sugai, G. M., Kame’enui, E. J., Horner, R. H., & Simmons,
D. C. (2002). Effective instructional and behavioral
support systems: A schoolwide approach to discipline
and early literacy. Washington, D.C.: Office of Special
Education Programs.
Surgeon General’s Report. (2001). Youth violence: A report of
the surgeon general. Retrieved December 14, 2001, from
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov.
Taylor-Greene, S., Brown, D., Nelson, L., Longton, J.,
Gassman, T., Cohen, J., Swartz, J., Horner, R. H.,
Sugai, G., & Hall, S. (1997). Schoolwide behavioral
support: Starting the year off right. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 7, 99–112.
Tolan, P., & Guerra, N. (1994). What works in reducing adolescent violence: An empirical review of the field. Boulder,
CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.
University of Colorado, Boulder.
Toppo, G. (2003, January 13) School violence hits lower
grades. USA Today. Retrieved January 13, 2003, from
http://www.usatoday.com.
21
Schoolwide Behavior Support
Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial
behavior in schools: Strategies and best practices. Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M.,
Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996).
Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth.
Journal of Emotional Behavioral Disorders, 4(4), 194–209.
Walker, H. M., Irvin, L. K., & Sprague, J. K. (1997).
Violence prevention and school safety: Issues, problems, approaches, and recommended solutions.
Oregon School Study Council, 41(1), 1–20.
Zins, J. E., & Ponti, C. R. (1990). Best practices in schoolbased consultation. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes.
(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology II (pp.
673–694). Washington, D.C.: National Association of
School Psychologists.
22
About the Authors
Dr. Robert March is a professor in the Steinhardt
School of Education, Department of Applied
Psychology, East Bldg, 239 Greene St, 537J, New
York, New York 10003, NYU Mail Code: 4736. Email: [email protected].
Dr. Leanne Hawken is an assistant professor in the
Special Education Department in the College of
Education, Milton Bennion Hall, 1705 E. Campus
Center Dr. Rm 221, Salt Lake City, UT 84112. E-mail:
[email protected].
Dr. Judith Green is the assistant superintendent of
Flossmoor School District 161, 41 East Elmwood
Drive, Chicago Heights, IL 60411. E-mail:
[email protected].
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Understanding Factors that Contribute
to Disproportionality
Administrative Hiring Decisions
Janette K. Klingner, Ph.D.
Beth Harry, Ph.D.
Ronald K. Felton, M.S.
University of Colorado at Boulder
University of Miami
Miami-Dade County Public Schools
• Inequities in the quality of leadership and instruction in inner-city schools exacerbate efforts to reduce the
disproportionate placement of culturally and linguistically diverse students into special education.
• Problems relating to the recruitment and retention of highly qualified principals and teachers in inner-city
schools must be addressed if the disproportionality issue is to be addressed effectively.
• Special education administrators who wish to decrease disproportionality must form collaborative relationships with those who direct general education programs so that they can play a role in developing effective
intervention models designed to reduce inappropriate referrals to special education.
iterature on school effectiveness has long concluded
that strong leadership is a key to good urban schools
(Edmunds & Frederickson, 1978; Jackson, Logsdon, &
Taylor, 1983; Weber, 1971). In addition to his or her
management skills, a principal’s beliefs, values, educational philosophies, and interpersonal abilities have a
great influence on the climate and culture of a school.
Even the principal, however, operates within a larger
culture, that of the school district, which, in turn,
responds to state and federal mandates and policies
(Bridgeland & Duane, 1987).
One critical role of the principal is that of hiring
and assigning teachers. Yet research attention to teacher
allocation practices has been limited (Krei, 1998). We
know that urban schools face numerous staffing challenges and that low SES culturally and linguistically
diverse students typically do not have access to the
most qualified teachers (Darling Hammond, 1995;
Oakes, Franke, Quartz, & Rogers, 2002; Pflaum &
Abramson, 1990). As Krei states, “One of the most pervasive and important ways in which poor children are
believed to be shortchanged in public schooling is in
the quality of the teaching they receive” (p. 71). A
recent analysis of the U.S. Department of Education’s
1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Survey indicates that
students in high-poverty, high-minority, and low-performing schools are less likely than other students to be
taught by well-qualified teachers (Ansell & McCabe,
L
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
2003). When the quality of teaching that students
receive is poor, their opportunity to learn is compromised, and they are placed at greater risk for underachievement (Schneider, 1985). In turn, this can
increase the probability that they will subsequently
be referred to special education.
Recruitment and transfer policies often result in
the least experienced teachers working in the highest
need schools (Wise, Darling Hammond, & Berry,
1987). Whereas administrators in wealthier schools
tell of having “stacks of resumes” to look through,
principals in urban schools typically have difficulty
attracting teachers to their schools and must take
whoever they can get (Krei, 1998). These schools also
have high turnover rates, as novice teachers gain
experience and request transfers to schools they consider more desirable. Some districts have attempted
to alleviate disparities in teacher quality by providing
monetary incentives to teachers to stay at urban sites
(Ferguson, 1991; Jacobson, 1989; Krei, 1998). However,
these efforts are usually not enough. Urban schools
continue to have higher numbers of inexperienced,
uncertified, temporary, and substitute teachers
(Hardy, 2002). Compounding the problem in some
districts is the practice by principals who can afford to
be selective of transferring teachers to high-poverty
urban schools rather than dismissing them when they
have been deemed unsatisfactory (Krei, 1998).
23
Administrative Hiring Decisions
Even less understood than teacher allocation are
the processes by which principals are hired and
assigned to different schools. Hardy (1999) noted
that districts sometimes replace principals in lowperforming schools in an effort to “jumpstart” these
schools. Policies such as these can be formal or informal. Some-times principals are allowed to stay at a
school rather than being transferred, as a way of
rewarding them when the school does well. Hiring
and retaining quality principals involves identifying
and selecting good leaders, socializing them into the
district culture, and providing ongoing professional
development and support (Peterson & Kelley, 2001).
Even less understood than teacher allocation are
the processes by which principals are hired and
approach, data collection proceeded from the examination of districtwide data, policies, and personnel
perspectives, to interviews and classroom observations of all K–3 classrooms in 12 selected schools, to
intensive observations in 2 classrooms in each school,
and finally to in-depth case studies of 12 students.
Sampling
Target schools (n = 12) were purposely selected to
reflect three types of ethnicity patterns and variable
referral rates (see Table 1). We also took into account
socioeconomic status (SES) by including one school
that served a high SES mixed population and one
that served a low to middle SES African American
population. In some cases, we were able to pair two
schools in close proximity, one having a higher rate
of referral than the other.
assigned to different schools.
Data Sources
In this study we explore the hiring and placement
decisions of school district-level personnel and principals. It is our position that these hiring decisions
are but one set of factors out of a complex array of
interrelated factors that affect the special education
referral process and ultimately the disproportionate
representation of culturally and linguistically diverse
students in special education.
As long ago as 1957, Coleman called for a “portrait of the processes” that contribute to the disparities
in teacher resources in urban schools (p. 3). More
recently, Krei (1998) lamented that equity issues in
teacher allocation are still given too little attention by
researchers. We are aware that inequities exist but
know little about the perspectives of the district-level
leaders and principals who make hiring decisions.
The purpose of this paper is to shed light on these
decision-making processes.
Data sources for the larger project included interviews,
observations, and documents. We collected data of
various types to provide triangulation. Interviews
were the primary data source for this paper.
Interviews. Altogether we conducted 272 openended or semistructured individual interviews with
students, parents, and school-based and district personnel, as well as an additional 84 informal conversations. Of the semistructured interviews, 24 were
with principals—we interviewed principals at each
school twice, towards the beginning of the study and
again at the end. Although we began each interview
with a set of questions, these served more as general
guidelines for the conversation rather than a strict protocol. During the first interview we asked principals to
describe their schools, the changes they had seen since
first arriving at the school, their special education programs, and the referral process. We also inquired why
they thought there was disproportionate representation of low-income and minority students in special
education programs. During the final interview we
asked principals to tell us more about issues that had
emerged as important during the project. Questions
included (but were not limited to):
1. What changes have taken place in your school
over the last three years?
2. Describe how you make hiring decisions.
3. How do you assign teachers to classes?
4. How do you assign students to classes?
Methods
Design
The data for this paper were drawn from a large
three-year ethnographic study focused on the
decision-making processes by which children were
determined to be in need of special education placement. The study was conducted in a large, ethnically
diverse, urban school district. Using a funnel-like
24
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Administrative Hiring Decisions
Table 1: School Demographics, Including Student and Principal Ethnicity
School
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Ethnicity of Students
W
B
H
0+
0+
3
0+
2
7
8
6
2
1
2
55
99
92
92
89
0+
4
1
11
79
69
56
17
Free or
Reduced Lunch
%
EMH
97.1
97.2
70.1
98.9
88.9
65.6
68.7
89.6
98.3
98.4
99.0
18.5
7
0.1
0.2
0.5
1
8
3
10
98
92
90
82
17
29
42
23
%
EBD
0.01
5.8
0.5
2.6
0.3
0.1
%
LD
Ethnicity of Principal
W
B
H
9.8
3.5
4.1
6.8
5.3
12.5
6.6
4.2
5.8
4.2
4.4
4.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: EMH = Educable Mental Handicaps; EBD = Emotional and Behavior Disorders; LD = Learning Disabilities; W = White;
B = Black (African American, as well as Haitian, Jamaican, and other Caribbean); H = Hispanic
5. One finding that intrigues us is that we see such
a difference across schools in the quality of
instruction and classroom management. Why do
you think this occurs? What do you think can be
done about this?
We also interviewed the directors of each of the
district’s six regions and the deputy superintendent
in the district responsible for hiring administrators.
We asked several questions about how principals,
assistant principals, and teachers were hired and
assigned to different schools.
Observations. We collected extensive field notes
from observations of classrooms (627), child study
team meetings (42), psychological evaluations (5),
special education placement and/or IEP meetings
(15), other meetings (14), and home and community
settings relevant to target students (15).
Documents. We examined documents such as
IEPs, students’ work, psychological and other evaluations, school district guidelines and policies, and
extant data on special education placement in the
school district.
Data Analysis
We applied grounded theory and ethnographic
techniques to develop theory inductively using the
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
constant comparison procedure (Glaser & Strauss,
1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The recursive nature
of the constant comparison method allowed each
phase of data collection and analysis to feed into the
next. All transcripts and field notes were entered
into the ATLAS.ti database and analyzed through a
process of segmenting the text and then assigning
simple descriptive codes. We clustered codes into
related, overarching categories and then moved to
the interpretation of themes that cut across categories and pointed to tentative explanations of the
data. This process was recursive and continued
throughout the project. As explanations emerged, we
collected additional data and investigated further
cases to test each, looking for both confirming and
disconfirming evidence.
Findings
First, we discuss how principals are hired and
assigned to schools by district personnel. Then we
examine teacher quality issues and how teacher hiring decisions are made. We discuss principals’
limitations in their selection of faculty and the challenges they face with teachers they consider
incompetent. We also describe how teachers are
assigned to classes and students.
25
Administrative Hiring Decisions
Assignment of Principals to Schools
How does a principal come to be the principal of
any given school? Data from an interview with a
senior district officer indicated a rather mixed
process. On paper, applicants for principal and assistant principal positions must go through a stringent
process to become eligible to be interviewed. The
process requires that they score well on a lengthy
checklist of features. The finalists for a position are
interviewed by a team that includes a school faculty
member and the regional superintendent. But, as the
senior official noted, “What’s on paper is sometimes
different from reality. All too many times, they
would bring in nervous candidates and interview
them when they already knew who they wanted for
the position.” The superintendent is asked “as a
courtesy” whether he/she has any one particular
person in mind for a position. Usually the regional
superintendent is the one who selects the person.
This practice of allowing a superintendent to
appoint principals circumvents the regular interview
process and results in suspicion and the belief that
favoritism and cronyism occur.
On paper, applicants for principal and assistant
principal positions must go through a stringent
process to become eligible to be interviewed.
Stability. Beyond this interview data, we had no
way of knowing the inside details of the process or
how any of the principals we met were selected.
What we did notice was that some schools seemed
to have had more stability in leadership than others.
In one inner-city school serving a very low-income,
predominantly black population, the leadership had
changed frequently. A faculty member who had been
at the school for 22 years said that he had worked
under a total of eight principals during that time.
One faculty member exclaimed:
“So many principals! Each has worked an average of
three years and they retire. One received a promotion
then retired. The 12 years that I’ve been here, I’ve seen
three principals retire. I think this one will be the
fourth.”
At another school in the same area, the newly
appointed principal, a veteran of 30 years, had served
26
as an assistant principal for 12 years “all over the district.” In the one year prior to her appointment at this
school, she had been moved to temporary assistant
principal appointments six times. The principal did
not express any dismay over these moves, since she
felt that:
“As an administrator, you have to be willing to serve in
any capacity, wherever you’re needed....You know,
tomorrow they might call and say, ‘I need you to report
to the region office,’ and when you get there they would
say, ‘Give me the keys to your building, because you are
going over here.’ But I’ve had a very positive attitude....”
Not only was the leadership of these two schools
very changeable, so were the faculty. The percentage
of new teachers in the 1999–2000 year was 17% and
25%. Both these schools showed numerous problematic policies. At the other end of the spectrum was a
school that ran exceedingly smoothly and efficiently
under the leadership of a principal who had been
there for 12 years. In between these two extremes
were variable patterns in leadership change—but it
seemed that most schools had been through several
transformations.
Teacher Quality: Hiring and
Retaining Good Teachers
Perhaps the most important decision made by principals is the hiring of faculty. When we asked a
senior district officer how these decisions were
made, we were told that principals have “sole control” over this once the teacher has satisfied the
district-level screening. We noted only two exceptions to this. First, there is a desegregation
requirement that between 24% and 36% of a faculty
must be black (African American, Haitian, Jamaican,
etc.). Once a faculty falls below this, they are put on
“controlled staffing” and can hire only black teachers
until the requirement is met. The only exception to
this is if the personnel department verifies that there
are no more black applicants. We were told that
there currently is a shortage of teachers generally,
and in special education in particular.
Second, district personnel assign “surplused”
teachers to schools (i.e., teachers who are released
from a school when the population at the school
declines and not as many teachers are needed). The
senior district officer noted that “We try to spread
them around.” He added that, “The perception is
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Administrative Hiring Decisions
that surplused teachers are tainted, when what it
really means is [they have] less experience.”
In terms of the retention of new teachers, their
contract requires that they stay at their firstappointed school for at least three years. This is an
attempt to encourage greater commitment on the
part of teachers at inner-city schools. We were initially of the impression that there was a higher rate
of first-year teachers in the inner-city schools and
were told that this was because there is “more
opportunity,” which we understood to mean that
there is more turnover. However, school district data
for the 1999–2000 year did not show a clear pattern
of teacher turnover. For example, one of the schools
we considered most effective had a high rate of new
teachers, while one of the least effective had a low
rate. One school that we will comment on in more
detail (see school #5 in Table 2) had a pattern of
unusual stability—a principal who had been there
for 12 years and a rate of new teachers of only 4.5%.
In terms of the retention of new teachers, their contract requires that they stay at their first-appointed
school for at least three years. This is an attempt to
encourage greater commitment on the part of
teachers at inner-city schools.
So, we asked, how are teachers selected? If principals have the final say, then we must assume that
they choose the candidates they consider most qualified. When we asked the principal of one of the most
effective schools in the sample about this, she replied
that she handpicks her teachers. She said, “I think I
have pretty good eyes!” For the most part she listed
the usual criteria one would expect, such as previous
experience and behavior management strategies.
However, one comment she made suggested that
there may be informal, more personalized aspects of
the selection process: “I guess it has to do with the
hiring of the people I know in our community. We
have a lot of children that do not speak English, and
you know [who can] do the best for those children.”
The phrase “our community” was not explicit, but
since she followed it with a comment about children
who are English language learners, we interpreted it
as probably meaning that she sought teachers she
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
thought would be compatible in terms of ethnicity
and language, i.e., Hispanic teachers.
School District Data
on Teacher Qualifications
Using master’s degrees as a measure of teacher quality (a commonly used indicator in federal reports),
Table 2 shows two main patterns and one anomaly.
Using free/reduced price lunch (FRL) as an indicator
of general SES, we can divide the schools into two
main groups: eight with more than 89% FRL and
four with 70% or less FRL. In the higher income
group (Group A), the range of teachers having masters degrees is 39%–47%. With the exception of
school # 5, where the percentage (54%) is higher than
in either group, the range in the lower income group
(Group B) is 21%–36%.
Our observational data fit well with this pattern.
In our observations of all K–3 classrooms, we noted a
clear difference in the instructional skills of the teachers in the two groups—quite consistently average-tohigh in Group A and very variable with marked
extremes in Group B. In the Group A schools, it was
rare to see a classroom where behavior was out of
control or where instruction seemed haphazard, based
on rote learning, or inappropriate to children’s needs.
In these schools, the classrooms that were weaker were
more like the “average” classrooms in the Group B
schools. In the latter schools there was a great range of
variability. For example, in one school, of 18 K–3 classrooms observed, we rated five very good, six average,
and seven very weak. In another school we observed
12 classrooms and rated five very good, two average,
and five very weak.
Since we have grouped the schools according to
free or reduced lunch, which is a feature of the children, not the teachers, a reasonable question to ask
would be whether the children themselves, because of
poor behavior or poor academic readiness, might
account for the impression of classroom quality. Our
data indicate quite certainly that this was not the case.
It is true that in some schools children were streamed
into classes according to their achievement levels
and/or comportment, and that in many cases the
classes with higher achieving children were assigned
the stronger teachers. Even in these schools, however,
we saw some strong teachers offering excellent
instruction to relatively low-achieving children. For
27
Administrative Hiring Decisions
Table 2: Student and Teacher Data, Categorized by Free or Reduced Lunch
Student
Teacher
Masters
Specialist
Doctorate
% New to School
Average Years
as a Teacher
Teacher Degrees
Hispanic
Black (Non-Hispanic)
White (Non-Hispanic)
Mobility Index
% LEP
Teacher Ethnicity
% FRL
Hispanic
Black (Non-Hispanic)
White (Non-Hispanic)
Student Ethnicity
21
40
73
33
43
39
44
47
14
5
5
7
0
0
0
2
15.2
19.4
10.3
12.0
15
10
10
11
54
36
35
35
27
21
21
32
9
10
6
4
3
2
5
9
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
4.5
17.1
8.5
11.8
16.7
25.0
17.0
16.9
12
11
9
13
8
8
10
8
Group A: Schools with Free or Reduced Price Lunch Percentages of 70 or Less
3
7
8
55
3
6
7
12
92
1
1
17
3
92
90
23
70.1
65.6
68.7
18.5
2.0
31.3
27.2
5.8
22
23
21
10
38
24
5
36
41
36
22
31
Group B: Schools with Free or Reduced Price Lunch Percentages of 89 or Higher
2
0+
0+
0+
6
2
1
2
5
1
2
4
8
9
10
11
0+
99
92
89
11
79
69
56
98
1
8
10
82
19
29
42
88.9
97.1
97.2
98.9
89.6
98.3
98.4
99.0
50.0
0.5
43.2
27.3
46.2
8.3
13.9
26.1
22
47
41
42
26
44
43
50
12
44
36
36
9
18
30
38
25
36
34
36
28
30
25
2
63
20
25
26
63
53
45
39
Note: FRL = Free and reduced price lunch; LEP = Limited in English proficiency. All numbers reflect percentages except for “Average
Years as a Teacher.”
example, in one school in a low-income, inner-city
neighborhood, we noted a consistently excellent
kindergarten teacher. In this class there was a combination of children who had and had not been to
preschool. It was clear that in this teacher’s firm but
gentle hands the children were well behaved and
highly motivated. Our data corroborated this teacher’s
statement: “When you close the classroom doors, the
children in this neighborhood are no different.”
Limitations to Principals’ Selection of Faculty
Some principals said they experienced many limitations
in their ability to choose faculty. One interesting point
they made simply concerned geographic location. Most
of the schools serving very low-income populations
28
were in the older parts of the inner city. One such
principal reported that, since many teachers do not
live in the area, commuting is a source of stress that
often results in their moving as soon as they get an
opportunity to be nearer to their homes. Thus, they
may transfer in the middle of the year, leaving the
principal to have to settle for teachers “who are not
even mediocre [but] the bottom of the barrel!” These
teachers then require a great deal of professional
development, and it may still turn out that they just
“do not have the capability.”
In contrast to the principal who reported that she
“hand picks” her faculty, this principal told us that
there is a personnel director from the region who
interviews and selects teachers, while also leaving
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Administrative Hiring Decisions
the principal the right to decline the person if she
does not think the person will fit. The principal concluded that, “Many teachers just can’t work in this
environment. You have teachers that have been here
for so long and when you go into their class [you see
that] they know how to do just the minimum [to get
by]....” This principal went on to say that there used
to be a time when, “if a teacher had a problem, and
they really needed to get rid of them, then they put
them in inner-city schools where they had to suffer....” She suggested a few ways to change this
image of inner-city schools:
• Show that inner-city children can achieve.
• Improve the appearance of the physical plant
itself.
• Recruit teachers who have graduated from the
various colleges in the state and that have that
mentality of “I want to teach in an urban school
because I grew up in an urban area, and I feel
that I have a lot to give.”
Firing. Besides the hiring of teachers, we were also
concerned about how difficult it can be to terminate a
weak teacher from a position. The district policy is
that within the first 97 days, a new teacher is on probation and can be terminated readily by the principal.
The latter is required to evaluate the new teacher during this period. The senior administrative official told
us that “there is all kinds of help available” for supporting new teachers. After the 97-day period has
ended, terminating a teacher takes “a lot of process
and documentation.” That this was a daunting
process was evident in the amount of weak teachers
we saw who had been teaching for many years.
Generally, we could not tell whether principals
did not know or could not do anything about the
many very ineffective teachers we observed. A
lengthy discussion with one principal, however, provided insights into some of the dilemmas she faced.
In terms of the following two excerpts, we did not
ask the names of the teachers she was referring to,
but we had observed an exceedingly poor music
teacher who certainly would have fit one of the
descriptions offered. When asked what she could do
about a very unsuccessful teacher, she said:
“[They’ve] got to go! ... This is one of the few places that
I’ve been where all of my special area teachers are weak
when it comes to classroom management. And I have to
take a different approach to that. First of all, they have
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
been put on notice...they have all been called in and...the
cards have been laid out on the table for them. One
teacher in particular, I had to weigh the good with the
bad. This person lacked the classroom management but
she makes up for it with what she does with those children in the arts. And I had to make a decision; do you
keep the teacher and try to deal with her classroom management in order to allow these children to experience
something that they will not be able to experience [otherwise]? Or do you immediately jump in there and then
you don’t have that particular teacher because there is a
shortage because there is nobody else to take her place, or
one who has the same problem? But, nevertheless,
enough is enough and that person has been given
notice... She has got to go. The gloves come off. [To get
rid of a teacher] you have to want to do it and you have
to be willing to take the heat and get beat up.”
The principal went on to give an example of a
new teacher who did not last through the year:
“We had one this year [who didn’t work out]. Everyone
helped her, and we gave her everything that she had to
do. And I filled in teachers to help her with classroom
management and help her with lesson plans, help her
with teaching that particular lesson. We sent her to
training and things just were not working out.... I went
in and took my notebook...I called her over and said,
‘You know, you really need to teach if you want to stay
here; you’ve got to teach them.’ So she went and
attempted to teach them, and I was still there writing in
my book and she came over and picked up her coffee and
said, ‘I don’t think this is going to work out.’ And I said,
‘I think you’re right. Get your bag and let’s go.’ And she
left. Right then and there.”
“Many teachers just can’t work in this environment.
You have teachers that have been here for so long
and when you go into their class [you see that] they
know how to do just the minimum [to get by]....”
These discussions point to the difficulty, and the
possibility, of various approaches to getting and
retaining good faculty. Nevertheless, our observations showed that there were many teachers who
simply should not have been in the classroom.
Assignment of Teachers to Classes
The next level of decision-making after hiring teachers
was how they should be assigned to classes. Simply
29
Administrative Hiring Decisions
put, which students get the best teachers? A central
issue was whether children were grouped by ability,
and, if so, which teachers were assigned to the various
groups. We tried to get this information in all the
schools but had limited success. Very often, administrators’ statements just did not fit our observations or
statements made by teachers. For example, in one
inner-city school, the administration insisted that
classes were heterogeneously grouped and that there
was no sorting into classes by ability levels. Yet our
observations and teachers’ comments indicated that in
some cases the most challenging students were
grouped together. For example:
“Teachers and the counselor shared with us their belief
that the most challenging students were clustered in
certain classrooms. The AP, however, told us that these
students were distributed evenly. A third-grade teacher
told us, ‘Everybody knows they are the worst class in the
school.’ I told her that the AP had told me that the kids
with problems were spread around, and she responded,
‘That’s a lie.’”
Several principals believed in ability grouping and
others did not. In one school with two pre-K classes,
children who had been to preschool were kept together
through kindergarten and mostly into the first grade.
After this they were spread out. Many of these students
turned out to be the “top students.” This school also
grouped children according to ability in math and in
writing. In two other inner-city schools, the principals
also stated that they do sort classes by ability since they
consider this the most efficient method because it allows
teachers to tailor their instruction appropriately rather
than losing the children at either end of the spectrum.
The principal in one of the most effective schools
reported not using ability grouping. She stated that
she does two kinds of grouping. First, students in
the lower ESOL levels are grouped for self-contained
classes. Second, students who must be pulled out for
special education classes are clustered, but there are
no more than four in each room. This way, the special education children are “easy to pull and
schedule.” After placing these children, the principal
then tries to “balance” the placement of children so
that all the rest of the classes each have “high and
low children.” Our data suggest that in this school
this process worked quite well. It was rare to see a
classroom with an overabundance of children with
learning or behavioral difficulties. Of course, the
30
overall high level of skill of the teachers no doubt
modified the appearance of misbehavior. In another
school with relatively high achievement, the presence of a magnet program meant that those children
were grouped together, but, otherwise, grouping
was heterogeneous.
It was rare to see a classroom with an
overabundance of children with learning
or behavioral difficulties.
In deciding which teachers were assigned to particular groups of children, again the policies varied.
Several principals preferred to place teachers at the
grade level where they were most comfortable. At
least one principal tried to place her best teachers in
the grades that were most impacted by high-stakes
testing (i.e., Florida Writes and the Florida
Comprehensive Achievement Test). In some schools
it seemed obvious that the strongest teachers were
assigned to the higher achieving students. For example, in one inner-city, predominantly African
American school, we noted that weak teachers
tended to be placed in classes where children with
challenging behavior and/or low academic achievement were clustered. One such teacher was moved
from her first grade assignment, which she said she
had had for many years, and assigned to a troublesome second grade class. Within that same year, she
was moved again to an alternative education class
and then the next year to a gifted class. In the third
year, she enrolled in a graduate program in special
education and during that year was assigned to a
class with many special education students. On
observing her second grade class, we asked her to
tell us about the class. She said that, “almost half”
the class had been referred for testing or were
already receiving special education pull-out services.
She said that, across the second grade, one teacher
had been assigned the high-achieving children, one
had half and half, and she had all the difficult children. She said that this arrangement, made by the
principal, had overridden a more heterogeneous
arrangement that teachers had proposed in the
spring. She felt that there was favoritism and punishment involved in the decision. Our observations
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Administrative Hiring Decisions
of the three classrooms confirmed that both the children and the teachers had been “tracked” by ability.
Discussion
Inequities in the quality of leadership and instruction in inner-city schools exacerbate efforts to
reduce disproportionate placements of culturally
and linguistically diverse children into special education. Problems relating to the recruitment and
retention of highly qualified teachers in the inner
city, along with the need for stable leadership
within the school building, must be addressed if the
problem of disproportionality is to be addressed
effectively. The relationship between the effectiveness of the leadership provided by the principal and
the quality of instruction in classrooms is clearly
evident (Jackson et al., 1983; Scheurich, 1998).
Central office administrators have long grappled
with the seemingly insolvable problem of developing a system that provides for the placement and
retention of highly qualified and effective teachers in
inner-city schools. Attempts to develop policies or
practices to impact this problem have met with only
limited success. For instance, the district in this
study has a practice of not permitting applicants to
be listed in the district’s computerized applicant
database unless they agree to interview at any school
in the district. Applicants who consistently reject or
avoid interviewing in particular areas of the county
can be removed from the applicant database for up
to a year. In theory, this should give all principals
equal access to the pool of incoming teachers. That,
coupled with the referenced policy that keeps new
teachers at the work site for three years, should
allow a principal to carefully select and develop an
effective instructional team.
In practice, however, this policy has not had a significant impact on teacher quality in the inner city.
Teacher applicants have learned to circumvent the
system by using caller ID to screen their calls, only
answering the phone when a principal from a “desirable” school is calling. Also, the district is already
grappling with teacher shortages and is reluctant to
see teachers opposed to teaching in particular neighborhoods leave for jobs in other districts that do not
impose such restrictions. As a result, hiring procedures are implemented flexibly—candidates can
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
indicate that they are not ready to be listed in the
database and begin seeking jobs on their own in specific schools. Once the prospective teacher has located
an acceptable school, and a principal has indicated a
willingness to hire the person, the applicant can then
request to be listed and the principal can quickly hire
the candidate before other schools can request an
interview.
“Combat pay,” as cited in one interview, has also
proven to be ineffective in recruiting and retaining
teachers in what are viewed as less desirable schools.
In fact, the district’s recent attempt to recruit reading
specialists into failing inner-city schools met with a
singularly underwhelming response despite an offer
of a substantial salary supplement. Money is simply
not enough to attract highly skilled personnel to
these schools (Krei, 1998). Working conditions, it
seems, play a much more important role. One of the
principals in this study felt that improving the physical plant was an important factor in changing the
image of inner-city schools. Indeed, factors such as
appearance and security measures (e.g., parking,
lighting, access to the building) may be more important than financial incentives for those who have
concerns about working in these schools.
“Combat pay,” as cited in one interview, has also
proven to be ineffective in recruiting and retaining
teachers in what are viewed as less desirable schools.
Other incentives could include reduced class size
and the provision of paraprofessionals. In some
schools, money from the state allocated because the
school received a grade of “D” (as part of the state’s
“A+” plan) has been used to reduce class size. This
has worked in schools with declining enrollment and
sufficient classroom space for additional teachers but
not at schools with already crowded classrooms.
Like class size, the use of paraprofessionals is
very uneven across schools. In some cases Title I
funds are used to hire paraprofessionals to work with
classroom teachers, and in other cases they are not.
The district policy is that schools must find funds for
paraprofessionals if that is what they establish as a
priority. In some higher income schools, funds from
parents are used to pay for paraprofessionals—something the inner-city schools cannot do.
31
Administrative Hiring Decisions
The lack of stability of the leadership in some
schools has increasingly become a focus of attention in
this district. One concern is that many initiatives
selected and implemented at individual school sites
are modified or abandoned when a change in leadership occurs. The philosophies and approaches of
particular principals affect the selection of instructional initiatives, organizational arrangements (e.g.,
ability grouping vs. heterogeneous grouping), and
development of school improvement plans. Frequent
changes in leadership leave faculties confused and
cynical about efforts to institute change since, at
schools with high administrative turnover, a change of
focus and/or methodology frequently accompanies a
change in leadership. Exacerbating this problem is the
practice of changing principals on short notice—without an opportunity for the incoming and outgoing
administrators to share information that might minimize the effect of changes. Even when a principal’s
impending departure is known in advance, such as in
the case of retirement, there has been little or no effort
to provide for a smooth transition in leadership.
Instability of leadership in schools also has an
adverse affect on improving teacher quality. The dismissal of teachers believed to be incompetent is a
lengthy and labor-intensive process. Principals often
note that it is difficult to document for possible dismissal more than a few teachers in a given school
year. Efforts to change the quality of the instructional
staff in a low-performing school can take years, even
when only a single principal is involved. When the
leadership changes frequently, efforts to change the
faculty can be set back significantly.
Implications for Special Education
Administrators
The challenge facing special education administrators when confronting and tackling the issue of
disproportionality is that many of the solutions to
special education’s current woes lie in the domain
typically referred to as “general” or “regular” education. Special education administrators generally
have little influence on the selection, assignment,
or even the training of principals. Principals in
turn have a significant influence on the quality of
instruction in general education classrooms, which,
in turn, significantly affects student referrals to
special education. Historically there has been a
32
disconnect in many urban school districts between
those who have responsibility for the delivery of
general education programs and those with responsibility for programs targeting students with special
needs. The extent to which this disconnect exists at
the central office level determines how much influence special education administrators can have on
how special education programs are viewed and
how the referral process is handled.
Special education administrators who wish to
decrease disproportionality must form, within the
context of their district’s organizational framework,
collaborative relationships with those who manage
general education programs. This process can be
facilitated when the special education administrator
has something to “bring to the table” as districts
grapple with the issues surrounding increased
accountability, particularly in light of the mandates
found in No Child Left Behind. Recent recommendations at the federal level include the permissive use
of a portion of IDEA funds to support early (i.e., prereferral) interventions. Leveraging these resources
can assure that special education administrators are
part of the conversation and can play a role in developing effective intervention models designed to
reduce inappropriate referrals to special education.
References
Ansell, S. E., & McCabe, M. (2003). Off target. Education
Week, 22(17), 57–58.
Bridgeland, W. M., & Duane, E. A. (1987). Elementary
school principals and their political settings. Urban
Review, 19, 191–200.
Coleman, G. (1957). Community conflict. New York: Free
Press.
Darling Hammond, L. (1995). Inequality and access to
knowledge. In J. A. Banks & C. A. Banks (Eds.), The
handbook of multicultural education (pp. 465–483). New
York: MacMillan.
Edmunds, R. R., Frederickson, J. R. (1978). Search for effective schools: The identification and analysis of city schools
that are instructionally effective for poor children.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Ferguson, R. (1991). Paying for public education: New
evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard
Journal on Legislation, 28, 465–498.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Hardy, L. (1999). Building blocks of reform. American
School Board Journal, 186(2), 16–21.
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Administrative Hiring Decisions
Hardy, L. (2002). Who will teach our children? American
School Board Journal, 189(4), 18–23.
Jackson, S. A., Logsdon, D. M., & Taylor, N. E. (1983).
Instructional leadership behaviors: Differentiating
effective from ineffective low-income urban schools.
Urban Education, 18, 59–70.
Jacobson, S. L. (1989). Change in entry-level salaries and
its effect on recruitment. Journal of Educational Finance,
14, 449–465.
Krei, M. S. (1998). Intensifying the barriers: The problem
of inequitable teacher allocation in low-income urban
schools. Urban Education, 33, 71–94.
Oakes, J., Franke, M. L., Quartz, K. H., & Rogers, J. (2002).
Research for high-quality urban teaching: Defining it,
developing it, assessing it. Journal of Teacher Education,
53, 228–234.
Peterson, K., & Kelley, C. (2001). Transforming school
leadership. Leadership, 30(3), 8–11.
Pflaum, S. W., & Abramson, T. (1990). Teacher assignment,
hiring, and preparation: Minority teachers in New
Cork City. The Urban Review, 22, 17–31.
Scheurich, J. J. (1998). Highly successful and loving, public elementary schools populated by low-SES children
of color: Core beliefs and cultural characteristics.
Urban Education, 33, 451–491.
Schneider, B. L. (1985). Further evidence of school effects.
Journal of Educational Research, 78, 351–356.
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative
research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Weber, G. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read:
Four successful schools. Washington, D.C.: Council for
Basic Education.
Wise, A. E., Darling Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (1987).
Effective teacher selection: From recruitment to retention.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
About the Authors
Dr. Janette K. Klingner is an associate professor at
the University of Colorado at Boulder, School of
Education, 249 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0249.
E-mail: [email protected].
Dr. Beth Harry is a professor in the Department of
Teaching and Learning, University of Miami, Coral
Gables, Florida 33124. E-mail: [email protected].
Ronald K. Felton is the associate superintendent of
management operations in the Office of Exceptional
Student Education and Student/Career Services,
Miami-Dade County Public Schools, 1500 Biscayne
Boulevard, Miami, FL 33168.
E-mail: [email protected].
33
Special Education in the City
How has the Money Been Spent and What Do We Have to Show for It?
Thomas B. Parrish, Ed.D., and Catherine Sousa Bitter, M.A.
American Institutes for Research, Palo Alto, CA
• Increased demand for special education services, with the resulting growth in special education spending,
especially at this time of overall fiscal constraint, has resulted in unprecedented pressure on local special
education administrators to show that special education funds are being used as efficiently as possible.
That is the question primarily addressed by this article: How can the concept of efficiency in services be
translated into specific practices?
• There have been marked changes in the schooling environment for urban districts over the past decade.
Student and family choice is much more predominant, with charter, magnet, other forms of public schools,
and voucher schools available to students and their families. The result is that the school assignment process
has become immeasurably more complex and school enrollment patterns have become much more difficult
to predict. These issues have been further exacerbated within special education. With less straightforward
policies and greater choice, schools do not always feel the same obligation to serve all of the students in their
local area regardless of any special needs they may have. Thus, it has never been more important that the
supplemental resources a child with special needs requires follow the child to the school and into whatever
type of service arrangement is most appropriate.
• The conceptual framework we present quantifies a measure of student need, ties school allocations to the
relative needs of their students, tracks actual expenditures on special education, and links them to quantifiable measures of student results. This conceptual framework should guide changes to the allocation,
expenditure tracking, and data systems in a district. Tying this chain to student outcome measures should
be a goal but, realistically, perhaps a subsequent one. Only when this chain is complete will the district be
able to assess the extent to which it is utilizing available resources to best meet the educational needs of
the special education students it enrolls.
he days in which special education could be considered just another categorical program are long gone,
if indeed they ever existed. Special education has risen
as a percentage of total enrollment every year since the
passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) in 1975, with over 12 percent of all public
school-age children now in special education. A newly
released national study of special education spending
(Chambers et al., 2002) estimates total special education
spending for the nation at $50 billion per year.
This growth in special education enrollments and
spending has become increasingly contentious over the
past several years (Parrish, 2000). Concern is being
expressed about the degree to which special education
spending is taking resources from general education
programs (Rothstein, 1997). At the same time, however,
average spending per special education student actually appears to be declining in relation to spending on
T
34
the average general education student. The estimated
ratio between average special and general education
spending per student has fallen from 2.3 in 1986
(Moore et al., 1988) to 1.9 in 2002 (Chambers et al.,
2002). This suggests that overall increases in special
education spending, and the percent share of spending on special education, are more attributable to
rising special education enrollments than to increased
expenditures per special education student.
Increased demand for special education services,
with the resulting growth in special education spending, especially at this time of overall fiscal constraint,
has resulted in unprecedented pressure on local special education administrators to show that special
education funds are being used as efficiently as possible. That is the question primarily addressed by this
article: How can the concept of efficiency in services
be translated into specific practices? The paradigm we
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
How Has the Money Been Spent?
present quantifies a measure of student need, ties
school allocations to the relative needs of their students, tracks actual expenditures on special education,
and links those expenditures to quantifiable measures
of student results.
Prior to discussing this paradigm, we offer a general overview of the context for special educators.
The article ends by noting possible future trends in
regard to this context and discussing possible implications for urban special education leaders.
Funding Special Education—
An Overview
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), states and localities have primary responsibility
for providing special education programs and services
to eligible school-age children with disabilities. Based
on data from a report to be released this year (Parrish et
al., 2003), states provide an estimated 45 percent and
local districts about 46 percent of the support for special
education programs, with the remaining 9 percent provided through federal IDEA funding.1
State support for special education varies considerably. For example, in this same report (Parrish et
al., 2003), Virginia reported that 23 percent of the
state’s special education programs were supported
through state revenues, while New Mexico reported
90 percent state support. For all states, special education spending that is not offset by state or federal
revenues must be supported through local funds.
The limited data available on national trends in special education spending suggest that the local share
of special education spending has been growing
over the past few years. This has contributed to concerns that special education funds are increasing at
the cost of other local education programs (Parrish &
Wolman, 1997).
At the federal level, the allocation formula governing special education funding has changed considerably
over the past few years. A new federal funding system,
passed as a part of the IDEA reauthorization in 1997,
allocates federal aid primarily on a state’s total schoolage population (70 percent), with an adjustment for
poverty (30 percent). Under this new system, the
amount of money allocated to states and school districts is the same regardless of the mix of services
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
provided or the number of students in more severe
categories of disability.
Allocation rules also vary considerably across the
states. Under the most generic systems, as with the
new federal funding formula, districts placing more
students in special education do not generate more
funds than districts with lower identification rates. In
other states, the amount of money received is a direct
function of how many students are placed in special
education overall, but is not related to the category of
disability or placement. In a third set of states, higher
levels of funds are provided for children placed in
higher-cost categories of disability or placement.
At the federal level, the allocation formula
governing special education funding has
changed considerably over the past few years.
A clear trend in state special education funding
policies has been change. For example, over one-half
of reporting states (28 of 46) said they had reformed
the way they fund special education during the prior
five years (Parrish et al., 2003). In addition, 46 percent of reporting states (21 of 46) said they were
considering future formula changes, and 11 of these
states were among those that had already implemented changes in the prior five years. These
numbers illustrate the dynamic nature of special
education funding policy in the recent past—a trend
likely to continue into the foreseeable future.
Changes in Urban District Environment
There have also been marked changes in the schooling environment for urban districts over the past
decade. Before, school attendance zones were much
more clearly defined and more closely followed. If a
student lived at a certain address and was in a certain grade, the student’s school assignment, as made
by the district, was generally known and was not
disputed. Schools could expect the full distribution
of students from their attendance zone and plan
1 Findings from the national Special Education
Expenditure Project (SEEP) indicate that federal IDEA
funding accounted for a similar share (7.5 percent) of
total special education spending in 1999–2000.
35
How Has the Money Been Spent?
accordingly. For the majority of special education students, these same principles of school assignment
held, while those students with more severe disabilities (and therefore greater needs) were assigned to
self-contained classrooms at designated schools or to
special schools. Schooling assignments were generally well known, and students with similar categories
of disability were grouped fairly homogeneously.
In the current era, especially in larger urban districts, many of these rules for determining the school a
student will attend have changed. Student and family
choice is much more predominant, with charter, magnet, other forms of public schools, and voucher schools
available to students and their families. At the same
time that greater choice abounds, renewed emphasis is
also being placed on the value of attending neighborhood schools. The result is that the school assignment
process has become measurably more complex. School
enrollment patterns have become much more difficult
to predict. As a result, planning school services and
determining appropriate allocations of resources to
each school has become more difficult.
At the same time that greater choice abounds,
renewed emphasis is also being placed on the
value of attending neighborhood schools.
These issues have been further exacerbated
within special education. With less straightforward
policies and greater choice, schools do not always
feel the same obligation to serve all of the students
in their local area regardless of any special needs
they may have. While districts are still required to
meet the special education needs of their children in
some school, the choice that is available to other students may not pertain in a meaningful way to those
in special education. With greater choice, schools
may become increasingly reluctant to serve highneed students, especially when the financial support
they require does not follow them.
Special education has also changed through a new
emphasis on mixed groupings of students and more
integrated services. More students with complex needs
are now being served in regular education classrooms
along with nondisabled students. Increased integration
can provide considerable benefits for disabled and
nondisabled students alike when properly adminis-
36
tered, but it can also perform a considerable disservice
to both populations if appropriate support services do
not follow children with severe disabilities into more
inclusive settings.
Thus, it has never been more important that the
supplemental resources a child with special needs
requires follow the child to the school and into whatever type of service arrangement is most appropriate.
Or, even if specific resources do not follow individual
children, the amount of special education resources
allocated to schools should correlate with differences in
the needs of the students they enroll. Such a system
could be designed to create incentives for schools to
enroll students with disabilities and to serve them
appropriately.
Conceptual Framework
for Allocating Funds
Extensive policy discussions and a considerable literature exist regarding approaches to allocating federal
special education funds to the states and allocating
state funds to local school districts (e.g., see
http://csef.air.org). Questions of how school districts
should allocate special education funds to schools
have received considerably less attention. However,
many of the issues are the same. How much is
needed to support adequate and appropriate special
education services for a given population of students? On what basis should these funds be
distributed among local jurisdictions? (For one listing of criteria in considering alternative approaches
to allocating special education funds, see Parrish,
1995.) How should these allocations be monitored in
regard to how these funds are used and the student
outcomes they produce?
As with federal and state jurisdictions, recommendations regarding the allocation of special education
funds to schools within urban districts require the
development of a conceptual framework to determine
what principles should govern these allocations. The
goal of service providers and administrators must be
to derive the best possible educational outcomes for
its special education population within the constraints
imposed by limited resources.
How might this best be achieved, and what
information do district administrators need to
ensure that this is occurring? A top priority must be
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
How Has the Money Been Spent?
the maintenance of data that will allow measurement of progress toward this goal. At a minimum,
the district must know how much it is spending on
special education students in varying programs and
in different schooling locations, what specific programs and services are being provided with this
money, and some measure of the return on this
investment (measured in educational outcomes). In
short, a data system is needed that will provide
information on how much is being spent, what the
funds are being spent on, and the extent to which
(and in what ways) students are benefiting.
At the same time, very few school districts have
been able to sufficiently identify and track student
performance measures that would allow them to
assess program performance. Ideally, districts would
be able to assess the extent to which programs are
effective for varying populations of students and at
what cost, allowing them to invest in programs providing the most return per dollar. However, for most
school districts, tracking program investments to
program outcomes, or comparing funding allocations for individual students (or types of students) to
the academic progress being made, must remain a
longer-term objective. A more immediately realizable
goal is to assess the extent to which there are appropriate linkages between the needs of students, the
funding allocated to meet these needs, and the
degree to which this funding is being converted into
programs that directly serve these students.
In short, a data system is needed that will provide
information on how much is being spent, what the
funds are being spent on, and the extent to which
(and in what ways) students are benefiting.
This conceptual framework of tying the special
education funds received by schools to the needs of
the students they enroll and then ensuring that these
funds are spent on services appropriate to these
needs should guide changes to the allocation, expenditure tracking, and data systems in a district. Tying
this chain to student outcome measures should also
be a goal but, realistically, perhaps a subsequent one.
Only when this chain is complete will the district
be able to assess the extent to which it is utilizing
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
available resources to best meet the educational
needs of the special education students it enrolls.
Operationalizing Efficiency in the
Allocation of Special Education Funds
How can district administrators implement an allocation system for special education funds that
aligns with this conceptual framework and allocates special education funds in the most efficient
way? The first step requires an assessment of current spending and allocations at the district, school,
and program levels. Districts must know how
much they are spending on special education (by
program and by site) and how the funds are actually being used. Recently, several studies have been
undertaken to develop such data, to uncover patterns of variation in allocation and spending, and to
identify the underlying factors associated with
those differences. Studies of eleven states and one
urban school district were conducted in conjunction
with a national study of special education expenditures.2 These studies explored average special
education spending per pupil, how special education spending compared to allocated funds, and
whether special education spending and allocation
appeared to be aligned with available measures of
the severity of a student’s disability. They mostly
required extensive survey data collection to ensure
comparability in the information provided across
jurisdictions. However, within individual districts,
where variability in local accounting conventions is
not an issue, summary expenditure data may be
developed from extant student, fiscal, and school
data.
Once expenditure data are collected and analyzed, average per pupil and total special education
expenditures can be calculated and compared to
allocations for each school type. Such analyses sometimes reveal considerable differences between special
education allocations and expenditures, suggesting a
“disconnect” between the funds allocated and the
2 These states are Alabama, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas,
Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Rhode Island, and Wyoming. The urban district is
Milwaukee Public Schools.
37
How Has the Money Been Spent?
funds spent. Such results raise questions as to
whether district special education funds are being
used as intended.
In addition, extant data may be used to test the
connection between resource allocations and student
need. One way to assess this is to develop measures
of student need by school. To what extent do the special education funds schools receive correlate with
student need? Many districts maintain a classification
scheme indicating the severity of disability for students. One method for analyzing whether district
special education funds are indeed being directed to
where they are most needed is to compare the level of
per student spending and allocation at schools with
relatively large percentages of students with severe
disabilities to the level of spending at schools with
lower percentages of students with severe disabilities.
The expectation is that schools with greater percentages of students with severe disabilities would receive
and consequently spend more special education
funds on a per student basis since these students
would be more likely to require additional and more
comprehensive services. If the data do not support
this expectation, this would also raise questions
regarding the extent to which district special education funds are being directed to where they are most
needed, and would suggest the need for an allocation
system that better ties allocations of special education
funds and subsequent spending to student need.
Many districts maintain a classification scheme
indicating the severity of disability for students.
How might such a system be realized?
Supplemental funding could be allocated on an individual student basis. The amount of funding for
each student could be based on the specific mix of
services he or she receives, as specified in his or her
IEP, or could be based on student characteristics. For
the former, expenditure estimates for individual services could be derived by basing total funding on
the mix of services assigned to each student. For the
latter, allocations could be based on estimates of the
student’s overall severity of disability or on a matrix
3 See Simeonsson et al. (1995).
38
specifically designed to delineate the many student
characteristics that should be considered in deriving
the relative severity of a child’s condition, as well as
a system for quantifying severity.
One example of such a matrix is the “ABILITIES
Index” developed by Rune Simeonsson and Donald
Bailey of the Frank Porter Graham Child Development
Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill.3 It is a functional assessment where the foci of the
measures are the abilities of students in nine different
domains: audition, behavior, intellectual functioning,
limbs, intentional communication, tonicity, integrity of
health, eyes, and structural status. Once implemented,
this type of index can provide an ongoing check on
the alignment between the severity of a student’s disability, funding, the services provided, and student
outcomes. Estimates of the funding to be associated
with each service or condition could be created especially for the district or derived from newly released
national estimates (Chambers et al., 2002). In addition
to providing the basis for an alternative funding system for the district, such a system could provide the
foundation for program evaluation and budgeting.
A logical follow-up to the development of such a
student-driven allocation system would be to track
and link measures of student performance. This
would link the specification of adequate resources,
and the extent to which these resources are actually
following students, to measures of the academic,
social, and physical benefits they may be deriving
from these resources. Coupling rational systems of
resource allocation to student outcomes could provide information on the relative efficiency of the
system. What combinations of interventions work
well for children? Which work best for a particular
child, type of child, or mix of children? How can the
resources available to the district to meet the needs
of its special education students be used to derive
maximum possible benefit to its beneficiaries?
A next step on the path to the long-term goal of
developing efficiency indicators for the district
would be to continue to track and measure the alignment of student severity, special education
allocations, special education spending, and measures of program results. If appropriate education
outcomes are not being seen, the students’ needs
may need to be reevaluated, along with the amount
of funding and the mix of services being provided.
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
How Has the Money Been Spent?
Federal and State Efficiency-Related Trends
Pressure to give greater consideration to efficiency in
the allocation and monitoring of special education
resources is being felt at the state and federal levels, as
well as in districts. Some of these trends may appear
somewhat conflicting: At the same time that the federal government has turned to a generic method of
providing funds to states and local school districts
unrelated to any measures of student need other than
the percentage of students in poverty, new emphasis
on outcomes for special education students is found
under the national No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. While this move to more generic funding
approaches may appear inconsistent with the efficiency model suggested above for school districts,
measuring variations in student need across large
jurisdictions (i.e., states and districts) is sufficiently
problematic that a more generic funding approach
may arguably continue to be preferred by large governing bodies. However, the new emphasis on outcomes for all students is unmistakable and likely to
continue into the future.
At the state level, similar new emphasis on student outcomes is clearly resulting from NCLB and
other accountability measures. States like Kentucky
and New York have taken specific measures to raise
accountability standards for children in special education. Kentucky has had an accountability system in
place for a number of years that has specific rules for
reporting outcomes for children in special education
and for ensuring that their outcomes are fully
reflected in schoolwide measures. For several years,
New York has published annual reports showing special education outcomes for all districts in the state.
Conclusion
As we look to the future, what can urban special
educators expect and what should they consider in
light of these anticipated directions in federal and
state policy? States and the federal government seem
to be moving to more generic funding approaches,
such as those currently seen at the federal level.
At the same time, we see new emphasis on special
education outcomes. Related to these outcome
measures, some states are starting to more seriously
consider their responsibility in regard to establishing
adequacy standards, which could ultimately provide
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
more rational bases for state special education allocations. The development of these resource
standards, coupled with renewed emphasis on student outcomes, provides the beginning elements for
greater consideration of the extent to which we are
using special education resources efficiently. This
movement can only happen with a greater understanding of what we are putting into the system, as
well as what is being produced.
States and the federal government seem to be
moving to more generic funding approaches,
such as those currently seen at the federal level.
District special education directors are also facing
new pressures to control costs and increase student
performance. We suggest the development of information and tracking systems that measure the needs of
children, tie resource allocations to these needs, track
the extent and the ways in which these resources are
being used to serve children with special needs, and
link these resources to student outcome measures. The
questions such a system would be able to address, and
produce ongoing feedback on, include the following:
Based on appropriate resource standards, the needs of
our students, and available funding, how much should
we be spending on special education as a district?
Based on these same criteria, how much should be
allocated to each school? How and to what extent are
these resource allocations being converted to special
education services? To what extent are special education students benefiting from the resource
configurations specified above?
It is likely that systems for measuring and monitoring student results in relation to allocations will
be an expected standard in the future. Although it is
unlikely that districts will be able to institute full
systems of this type overnight, many districts
already have some of the elements in place that
could be better linked and more fully utilized. As a
first step, we encourage districts to develop linking
and tracking systems that will provide the foundation for the efficiency-based special education
management systems of the future.
39
How Has the Money Been Spent?
References
Chambers, J., Parrish, T., & Harr, J. (2002). What are we spending
on special education services in the United States, 1999–2000?
Advance report #1, Special Education Expenditure Project
(SEEP). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research,
Center for Special Education Finance.
Moore, M. T., Strang, E. W., Schwartz, M., & Braddock, M.
(1988). Patterns in special education service delivery and
cost. Washington, D.C.: Decision Resources Corp. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 303 027)
Parrish, T. (1995). Criteria for effective special education funding formulas. Retrieved 2/26/03 from http://csef.air.org/
papers/criteria.pdf.
Parrish, T. (2000). Special education: At what cost to general education? In The CSEF Resource. Palo Alto, CA:
American Institutes for Research, Center for Special
Education Finance.
Parrish, T., Anthony, J., Merickel, A., & Esra, P. (2003).
State special education finance systems and expenditures,
1999–00: Draft report. Palo Alto, CA: American
Institutes for Research.
40
Parrish, T., & Wolman, J. (1997). Escalating special education costs: Reality or myth? In Nineteenth Annual
Report to Congress on the Implementation of the IDEA.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education
Rothstein, R. (1997). Where’s the money going? Washington,
D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.
Simeonsson, R., Bailey, D., Smith, T., & Buysse, V. (1995).
Young children with disabilities: Functional assessment by teachers. Journal of Developmental and Physical
Disabilities, 7(4).
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs. (1997). Reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Website: http://www.ed.gov/offices/SERS/IDEA.
About the Authors
Dr. Thomas B. Parrish is the deputy director at the
American Institutes for Research, 1791 Arastradero
Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304. E-mail: [email protected].
Catherine Sousa Bitter is a research associate at the
American Institutes for Research, 1791 Arastradero
Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304. E-mail: [email protected].
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Looking for Answers in All the Right Places
Urban Schools and Universities Solve the
Dilemma of Teacher Preparation Together
Elizabeth Kozleski, Ed.D.
Sue Gamm, J.D.
Barbara Radner, Ph.D.
University of Colorado at Denver
Chicago Public Schools
DePaul University
• Urban teacher shortages must be addressed through partnerships with local universities and districts that
focus on the complete practitioner career cycle from teacher candidate through accomplished veteran.
• Teacher candidates in special and general education must be prepared together in school settings where
practicing teachers are themselves engaged in exemplary practice.
• Career ladders in the teaching profession should take into account the role that accomplished teachers can
play in mentoring and coaching teacher candidates and novice teachers.
• The teaching load for university faculty must include assignments in buildings so that university teacher
preparation curriculum and school practice influences practice within each institution.
• Institutional boundaries among universities and between universities and local school districts impede the
allocation of personnel time to professional development.
• Effective urban teacher preparation programs can increase the number of teachers who choose careers in
urban settings.
rin was a beginning teacher in an urban public
school. She was three-quarters of the way
through her first year when she was interviewed.
She obviously cared about her work but shared
some of her frustrations:
E
“I was so excited to start teaching. I accepted a position
at a fully inclusive school because I really wanted to
make a difference in kids’ lives. I really care about the
kids in my room and have found myself in tears of frustration at the end of some school days when I run out of
ways to help them. I’m finding it a whole lot harder to
be a teacher than I thought it would be. Many of the
practices I learned about in teacher education, and considered generally accepted, are unknowns out here in the
schools. The new academic standards and inclusive
practices that I learned in teacher education seem obviously beneficial for students. Yet, a lot of the teachers
that I work with in the field really don’t think they’ll
work. They explain to me that these are just more
changes that will eventually be replaced by other
changes. The best thing, they say, is to just teach the
way it works for you and your students. I worry about
this though; I don’t know if they really are assessing and
addressing their students’ needs. I want to implement
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
the practices I studied in school. I think they are the best
way to teach kids, but it is an uphill battle. I think if
some of the older teachers really understood newer
methods, they might want to try them. I know they
really care about the kids in their classrooms, too.”
The distance between the vision of urban schools
that work for diverse learners and the realities of what
happens in schools is great, as Erin describes (Gay,
2002). In our nation’s great cities, perhaps more than
anywhere else except rural America, the most needy
students are learning from the least qualified and most
underprepared teachers (Eubanks & Weaver, 1999).
Compounding the problem are the teacher shortages
that have reached crisis proportions in urban schools
and districts across this country (Henig, 1999). This crisis is particularly acute in special education
(Billingsley, 2002).
Unfortunately, Erin’s experience of the “disconnects” between her preparation to teach and life in
schools is not unusual (Stroot et al., 1999). The mismatches between preparation and practice are spotlighted frequently in the media and the research
41
Looking for Answers in all the Right Places
(Peske, Liu, Johnson, Kauffman, & Kardos, 2001).
Twenty-one percent of the recent graduates of teacher
preparation report being poorly prepared to assume
the role of teacher; another 38% report being underprepared (Farkas, Johnson, & Foleno, 2000). Further,
well-prepared teachers need to find schools and colleagues who value the skills, dispositions and knowledge base they bring to the urban school arena (Peske
et al., 2001). If good teachers make a difference, then
urban teacher preparation programs must ensure that
new teachers have the skills and knowledge sets to
improve results for urban students. Without changing
the practice arena of urban schools, we are likely to see
more and more teachers leave the profession within the
first five years (Peske et al., 2001). What we need now
are examples of evidence-based solutions to this crisis.
The Interaction between Poverty,
Ethnicity and Academic Performance
There are few surprises to unpack. The interaction
between poverty, ethnicity, academic language dominance, and poor student performance on standardsbased assessments has been repeated throughout the
country (Lee, 2002). This, in spite of schools in Baltimore,
Houston, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia (Fine,
1992), and other places that have been able to help all
their students perform well on these standardized,
group-administered measures of academic skills
(Charles A. Dana Center, 1999).
In urban settings, the complex context of cycles of
poverty, miseducation due to systemic substandard
educational programs, lack of jobs, social service
bureaucracies, homelessness, and crime all affect children (Anyon, 1997). In some urban areas, almost half
of the children who are involved in special education
(or who have disabilities and remain unidentified)
are also involved in the child welfare systems, have
case workers due to abuse and/or neglect, are in foster care or residential placement, or are involved in
the juvenile justice system (National Institute for
Urban School Improvement, 2001).
Other groups of children are similarly disenfranchised in our schools. In urban and high-poverty
schools with predominantly minority enrollments,
the interplay of race/ethnicity, poverty, and disability
is especially conspicuous. Most of the impoverished
children are African American (43%) or Hispanic
42
American (40%). The data on achievement and
outcomes for these students continues to be troubling
(Lee, 2002). For the past 25 years, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has published
the Nation’s Report Card that looks at how well we
are educating our students in the basic content areas
of reading, writing, social studies, and other literacy
areas (Lee, 2002). Reading Report Cards in the nineties
showed large racial/ethnic differences (Lee, 2002). At
grades 4 and 8, while 22 percent of white students
were performing below a basic reading level, 57 percent of African American and 51 percent Hispanic
American students, respectively, were reading below
this level (Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1996). Many of these children end up referred
to special education. These data suggest that educational systems have still to learn to practice in ways
that reach all students.
Fully 59% of the beginning teachers surveyed in a
recent Public Agenda report (Farkas et al., 2000) said
they felt unprepared to work with students who were
doing poorly in their classes. Moreover, only one in
five teachers responding to a survey by the National
Center for Educational Statistics reported that they
were well prepared to work with students with special needs (Alexander et al., 1999). Yet, most students
with disabilities still spend a majority of their time in
general education. Helping schools meet the needs of
more and more students and families requires not
standardization of procedures but a depth of repertoire, so that adaptations can be made in response to
student differences and needs. This requires expertise
in assessment, creating opportunities to practice
emerging skills, providing assistance and feedback,
and organizing classrooms to maximize time spent in
learning (Obi, Obiakor, & Algozzine, 1999).
Helping schools meet the needs of more and more
students and families requires not standardization
of procedures but a depth of repertoire, so that
adaptations can be made in response to student
differences and needs.
Each urban student has potential and possibility
that may not be uncovered because the discourse of
deficit (Powell, 1997) seems to defeat teachers and
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Looking for Answers in all the Right Places
other professionals by lowering their expectations and
misdirecting their attention and energy from learning
to compensation and remediation. One researcher
found that teachers new to urban schools experience
“culture shock” and never completely learn how to
work effectively with urban students (Haberman,
1999). There is no doubt that diversity and multiculturalism are complex arenas to navigate. Our teachers,
who are predominantly European American and middle class (Obi et al., 1999), lack the cultural-historical
(Artiles, 1998) and educational background to engage
in the boundary-crossing needed in such arenas
(Gormley, McDermott, Rothenberg, & Hammer, 1995).
When teachers bring experiences and backgrounds to
their urban classrooms that ill prepare them to connect
with their students, it places their students at risk for
disengaging from academic work. The teachers are also
at risk, which contributes to the teacher attrition rates.
How Teacher Licensure Contributes
to Poor Results in Urban Schools
The bifurcation of the skills, knowledge base, and
dispositions of general education and special education teachers contributes to the complexities of urban
teacher retention. While special educators have had
specialized licensure credentials that concentrate on
practices like differentiated instruction, universal
design, individualized assessment, program planning, direct instruction, and positive behavior
supports, their general education colleagues have
focused on curriculum design and instruction for
content acquisition. As a result of these disparate
licensure requirements, special and general education teachers are more likely than not to work
separately, using separate curricula, in separate
classrooms, governed by separate accountability systems. The standards-based accountability system in
general education is paralleled by the individualized
accountability approach in special education
grounded in the Individualized Educational Plan.
While the reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act in 1997 mandated the use
of the general education system’s accountability system, there remain many students in special
education who do not yet take the same or alternative standards-based assessments as their general
education counterparts. Thus, the division of labor
created in their preparation programs extends to the
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
practicing teachers—divided by separate accountability systems (the IEP versus standards-based
assessment) that attempt to assess the effectiveness
of school programs and classroom instruction.
The standards-based accountability system in
general education is paralleled by the individualized accountability approach in special education
grounded in the Individualized Educational Plan.
Against this backdrop of inadequate teacher
preparation, complex multicultural environments,
and antiquated teacher licensure models, there is little surprise in the low numbers of teacher recruits
and high teacher attrition rates in urban school systems. Nor is there much wonder that urban schools
struggle to offer high-quality education to all their
students, special and general education alike. Urban
teachers need to have a complex set of professional
skills tempered by a disposition to work beyond the
bounds of the familiar. To grow into this kind of professional expertise requires an organizational culture
that promotes and supports teacher development
from the initial phases of teacher preparation
through accomplished teacher practice. In this article, the authors describe both the context and
process by which school systems in both Chicago
and Denver are responding to this crisis by partnering effectively with schools of education.
The Chicago Story
Chicago Public Schools (CPS), like school districts
across the country, has continued to experience
chronic and growing shortages of special education
teachers. While the number of teachers needed fluctuated throughout the school year due to unexpected
attrition, in the 2002–03 academic year the Chicago
Public Schools had about 300 vacant special education positions. The system’s ability to hire highly
qualified special education teachers continued to be
hampered by a marked decrease in the number of
Illinois graduates since the mid-1970s. Data from the
Illinois State Board of Higher Education (ISBE) shows
that the peak of undergraduates completing bachelor’s degrees in special education occurred in 1974,
with 1,800 of these degrees awarded. By 2000, this
43
Looking for Answers in all the Right Places
number had fallen 63% to 675. Similarly, at the
master’s level, the largest class graduated in 1978,
with 900 degrees awarded. This number fell by 45%
to 496 in the year 2000. The ISBE’s 2001 Annual
Report on Educator Supply and Demand in Illinois
identified special education as the greatest shortage
area for teachers. Estimating the need for special education teachers, the agency projected that there
would be a need for between 7,847 and 9,134 special
educators by the year 2005.
Concurrently, the number of students with disabilities in Chicago has increased. Between December of
1988 and December of 2002, the number of students
identified for special education services increased by
28.5%. If data were available from 1975, the increase
would be even larger. So, as the need for teachers has
increased sharply, the number of teachers graduating
annually from universities decreased dramatically. In
addition to a diminishing labor pool, Chicago also
struggled with retaining highly qualified special education teachers.
The Illinois State Policy Context
One way to increase the number of available teachers
is to change teacher certification requirements. For
almost 25 years, Illinois used a categorical special education teacher certification model. Teachers earned
special education credentials in one of the following
seven areas: learning disabilities, serious emotional/
behavior disturbed, physical disabilities, mild cognitive
disability (EMH), moderate mental retardation (TMH),
blind and visually impaired, and deaf and hearing
impaired. By requiring specialization, the labor pool of
special education teachers available for hire in Chicago
became even smaller, since only a subset of the total
number of available special education teachers were
prepared in each specialization and therefore were eligible to teach only a subset of the total population of
students in special education.
One way to increase the number of available
teachers is to change teacher certification
requirements.
In the early 1990’s Corey H v. ISBE and CPS
(“Corey H,” 1998) a federal class action lawsuit, was
44
filed against the Illinois State Board of Education and
Chicago Public Schools. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs
asserted that both the state and CPS were in violation
of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act that mandated placement of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment (LRE).
One of the issues that directly involved ISBE concerned the negative impact that the categorical
certification system had on the placement of students
in the LRE. While CPS settled its case prior to trial,
the judge issued a decision of liability against ISBE
that specifically addressed special education teacher
certification and licensure:
Although the categorical system of educating children
with disabilities, which was historically implemented in
Chicago and Illinois, is contrary to the LRE mandate, the
ISBE continues to certify teachers by categorical labels
associated with particular disabilities. Because teachers
are trained and certified to teach by category of disability,
they are unable to service disabled children in the integrated settings presumed by the LRE mandate.
Consequently, antiquated certification categories have
combined with inadequate training and teacher education
in Illinois (geared to the certification categories) impermissibly to perpetuate categorical segregation of children
with disabilities. (Corey H., 995 F. Supp. At 911.)
Following this decision, ISBE changed its certification rules from seven categories of certification
within special education to one cross-categorical certificate, Learning Behavior Specialist I (LBS I), with
the categories for vision and hearing remaining separate. All categorically certified teachers were
required to be eligible for LBS certification by 2005.
The Corey H. decision also had wide-sweeping
implications for general education teachers and
recertification. As of 2003, individuals earning a
general education teaching certificate were also to
master standards that address curriculum and
instruction for students with disabilities. In addition, the state’s continuing education requirement
for teacher recertification mandated that 50% of
each special education teacher’s plan include areas
of special education knowledge outside of each
teacher’s current specialty area and that 20% of
each general education teacher’s plan include
information about special education. Clearly, the
new LBS certificate brought increased discussion
and energy around teacher preparation in Illinois.
Unfortunately, university staff did not have the
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Looking for Answers in all the Right Places
personnel capacity to develop new alternative
certification programs at the same time that they
retooled for the university-based LBS program. As
a result, there were no alternative special education
certification programs being implemented in the
Chicago Metropolitan Area.
Table 1: Modifications to Respond to Individual Learning Needs
1. Extend time on task for class and homework assignments.
2. Explain directions and give concrete examples.
3. Reduce load and allow for extra credit.
4. Maintain frequent eye contact.
The Multiversity Strategy in Chicago
5. Give verbal directions in clearly stated steps.
In response, CPS developed a multiversity partnership structure with local teacher preparation
institutions. Through the Multiversity, CPS’ Office of
Specialized Services coordinated university special
education certification course work with school programs. However, working with individual schools,
even in a continuing partnership that focused on
special education teacher preparation, was only part
of the answer to responding effectively to student
needs in general and special education classrooms.
DePaul University’s Center for Urban Education
developed a structure to expand the collaboration
schoolwide to involve general education teachers in
a schoolwide program in which special educators
became instructional specialists, sharing their expertise not only with incoming teacher-certification
students but also with general educators. In many
schools, particularly high schools, the special education teachers worked in isolation from general
education teachers. Special educators focused on
“their students,” rather than supporting all students.
Even when they supported special education students in general education classes, the special
education teacher worked in isolation in spite of the
skills they had that were applicable to content acquisition for all students.
6. Test one concept at a time.
In-School Connections
DePaul’s approach to integrating the work of general
and special educators coordinated existing resources.
No Child Left Behind made reading and math a clear
priority for all schools, but in high-poverty schools
where student performance on standards-based assessments was low, this priority was essential. Reading
ability—or the lack of it—is the single biggest obstacle
to academic success since even math also requires reading skills. By focusing professional development efforts
on literacy, content area teachers at the secondary level
were becoming well versed in teaching literacy through
their curricula. The DePaul approach integrated cross-
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
7. Allow use of calculator, tape recorder, or computer.
8. Walk by student’s desk to check for accuracy and on-task
behaviors every 15 minutes.
9. Often give multiple choice, matching, or sentence
completion tests instead of essay tests.
10. Write assignments and give verbal instructions.
11. Provide visual aids.
12. Give simple directions with written examples.
13. Ask student to explain what you said in his or her own words.
14. Reinforce previously mastered skills.
15. Provide motivation and verbal rewards on a daily basis.
16. Enlist parental cooperation.
curricular reading strategies with special education
instructional methods. Professional development
workshops reintroduced principles and practices of
individualized instruction that veteran general educators learned in their one required special education
course. As general educators participated in these ongoing workshops, they recognized that special education
methods were powerful tools in many teaching contexts.
Consider the list of potential modifications to support a student with disabilities that was presented at
the first workshop for teachers at schools participating in this comprehensive structure (Table 1).
When asked which strategies would help all students
any time, some students sometimes, and only special
education students, general education teachers almost
unanimously identified items 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 as
useful for all students any time. But identifying a strategy
as appropriate and using it require different levels of skill
and disposition. DePaul’s approach to teacher development
involved ongoing work with teachers through continuing
workshops and demonstrations by teachers who were
dedicated to the integration of general and special education teaching. General and special education teachers
45
Looking for Answers in all the Right Places
Table 2: Example of a Lesson Map
Introducing a lesson
• Write questions on poster/chalkboard that the students will
answer during the lesson.
• Make an anticipatory banner question—a BIG question they
keep answering. (They can post answers.)
• List prior knowledge: Start a K-W-L chart that organizes
what the learner knows (K), wants to know (W), and will
learn (L). Start with the K and W.
• Post key vocabulary.
• Make a word web that begins here and continues through
the lesson.
Developing the lesson
• Have students in pairs or trios make a chart of their new
learning.
Table 3: What Harlan Teachers Identified as Their Teaching Strategy Needs
• Cues for students to organize learning
• Graphic organizers
• Increased lesson variety to meet different learning styles
• More organization
• More focus
• Better assessments
• Small group assignments
• Words of the month instead of words of the day
• Posted and charted assignments for easy student reference
• Appointed student helpers
• More detailed directions for assignments
• More visual aids
• Post key points as you make them.
• More audio materials
• Post directions for activities.
• Modifications to the required CPS planning format to allow
more focused planning for my content area
• Put an outline on chalkboard or chart; teacher/students
provide information as they listen/read/work on project.
Concluding with clarity
• Post a summary statement.
• Complete the L (K-W-L).
formed coaching teams and participated in workshops in
which they clarified ways to “mainstream” the methods
of special education in general education and to work
effectively as peer coaches.
Through workshops for the entire staff, peer
coaches shared strategies and structures. One of
the emphases of the initiative was to increase the
structure with which teachers organize student
learning. The coaches developed a guide (Table 2)
to a focused lesson.
In June, 2001, the completion of the first school
year of implementation at Harlan High School,
teachers indicated specific outcomes for their own
teaching (Table 3).
That year, Harlan increased effective instruction
and student progress on the system-wide exams
indicating learning progress, although along with
most other Chicago high schools, scores on the TAP
test (Test of Academic Proficiency) declined. The
program continued during 2001–2002, and in spring
of 2002 the school’s reading achievement increased
46
from 12.5% (the 2001 reading score) to 22.3% on the
TAP reading test. The other local and national
assessments continued to show improvement. The
school’s progress in attendance, course completion,
and achievement were so outstanding that Harlan
was one of 10% of the system’s schools recognized
as a School of Distinction for exemplary work.
What was different in 2001–2002? The program
from the first year continued. Continuity is rare in
professional development activities. To expand the
involvement of all teachers in the initiative, the basic
tool for planning was changed. During 2001–2002,
the initiative modified the lesson planner used at
Harlan to help teachers implement a principle of
special education: “Chunk” your content. Teachers
identified a weekly focus for learning instead of the
usual daily lesson plan. They then planned their
lessons for the week to develop that content in
diverse ways. Similar structures have been implemented at four other CPS high schools through the
Office of Special Education Programs. While the
achievement gains at Harlan were the greatest to
date, the other schools made progress, and greater
gains have taken place in terms of increased classroom clarity. These gains were not measurable by
tests but were evident in the classroom and school
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Looking for Answers in all the Right Places
context. For example, one high school eliminated the
special education department, assigning the special
educators as learning specialists within academic
departments. As the program continues, additional
student learning gains are anticipated, as is the
expansion of the integration of more effective special
education strategies.
Inclusive Professional Development
An important observation emerged from the work
across five high schools. Special education teachers
and teacher candidates had been structurally isolated
from the general teaching population. Teacher candidates rarely encountered special education classes
and teachers unless they were special education
teacher candidates. Special education preparation
provided similarly limited exposure to the general
education student population. While learning to
teach students in special education required experiences with students in special education, special
education teacher candidates also needed to learn the
core curriculum in order to help their students learn
in inclusive, as well as self-contained, classrooms.
coteachers with the university staff developers. They
presented at workshops and led departmental coplanning, so that special education instructional methods
became a way of thinking about teaching and learning.
This school development and professional preparation structure was available not only to all the
certifying universities in Chicago but also to those
beyond the Chicago metropolitan area. Through a
collaboration organized by the CPS Office of
Specialized Services, a cohort of special educators in
preparation plan to complete coursework through
school-based work that correlates with on-line
courses in special education developed by the
University of Kansas and delivered by the
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. The
structure completely correlates with the new comprehensive requirements of Illinois’ new LBS1
certification. It also takes advantage of ISBE’s recent
special education professional development requirements for recertification for all teachers. The model
established in Chicago is a workable structure to
respond to state requirements, national law, and the
needs of the students.
The Denver Story
Teacher candidates rarely encountered special
education classes and teachers unless they were
special education teacher candidates.
Initiating student teaching experiences across the
student population in both general and special education worked not only with incoming special education
teacher candidates from one university but with all
teacher candidates regardless of the university where
they completed their coursework. Doing this well
required extensive coordination of existing resources.
The DePaul project, in partnership with its high school
partners, began to include teacher candidates in each
school’s general education teacher development program. This became an essential feature of the
multiversity program: General and special education
teacher candidates would learn together in the field,
participating actively in the professional development
activities of the schools in which they completed their
teacher candidacy residency. Accomplished special
education teachers served as mentors to teacher candidates and first year teachers and also took the role of
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
In the early nineties, Cabrini Elementary School (a
pseudonym) entered into a partnership with the
University of Colorado at Denver (UCD). Cabrini, like
its five sister urban elementary schools, hosted two special education interns for an entire year. Interns worked
five hours per day, five days per week in their building.
They also took three courses per semester at UCD.
Faculty members from UCD were assigned to each elementary school, spending at least one day per week in
each of the partner schools. The university counted the
day per week as part of each faculty member’s teaching
load so that school-based faculty members taught three
courses less per academic year than on-campus faculty
members. Additionally, the district funded a half-time
teacher on special assignment to ensure that the interns
had coaching and mentoring throughout each week.
Interns had a caseload, assessed students, and participated as full faculty members in the work of the school.
While this model produced strong urban special educators, special educators continued to be prepared in
isolation from the training programs in school psychology, school counseling, and general education. Further,
47
Looking for Answers in all the Right Places
10 special educators being prepared each year was
insufficient to meet the growing demand for special
educators.
In response, UCD began placing its school psychology students in practicums and internships at
Cabrini, as well as the district’s other elementary
schools. Students in both programs also took classes
together at the university. Special educator and
school psychology interns began working in tandem
to solve behavioral challenges in the schools. Then,
UCD received funding for a model school counseling program. School counselors interned in schools
with special educator and school psychology interns,
completing their field experience, practicum, and
internship at the same school. Counseling, school
psychology, and special education faculty from UCD
worked together to provide supervision and seminars to the interns housed at what had now become
a professional development district with the addition of sites at the two middle schools in the district.
Over time, the partnership between the university
and the district continued to grow. The same numbers
of schools were involved, but UCD added another layer
of complexity. The initial teacher preparation program
became involved. Fifteen to twenty teacher candidates
spent a year in one of the professional development
schools, including about six special education teacher
candidates. Faculty in school psychology, counseling,
and special education worked with faculty from curriculum and instruction to design and deliver the initial
teacher education (ITE) program along with the special
services programs in special education, school psychology, and counseling. Students in ITE attended weekly
seminars that dealt with mental health and inclusionary
practices along with the coursework they completed at
the university. Further, from the beginning of their program they were involved in a professional development
school that had deep and sustained partnerships with
the teaching faculty and special services candidates.
Faculty in school psychology, counseling, and special education worked with faculty from curriculum
and instruction to design and deliver the initial
teacher education (ITE) program along with the
special services programs in special education,
school psychology, and counseling.
48
The most recent evolution combined special and
general education teacher preparation so that the 15
to 20 teacher interns per building were being prepared for positions as either special or general
educators. Using the same sites, the district and the
university expanded their program to offer teacherin-residence opportunities for alternate track teacher
candidates, expanding the number and type of individuals preparing to be teachers. The principle of
creating professional development schools where
accomplished, novice, and beginning teachers
worked together in a coaching and mentoring model
to improve their practice was retained as various
paths to certification were expanded.
Observations
The convergence of all these preparation programs in
one site allowed faculty to gauge the value of transdisciplinary training. While the generalists, the classroom
teacher candidates, and the specialists, the special services interns, were coached in the same settings, their
skills and values base and their practice overlapped
but brought different discipline perspectives. The classroom teacher candidates spent much of their time
working in small and large groups of students, focusing on how to deliver instruction in academic content
areas. Their learning focus was on curriculum and
instructional delivery. Over the course of one year, elementary candidates constructed a deep understanding
of the scope and sequence of curricula in literacy,
numeracy, and technology, as well as basic science and
social studies. They focused on inclusive and differentiated instruction from the perspective of managing
groups and orchestrating the delivery of instruction so
that all learners engaged in the activities and tasks of
the classroom. The classroom teacher focused on the
momentum and progress of the whole rather than its
parts. Taking care to link the formal curriculum to the
life experiences and cultural backgrounds of their students, the general education teacher candidates learned
to develop multicultural teaching practices that supported student learning and potential.
In contrast, the special education interns spent
their year engaged in inquiry and the development
of a knowledge base about students who were unengaged and falling behind. They focused their
attention on an in-depth knowledge of the physical,
cultural, cognitive, communicative, and affective
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Looking for Answers in all the Right Places
needs of individual students. They constructed this
knowledge base by creating personalized plans for
learning for students who were struggling academically or socially. As a result, accommodating and
modifying the environment (materials, instruction,
interactions, and curricula) became the crux of the
special educator’s role. These sets of skills were different from the whole class perspective that the
classroom teachers developed, yet complementary.
By learning and practicing together, the general and
special education teacher candidates formed a depth
of repertoire that expanded the opportunities to learn
for their students. They also learned from the beginning how to practice together rather than in isolation.
By learning and practicing together, the general
and special education teacher candidates formed a
depth of repertoire that expanded the opportunities
to learn for their students.
The counseling and school psychology interns
brought still another perspective. They focused on the
dynamics of the group and individuals. The counseling
interns took a cultural perspective. They focused on the
needs of children impacted by the social and economic
stressors of the community outside of school. The
school psychologists bridged both mental health and
learning issues from the individual perspective. Their
work fostered strong in-class programs that connected
teachers to the impact of their learning strategies on
students’ social, intellectual, and emotional growth.
Rather than serve as gatekeepers to out-of-class placements and programs, the teacher candidates and
mental health interns learned to develop a strong inclass program that built on each of their disciplines.
This program has sustained itself in professional
development schools in the Denver metropolitan
area for the last 12 years. At the time that this article
was written, more than a third of the practitioners in
this school system came from these professional
development school experiences, suggesting that the
program is sufficiently powerful not only to prepare
professionals well but to retain them in high-needs
schools where the teacher candidates and mental
health interns received their preparation. Further, the
program has survived five different superintendents,
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
four different associate superintendents of curriculum and instruction, and turnover from six
principals. While the faculty who originally built the
program remain involved with the partnership, the
day-to-day, in-school work has changed hands at
least three times in each of the professional development schools.
Sustainability is likely due to the following elements:
(1) A small group of five individuals from both the
university and the district retains an institutional
history of this initiative.
(2) This same group of individuals shares a common
vision of what schools need to be successful with
students from diverse, urban backgrounds.
(3) Substantial outside funding has made a series of
professional development activities possible over
the course of the initiative.
(4) Ongoing and sustained effort to orient new
employees to the partnership is an annual, recurring activity.
(5) Personnel from the district, schools, and university work to establish and sustain professional
relationships that support each other’s professional goals.
(6) A doctoral program at the university has offered
a way for these relationships to benefit district
personnel who want to earn their doctorates in
education.
(7) As the emphasis on accountability has become a
stronger and stronger element of direction setting, the members of the partnership have
examined their own practices and results in the
professional development schools to determine
their impact on student learning.
(8) All involved in the work understand the fragile
nature of the partnership and have worked over
time to increasingly link the fortunes of both the
university and the district. Every effort is made
to involve both the district and the university in
hiring, recruitment, retention, professional development, and evaluation activities.
(9) The urban context of the district and the schools
has been an invaluable feature of the program,
since 90% of the teachers prepared in this setting
seek and accept jobs in urban, rather than rural
or suburban, schools.
49
Looking for Answers in all the Right Places
The Importance of Context in
Personnel Preparation and Retention
Two factors support both Chicago’s and Denver’s practitioner preparation initiatives. First, there is an
extensive literature base that has identified field-based
experiential education as a critical aspect of all teacher
education programs (Holmes Group, 1990; Knowles,
Elijah, & Broadwater, 1996; Paul, Epanchin, Rosselli, &
Duchnowski, 1996; Wise, 1999). Since expert knowledge
is thought to be specific to situations and tasks, and
since studies indicate that teacher expertise is the single
most important school factor in determining student
achievement (Wise, 1999), teacher preparation programs must provide context-specific environments for
teachers to develop expertise (Cruz, 1997). Second, special educators are expected to work with related service
practitioners and general educators to maximize educational benefits. As the boundaries between general and
special education become blurred, special educators
must be prepared to engage in ever more cooperative
and creative ventures (Paul et al., 1996). Thus, it seems
logical that teacher education programs should incorporate the necessary mechanisms for rehearsing these
skills in natural settings under carefully supervised conditions (ASCD, 1996; Lane & Canosa, 1995). By
preparing special educators alongside their general
education peers and immersing teacher candidates in
professional development schools, both initiatives have
experienced greater recruitment and retention of teachers for their urban contexts.
Discussion
The most successful urban teacher development programs meet two criteria: (a) teacher candidates meet
high standards measured by performance-based assessments of teacher practice, and (b) teacher candidates
choose to continue their careers in urban schools. These
criteria are most often met by partnerships between
local districts and universities (Abdal-Haqq, 1998).
These partnerships sustain because the partnership
focus targets professional development for all teachers.
When a coherent and aligned curriculum for preservice
teachers exists, districts and universities must also
ensure that veteran teachers have the skills needed to
support the performance-based assessment standards
that teacher candidates must complete (Price, 2002).
50
These partnerships sustain because the partnership
focus targets professional development for all teachers.
Increasing the possibility that teacher candidates
choose to practice at urban schools after graduation
requires systems change at universities as well as in districts. The systems changes must occur within the policy
and practice arenas of both universities and districts. At
universities it means finding ways to count fieldwork as
part of faculty teaching loads. It means that university
faculty need to develop and sustain relationships with
specific schools and practitioners over time so that
teacher education curriculum and school practices are
renewed through ongoing dialogue and inquiry about
what is working well. Within districts and schools it
means rethinking the roles of general and special educators so that more attention is paid to how they work
together to promote and extend student learning and
accomplishment. When special education shifts (1) from
a focus on teaching to a focus on learning, (2) from a
reliance on individual teacher practice to group practice,
and (3) from an effort to deliver service to one of providing learner supports, it moves from a marginalized set of
activities to a vital and central function of schools
(Ferguson, Kozleski, & Smith, 2002). It is this retooling of
core educational practices (Elmore, 2000) that is required
for large-scale, results-driven educational improvement
within teacher preparation institutions and school districts. The approaches to improving teacher preparation
for urban schools in both Chicago and Denver illustrate
two strategies to accessing and linking the resources of
local universities and districts for high-quality teacher
development from teacher candidacy through accomplished teacher. While these approaches offer great
possibilities for the future, they also need careful
research to understand their impact on student and
teacher performance over time.
References
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Professional development schools:
Weighing the evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Alexander, D., Heaviside, S., & Farris, E. (1999). Status of
education reform in public elementary and secondary
schools: Teachers’ perspective. Washington, D.C.:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban
educational reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Looking for Answers in all the Right Places
Artiles, A. (1998). The dilemma of difference: Enriching
the disproportionality discourse with theory and context. The Journal of Special Education, 10, 32–36.
ASCD. (1996). Education Update, 38.
Billingsley, B. (2002). Beginning special educators: Characteristics,
qualifications, and experiences. Rockville, MD: JAI.
Charles A. Dana Center. (1999). Hope for urban education: A
study of nine high-performing, high-poverty, urban elementary schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education, Planning and Evaluation Service.
Corey H. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago and
Illinois State Board of Education (995 F. Supp. 900
N.D. Ill. 1998).
Cruz, B. (1997). Walking the talk: The importance of community involvement in preservice urban teacher
education. Urban Education, 32(3), 394–410.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington D.C.: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Eubanks, S. C., & Weaver, R. (1999). Excellence through
diversity. Journal of Negro Education, 68(3), 451–459.
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Foleno, T. (2000). A sense of calling:
Who teaches and why. New York: The Public Agenda.
Ferguson, D., Kozleski, E., & Smith, A. (2002).
Transformed, inclusive schools: A framework to guide
fundamental change in urban schools. In Annual
Handbook of Research in Special Education. Los Angeles:
JAI.
Fine, M. (1992). Chartering urban school reform: Philadelphia
style (No. ED 371 048).
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116.
Gormley, K., McDermott, P., Rothenberg, J., & Hammer, J.
(1995, April 18–22). Expert and novice teachers’ beliefs about
culturally responsive pedagogy. Paper presented at the
American Education Research Conference, San Francisco.
Haberman, M. (1999). The anti-learning curriculum of
urban schools, part 2: The solution. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 35(2), 71–74.
Henig, J. R., Hula, R., C., Orr, M., & Pedscleaux, D. S.
(1999). The color of school reform: Race, politics, and the
challenge of urban education. (First ed.) Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools. East Lansing,
MI: Holmes of Michigan.
Knowles, G., Elijah, R., & Broadwater, K. (1996).
Preservice teacher research enhancing the preparation
of teachers. Teacher Education, 8(1), 123–133.
Lane, G. M., & Canosa, R. (1995). A mentoring program
for beginning and veteran teachers of students with
severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 18(4), 230–239.
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends:
Reversing the progress toward equity? Educational
Researcher, 31(1), 3–12.
National Institute for Urban School Improvement, (2001).
District profiles. Denver, CO: National Institute for
Urban School Improvement.
Obi, S., Obiakor, F., & Algozzine, B. (1999). Empowering
culturally diverse exceptional learners in the 21st Century:
Imperatives for U.S. educators. Milwaukee, WI:
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1996).
Elementary and secondary school civil rights compliance
reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Paul, J., Epanchin, B., Rosselli, H., & Duchnowski, A.
(1996). The transformation of teacher education and
special education: Work in progress. Remedial and
Special Education, 17(5), 310–322.
Peske, H., Liu, E., Johnson, S. M., Kauffman, D., & Kardos,
S. M. (2001). The next generation of teachers:
Changing conceptions of a career in teaching. Phi
Delta Kappan, 83(4), 289–293.
Powell, L. C. (1997). The achievement (k)not: Whiteness
and black underachievement. In M. Fine, L. Weis, L.
C. Powell, L. M. Wong (Eds.), Off White: Readings on
Race, Power, and Society. Florence, KY: Routledge.
Price, J. (2002). Lessons from Against the odds. Journal of
Teacher Education, 53(2), 117–126.
Stroot, S., Fowlkes, J., Langholz, J., Paxton, S., Stedman, P.,
Steffes, L., et al. (1999). Impact of a collaborative peer
assistance and review model on entry-year teachers in
a large urban school setting. Journal of Teacher
Education, 50(1), 27–41.
Wise, A. E. (1999). Effective teachers...or warm bodies. In
Quality Teaching. Washington, D.C.: NCATE.
About the Authors
Dr. Elizabeth Kozleski is the associate dean for research
in the School of Education, University of Colorado at
Denver, 1380 Lawrence Street, Suite 625, Denver, CO
80204. E-mail: [email protected].
Sue Gamm is the Chief of Specialized Services for
the Chicago Public Schools, 125 South Clark Street,
Chicago, IL 60603. E-mail: [email protected].
Dr. Barbara Radner is an associate professor and
director of the Center for Urban Education, Dietzgen
3135, School of Education, DePaul University, 2320
North Kenmore Avenue, Chicago, IL 60614.
E-mail: [email protected].
51
Superintendent’s Commentary
Issues of Effective Collaboration Between Special Education,
General Education, Title I Programs, and Bilingual Education
within the Context of the No Child Left Behind Act
Carlos A. Garcia, M.Ed.
Superintendent of Schools
Clark County School District
Las Vegas, NV
rom 1990 to 2000, the population in Clark County,
Nevada, grew by 68% to 1,375,000, making it the
fastest growing county in the nation. According to
the 2000 census, the county’s Hispanic population
grew by 264%. Las Vegas, for many, is synonymous
with Clark County. It is unique not only in its rapid
growth and rapid ethnic and racial change but also
in its social and economic contrasts. Among cities of
over a million residents, it is the least segregated for
African Americans and the most segregated for
Hispanics (Census 2000). There is extraordinary local
wealth, especially when the incomes of entertainers
and sports figures are included. At the same time,
several of the lowest income census tracts in the
state are located in Las Vegas, and the numbers of
limited-English-speaking and working poor increase
annually as the immigration of people with low
incomes to minimum wage service sector jobs continues. And, while Nevada has a relatively high per
capita income, it ranks 40th among the 50 states in
annual educational per pupil expenditure ($1,000
below the national average). In addition, the annual
per pupil expenditure in the Clark County School
District is $100 below the state average.
Clark County also has one of the lowest ratios of
high school diplomas per capita of any equivalent
county in the nation and one of the highest dropout
rates nationally, especially among Hispanics. Moreover,
Clark County ranks 196th out of 216 metropolitan
areas nationwide in the percentage of residents holding
at least a bachelor of arts degree.
F
52
Clark County School District (CCSD) is the sixth
largest and fastest growing school district in the
nation. As superintendent, it was immediately evident to me that the district needed to be reorganized
to provide a greater emphasis on site-based management and a responsive centralized support system.
In order to promote greater access and accountability, the district decentralized into five regional units
with the schools as the focal point. Achievement,
Accountability, and Access (the A+ Plan) laid the
groundwork for a results-oriented education system.
One of the strengths of the A+ plan is that it complements the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation.
The plan is outcome-based and recognizes the need
for school improvement and home/school relationships. A supporting document to the A+ Plan is
Building for the Future, a guide produced through a
collaborative effort of the board of school trustees,
superintendent, staff, parents, and community members. It is a long-range plan for implementing quality
education programs for our children. This plan defines
the means to reach the ends as well as the indicators
that will be used to assess the success of students
within the district under the context of the A+ Plan.
Central to the reorganization of CCSD was the
development of a division to provide support to
schools for students with the greatest and most
diverse needs. Special Education, Title I, English
Language Acquisition programs, and Grants
Development and Administration were combined
into a single division. It was critically important to
develop high levels of collegiality within this group
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Issues of Effective Collaboration
in order to reach our goal of being responsive to the
schools. It was also important to develop a collaborative culture to reduce the amount of redundancy
and duplication in both services and opportunities
and to construct teams of skilled individuals
empowered to make decisions. The combination of
decentralization of the schools and organization of
the Student Support Services Division positioned the
district to be responsive to issues of collaboration
inspired by NCLB. Effective collaboration between
the regions and support divisions ensured that
resources were provided and distributed to students
and schools on an equitable and appropriate basis.
With or without the NCLB Act, the Clark County
School District was committed to creating a district
where divisions/departments existed as a service
provider network for school sites, even though this
network created some extraordinary collaboration
challenges. Described below are those barriers to collaboration we found most challenging.
Time
There are many competing interests in the school
environment. Schools must address state accountability mandates, standards-based reform, the school
improvement process, federal regulations, community demands, relevant health and safety concerns,
and much more. Ensuring that all the demands of
daily operations and requirements are addressed
often leaves little time for collaboration. School leadership must allocate time for teachers and staff to
work together and must encourage them to discuss
issues that face the students they serve. The focus
must be student centered with reasonable expected
outcomes and not centered on the label that the student has been given. Teachers must view every
student in the school environment as their own and
as individuals, in addition to accepting the responsibility for collective learning. Special educators,
regular educators, and teachers of English language
learners must garner their specialized skills and
work toward changing the culture of the educational
environment to one of an effective collaborative setting where excellence and equity abound. Overcoming the barrier of time constraints to more
effectively collaborate is even more important
given the demands of NCLB.
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Schools must address state accountability mandates,
standards-based reform, the school improvement
process, federal regulations, community demands,
relevant health and safety concerns, and much more.
The Categorical and Regulatory
Nature of Support
Despite the efforts made over the last 10 years, the
categorical nature of support continues to get in the
way of the level of collaboration that is necessary for
adequate student progress and success. A great deal
of time and effort has been expended on school
reform initiatives, yet we continue to draw lines in
the sand when it comes to categorical support. NCLB
is moving us in yet another direction. As if labeling
students did not already impede our work, now we
are labeling schools. Assessing students is nothing
new. But with the new, more stringent accountability
measures aligned with assessment through NCLB,
students who receive categorical support are the very
ones who will bear the weight of the label that the
school receives.
Systems Change
School systems, by their very complex nature, take
a long time to respond to demands for change.
NCLB has placed extensive demands for change on
these systems, including the need for increased collaboration, which will take time for school systems
to incorporate—especially large urban districts with
highly diverse populations and extensive and varied needs. Nevada, like other states, will have to
change its existing state accountability system to
reflect NCLB requirements. Many pieces of complex legislation will have to be rewritten during the
current legislative session to reflect NCLB. Data
systems, reporting requirements, planning documents, and evaluation components will require
extensive collaboration between all stakeholders
within the education system.
Data Systems
An additional barrier to effective collaboration exists
within the data systems that are required to implement
53
Issues of Effective Collaboration
the new legislation. Our existing systems were never
designed to handle the requirements of NCLB. They
were originally created to support business practices
of the school district. Effective collaboration can only
occur when the data are present and accessible to
reflect potential needed areas of change.
Our existing systems were never designed to handle the requirements of NCLB. They were originally
created to support business practices of the school
district.
There is also the complexity of time associated
with data needs. Testing schedules developed to
respond to NCLB requirements must also demonstrate some value to the schools in order to be
useful. That is, if students are tested in the spring,
the results must be available before the start of the
new school year in order to be used for school
improvement decisions. Data made available the
following January, as is the case with many older
systems, are not useful to improve instructional
practices. In order to support NCLB, data systems
will be required that support student information
with the capability to disaggregate variables as well
as easily define teacher, administration, and staff
qualifications, experience, and professional development needs.
Sustainability of Reform
Another barrier to collaboration is the inability of
school systems to continue to sustain positive attitudes toward reform with the accompanying
needed levels of staff motivation. Twenty years
ago we began protecting our children from “the
rising tide of mediocrity.” The effective schools
movement and reading and math curriculum reform
54
soon followed in the middle and late 1980s. Goals
2000 inspired us in the early 1990s, and it was followed by the standards movement. NCLB is just the
latest of many reform models aimed at changing and
improving the system through a largely political
agenda. Without consistency and the research base to
support effective reform and improvement models,
the ever-changing face of education will continue to
slow the process of excellence in public education.
Teacher Recruitment and Retention
At no other time has there been a greater need for
teachers. The demand to recruit the best and brightest has always been at the heart of the educational
process. Large urban districts continually compete
for and struggle to retain teaching applicants.
Building partnerships at the school level is vital,
especially when changing demographics require the
skills of all teachers in order to address the complexity of issues facing our children today. For schools to
build capacity to serve all students, a commitment to
be professionally engaged with other professionals
both within their own school and outside their
school community must be made by everyone in
the education system. To facilitate this commitment,
a change in social opinion regarding the status of
education as a profession must occur. Education
professionals undertake one of the most important
jobs in our nation—ensuring the future success of
its citizens and their ability to compete in the global
economy.
About the Author
Carlos A. Garcia, M.Ed., is the superintendent of
schools for Clark County School District, 2832 E.
Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89121.
E-mail: [email protected].
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
CASE IN POINT
A Special Education Lawsuit: Catalyst for
Positive Systemic Change? Maybe. Maybe Not.
Gayle V. Amos, M.Ed.
Baltimore City Public School Systems
n 1984, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) on
behalf of five students referred for special education
services. The lawsuit was filed for failure to comply
with federal and state assessment timelines and
timely implementation of Individual Educational
Programs (IEPs). Nineteen years and many consent
orders later, the initial compliance issues have long
since been overshadowed by lingering attempts to
manage the entire school system through the federal
court system.
Although the original case was settled by consent
decree in 1988, the system was unable to commit the
resources necessary to meet the growing numbers of
students in need of special education services as well
as address the increasingly complex programmatic
and support service needs of all other students in a
large urban environment. The initial consent decree
consisted of specific steps the district would take to
“fix” special education. It evolved to include a management plan for the entire school system. At the same
time, severe budget reductions resulted in staff and
program cuts for regular students, thereby “breaking”
an already tottering urban school system. Special education became the “only game in town” for students in
need of academic, social, and/or emotional supports.
This raised the question: Can special education be
fixed without “fixing” regular education?
Professional literature defines special education as
part of a continuum of general education support services. Additionally, collaboration and cooperation
among all disciplines across the school system are
essential to ensuring full access to appropriate education services for all students, including those with
I
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
disabilities. To address the increase in students referred
for special education, there must be an understanding
of why more students are failing in general education
classes. Often the impact of poverty on educational
needs and achievement is not fully understood. The
need for a continuum of supplemental and support
services is far greater in large urban districts like
Baltimore. Many students require a degree of support and attention that very few city schools are
organizationally and financially capable of providing. In the early 1980s, for various reasons (e.g.,
leadership, commitment of resources, lack of community support services) the BCPSS, without a
well-developed and adequately funded improvement plan, experienced a steady and inevitable
decline in all measures of student achievement.
The catalyst for positive change in school districts
can be external (i.e., a consent decree) in that school
systems can be forced to identify whole system needs,
focus on compliance issues, and coordinate the allocation of resources from various local, state, and federal
sources. Early on, administrators in the BCPSS recognized that full compliance with the consent decree
would involve the cooperation and collaboration of
both regular and special education departments, as
well as the need to adequately address the continuum
of supports required for all students. Personnel from
the special education department were redeployed
throughout the system in order to ensure that the
tenets of special education programming were always
considered in individual departmental planning
efforts. Attempts were made to build the infrastructure essential for mandated improvements in technology, curriculum and instruction, accountability,
55
A Special Education Lawsuit
and participation in state assessments. A Management
Oversight Team (MOT) was established to respond
proactively to court orders and to address related
broader systemic issues and whole school reform
efforts. The consent decree served as a sword to not
only force compliance but also to attempt to enforce
cooperation in school-based decision-making. Can
the tail wag the dog?
The efforts to “fix” special education and the system were unsuccessful—perhaps a case of too much,
too little, too late. As previously stated, by 1996 the
consent decree had evolved through court orders to
include a “Long Range Compliance Plan” for restructuring the entire school system. The court orders also
included added compensation to students’ families in
the form of goods and services as well as monetary
sanctions as punishment for not meeting court mandates. The litigation became increasingly contentious
and personal in nature. Individuals were targeted for
punishment for noncompliance. The costs in human
and financial resources were considerable. Special education was further polarized from regular education by
the establishment of a separate system of accountability for special education administration. By 1997, the
system collapsed under the weight of the special education consent decree and litigation involving equal
state funding for the city schools. By Senate Bill 795,
the BCPSS entered into a city-state partnership with the
Maryland State Department of Education to restructure
the school system, beginning with the appointment of
a new school board and new senior level administrators. Once more, there was an external catalyst for
systemic change.
There were immediate efforts to integrate special
and regular education programs and reinstitute collaborative and cooperative processes of decisionmaking with the development of a district “Master
Plan” that included special education goals and objectives. The BCPSS successfully negotiated the “Long
Range Compliance Plan” to “Ultimate Measurable
Outcomes” for disengagement from court monitoring
and oversight in a three to five year time period.
The “driving force” for special education in the
BCPSS is now meeting the outcomes and demonstrating the ability to sustain improvements in the
delivery of special education services to students. By
court order, the BCPSS has developed a viable and
reliable Special Education Tracking System (SETS)
56
from which we can collect and analyze data, as well
as use the data to manage programs. The BCPSS also
has a comprehensive Office of Monitoring and
Compliance that demonstrates our ability to monitor
and correct ourselves. Compliance with IDEA procedures is no longer an issue since we can successfully
maneuver the paper process. We believe these are
positive systemic changes in special education.
So, now we pose some questions about the
results of having a lawsuit filed. Will the BCPSS meet
most of the outcomes for disengagement? Yes. Are
most of the students receiving services in accordance
with their IEPs? Yes. Has the quality of services for
students with special needs improved through the
efforts of meeting the outcomes for disengagement?
Probably not. Have the outcomes enabled us to
develop policies and practices that lead to positive
results for students with disabilities? Not really.
The “driving force” for special education in the
BCPSS is now meeting the outcomes and demonstrating the ability to sustain improvements in the
delivery of special education services to students.
Although there are outcomes to increase graduation rates (with diplomas) and decrease dropout rates
(student achievement), these goals cannot be accomplished without expending resources to strengthen
regular education programs and provide critical staff
development to school-based staff. The funding for
special education is woefully inadequate, yet we
spend millions of dollars for court monitors, courtimposed external evaluators, and plaintiffs’ remedies.
There are also outcomes to increase the number
of students receiving services in regular classrooms
(inclusion) by schools. Most of the schools have met
their “quota,” but we really do not believe that the
dictated activities (process) ensure positive results
for the teachers or the students. We have difficulty
recruiting and retaining certified special education
teachers and related service providers, and spend
countless dollars on private contractors to provide
these services and very little on recruitment efforts
and incentives for existing staff.
The system is still unable to commit the resources
necessary to meet the growing numbers of students in
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
A Special Education Lawsuit
need of special education services as well as to address
the increasingly complex programmatic needs of students in a large urban environment. This is an ongoing
problem. However, special education has improved
with the positive changes documented for regular
education programs, for example, smaller class sizes,
more K–8 schools, more preschool programs and allday kindergarten, and smaller high school learning
communities. All system standardized test scores are
rising, but, at the same time, there is a 24 percent
increase in referrals to special education because of a
stricter promotion policy. More students receiving special education services are included in the assessment
process, but the achievement gap continues to widen
for students with disabilities as they progress from
grade to grade.
Special education litigation is burdensome and
costly with few positive results. We have not had the
needed financial or human resources to collaborate
with general educators to establish comprehensive
and adequate early support services for all students.
We are very concerned that our “driving force” for
the past three years has been outcomes for disengagement instead of positive outcomes for students.
They are not the same.
About the Author
Gayle V. Amos, M.Ed., is the Officer for Special
Education and Student Support Services in the
Baltimore City Public School Systems, 200 E. North
Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21202.
E-mail: [email protected].
Professional Opportunities—Classified
The University of Maryland Graduate Studies
in Early Childhood Special Education
The Department of Special Education at the University of Maryland is
inviting applicants for doctoral and masters study in infancy and early
childhood special education.The department is nationally ranked as
one of the top five programs in special education. Excellent opportunity for funding (tuition/stipends) for a limited number of individuals.
Applications are accepted on a continuous basis.
For more information, contact:
Dr. Deirdre Barnwell
Department of Special Education
1308 Benjamin Building
College Park, Maryland 20742
Phone: 301-405-7896 or 301-405-6514
Email: [email protected]
The University has a strong commitment to diversity and actively
seeks applicants from minorities and individuals with disabilities.
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
57
Call For Papers
Manuscript Guidelines
and Editorial Policies
The Journal of Special Education Leadership, published
by the Council for Administrators of Special
Education, seeks articles that capture an administrator’s attention by providing useful information that
stimulates new ways of thinking about managing
and leading. Only articles that have been validated
and accompanied by accepted theory, research, or
practice are sought.
The Journal of Special Education Leadership’s
goals are:
1. To provide fresh ideas and perspectives,
grounded in recent advances in administrative
theory and research, on contemporary issues that
administrators must face.
2. To become a primary source of useful ideas for
those who seek to educate present and future
administrators of special education programs.
3. To become a forum through which practicing
administrators of special education programs can
challenge the meaningfulness of translations of
administrative theory and research.
Contributors to each issue will include practicing
administrators, researchers, policymakers, or others
interested in special education administration. The
purpose of this arrangement is to encourage interaction among individuals within those roles in developing articles. Interactions may include any of the
following: a jointly authored manuscript, an interview preceded or followed by commentary written
by the interviewer, and a follow-up article that is
specifically linked to the theory and/or research
article that provides examples from the field and
implications for administrators in similar situations.
A typical article might begin with a brief case
illustrating the primary theme or posing certain
questions and issues that special education administrators need to address. A typical article will also
satisfy the academic reader who seeks more than just
opinions and wants to see a serious effort at connecting ideas to accepted theory and research.
58
With respect to style and format, manuscripts
should:
• Be accompanied by a letter signed by the
author(s),
• Have a separate title page that identifies the
authors (the names(s) of the author(s) should not
appear anywhere on the manuscript, except on
the title page),
• Be written in clear, straightforward language,
avoiding jargon and technical terms,
• Conform to APA format (see Appendix B of
APA Publication Manual, 4th edition, 1994),
particularly:
- Entire manuscript is double spaced, with
margins.
- All pages are numbered in sequence, starting
with the title page.
- All references in text are listed and in complete
agreement with text citations.
- All author identification information, including
professional title and affiliation, address, and
phone number, is on the title page only.
- Cover letter states the manuscript is original,
not previously published, and not under
consideration elsewhere.
• Include at the beginning an Executive Overview
of 3–5 bulleted major points made in the article,
• Use subheadings but not the traditional ones
such as “Introduction”; use, instead, “The Future
Challenge” or “Do Seamless Delivery Systems
have a Future?”
• For the purpose of documentation, cite notes in
the body of the paper using superscript note
numbers, and
• Include a biographical sketch of each author that
includes name, title, and place of employment.
Authors are encouraged to get feedback from
colleagues and practitioners on early drafts. A paper
can be improved dramatically when knowledgeable
reviewers are asked for reactions in advance of
submission.
❒ Manuscripts should be double-spaced and no
more than 15 pages in length, including figures.
When questions arise regarding issues of
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
Call for Papers
grammar or style, authors should refer to the
Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association, 4th edition.
The Journal of Special Education Leadership is
published two times per year. The issues vary with
some being thematic. Each issue includes 4–5 articles
and 1–2 administrative briefs/technical notes.
Review Process
Selection of manuscripts for publication is based
on a blind peer review process. However, all
manuscripts are screened first by the editor. Those
manuscripts that do not meet the manuscript
requirements, or that are not consistent with the
purpose of the journal, are not forwarded for peer
review. The author is either notified that the manuscript is not acceptable for the Journal of Special
Education Leadership or requested to make changes in
the manuscript so that it meets requirements. Copies
of the manuscript are not returned to the author in
either case.
Manuscripts that are consistent with the purpose
of the journal are sent out for peer review. Reviewers
will not know the identity of the author.
Based on the blind reviews, the Journal of Special
Education Leadership editor will communicate the
results of that review to the author. The decision
that is communicated to the author will be one of
the following:
• Acceptable, with routine editing
• Acceptable, with revisions indicated by editor
• Unacceptable
When a decision is made that a manuscript is
unacceptable for the Journal of Special Education
Leadership, it may be recommended that it be sent
to a journal of one of the CEC Divisions. This
recommendation does not mean that the manuscript
would be automatically accepted by a Division
journal; the manuscript would have to go through
the review process again.
Author Responsibilities Following
Publication Acceptance
After a manuscript is accepted for publication in the
Journal of Special Education Leadership, the author is
responsible for completing the following:
Journal of Special Education Leadership 16(1) • May 2003
• Obtaining publication clearance, if needed,
for a manuscript first presented at a professional
meeting;
• Acknowledging the funding agency for
supported research;
• Verifying the authenticity of all quoted material
and citations and for obtaining permission from
the original source for quotes in excess of 150
words or for tables or figures reproduced from
published works;
• Preparing camera-ready copies of all figures
included in the article;
• Assigning literary rights to CASE by signing a
Copyright Transfer Agreement;
• Sending two (2) paper copies of the revised
manuscript to the Journal of Special Education
Leadership’s Editorial Office; and
• Sending an exact copy of the revised manuscript
to the Editorial Office on a floppy disk (3 1/2”),
with the document saved in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, or WordPro format, if possible.
(Acceptable alternatives are ASCII format, on a
DOS or Mac platform, however these formats are
not preferable.)
Author Checklist
Before sending a manuscript, please complete the
Author Checklist below. This will help ensure that
your manuscript is not screened out or returned
before review.
❒ Manuscript is consistent with the purpose of
the journal.
❒ Manuscript is no longer than 15 pages total.
❒ Manuscript conforms to APA format (see
Appendix B of APA Publication Manual,
4th edition, 1994).
Send 5 copies of manuscript and file copy on a
3 1/2” floppy disk to:
Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin, Editor
Journal of Special Education Leadership
175 Hills South
School of Education
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
Acknowledgment of receipt of your manuscript
will be sent to you within 2 weeks. Review of your
manuscript will occur within 6 weeks.
59
Subscribe to the
Journal of Special Education Leadership
Photocopy and mail to:
CASE
1005 State University Drive
Fort Valley, GA 31030
If you are already a member of
CASE, you will automatically receive
the Journal of Special Education
Leadership as part of your membership. However, you can subscribe if
you are not a member of CASE.
Subscription Notes:
• The Journal of Special Education
Leadership is published by the
Council of Administrators of
Special Education in conjunction
with Sopris West
• Copy requests should be made to
CASE at the address above
• For more information on this journal or other Sopris West publications and services, visit our
website at www.sopriswest.com
• Single copies may be purchased.
Orders in multiples of 10 per
issue can be purchased at a
reduced rate.
• Call CASE for membership
information: (800) 585-1753
or (478) 825-7667.
Or visit our website at
http://www.casecec.org
Council of Administrators
of Special Education
1005 State University Drive
Fort Valley, GA 31030
❑ Yes, I want to subscribe to the
Journal of Special Education Leadership!
❑ Single Issue: $25
❑ Full Subscription: $40 (includes two journals)
❑ Institution/Library Subscription: $60 (includes two journals)
Payment Information:
❑ Check/Money Order (payable to CASE, in U.S. dollars)
❑ Please bill my credit card:
❑ MasterCard
❑ VISA
Card Number___________________________ Exp. Date________
Cardholder Signature______________________________________
Ship to:
Name ______________________________________________________
Address ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Phone ______________________________________________________
NONPROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
PERMIT NO. 489