MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES FOR
STUDENTS WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE DISABILITIES IN
A RURAL COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
Kathleen M. Tourigny
B.S., Fitchburg State College, Fitchburg, MA, 1981
PROJECT
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Special Education)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2011
MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES FOR
STUDENTS WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE DISABILITIES IN
A RURAL COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
A Project
by
Kathleen M. Tourigny
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Jean Gonsier-Gerdin, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Kathleen M. Tourigny
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the project.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Bruce Ostertag, Ed.D.
Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation,
School Psychology, and Deaf Studies
iii
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES FOR
STUDENTS WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE DISABILITIES IN
A RURAL COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
by
Kathleen M. Tourigny
Currently, there is a strong push in California and across the country to provide
effective evidence-based educational programs for all students, including students with
moderate to severe disabilities, and to show accountability and proof of legal compliance
as well as increased student performance through these programs. The purpose of this
project was to synthesize current best practices in special education, along with existing
tools for evaluating special education programs, to create a valid measure of
accountability and success for the special services programs that serve students with
moderate to severe disabilities.
The county office of education that is the focus of this project is centered in a large,
rural area of northern California. This county office of education was striving to develop
a meaningful way to measure the effectiveness of the programs that served students with
moderate to severe disabilities. Although a few systems were in place to gather data and
report progress of students on individual goals, no holistic tool pulled together the
existing splintered assessments to inform change and improvement in the special
education programs. To create a document to gather important data in a comprehensive
format, the current author reviewed research-based literature on current best practices in
iv
special education and evaluative documents from other special education entities in
California. The current author also interviewed stakeholders within the county to gather
information on need areas when providing education and services for students with
moderate to severe disabilities.
As the information was gathered and synthesized, quality indicators were collected
into a document, or measurement tool, to be used to evaluate special education programs
and services in the county. This measurement tool, along with the evaluation process, is
called the Program Quality Review, or PQR. The Program Quality Review process and
measurement tool will provide an ongoing process to assess and evaluate the
effectiveness of the programs within the Special Services Department in a way that will
inform the improvement process.
The development and implementation of the project resulted in many positive
outcomes. Better awareness by general education administrators of the importance of
including students with moderate to severe disabilities was noted. The teachers involved
were able to strengthen their programs to include better medical support for the students,
as well as more involvement by parents and families. General education teachers and
special education teachers were able to increase collaborative efforts to provide more
effective learning opportunities for all students.
_____________________________, Committee Chair
Jean Gonsier-Gerdin, Ph.D.
_____________________
Date
v
DEDICATION
This project is dedicated to my parents, David and Madeleine Kendall, two
amazing individuals who understood the concept of “full inclusion” long before it was a
popular term. They raised four children, two of whom had special needs, with true
unconditional love and acceptance. They are my inspiration and the reason I teach young
people with developmental disabilities and support their families.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have several people to thank for their support in the completion of this project.
First, I want to recognize Dr. Jean Gonsier-Gerdin, CSU Sacramento, who served as my
professor and advisor as I endeavored to first, identify an important need in the county
where I teach, and then kept me focused and motivated to see this important work
completed. I am forever grateful for her knowledge and ideas, emotional support and
sense of humor.
Betsy Christ, PhD., Executive Director of Special Services at the El Dorado
County Office of Education, provided the spark that got me headed down the path to
create a tool to measure the effectiveness of special education programs. She provided
important materials and contacts that helped me develop my ideas, and she was able to
expand the PQR tool into a complete process. As leader of the Resource Team, Betsy
encouraged meaningful support and input from all the team members. And, she has asked
me to continue working as part of the PQR team.
My daughters, Lauren and Brennagh, are two of my biggest supporters. They
cheer me on when I get frustrated, and tell me THEY are proud of ME!
Two dear friends, Ken and Wendy, each of who love and support me in their own
way, have been invaluable in their interest in the project and their belief that I would
actually get it finished!
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... vii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 7
Purpose of Project ................................................................................................... 7
Significance of the Project ...................................................................................... 8
Limitations of the Project........................................................................................ 9
Definition of Terms................................................................................................. 9
Organization of the Remainder of the Project ...................................................... 12
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 14
Challenges of Accountability in Programs for Students with Disabilities ........... 15
Evaluation of Programs Providing Services for Students with Disabilities ......... 20
Current Best Practices in Special Education ......................................................... 22
3. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 28
Development of Program Quality Review ............................................................ 28
Preliminary Meetings ............................................................................................ 30
Creation of Assessment Tool ................................................................................ 31
Review Team Process ........................................................................................... 34
Development of Pilot ............................................................................................ 37
viii
Implementation of Program Quality Reviews ...................................................... 38
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ 44
Description of Project ........................................................................................... 44
The Program Quality Assessment Tool ................................................................ 44
The Program Quality Review Process (PQR) ....................................................... 45
Discussion ............................................................................................................. 46
Implications for Further Practice and Research .................................................... 48
Appendix A Program Quality Review Assessment Tool ................................................. 51
Appendix B Program Quality Assessment Process .......................................................... 65
References ....................................................................................................................... 109
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
Current research and trends in special education accountability and reform are
based on the foundation developed through federal and state legislation enacted to
improve educational outcomes for all children in the U.S. An important early piece of
legislation for educational reform for all students was Goals 2000: Educate America Act
(P.L. 103–227), enacted by Congress in 1994. This law provided a list of national goals
intended to improve education for all students and authorized federal grants to states and
school districts to set high educational standards and carry out reforms necessary to meet
these standards. This act also included an important component for technology in
education. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act was later revised and blended into No
Child Left Behind 2001 with focus being on the broad range of general education studies
(McDonnell, McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997).
In 1998, The Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program was passed by
Congress with the goal to improve student achievement through scientifically based
practices. Schools were required to develop comprehensive school-wide programs
covering all aspects of a school’s operations. The Comprehensive School Reform
program contained eleven components to guide schools, especially poor performing
schools, to create effective evidence-based programs. These components required that
the school’s reform program:
2











employs proven methods and strategies based on scientifically based
research.
integrates a comprehensive design with aligned components.
provides ongoing, high-quality professional development for teachers and
staff.
includes measurable goals and benchmarks for student achievement.
is supported within the school by teachers, administrators and staff.
provides support for teachers, administrators and staff.
provides for meaningful parent and community involvement in planning,
implementing and evaluating school improvement activities.
uses high-quality external technical support and assistance from an
external partner with experience and expertise in school wide reform and
improvement.
plans for the evaluation of strategies for the implementation of school
reforms and for student results achieved annually.
identifies resources to support and sustain the school's comprehensive
reform effort.
significantly improves the academic achievement of students or
demonstrates strong evidence that it will improve the academic
achievement of students.
(U.S. Department. of Education, 2008, ¶ 7). These components from the
Comprehensive School Reform program became an important part of No Child Left
Behind 2001 (Shippen, Houchins, Calhoun, Furlow & Sartor, 2006).
As previously mentioned, major national education legislation called the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act was passed in 2001. It reauthorized the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), which created the national framework for
providing education throughout our country. To ensure effective education, especially
for the neediest students, NCLB added four areas of focus to the original ESEA law: 1)
accountability for educational outcomes; 2) flexibility in the way that states use federal
funding; 3) the use of research-based educational methods and materials; and 4)
information for and involvement of parents and families. The main goal of NCLB was to
3
ensure that all students are performing at a proficiency level in reading and math by 2014.
This goal required an increase in resources to support students who are English language
learners, students who may come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and
students with disabilities (Schrag, 2003).
One of the earliest laws to specifically address special education in this country
was Public Law 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA),
which was passed by Congress in 1975. This act required that all students with
disabilities between the ages of 3 and 22 be provided with a free and appropriate public
education to meet their unique needs in the least restrictive environment. This law was
reauthorized in 1986 and again in 1990 when the name was changed to the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Since then, IDEA has been reauthorized in 1997
and most recently in 2004 (Yell, 2006). The goal of each reauthorization was to further
improve educational services for children with disabilities, birth to age twenty-two.
In order for students with disabilities to reach proficient levels on the state content
standards in math and reading as established in the NCLB, they need consistent and
meaningful access to the general education curriculum. To assist in these efforts, IDEA
2004 incorporated access to the general education curriculum as an expectation and for
all students (Schrag, 2003).
The previous legislation is discussed here in order to provide background on the
purpose of this project. All of these laws require school districts to comply with
regulations that are designed to improve student performance in all areas of academics.
They also mandate that districts will develop some form of evaluation and assessment
4
that will show evidence of improved student performance and provide accountability on
the part of the district to the students served.
IDEA 2004 mandates that students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate
education based on an individualized education plan (IEP) that specifies academic and
functional goals for each student. The IEP identifies services and supports needed in
order for the student to achieve those goals. Furthermore, IDEA requires that students
with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment possible. The least
restrictive environment means that a student with disabilities has the right to be educated
with typically developing peers to the greatest extent possible, and that the student has
access to the general education curriculum and activities given the proper supports with
which to be successful (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
School districts in California are mandated to provide special education services
to children with exceptional needs from birth through age 22 (California Department of
Education, 2009). While the local school districts are able to provide many of these
services needed for students with mild to moderate disabilities, there are many other
conditions of disability that have such a low incidence rate that it would be fiscally and
programmatically difficult for each district to provide the necessary services. In
California, the local county offices of education offer support to school districts by
providing services that can be done more efficiently and economically at a centralized
level. Some of these services include creating new curricula, providing staff
development and training programs, monitoring personnel and human resource support,
and providing programs in special education and for at-risk students.
5
The particular county office of education, which is the focus of this project, is
located in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains east of Sacramento. The county
office of education provides financial and educational services to 15 school districts that
include 70 public schools and over 29,320 students in K-12 programs (El Dorado County
Office of Education, 2009). Students who experience severe disabilities receive special
education services through the Special Services Department within the County Office of
Education.
The Special Services Department operates a total of 23 special day classes, two
resource specialist programs and numerous itinerant services to meet the needs of
children with low incidence disabilities (see description below). The classes are located
on 20 different campuses around the county, with an emphasis on placing classes in ageappropriate settings that will allow for the greatest amount of integration possible. The
programs that are provided focus on students with the following disabilities:








Autism
Deaf or Hard of Hearing
Multiple Disabilities
Orthopedic (Physical Disabilities)
Serious Emotional Disturbances
Severe Mental Retardation
Traumatic Brain Injury
Visual Impairments
The Special Services Department also provides a number of itinerant services to
eligible students in every school in county. These include:



Adapted Physical Education
Audiology Consultation
Behavior Management
6



Occupational and Physical Therapy Consultation
Specialized Physical Health Care
Speech-Language Therapy
Although employees and other stakeholders believe that the Special Services
Department provides quality special education programs for the students of the county,
there has been no meaningful way to measure the effectiveness of the programs offered.
In the past, data was gathered that reflected student accomplishments through progress on
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goals and narratives submitted by teachers.
Comparative information on the California Alternative Performance Assessment (CAPA)
test scores for students has been collected, but never distributed to the teachers in the
county because the information was believed to be meaningless. Every two to three
years, a self-review is conducted that examines compliance issues (i.e. proper IEP
documentation). None of these measures were seen as sufficient. They did not inform
best practices for the county office of education programs. The challenge is to find a way
to credibly measure the effectiveness of the Special Services programs based on current
best practices in special education.
The Special Services Department of the County Office of Education was asked by
the County Superintendent to find a way to show accountability to the students and
families served by the programs offered, and to develop a method of on going selfassessment and program evaluation. This current project explores how to measure
student progress and the effectiveness of the county programs, as well as how to develop
an assessment tool to measure program quality and effectiveness.
7
Statement of the Problem
Currently, there is a strong push in California and across the country to provide
effective evidence-based educational programs for all students, including students with
moderate to severe disabilities, and to show accountability and proof of legal compliance
as well as increased student performance through these programs (Shippen, Houchins,
Calhoun, Furlow & Sartor, 2006). The county office of education that is the focus of this
project is working to develop a holistic tool that pulls together the existing splintered
assessments with which to evaluate the special services programs. The tool will also
provide an ongoing process to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the programs with
in the Special Services Department in a way that will inform the improvement process.
The current author’s research indicates that ultimately, it may be best for school districts
to be accountable to its students and families through program evaluation.
Purpose of Project
The purpose of this project is to review current best practices in special education
specific to practices related to students with moderate to severe disabilities and to
synthesize this information to create a tool that can be used to assess the effectiveness of
the special education services for students with moderate to severe disabilities, provided
by the Special Services Department of one rural County Office of Education. This
evaluation tool should be used in the ongoing effort to evaluate the special education
programs and reflect on areas of need as part of a continuous improvement process.
The Special Services Department is responsible for providing a variety of special
education services throughout the County. For this project, only the programs designed
8
specifically for students with moderate to severe disabilities will be evaluated. The hope
is that the information gathered and the tool created by this project will then be
generalized and modified by the Special Services Department to evaluate other special
education programs within the county.
Members of the county Special Services Resource Team are assisting in this
project. The Resource Team includes special education teachers, school psychologists,
speech and language therapists and Special Services administrators. All Special Services
programs from pre-school to young adult are represented on the Team.
Significance of the Project
This project is important for many reasons. First, it will allow all personnel
within the Special Services Department to review current best practices in the area of
special education and evaluate how well these practices are being provided to students
with moderate to severe disabilities within the county.
Secondly, this project will
provide a measurement tool with which to gather pertinent data on the effectiveness of
the services being provided, as well as provide an action plan to improve areas of need
strengthen programs. Thirdly, this evaluation process will bring together important
stakeholders such as school district administrators, special services administrators,
parents, teachers and Designated Individual Service (DIS) providers in order to evaluate
and improve special education services within the county. The assessment tool may be
available as a model for other programs within the Office of Education. Also, the
assessment tool along with the assessment process could be shared with other county
9
offices of education and school districts to be adapted for use within California and
outside the state.
Limitations of the Project
This project will focus only on an evaluation tool and evaluation process for
special education services provided to students with moderate to severe disabilities from
kindergarten through young adult programs within the county. This project is also time
bound. In other words, the tool and the process are developed using current evidencebased practices. Over time, this tool will need to be evaluated and revised to reflect best
practices as they are re-defined.
Definition of Terms
Accountability
Accountability means liable or answerable. In reference to education,
accountability is the policy of holding schools and teachers accountable for students’
academic progress by linking such progress with funding for salaries, maintenance, etc.
(Dictionary.com).
County Office of Education (COE)
A local county office of education provides financial oversight and academic
program services to school districts in the area, as well as creating new curricula,
providing staff development and training programs, monitoring personnel and human
resource support, and providing programs in special education and for at-risk students.
Cultural Responsiveness
10
Understanding and acknowledging the culture of a family, and ensuring that the
family is provided information in a way that is clear and respectful of their culture, is an
important concept for teachers and administrators. Being culturally responsive also
means taking adequate steps to ensure cultural diversity is embedded in educational
practices.
Department of Special Services
This term refers to the department within the county office of education that
provides services for students with moderate to severe disabilities, low incidence
disabilities, students who are at risk, charter school students, Head Start pre-school
students, and students who are incarcerated.
Designated Instructional Services
Designated Instruction and Services or “DIS” (also known as “Related Services”),
are defined as any service that is necessary to help a child benefit from his or her special
education program. In other words, “to benefit from special education” generally means
that the service must assist the child in making progress toward accomplishing the goals
set out in the IEP. These services may include speech and language, vision and hearing,
adapted physical education, etc. (AbilityPath, 2010).
IEP
The term IEP refers to an Individualized Educational Plan. An IEP is both a
document and a process that ensures that a student who is eligible for special education
services receives a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment.
11
Individualized Education Plans are mandated under IDEA (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004).
Program
For the purposes of this paper, a program in special education is defined as a plan
or system of academic and related services and opportunities to support the needs of
students with moderate to severe disabilities.
Resource Team
This refers to the County Office of Education committee consisting of
approximately 15 members and includes speech and language specialists, teachers of
students with special needs, school psychologists and County Office of Education
administrators. The Resource Team provides decision-making discussion on issues
affecting the County Office of Education Special Services Department.
Review Team
The Review Team is a group of individuals prepared to conduct a Program
Quality Review and consisting of a County Office of Education administrator, a special
education teacher, a parent, a DIS person, and a school site administrator.
SELPA
A SELPA is a Special Education Local Plan Area office that is responsible for
facilitating high quality educational programs and services for students with disabilities,
and training for parents and educators within a certain geographical area. Each
geographical area of a certain size within California has a SELPA.
Site Team
12
The term site team refers to a group of individuals participating in the Program
Quality Review process consisting of a school site administrator, special education
teacher, classroom staff members, and/or a general education teacher.
Special Day Class
A special day class typically is a classroom located on a general education school
campus. Students enrolled in a special day class receive intensive specialized instruction
throughout the day and are included in general education classes and activities on campus
with typically developing peers.
Universal Design
Universal design or universal access refers to facilities and environments that are
designed to be accessible to everyone. For the purposes of this project, universal design
refers to educational facilities and environments.
Organization of the Remainder of the Project
The remainder of the project will be divided into three additional chapters.
Chapter Two will include a review to synthesize knowledge about evidence based
practice related to program review and to inform the development of an effective
program assessment tool and assessment process. Chapter Three will describe the
methodology used to develop the Program Quality Review tool and process, and to
implement pilot Program Quality Reviews. Chapter Four will include a description of the
project and discussion of recommendations and implications for further practice and
research. The Appendices will include the actual Program Quality Review assessment
13
tool and the documents of the review process. Finally, the current author will provide a
list of references that includes all sources used in the project.
14
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
In Chapter One, the history of legislation on both national and state levels that has
lead to the current emphasis on accountability in our educational system was discussed.
One particular piece of legislation, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), was enacted to
improve educational outcomes for all students in the United States. NCLB highlighted
the importance of positive learning outcomes for all students and speeded up the pace of
the development and implementation of school reform initiatives that addressed
accountability for improved student learning (Bjork & Blase, 2009). In response, school
districts have developed ways to measure and monitor student progress such as
standardized tests, the Academic Performance Index (API) in California, which aligns
with the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) criteria as mandated in NCLB legislation.
California also uses the California High School Exit Examine (CAHSEE) as a
requirement for all high school graduates receiving a high school diploma.
The drive to improve educational outcomes for all students has led to the
discussion of how students with disabilities, especially those with more moderate to
severe disabilities, fit into this process. Laws governing services and programs for
students with disabilities under IDEA 2004 have been more closely aligned with NCLB
regulations, particularly those under Title 1 (McLaughlin, Malmgren & Nolet, 2006).
How effective are special education programs? How are school districts answering the
need for accountability to students receiving special education services and their
15
families? How are special education programs evaluated? Are these programs
incorporating the most current evidence-based best practices in special education?
This literature review will attempt to answer these questions and cover the
following topics: 1) challenges of accountability in programs and services for students
with disabilities, in particular those with significant support needs; 2) effective evaluation
of educational programs serving students with moderate to severe disabilities; and 3)
current best practices in providing education to students with moderate to severe
disabilities. The majority of the literature in this review was published within the last two
decades.
Challenges of Accountability in Programs for Students with Disabilities
Some of the challenges of adequately and accurately documenting student
progress in educational programs and services that support students with disabilities
(i.e. accountability) include: a lack of clear reporting requirements for student
progress; inadequate participation in high stakes testing by students with disabilities;
poorly designed alternative assessments for students with moderate to severe
disabilities; and inconsistent alignment of IEP goals with state standards and
curriculum. According to Bolt and Roach (2009) there is currently limited research on
the instructional benefit of large-scale assessment programs. Those researchers also
state that education leaders need to develop more meaningful ways to measure and
report student assessment in order to effectively guide policymaking.
No Child Left Behind 2001 (NCLB) requires that all states have a system of
tracking educational outcomes of all students from kindergarten through grade twelve
16
(i.e. accountability). Thornton, Hill and Usinger (2006) indicated accountability in
education could be defined as a system of monitoring and assessment of student
achievement, in order to show continued progress toward defined standards in core
subject areas. States have some flexibility in how to create the accountability system
that best suits their needs (Thornton, Hill & Usinger, 2006). McLaughlin, Malmgren
and Nolet (2006) studied the assessment and accountability systems, with an emphasis
on students who receive special education services, of four states: California,
Maryland, Texas and New York. They found that the four states had significantly
different systems in place to measure and track the academic performance of students
in each state.
The challenge of accountability here is a lack of agreement among decisionmakers on the best way to design and implement an effective accountability system.
States struggle to develop consistent and meaningful assessments of their programs
serving students with disabilities (Greenwood, Walker, Hornbeck, Hebbeler & Spiker,
2007).
Challenges of accountability are seen with large-scale assessment. The most
recent revision of IDEA in 2004 requires: 1) at least 95% of students with disabilities
must participate in statewide assessments for Adequate Yearly Progress; 2) alternate
assessments for reading, language arts and math must be available for students with
disabilities who are not able to participate in general assessments, even with
accommodations; 3) appropriate accommodations must be made for students with
disabilities; and 4) a state must report the number of students taking assessments with
17
accommodations, and that number must be in align with the number of students
documented as receiving special education services (Yell, Shriner & Katsiyannis,
2006). According to VanSciver and Conover (2009), a challenge of accountability in
testing for students with disabilities is the confusion around accommodations.
Confusing requirements for the identification of accommodations lack of
understanding by teachers and administrators of the need for accommodations, and
inconsistent use and application of accommodations all may inhibit the academic
success for students receiving services and supports in the classroom.
States are required to develop alternative assessments for those students who,
because of their disability, are not able to participate in state and district-wide testing,
even with accommodations. California created the California Alternative
Performance Assessment (CAPA) to allow students with moderate to severe
disabilities to participate in state and district-wide assessment and have the results
reported. Alternative assessments such as the CAPA are not without challenges.
According to Towles-Reeves, Kleinert and Muhomba (2009), alternate assessment
indicators are often not aligned with state curricular standards, and student IEP goals
are often not related to the content of the alternate assessment. The researchers also
found that little research exists to support the technical validity of most alternative
assessments.
Historically, students receiving special education services were not typically
included in accountability assessments for the general education population
(McLaughlin & Rhim, 2007). Because students receiving special education services
18
are supported by Individualized Educational Plans (IEP’s), accountability in special
education services was typically based only on the students’ progress toward meeting
the goals and objectives of their IEP’s. McLaughlin and Rhim (2007) summarized that
all groups should be included in accountability frameworks universally to ensure
equitability for all students in education. These researchers also concluded that
academic progress should be measured using a variety of indicators other than
standardized test scores. The challenge of accountability is to find a more meaningful
way to include all students, including those with significant support needs, in the
process of evaluating educational programs.
Similarly, small rural schools face the challenge of having their students with
significant support needs included in the testing and assessment process. Thornton and
his colleagues (2006) studied this challenge and found that as much as 30% of students
eligible for special education services are excluded from the accountability process in
rural areas. This is because current law (NCLB and IDEA) allows each state to establish
a minimum group size per grade for reporting AYP scores. If a group’s numbers fall
below that established group size, the scores do not need to be reported. For example, if
a state sets the group number for reporting at 25 students (per category in each grade),
then any group with less than 25 students does not need to be reported. Schools in rural
areas may have a small number of students receiving special education services in a grade
level and are not required to include those students in the AYP reporting process. Again,
this study highlighted the challenge of including all students, particularly students with
disabilities, in the accountability process (Thornton, Hill & Usinger, 2006).
19
Itkonen and Jahnukainen (2007) compared education accountability policies in
Finland and the United States. A major finding of their study supported the
suggestion that measuring academic success requires more than just reporting
standardized test scores. These researchers found that all students’ educational
achievement, including students with disabilities, should be based on:
a) national goals with local discretion; b) resources and their distribution; and c)
institutional values surrounding public education…accountability and
achievement…are much broader than individual or aggregated test scores”
(Itkonen & Jahnukainen, 2007, p.19).
These researchers also found that the measurement of student progress should
be framed in three areas: a) accountability, meaning the school did its job of teaching
the core curriculum; b) equal access, ensuring all students, including those with
disabilities, had access to an appropriate education; and c) equity, where essential
educational resources were distributed equitably among all students (Itkonen &
Jahnukainen, 2007). Therefore, another challenge of accountability is in finding a
way to measure the extent of meaningful participation in standardized curriculum by
students with disabilities, as well as documenting adequate and appropriate services
and resources for all students.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that each state
submit yearly documentation on the performance of its special education programs to
ensure that special education students are progressing towards “measurable and rigorous”
goals. This report is called a “State Performance Plan”, and it includes indicators for 20
20
different areas of education for students with disabilities, ages 3 to 21. These indicators
include graduation and drop out rates of students with disabilities, least restrictive
environment and inclusive opportunities, participation and performance on statewide
assessments of students receiving special education services, parent involvement, and
disproportionate racial and ethnic representation, among others. States receive a rating of
“meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention or needs substantial
intervention” (Samuels, Delgado & Lincoln, 2010). How each state gathers this data is
flexible and left up to the state. Many school districts struggle with creating meaningful
evaluation tools and data gathering instruments (Samuels, 2008). According to officials
from several states, the challenge of accountability in this case is that these ratings and
indicators don’t to measure student progress as much as they do compliance with the law
(Samuels, Delgado & Lincoln, 2010).
Evaluation of Programs Providing Services for Students with Disabilities
In this section the following queries will be discussed: Why is it important to
measure the effectiveness of programs and services for students with disabilities,
especially those with significant support needs? What is the most effective process to
measure quality programs and services for these students? What are we doing now,
and what has to change? Currently, progress and achievement for students with
disabilities is typically based on progress on IEP goals.
In order to meet the challenges of accountability when providing programs and
services that support students with moderate to severe disabilities in educational
settings, school districts may look at developing a tool that assesses all aspects of a
21
program or service. Halvorsen and Neary (2001) discussed system or program
accountability in inclusive educational settings. They developed needs assessment
tools for districts and school sites in California to assist school districts in evaluating
their programs and services and work toward program improvement. The researchers
used the assessment tool to conduct ongoing formative assessments of the districts’
programs and services. These assessment tools provided results that are both
quantitative (i.e. statistical data) and qualitative (i.e. anecdotal information). These
results can then be shared with the whole educational community to show
accountability and to engage others in problem-solving discussions.
Formative assessment, defined by Dorn (2010) as the frequent quantitative
measures of specific skills that allow timely adjustments to a special education program,
is also suggested as a way to meet the requirements for documenting the effectiveness
services and programs for supporting students with moderate to severe disabilities. The
researcher suggests using formative assessment as a data-driven method of decisionmaking that could be helpful in evaluating special education services and programs and
to help answer the question of accountability in special education (Dorn, 2010). Young
and Kim (2010) reviewed literature regarding formative assessment published between
1980 and 2008. The researchers found formative assessment to be a powerful tool to
measure the effectiveness of educational programs; however, they found that the term
“formative assessment” is often confusing and misleading, and that teachers may not be
adequately trained in using formative assessments to guide their teaching.
22
Tolley and Shulruf (2009) discussed the importance of collecting data to monitor
and analyze the effectiveness of a school’s programs, as well as to provide a solid basis
for decision-making and planning. They go on to say that: 1) data that is “systematically
collected, appropriately analyzed and effectively communicated and utilized” can identify
problem areas and strengths in school programs and student learning; 2) data can take
many forms to be meaningful; and 3) teachers and other stakeholders need to see the
effectiveness of a data collection system to buy into it.
Taut (2008) conducted research to investigate the advantages and disadvantages
of including either large numbers of stakeholders in the program evaluation process, of
using only a small number of stakeholders in the process. A number of case studies were
analyzed. Some of the evidence showed that: 1) fewer participants were often more
successful at completing effective program evaluations because the logistics allowed for
easier collaboration; 2) some program evaluations stalled because certain stakeholders
were more dominant over others in the group and the facilitator was ineffective in
conflict resolution; and, 3) trust between the stakeholders and the evaluator was crucial to
a positive completion of a program evaluation.
Current Best Practices in Special Education
In order to develop a meaningful program evaluation process it is important to
understand what are currently considered to be best practices in providing programs and
services for students with disabilities based on research and evidence. Practices
described as data-driven, research-based and evidence-based should be considered when
creating a tool to evaluate special education programs. The following research in best
23
practices for providing quality educational services for students with disabilities was used
to inform the process of developing indicators for the program quality review tool.
The term “best practices in special education” refers to methods that most
effectively allow students with disabilities, particularly those with more moderate to
severe disabilities, open access to the general education curriculum, and to be included in
general education classrooms as well as in other settings that require functional skills for
participation (Calculator & Black, 2009). When reviewing literature for their study, these
researchers used a list of categories originally defined by Jackson, Ryndak and
Billingsley (2000) to identify trends of best practices in providing services for students
with disabilities. The first category involves activities that promote inclusive values.
School-wide and district-wide practices that support inclusion and involve all school staff
and community members creates an environment of acceptance and inclusion of all
students. Secondly, ongoing and effective collaboration between special educators,
general educators and service providers are important to identify classroom needs and
develop goals and accommodations for student success. A third category highlights the
importance of family involvement in a student’s education. Parents and family members
need opportunities to provide input in their child’s educational program. Another
category of best practices suggests teacher need to use research-based strategies and
interventions when choosing what to teach and how to teach it. Instructional strategies
should incorporate natural and least intrusive results. A fifth category addresses the
scheduling, coordinating and delivering services. Administrators, parents, teachers and
specialized service providers such as speech therapists should all work collaboratively to
24
ensure appropriate service delivery for students with disabilities. Lastly, assessment of
student progress should be authentic and occur in real context.
Downing (2010) listed similar categories for best practices in supporting students
with moderate to severe disabilities, but adds three more. The first added category,
presuming competence, suggests educators hold high expectations for students with
significant support needs. It is more effective to have high standards for students that
they may not reach rather than standards that are two low, which may limit a student’s
achievement. The second added category involves the concept of positive behavior
support. The author suggested that best practice in supporting students with moderate to
severe disabilities who display challenging behaviors involves looking at the behavior as
a form of communication. Downey (2010) also suggests that multi-tiered school-wide
positive behavior support plans should adequately include plans for students with
significant support needs. Finally, promoting self-determination for students with
moderate to severe disabilities is an important best practice in the educational programs
of these students. It is important for students with significant support needs to learn to
make choices, set goals and advocate for themselves.
A best practice based on current IDEA 2004 regulations suggests teaching
strategies and interventions be based on peer-reviewed research. This suggests that
teachers use the most current, research-based practices when working with students with
significant support needs. It also suggests that teachers and school administrators stay
current with research on instructional strategies and behavioral interventions for students
with moderate to severe disabilities (Yell, Shriner & Katsiyannis, 2006).
25
Further discussion of current best practices for supporting students with moderate
to severe disabilities includes access to the general curriculum by students with
disabilities. Historically, students with significant support needs worked on functional
goals included in their IEP and had limited participation in the general education
curriculum. Jackson, Ryndak and Wehmeyer (2009) looked at historical records, theory
and empirical research to study inclusive education and its effectiveness for students with
significant support needs. Their research shows a strong correlation between accessing
general education curriculum and educational success of students with significant support
needs:
The implication is that placement in age- and grade appropriate general
education contexts and having special and general educators team to provide
supports and modifications for all students are first-order research-based
practice (p. 190).
When discussing access to general education curriculum, Ryndak, Moore, Orlando
and Delano (2009) also found that:
Research clearly indicates that students with extensive support needs benefit
more from receiving instruction when they are in general education contexts
and their instruction focuses on both general education curriculum and
functional activities within those contexts (p. 205).
These authors also concluded that students with significant support needs
require access to and education on the general education content, high expectation of
26
participation in the general education content, and inclusion in the general education
content accountability measures.
In their research on inclusive education, Downing and Peckham-Hardin (2007)
conducted a qualitative survey among stakeholders (parents, teachers and
paraprofessionals) at three inclusive schools to look at perceptions of what constituted
a quality educational program for students with moderate to severe disabilities. The
study found several key themes within inclusive education of students with moderate
to severe disabilities that were important to the stakeholders across the board. These
included: adequate academic and social success; benefits to typical peers and the
students; exposure to a wide variety of curriculum and experiences; individualized
curricular and instructional support; skilled and knowledgeable staff; collaboration
and team communication; a positive and caring community; ability to lead a normal
life; and concerns for the future. The researchers and the stakeholders felt all these
points should be part of a quality educational program.
Universal design for learning is another current research-based best practice in
providing services and programs for students with moderate to severe disabilities. The
theory behind universal design learning is that any curriculum should be designed
from the beginning to support the diverse learning needs of all students. The
curriculum is then flexible and allows access for a wide range of students, including
those with significant cognitive challenges (Dymond, Renzaglia, Rosentein, Chun,
Banks, Niswander and Gilson, 2006). Universal design tends to rely on the use of
27
computers and other technology in the classroom (Spooner, Dymond, Smith &
Kennedy, 2006).
In support of evidence-based best practices in providing services and supports
for students with disabilities, Cook, Tankersley and Landrum (2009) presented a
complex article that applied known effective strategies in clinical psychology, school
psychology and general education and proposed guidelines for proposing researchbased best practices in special education. The researchers found a need to balance the
individualized emphasis with evidence-based best practices in providing services and
programs for students with disabilities.
In summary, there are many challenges to documenting accountability when
providing educational programs and services for students with disabilities, particularly
those students with more significant support needs. An evaluation tool for these
educational programs and services should include a variety of quality indicators in order
to capture the effectiveness of the programs and services. Finally, understanding what
current, research-based best practices exist for providing educational programs and
services for students with moderate to severe disabilities will inform the development of
a meaningful program quality review tool.
28
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Development of Program Quality Review
The particular county office of education, which was the focus of this project,
is located in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains east of Sacramento. The
county office of education provides financial and educational services to 15 school
districts that include 70 public schools and over 29,320 students in K-12 programs.
Students who experience severe disabilities receive special education services through
the Special Services Department within the County Office of Education. (El Dorado
County Office of Education, 2010).
The Special Services Department operates a total of 23 special day classes, two
resource specialist programs and numerous itinerant services to meet the needs of
children with low incidence disabilities (see description below). The classes are
located on 20 different campuses around the county, with an emphasis on placing
classes in age-appropriate settings that will allow for the greatest amount of
integration possible. The programs that are provided focus on students with the
following disabilities:








Autism
Deaf or Hard of Hearing
Multiple Disabilities
Orthopedic (Physical Disabilities)
Serious Emotional Disturbances
Severe Mental Retardation
Traumatic Brain Injury
Visual Impairments
29
The Special Services Department also provides a number of itinerant services
to eligible students in every school in county. These include:






Adapted Physical Education
Audiology Consultation
Behavior Management
Occupational and Physical Therapy Consultation
Specialized Physical Health Care
Speech-Language Therapy
Although employees and other stakeholders believe that the Special Services
Department provides quality special education programs for the students of the county,
there has been no meaningful way to measure the effectiveness of the programs offered.
In the past, data was gathered that reflected student accomplishments through progress on
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goals and narratives submitted by teachers.
Comparative information on the California Alternative Performance Assessment (CAPA)
test scores for students has been collected, but never distributed to the teachers in the
county. Every two to three years, a self-review is conducted that examines compliance
issues (i.e. proper IEP documentation). The challenge now was to find a way to credibly
measure the effectiveness of the Special Services programs based on current best
practices in special education. The Special Services Department of the County Office of
Education had been asked by the County Superintendent to find a way to show
accountability to the students and families served by the programs offered, and to develop
a method of on going self-assessment and program evaluation. This current project
explored how to measure student progress and the effectiveness of the county programs,
30
as well as how to develop an assessment tool to measure program quality and
effectiveness.
Preliminary Meetings
Early in 2008, the Executive Director of Special Services for a local County
Office of Education was asked by the County Superintendent of Schools, “How do know
your department is doing a good job? How do we measure and monitor the progress of
students receiving special education services in our county? How do we keep ourselves
accountable to the students and stakeholders in this county?”
In February 2008, the Executive Director brought this question to the County
Office of Education Resource Team of which the current author is a member. The
Resource Team consists of 15 members and includes speech and language specialists,
teachers of students with special needs, school psychologists and County Office of
Education administrators. The Resource Team members had a lengthy discussion and
were given the assignment to develop a list of quality student program indicators that
could be used to measure student growth and success and to be prepared to discuss these
at the next Resource Team meeting in April.
Early discussions amongst the Resource Team members suggested that assessing
the special education programs would be a straightforward process. This process would
include simply documenting student IEP goal completion and perhaps the percentage of
inclusion time in general education classes and activities. What emerged was a much
larger, but more meaningful process.
31
As it was difficult to reach any type of consensus with such a large group of
people, a focus group was created which included the current author and three other
Resource Team members. This focus group met in March 2008 to brainstorm which
quality indicators should be included in a program assessment, what stakeholders should
be involved, and how to effectively conduct an assessment of all the programs within the
County Office of Education.
The entire Resource Team met again in April 2008, and after more discussion and
brainstorming, the members agreed on a lengthy list of program quality indicators to be
included in a program quality assessment. However, further discussion stalled with
issues around how to conduct an assessment and which stakeholders should be included
in the process. The issue of accountability and measurement of program quality was
shelved for the summer and into the early part of the 2008/2009 school year. During this
time, the Resource Team focused their efforts toward the budget crisis and impending
cuts to programs.
Creation of Assessment Tool
In January 2009, after discussing the issue further with the Executive Director, the
current author decided to further research the issue of program quality assessment and
assist the Resource Team to create a uniform assessment tool created using evidencebased current best practices in special education.
On behalf of the current author, the Executive Director emailed a group of Special
Education Administrators from around California (Special Education Administrators of
County Offices, or SEACO) to inquire about rubrics and other data collection tools being
32
used to evaluate the effectiveness of their special education services. Several individuals
responded and offered checklists and rubrics that they had used or were currently using.
The current author reviewed those checklists. In addition, she researched other
assessment tools and programs already in existence. As a credential/Master’s student, the
current author received resources from two experts in the field of educating students with
moderate/severe disabilities. She found resources online from agencies that made their
program assessments available publicly. She gathered information when attending a
national conference on supporting individuals with moderate/severe disabilities. The
current author also reviewed requirements for special education services under the No
Child Left Behind Act and IDEA 2004 in order to fully understand what should be
included in the assessment process.
At the September 2, 2009 Resource Team meeting, the current author outlined the
plan for the Program Quality Review project and provided a large number of documents
that had been collected through her investigation. These documents consisted of
assessment tools, rubrics and checklists for teachers, schools and districts to use in
reviewing program quality. The checklists and rubrics included: 1) Program Quality
Standards (Imperial County Office of Education, 2007); 2) Best Practice Checklist Programming for Students with Severe Disabilities (Janney, 1991); 3) District and SiteLevel Needs Assessment Tools (Halvorsen & Neary, 2001); 4) Inclusive Practices in
Schools: Dual context Continuum Survey (Developmental Disabilities Resource Center
of Calgary, 2003); 5) Self-Assessment Tool (National Alliance for Secondary Education
and Transition, 2005); 6) California Least Restrictive Environment Self Assessment Tool
33
and Continuous Improvement Activities Tool (WestEd, 2005); 7) Educational Benefit
Checklist (Ventura County SELPA, 2009); 8) Reflection Tools for Facilitating Positive
Student Outcomes (Doering, 2005); 9) Program Quality Review (Schwartzberg, 2009);
10) Special Ed DataTrek Longhand Form (San Bernardino County Schools, 2009); 11)
Educational Benefit checklist (Association of California School Administrators, 2009);
and 12) Writing IEP’s Designed for Educational Benefit (PowerPoint presentation from
North Inland and Santa Clara County SELPAS, 2008).
It was decided that packets of this collection of tools would be put together and
distributed to each member of the Resource Team. Each member would then review the
documents, make notes, and be prepared to comment on which assessment tools (whole
or in part) they felt would most effectively measure the progress of the students with
special needs and the success of each program in meeting the needs of the students. The
Resource Team members were also encouraged to contact the current author, either
through email or by telephone, to ask questions or give feedback on the various
documents.
Another Resource Team meeting was held November 4, 2009. At this meeting,
the current author facilitated a discussion on the accountability/program quality review
project. It was decided that two of the documents, the Program Quality Review created
by the North Coastal Consortium, and Reflection Tools created by Kathy Doering, from
San Francisco State University, would be the focus. The North Consortium Program
Quality Review would serve as the model for the new assessment tool to be used in this
County. The Reflection Tool would be used by teachers to self-evaluate their programs.
34
Review Team Process
At the November 4, 2009 Resource Team meeting, the discussion also included
the make-up of the review team: How many members? Who should be on the team?
Who should choose the members? How would they be trained? It also included items
such as: How long should a review last? How would the review be documented and
reported? When would the reviews begin in the school year? After lengthy discussion,
the group decided that a review team should be created that would include: a COE
administrator, a special education teacher (possibly retired), a parent, and a school site
administrator. The possibility of adding a regular education teacher, a DIS person and an
older student was left open for later discussion. It was felt that keeping the review team
to a manageable number was important.
Also at this meeting, it was decided that not all county programs would be
evaluated each year. Instead, a certain number of programs would be reviewed each
year, rotating every third year. A schedule would be developed by county administration.
The Resource Team also decided it was important to keep a program quality review to
one day, which would include classroom and campus visitation in the morning, and
review team meeting and data reporting in the afternoon.
The Resource Team members also felt it was important to support and carefully
prepare the classroom teachers for the review process, especially since this is a new
process. It was decided that a teacher preparation checklist would be created and
distributed to the teachers at the next monthly staff meeting. Also at that meeting, the
35
COE administrators would introduce the program quality review process to the teachers
and support staff.
On February 3, 2010, the Resource Team met again. The current author reviewed
a packet of information previously distributed for each team member. She also led a
review of what had been discussed at the last Resource Team meeting in November,
along with recommendations from that meeting. (see discussion in previous section) For
the February 3, 2009, meeting the Executive Director also prepared documents that she
felt should be included in the Program Quality Review process. The group determined
that a Program Quality Review binder would be created that includes all the steps and
information necessary to complete an effective review process. The Program Quality
Review binder would include the following:
I.
Program Review Preparation
A. General Information
1. Program Description
2. Mission Statement
3. Program Quality Review Process
4. Program Quality Review Timeline: 2010 through 2013
B. Quality Indicators
5. Quality Indicators for Moderate/Severe Programs
6. Sample Correspondence
C. Review Preparation
7. Review Process
8. Preparing for the Review
9. Forms: Parent Input, Action Plan Update, Reflection Tool
D. Program Review
10. Program Review Preparation
11. Program Review Agenda for the day
12. Sample Program Review Documents
13. Sample Action Plan
36
II.
Program Review Data 2010
A. Single Plan
B. IEP Parent Survey Results
C. Program Quality Review Parent Survey Results
D. Enrollment Data
E. Standardized Testing Results (STAR, CAPA, Physical Fitness)
F. Accomplishment Document
G. Program Quality Review Documents
14. 2010: K-5 classes (SH/ED/Autism/Full Inclusion/OI)
15. 2011: Preschool/Severe (Full Inclusion Preschool/non-categorical
Preschool/Autism/Severely Multiply Impaired Learning
Environment)
16. 2012: 6-Adult classes (6-8 SH/ED/Autism, 9-12 SH/Adult, 9-12
DH/H)
The current author also led a discussion about a concern over terminology used
within the Program Quality Review documents. It was decided that “moderate/severe”
would be used in place of “SH or severely handicapped” and “general education” would
be used in place of “regular education”. The emphasis would be on person-first
language.
At the February 3, 2009 meeting, the team decided that the programs under the
Special Services department would be evaluated on a rotating basis every three years.
The Team felt that it would be advantageous to group the programs by relative age-levels
so that the Review Team could be developed with individuals who were familiar with
those types of programs. The rotating cycle would begin with the elementary level
programs. In addition, a decision was made to send a parent survey prior to the review of
a program, and would include a self-addressed, stamped envelope that could be mailed
directly to the COE.
37
Development of Pilot
During the February 3, 2009 meeting, it was decided that the evaluation tool and
evaluation process should be piloted in this school year (09/10) by implementing a
review of two special services programs. The Resource Team hoped that information and
experience gathered from the two pilot assessments would improve the review process
for the start of the 2010/2011 school year.
As previously discussed, a Review Team was established for the pilot
assessments. The current author was asked to be the Review Team lead. The Executive
Director worked with other COE administrators to gather suggestions for parents to help
with the pilot assessments.
The members of the Review Team are: the COE Executive
Director, a mother of a student with disabilities, a vision and mobility specialist, the
special education teacher of the program being reviewed, and the principal of the school
at which the program is located. The current author, a special educator, will lead the
Review Team.
The Resource Team met again on March 3, 2010. The group reviewed the
proposed final documents for the Quality Program Review, as well as new instructions
for completing the assessment tool created by the current author. These instructions
included a sample Program Quality Review assessment that could be used in the Review
Team training. After many discussions involving important County Office of Education
personnel and months of planning, the Program Quality Review process was ready to be
piloted.
38
Implementation of Program Quality Reviews
Training
A training session for all Review Team members was held on March 25, 2010 at
the County Office of Education headquarters. The current author prepared the materials
needed for the training. The Executive Director prepared the class list information for
each of the two classes being reviewed in the pilot, along with a letter that the teachers
were to send out to all the parents in their respective classes. The current author
facilitated the training, using a PowerPoint presentation and handouts.
In attendance at the training were the two teachers involved in the pilot, a parent
of a high school aged student with developmental disabilities, the principal of the
elementary school that supports the second program being piloted, and a DHOH/Low
Incidence Specialist. The principal of the school that supports the first program being
piloted was unable to attend. The Executive Director will conduct a training session with
him at a later date.
The outline for the training session included the following topics: the purpose of
the Program Quality Review, the Program Quality Review process, responsibilities of the
Review Team members, responsibilities of the teachers, and responsibilities of the site
team, the agenda for the day of the review, instructions on completing the Program
Quality Review form (quality indicators), and completing and filing the report after the
Program Quality Review.
As part of the training session, the Review Team members felt it would be helpful
to assign specific sections of the Program Quality Review form to partners within the
39
Review Team so that each member would be prepared to effectively review and report on
their quality indicators on the day of the review.
Pilot Program Quality Reviews
The first pilot Program Quality Review was held on April 29, 2010, at the COE
funded program in Camino. The program serves students ages K-22 who experience
multiple severe and profound disabilities. The program is housed in a COE-owned
building on the campus of a public elementary and middle school in the Apple Hill area
of Camino. The Review Team consisted of the EDCOE Executive Director of Special
Services, the parent of a student with disabilities, a vision/mobility specialist, and the
current author. Absent from the Review Team was the principal of the elementary school
where the COE program is housed. Also present was the COE principal who supervises
the program to help answer any questions about the program.
The Review Team met at 8:30 a.m. in order to set up a work area and get familiar
with the building. The Team members reviewed the assignments for the different
sections of the Program Quality Review assessment tool and established a plan of action
for the day.
For two and half to three hours, the members of the Review Team circulated
among the students and staff of the program, observing and asking questions. Most of
the activities occurred in one main area of the building. They also used the workroom to
write notes and take a break as needed. At noontime, the Review Team re-grouped in the
meeting room for a working lunch. The Team members compared notes and discussed
their observations as they ate. The Executive director typed the team’s evidence and
40
comments into the report template on her computer. The program principal was able to
answer questions, or cover for the teacher so that the team could ask the teacher directly.
Later in the afternoon, the teacher met with the Team to review their evidence.
This allowed the teacher and staff to get immediate feedback from the Review Team. A
hard copy of the review was to be given to the teacher when it was finalized. An action
plan was suggested and will be developed and followed up on by the program principal,
the site principal and the teacher.
The second pilot Program Quality Review was conducted on May 3, 2010. This
time the program being reviewed was a full inclusion program administered on the
campus of an elementary school in the Rescue school district. The Review Team for the
second Program Quality Review pilot included the parent of a student with disabilities,
the Executive Director of Special Services for the COE, the principal of the elementary
school site, and the current author. The program principal was also in attendance.
Again, the Review Team met early in the morning, gathered materials needed for
the observations, and made a plan for the day. Because the students in this full inclusion
program participated in a wide range of classes and activities on the school campus, the
team members had more opportunities to circulate around the school and into most of the
areas of the campus.
The Team met for lunch and, as with the first Program Quality Review pilot,
compared notes and discussed their observations as they ate. The Executive director
typed the team’s Evident and comments into the report template on her computer, and the
program principal and the site principal were able to answer questions as needed.
41
After lunch, the teacher of the full inclusion program met with the Review Team
and the Evident of the team were discussed. A hard copy would be distributed to the
teacher when finalized, and an action plan for improvement in a couple areas was
suggested and will be developed and followed up on by the program principal, the site
principal and the teacher.
Evaluation of Program Quality Review Tool and Process
After each Program Quality Review pilot was completed, the current author
gathered feedback and input from each individual involved in the pilot review through a
brief interview. Those interviewed included teachers and staff members of each program,
school site administrators, County Office of Education administrators, and Review Team
members. As the Review Team Lead, the current author was also able to gather
comments as the review process unfolded.
Interview questions included: What did you find challenging about the Program
Quality Review process? What was helpful for you to prepare for the review process?
What did you find helpful as the review process was going on? Was there effective
communication with the Review Team members and site staff? Were the instructions
and procedures clearly explained and easy to follow? What did you learn from the
review process? Did anything surprise you? What did you find meaningful in the review
process? Do you feel you had everything you needed to conduct an effective Program
Quality Review?
Both pilot Program Quality Reviews went smoothly. Through the discussions
with all the players involved, the current author made some conclusions about the process
42
and the tool. For example, it became clear during the first Program Quality Review that
some of the questions on the assessment tool were duplicate or redundant. These
questions were reviewed and either combined with questions in other sections, or were
eliminated completely.
The Review Team members found it helpful to have the demographics of a school
available to them at the start of the review process. The Executive Director of Special
Services will provide this information. Review Team members also suggested that
having more space to write comments on the tool would be helpful. The teachers
involved in the pilot Program Quality Reviews both indicated how nervous they were
before the reviews and suggested that there be better training and preparation information
available to them ahead of time. This was discussed with the COE administrators and the
protocol will include assistance to teachers to prepare for a Program Quality Review.
Another finding involved how the information gathered by the teacher of a
program before a Program Quality Review should be presented. It appeared that having
all the information in file folders in a file box allowed the easiest access to the
information for all the Review Team members. All team members indicated it was very
helpful to have the use of a laptop computer so that the discussion could easily be
translated into the report template in real time. This minimized the delay between the
review and the completion of the final report document.
At the end of the training session in March, the Review Team members gave
excellent feedback to the current author. Lessons learned for next time: 1) provide a light
snack and beverages for the Review Team members at the training session and on the day
43
of the review. The Executive Director also indicated lunch would be provided to the
Review Team members on the day of the review. 2) Provide contact information of the
Team Leader, including cell phone number, and share contact information of all Review
Team members so that everyone can be easily reached in the event of a change on the day
of the review. 3) Provide samples of completed quality indicators forms for review during
the training session. The current author will forwarded her contact information to all
Review Team members via email. She also sent out email reminders before each of the
review days.
As part of the evaluation of the Program Quality Review assessment tool and
process, all comments were reviewed with the County Office of Education Executive
Director, administrators and Resource Team members. Changes to the review process
were made to ensure an effective Program Quality Review process for the next school
year.
44
Chapter 4
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Description of Project
Recent federal and state laws written to improve education require school districts
to provide effective evidence-based educational programs for all students, including
students with moderate to severe disabilities, and to show accountability and increased
student performance through these programs. The county office of education that is the
focus of this project endeavored to develop a tool to measure the effectiveness of its
programs and services for students with disabilities, particularly those students with
moderate to severe disabilities.
Through meetings with stakeholders and other interested individuals, as well as
using evidence-based practices to inform the process, the current author created a tool to
be used by the county office of education to concretely answer the question, “How do we
know we are doing a good job?”
This project has two components: 1) The Program
Quality Assessment Tool, and 2) The Program Quality Review process.
The Program Quality Assessment Tool
The Program Quality Assessment Tool is a collection of quality indicators
reflecting current best practices in special education. The quality indicators are divided
into seven sections:





Assessment
Least Restrictive Environment
Classroom Setting
Instruction
Accountability
45


Communication and Collaboration
Staff Development
The Review Team members look for evidence of each of the quality indicators.
That evidence may be found through observation by a Team member, a review of the
program records, input from a parent of parents, input from staff, or input from an
administrator. Using the assessment tool, the Team members note if the indicator is
evident, inconsistent, not evident or not applicable. The Team member notes specific
examples of each.
The Program Quality Review Process (PQR)
The entire PQR review process is a four-year cycle, with each County special
education program being reviewed every four years. All of the PQR process information
is collected into a packet and provided to all PQR participants. Included in the PQR
process packet is a timeline delineating which COE Special Services programs will be
reviewed in each year. Each academic year, six or seven similar level programs are
reviewed. The cycle starts over on the fifth year. The PQR packet also includes an
overview of the review process, checklists to assist teachers, staff and administrators in
preparing for the review, and templates for follow-up action plans. It also includes the
assessment tool, and quality indicators, which the author described above. A PQR Team
visits the school and reviews the COE special education program. The PQR Team
consists of a COE administrator (usually the Executive Director of Special Services), a
COE teacher, a parent of a child with special needs, and one other COE employee,
possibly a school psychologist, speech and language therapist, or hearing and vision
46
specialist. All Team members are trained in the review process. The PQR Site Team
consists of the principal (or other administrator) of the school site, and the special
education teacher and staff members of the COE program.
In preparation for the PQR, the teacher and staff prepare documentation related to
the quality indicators for the Review Team to peruse. The teacher also fills out samples
of Quality Indicator Reflections (Doering, 2005) to aid in focusing in preparing for the
PQR. On the day of the PQR, the Review Team and the Site Team meet to plan a
schedule for the day. Materials are distributed, and the Team decides which members
will focus on which sections of the assessment. The Team members observe the
classroom activities in small groups to minimize the impact on the educational process.
They review the records and materials the teacher has compiled, and they talk with staff
and administrators to gather information. When all information has been gathered, the
Review Team meets and discusses their Evident. The Evident are compiled into a draft
report, and recommendations are suggested. At the end of the Review day, the exit
interview is held with the teacher to discuss preliminary Evident. A formal report is
submitted to the appropriate personnel within three weeks. An action plan will be
developed, based on the recommendations from the Team, with the teacher, COE
administrator and other staff as appropriate. This action plan will be reviewed annually.
Discussion
The purpose of this project was to synthesize current best practices in special
education, along with existing tools for evaluating special education programs, to create a
meaningful measure of accountability and success for the COE special services programs.
47
In many ways, the PQR process has proved successful. One important area of success
has been with the collaboration between the school site personnel and the COE special
education program on the campus. In several instances, the COE program is considered
by school site personnel to be “not part of our school.” The collaborative effort is
limited. After a PQR at that school, the attitude changed, and the site personnel are now
more involved in the COE program, and staff are more open to including students with
disabilities in the classes and programs on campus.
The Program Quality Review (PQR) process has also been successful by
informing teachers and instructional assistants on current best practices, and they are able
to work with COE administrators to make improvements, both large and small, in their
programs. For example, in one elementary level program, the Review Team pointed out
a lack of participation of general education students with the special education class. A
peer-tutoring program was suggested in order to increase relationship building with
general education and special education students. In another area, the Team pointed out
that there was minimal evidence of training in disability awareness for students, staff,
instructional assists and parents. Suggestions were made for ways that administrators and
staff members could collaborate to create in-service opportunities and develop materials
to improve disability awareness for all parties involved.
Many team members provided positive feedback on the PQR process. One
administrator stated that, although the process was added work, it allowed school site
personnel to understand the importance of the county special education programs in the
on-going support of the students with special needs in the district. Another team
48
member, a parent who was also a nurse, stated that the PQR process highlighted the
importance of making the medical information for each student readily available to all
staff members who supported those students. It was perceived that the process allowed
parents, teachers and administrators to work together with focused goals on improving
the programs.
The process also highlighted excellent teaching strategies, creative collaboration,
and positive outcomes for students. At a full-inclusion program, the team observed
creative methods of modifying materials and curriculum for students with autism and
with motor challenges so that they could learn successfully alongside their general
education peers. At a program that supported students with a wide range of abilities and
challenges, the teacher had created beautiful murals on the walls to reflect the interests of
the students.
The teachers who were preparing for the PQR at their programs indicated they
experienced a significant amount of anxiety about the process. As this was the first
cycle of reviews, perhaps the next time will be less stressful. After the initial reviews
were completed, the team discussed ways to lessen the struggle for the teachers. These
included a more complete preparation checklist, as well as added planning and
preparation time for each teacher.
Implications for Further Practice and Research
This project synthesized information from many sources and created a document
and a process that worked effectively for a rural county office of education in northern
California. The tool and the process may be adopted by other educational entities, such
49
as other rural and more urban county offices of education, and can be modified to fit their
needs. The tool could be modified to better reflect the needs of programs that serve
students with emotional challenges, or students who are completing a high school
diploma or certificate and moving on to a young adult program. The quality indicators
would have to be evaluated and redesigned to reflect the needs of those student
populations.
As research into best practices in special education continues, the assessment tool
may need to be revised to take into consideration emerging indicators of best practices.
The tool is structured in a way that it can be easily modified to reflect those changes. The
seven areas of quality indicators can be added to, and the quality indicators themselves
may be added to or deleted, based on current best practices in special education.
After the PQR process, changes were made to each program to improve services
and educational outcomes for the students. Further research into the long-term impact of
the PQR assessment tool would indicate if the changes had a positive effect on those
outcomes. Questions to be considered would be “Were the changes effective for the
students? Were they consistently supported by administration and staff members? Did
the changes address program issues as new students were added?” Doing a two-four year
follow-up study would inform modifications that could be made to the PQR assessment
tool and process.
50
APPENDICES
51
APPENDIX A
Program Quality Review Assessment Tool
Program Quality Review
Programs for Students with Moderate/Severe Disabilities
School: _________________________________________ Program: __________________________________
Date of Review:______________________________________________________________________________
Participants:________________________________________________________________________________
Key: Ob – observation
PI – parent input
Ad – Administration input SI – Staff input
R – Review of records
Assessment
Students’ learning styles and preference
Examples
Ob PI Ad SI R
Evident
Inconsistent
Not
N/A
Evident
areas are considered when developing
instructional plans.
Parents are part of the planning, placement
Examples
and IEP process.
52
Parent questionnaires and interviews are
Examples
utilized in the development of IEP goals and
program planning.
Comments
Examples
53
Least Restrictive Environment
Students participate with same-age general
Examples
Ob PI Ad SI R
Evident
Inconsistent
Not Evident
N/A
education peers in a variety of academic and
non-academic activities and settings, with
support.
School-wide instructional programs (Media
Examples
Center, Computer Lab, P.E., Music)
incorporate planned, frequent, ongoing
interaction with age appropriate general
education students.
Educational placement of each student is
Examples
based on student needs and not on the
disability category.
Prior to a change of placement for behavioral
Examples
reasons a Behavior Support Plan has been
implemented.
54
Students participate in all facets of school
Examples
and community life along side same age,
typically developing peers (dances, sports
games, fieldtrips, assemblies, graduation).
Community based instruction is provided
Examples
as appropriate.
Students attend school during the same
Examples
hours and for the same number of
instructional minutes, and follow the same
bell schedule and calendar, as the general
education student body.
Comments
55
Classroom Setting
Behavioral needs are addressed through non-
Examples
Ob PI Ad SI R
Evident
Inconsistent
Not Evident
N/A
aversive methods, using positive behavior
support strategies designed to promote selfdetermination and self-management.
A written schedule is posted in the
Examples
classroom that reflects time, grouping and
location of instruction and staff
responsible. Modified or adapted
schedules (Boardmaker, icons, etc.) are
available as needed.
Activities, school support and resource
Examples
personnel are provided to enhance positive
social relationships.
The school promotes and supports
Examples
participation of all families in school
functions (PTA, school committees, Sober
56
Grad Night, sports, parent activities).
School resources are available and
Examples
accessible to all students (computer labs,
AV equipment, library, furniture, curricular
materials).
Classroom and other instructional settings
Examples
reflect the chronological age of the
students being served.
Classes are heterogeneous, composed of
Examples
students of wide-ranging abilities and
needs.
Comments
57
Instruction
Modifications to the general education
Examples
Ob PI Ad SI R
Evident
Inconsistent
Not Evident
N/A
classroom are implemented and
documented as appropriate in the
student’s IEP.
Student instructional needs are met through
Examples
individualized modifications of general
education core standards.
Students receive instruction alongside
Examples
typically developing peers to the
maximum extent possible.
Students are included in age appropriate
Examples
instructional activities regardless of severity
of disability.
Curriculum and instruction are based on
Examples
grade-level curriculum standards for ageappropriate general education peers.
58
Instruction for all students includes
Examples
development of social, behavioral and
academic skills necessary to participate
in general education environments.
Independence, self-management, social
Examples
communication and related skills are
targeted instruction during daily routines
and transition times.
Teaching activities and instructional
Examples
Ob PI Ad SI R
Evident
Inconsistent
Not Evident
N/A
programs are age-appropriate, functional
and of immediate usefulness to students.
Teaching materials that are real rather
than simulated are used.
Student goals are based on CA State
Examples
Standards (i.e. SEACO curriculum).
59
Vocational and career options, including
Examples
supported work opportunities, are available
for secondary students.
An Individualized Transition Program is
Examples
considered at age 14, developed and
implemented by age 16.
Instruction occurs in small groups or 1:1,
Examples
when appropriate, and is individualized
per student need.
Instructional Assistants are assigned to
Examples
the program and not to individual
students.
Confidentiality of student information is
Examples
maintained (IEP goals, medical and
behavioral information).
Comments
Examples
60
Accountability
Supervision and evaluation of staff is
Examples
Ob PI Ad SI R
Evident
Inconsistent
Not Evident
N/A
completed by EDCOE administration, with
consultation provided by site and district
special education administration.
Anecdotal information and measurable
Examples
data is collected on each student’s IEP
goals regularly (daily, weekly, monthly).
Student’s participation in CA state
Examples
assessments is appropriately identified
and documented on the student’s IEP.
Comments
61
Communication and Collaboration
General education and special education
Examples
Ob PI Ad SI R
Evident
Inconsistent
Not Evident
N/A
staffs collaborate regularly to plan
modifications and adaptations for diverse
student needs.
General education and special education
Examples
staff collaborate to provide access to
core curriculum.
Special education teachers attend age
Examples
and grade level team meetings at their
school sites.
DIS and related services are provided in a
Examples
variety of ways, including 1:1 pullout and
integrated groups including typically
developing peers.
Comments
62
Staff Development
Written policy and procedures exist in
Examples
Ob PI Ad SI R
Evident
Inconsistent
Not Evident
N/A
both the classroom and the health office
for individual medical and behavioral
emergencies.
Prior to the start of school, and
Examples
throughout the school year, staff are
trained and monitored in emergency
procedures and individual medical
protocols.
In-service is provided to general education
Examples
students, staff paraprofessionals, parents
and administrators regarding:





Ability awareness
Inclusive practices
Learning styles
Social interactions
Behavioral strategies
63
Multicultural practices and staff
Examples
development activities support English
language learners according to linguistic
and cultural needs.
In order to promote best practices in
Examples
special education, staff attend
professional development activities and
implement strategies gained through inservices and seminars.
Classroom personnel, volunteers and
Examples
visitors are made aware of the need to
maintain confidentiality of student
information.
Comments
64
65
APPENDIX B
Program Quality Assessment Process
66
El Dorado County Office of
Education
Special Services Department
Program Quality Review
2010-2013
Process developed by:
2009-2010 Resource Team and
Kathleen Tourigny
Betty Connolly
Bob Stromberg
Betsy Christ
67
Table of Contents
I.
Program Review Preparation
A. General Information
1. Program Description
2. Mission Statement
3. Program Quality Review Process
4. Program Quality Review Timeline: 2010 through 2012
B. Quality Indicators
5. Quality Indicators for Moderate/Severe Programs
6. Sample Correspondence
C. Review Preparation
7. Review Process
8. Preparing for the Review
9. Forms: Parent Input, Action Plan Update, Reflection Tool
D. Program Review
10. Program Review Preparation
11. Program Review Agenda for the day
12. Sample Program Review Documents
13. Sample Action Plan
II.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Program Review Data 2010
Single Plan
IEP Parent Survey Results
Program Quality Review Parent Survey Results
Enrollment Data
Standardized Testing Results (STAR, CAPA, Physical Fitness)
Accomplishment Document
Program Quality Review Documents
68
14. 2010: K-5 classes (SH/ED/Autism/Full Inclusion/OI)
15. 2011: Preschool/Severe (Full Inclusion Preschool/non-categorical
Preschool/Autism/Severely Multiply Impaired Learning
Environment)
16. 2012: 6-Adult classes (6-8 SH/ED/Autism, 9-12 SH/Autism, Adult,
9-12 DH/H)
69
Program Quality Review General Information
Program Description
School Districts in California are mandated to provide special education
services to children with exceptional needs from birth through age 22.
While the local El Dorado County School Districts are able to provide many
of these services for students with learning disabilities, there are many
other disabling conditions which have such a low incidence rate that it
would be fiscally and programmatically difficult for each district to provide
the necessary services. The Special Services Department operates a total
of 24 Special Day Classes, two Resource Specialist Programs and
numerous itinerant services to meet the needs of children with these low
incidence disabilities. Our classes are located on 19 different campuses
around the county, with an emphasis on placing classes in age-appropriate
settings which will allow for the greatest amount of integration possible. The
classes which we provide focus upon students with the following
disabilities:
 Severe Mental Retardation
 Visual Impairments
 Serious Emotional Disturbances
 Orthopedic (Physical Disabilities)
 Deaf or Hard of Hearing
 Multiple Disabilities
 Autism
 Traumatic Brain Injury
 Learning Disabilities (Charter)
We also provide a number of itinerant services to eligible students in every
school in El Dorado County except South Lake Tahoe. These include:
 Speech-Language Therapy
 Adapted Physical Education
 Occupational and Physical Therapy Consultation (through SELPA)
 Audiology Consultation
 Specialized Physical Health Care
 Behavior Management
70
Mission Statement
The Special Services Department strives to develop, advocate for and
implement quality student programs at the request of school districts and
parents, provide support to school site staff in dealing with students with
low incidence disabilities, and serve as a model for the implementation of
state-of-the-art educational practices.
71
Program Quality Review Process
This process was developed by the Special Services Resource Team in 2009-10,
with special guidance and support from Kathleen Tourigny, the teacher of
students with moderate/severe disabilities at Union Mine High School. Through
her thorough research, ideas and processes from many different agencies were
synthesized into this document.
The process can be summarized as follows:
1. Choose Team Members and Team Leader
2. Train all Team Members
3. Set yearly schedule for reviews
4. Prepare all review materials and distribute
5. Notify all participants on the schedule for a review
6. Teachers prepare documentation in preparation for the site visit
7. Review Team completes review of the selected classes
8. Review Team meets with site staff for a brief exit interview
9. Review team prepares report and recommendations
10. Action Plan is developed by site staff and program coordinators.
11. Action Plan is attached to the Review Document
Each year the process will begin with the selection of the review team and their
training. Teams will be comprised of EDCOE administrators, current or former
EDCOE special education teachers, support personnel, school site administrator
or designee and parents. The team’s experiences will comport as closely as
possible with the classes being reviewed in any given year, so that elementary
teachers and staff are reviewing elementary programs, high school teachers and
staff will review high school programs, etc.
Once the review team has been trained, the teachers of the classes to be
reviewed will be given specific information about their review and guided through
the process of preparing the written documentation necessary for the review.
After the review, an exit interview will be held with the teachers at each site at the
end of their review day, with a formal written review to staff within 3 weeks of the
review. The action plan will be developed by the classroom staff, EDCOE
administrator and other individuals as appropriate. Approximately one third of all
EDCOE classes will be reviewed each year, so that one review cycle of all
classes will take three years to complete. This is being done in order to
concentrate time and energy on just a few classes each year so that the reviews
72
are accurate and thorough. The review cycle for the years 2010-2012 is
indicated on the Program Quality Review Process Timeline, which follows.
Program Quality Review Timeline: 2010-2012
SITE
Year of
Review
K-2 SH-SDC at Winnie
Wakeley
K-3 ED-SDC at Sutter’s
Mill
K-2 Autism-SDC at
Lakeview
3-5 SH-SDC at Gold
Oak
4-6 ED-SDC at Gold
Trail
3-5 Autism-SDC at
Lakeview
K-5 SH-Full Inclusion at
Buckeye
K-5 OI-SDC at Jackson
201011
201011
201011
201011
201011
201011
201011
201011
201112
201112
201112
201112
201112
2011-
Autism Pre- SDC at
Lowry CDC
Autism Pre-K SDC at
Rescue
Preschool Inclusion at
Jackson
Preschool Inclusion at
Brooks
Preschool Inclusion at
Camerado
Preschool at Buckeye
Team
Training
Date
Review
Date
Report Due
Date
Report sent to
EDCOE
Administrator
Action
Plan Due
Date
Action Plan
Completed
and Filed
Completed
Review
shared with
SELPA
Preschool at Bliss
SMILE at Winnie
Wakeley
6-8 SH-SDC at
Markham
7-8 ED-SDC at Gold
Trail
6-8 SH/Autism-SDC at
Camerado
9-12 SH-Transition at
UMHS
9-12 SH-Transition at
EDHS
9-12 SH/AutismTransition at Pondo
Adult Transition at
Tunnel Street
Adult Transition at
Gilmore Street
DH/H SDC at
Ponderosa
12
201112
201112
201213
201213
201213
201213
201213
201213
201213
201213
201213
75
Quality Indicators
Quality Indicators for Moderate/Severe Programs
The following pages contain the Quality Indicators related to the Programs for
Students with Moderate/Severe Disabilities. These pages will be used to review
the quality of these programs related to:
1. Assessment
2. Least Restrictive Environment
3. Classroom Setting
4. Instruction
5. Accountability
6. Communication and Collaboration
7. Staff Development
Sample Correspondence
Included in this document are sample letters and memos to individuals involved
in the review process.
Program Quality Review
Programs for Students with Moderate/Severe Disabilities
School: ________________________________________ Program: ___________________________________
Date of Review:______________________________________________________________________________
Participant__________________________________________________________________________________
Key: Ob – observation
PI – parent input
Ad – Administration input
SI – Staff input
R – Review of records
Assessment
Students’ learning styles and preference
areas are considered when developing
instructional plans.
Examples
Parents are part of the planning, placement
and IEP process.
Examples
Parent questionnaires and interviews are
utilized in the development of IEP goals and
program planning.
Examples
Comments
Examples
Ob PI Ad
SI R
Evident
Inconsistent
Not
Evident
N/A
76
Least Restrictive Environment
Students participate with same-age general
education peers in a variety of academic and
non-academic activities and settings, with
support.
Examples
School-wide instructional programs (Media
Center, Computer Lab, P.E., Music)
incorporate planned, frequent, ongoing
interaction with age appropriate general
education students.
Educational placement of each student is
based on student needs and not on the
disability category.
Examples
Prior to a change of placement for
behavioral reasons a Behavior Support Plan
has been implemented.
Examples
Students participate in all facets of
school and community life along side
same age, typically developing peers
(dances, sports games, fieldtrips,
assemblies, graduation).
Community based instruction is provided
as appropriate.
Students follow the same bell schedule as
the general education student body
(calendar, hours, etc.).
Examples
Ob PI Ad
SI R
Evident
Inconsistent
Not
Evident
N/A
Examples
Examples
Examples
77
Students attend school during the same
hours and for the same number of
instructional minutes as the general
education student body.
Examples
Comments
Classroom Setting
Behavioral needs are addressed through
non-aversive methods, using positive
behavior support strategies designed to
promote self-determination and selfmanagement.
Examples
A written schedule is posted in the
classroom that reflects time, grouping and
location of instruction and staff
responsible. Modified or adapted
schedules (Boardmaker, icons, etc.) are
available as needed.
Activities and school support and resources
personnel are provided to enhance positive
social relationships.
Examples
Ob PI Ad
SI R
Evident
Inconsistent
Not
Evident
N/A
Examples
78
The school promotes and supports
participation of all families in school
functions (PTA, school committees,
Sober Grad Night, sports, parent
activities).
Examples
School resources are available and
accessible to all students (computer labs,
AV equipment, library, furniture, curricular
materials).
Examples
Classroom and other instructional
settings reflect the chronological age of
the students being served.
Examples
Classes are heterogeneous, composed of
students of wide-ranging abilities and
needs.
Examples
Comments
79
Instruction
Modifications to the general education
classroom are implemented and
documented as appropriate in the
student’s IEP.
Examples
Ob PI Ad
SI R
Evident
Inconsistent
Not
Evident
N/A
Student instructional needs are met through
individualized modifications of general
education core standards.
Students receive instruction along side
typically disabled peers to the maximum
extent possible.
Students are included in age appropriate
instructional activities regardless of severity
of disability.
Curriculum and instruction are based on
grade-level curriculum standards for ageappropriate general education peers.
Instruction for all students includes
development of social, behavioral and
academic skills necessary to participate
in general education environments.
80
Independence, self-management, social
communication and related skills are
targeted instruction during daily routines
and transition times.
Teaching activities and instructional
programs are age-appropriate, functional
and of immediate usefulness to students.
Teaching materials that are real rather
than simulated are used.
Student goals are based on CA State
Standards (i.e. SEACO curriculum).
Vocational and career options, including
supported work opportunities, are available
for secondary students.
An Individualized Transition Program is
considered at age 14, developed and
implemented by age 16.
Instruction occurs in small groups or 1:1,
when appropriate, and is individualized
per student need.
Instructional Assistants are assigned to
the program and not to individual
students.
81
Confidentiality of student information is
maintained (IEP goals, medical and
behavioral information).
Accountability
Supervision and evaluation of staff providing
services to students with moderate/severe
disabilities is completed by EDCOE
administration, with consultation provided by
site and district special education
administration.
Anecdotal information and measurable
data is collected on each student’s IEP
goals regularly (daily, weekly, monthly).
Examples
Student’s participation in CA state
assessments is appropriately identified
and documented on the student’s IEP.
Examples
Ob PI Ad
SI R
Evident
Inconsistent
Not
Evident
N/A
Examples
Comments
82
Communication and Collaboration
General education and special education
staffs collaborate regularly to plan
modifications and adaptations for diverse
student needs.
Examples
General education and special education
staff collaborate to provide access to
core curriculum.
Examples
Special education teachers attend age
and grade level team meetings at their
school sites.
Examples
DIS and related services are provided in a
variety of ways, including 1:1 pullout and
integrated groups including typically
developing peers.
Comments
Examples
Ob PI Ad
SI R
Evident
Inconsistent
Not
Evident
N/A
83
Staff Development
Written policy and procedures exist in
both the classroom and the health office
for individual medical and behavioral
emergencies.
Examples
Prior to the start of school, and
throughout the school year, staff are
trained and monitored in emergency
procedures and individual medical
protocols.
Examples
In-service is provided to general education
students, staff paraprofessionals, parents
and administrators regarding:
Examples





Ob PI Ad
SI R
Evident
Inconsistent
Not
Evident
N/A
Ability awareness
Inclusive practices
Learning styles
Social interactions
Behavioral strategies
Multicultural practices and staff
development activities support English
language learners according to linguistic
and cultural needs.
Examples
84
In order to promote best practices in
special education, staff attend
professional development activities and
implement strategies gained through inservices and seminars.
Examples
Classroom personnel, volunteers and
visitors are made aware of the need to
maintain confidentiality of student
information.
Examples
Comments
85
86
Sample Correspondence
The following pages provide sample correspondence documents for use by the
Review Team in setting up, conducting and closing the Program Quality Review
activities.
The samples include:
1. Letter to the volunteer Team Leader
2. Letter to Team Members
3. Letter to Teachers of Programs to be reviewed
87
88
89
90
Review Preparation
Review Process
Action Plan—Date
Completed:
_________________
Training Date:
_____________
Review Date:
_____________
Prepare for Review –
Assemble necessary
materials
Date: ____________
Prepare for Review – data
collection
Date: ______________
91
Preparing for the Review—Data Collection
In order to prepare for the Program Quality Review, each site must complete the
following steps prior to the site visit (please see forms at the end of this section):
1. Gather and summarize parent input –make certain it is returned prior to the
review
2. Update your Action Plan, if applicable
3. Complete the Quality Indicators Reflection document
Preparing for the Review—Assemble Necessary Materials
In order to have a successful review, it is necessary for school site staff and their
administrator to prepare for the day. This will involve preparing the site for the
review as well as collecting data and other materials for the review team to use as
part of their review.
You should make available:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Conference Room or other designated (confidential) work space
Computer
Phone
Name Tags
White Board and Pens
You will need to collect and present to the Review Team the following information:
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Daily Schedule
Bell Schedule
Map of School
Sample lesson or daily plans
Sample of student goals (names blacked out)
Sample IEP (names blacked out)
Sample, list or other verification of age-appropriate activities (classroom
and campus-wide)
Proof of unique services or programs at your school
Copy of Emergency Procedures you follow (fire drills, lockdown drills, etc)
Demonstration of inclusive opportunities
Names of teachers (and subjects) open to inclusive opportunities
Examples of curriculum and teaching materials
Honors for your program or school
Parent input opportunities
92
□
□
□
days
□
Community based instruction opportunities
Schedule of site and EDCOE staff meetings
Schedule of Collaboration days and discussion of what you do on these
Parent contact log/samples (names blacked out)
93
Parent Survey Questions
Program Quality Review
As a part of our Program Quality Review process, we are seeking input from parents
regarding our program, the education your child is receiving, and your perceptions about
integration on the campus.
Please answer the following questions. If you need more space, do not hesitate to add
extra sheets of paper or use the back of this form.
When you have finished, please return it in the envelope provided. This information is due
to our office no later than ________________.
1. Are you pleased with your child’s school program?
2. If you could change anything about the school program, what would you change?
3. Do you have the opportunity to give input into your child’s IEP goals prior to the
IEP meeting?
4. Do you have regular communication with your child’s teacher?
5. Do you feel your child is an accepted, participating member of their school?
6. Are you invited to participate in school activities and parent groups, e.g. PTA,
assemblies, field trips, etc.?
7. Do you feel your child’s unique needs are being met?
94
Action Plan Update
School Site: __________________________
Class: ______________________________
Date: ______________________________
Update information regarding your last Action Plan (dated ____________).
Your plan should be updated quarterly. Please provide all quarterly updates to the
Program Quality Review Team when your program is reviewed.
95
Quality Indicator Reflections (Kathy Doering, CRI, 2005)
Indicators for Arranging Instructional Contexts
Are These Indicators Present?
Meaningful Curriculum, Schedule

Routines are consistent and taught in natural contexts

Activities are scheduled for an appropriate length of time

Skills taught effect the quality of the students’ lives

Curricular adaptations help the students learn and be seen as
competent
Active Participation

Students are actively engaged with minimal down time

Adaptive equipment/materials are used as needed

Students are engaged in functional and active learning activities
Skill Acquisition

Educational goals are clearly outlined

IEP objectives are consistently taught

Teaching strategies are specified and utilized
Individualized, Age-Appropriate

Students are treated in age-appropriate manner

Materials, activities are similar to that of their same-aged peers

‘what to teach’ is based on individual students’ unique needs

Families participate in educational priorities
Choices and Communication

Students are given choices throughout the day

Students have a means to communicate their wants, needs

Students have a mechanism to communicate with
school/community members
Documentation of Student Progress

Performance data are collected on IEP goals
Social Interactions/Friendships/Social Connections

Students interact with their peers, teacher and site staff

Students have consistent and regular opportunities to interact

Students are helped to know what is “cool” and connect with others
Naturally Supported

Peers and class teacher take initiative to assist students
Member of School/Community Setting

Students are a visible and viable part of the setting and school

Students are called on and directed by classroom teacher

The principle of “natural proportion” is adhered to

Students eat lunch with grade level—students are dispersed
among typical peers

Regular integration activities occur

Students have valued roles and make meaningful contributions
YES
Focus of Class?
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
96
Indicators for Instruction and Group Management
√ all that are occurring in your classroom or at your site
□
LESSON/GROUP MANAGEMENT
Effectively positions Ss to manage behaviors, group
□
SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION
Establishes Ss attention before speaking
□
Provides clear introduction specific to lesson/activity
□
Gives clear, simple directions
□
□
Creates a motivating context for learning
Maintains participation of al Ss throughout activities
□
□
Knows and teaches skills targeted for instruction
Applies consistent and accurate use of prompt
procedures
□
Praises Ss for all desirable behaviors
□
Gives Ss time to respond
□
Provides relevant information & rationale to peers
□
Delivers positive reinforcement for correct
responses
□
Enables Ss to make choices throughout activity
□
Provides consistent feedback for incorrect
responses
□
Scans area to anticipate behavior, provide
intervention
□
Avoids multiple, repetitive directives and excessive
talk
□
Adapts activity so all Ss can participate meaningfully
□
Facilitates interactions between Ss and peers
□
Designs/follows written plans, outlines to guide
instruction
□
Provides closure to wrap up activity, lesson
□
□
Cleans up, returns materials
Allows sufficient time for & facilitates smooth
transitions
□
Collects student performance data regularly and
consistently
□
Follows schedule – adheres to start/end times
□
Obtains and saves important student work samples
□
Documents how much help Ss receive to complete
work
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
□
Includes Ss in the discussion/summary of their
performance
□
□
□
Helps enforce class expectations
Works with ALL students
Provides support to Ss, moves around class, &
returns as needed
□
Completes and updates graphs of behavioral data
□
Makes on-the-spot decisions that demonstrate
common sense
□
□
Points out Ss successes and positive progress
Creates and/or uses modifications to help Ss
participate
□
ADVOCATES FOR Ss
Helps Ss to be as independent of adult assistance
as possible
□
Reacts appropriately to unexpected situations
□
Positively interprets unusual S behavior,
differences, actions
□
Uses positive strategies versus punitive procedures
□
□
Takes initiative to provide support as needed
□
Helps others understand S communication
attempts
Responds appropriately to questions asked about
the Ss
□
Directs peers to support Ss
□
□
Assist and collaborates with class teacher
TRACKING STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Identifies key moments to provide information to
help others better understand the Ss
97
Program Review
Program Review Preparation
Prior to the review day, three specific planning activities will occur:
1. The Review Team and the Site Team will have attended a training where
the review agenda and document preparation were discussed. During this
training, details concerning a meeting space for the Review Team,
computer needs and phone needs will be clarified.
2. The Site Team prepares all of the required documentation necessary for the
review.
3. Any additional information required for the Review Team is gathered,
including schedules, nametags, etc.
On the day of the scheduled review, the following agenda will be followed:
1. Site Team arrives at agreed upon time (usually between 8:00 and 8:30 in
the morning).
2. The Review Team and the Site Team meet briefly to discuss the agenda,
determine the specific observations to be made, review site specific
information (policies and procedures, notebooks, training documentation,
etc.) 8:30-8:45
3. The Team reviews the site using the Quality Program Indicators document.
8:45 to 12:00
4. After all observations and data gathering are complete, the team meets for
a working lunch to discuss Evident. 12:00-1:00
5. If further observations or data gathering are needed, it can be done at this
point.
6. The team prepares a written draft of Evident. 1:00-1:30
7. The team prepares an oral exit interview of Evident and discusses with the
site team prior to departure. 1:30-2:30
98
Sample Review Documents
On the following pages are samples of complete reviews to be used as guides for
developing the final Program Quality Review Document.
Included in this sample is:
 Program Summary Report
 Final Report by Standard Area
 Recommendations/Commendations
 Action Plan
99
Program Quality Review
Program Summary Report
School Reviewed:
Buckeye School
Program:
K-5 Full Inclusion
Date of Review:
Review Team:
Betsy Christ, Executive Director
Kathleen Tourigny, Regional Teacher – Transition Program
Deedra Devine, Site Principal
Sandy Keefe, parent
Site Team:
Janet Bath, Inclusion Teacher
Betty Connolly, Principal of EDCOE Programs
Lisa Laird, School Psychologist
, Speech/Language Specialist
Location and Population:
Buckeye Elementary School is one of seven schools in the K-8 Buckeye Union
School District. The district serves the communities of Shingle Springs, Cameron
Park, and El Dorado hills in El dorado County.
The school has an approximate enrollment of 448 students, which includes the 11
students in the full inclusion program for students with severe disabilities operated
by the El Dorado County Office of Education. The enrollment by grade for the
2008-09 school year was as follows:
Grade Level
Enrollment
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Total Enrollment
71
71
67
80
86
73
448
Inclusion
Enrollment
2
2
1
1
3
2
11
The following table displays the percent of students enrolled at the school who are
identified as being in a particular group.
100
Group
African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Filipino
Hispanic or Latino
Pacific Islander
White (not Hispanic)
Multiple or No Response
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
English Language Learners
Students with Disabilities
Percent of Enrollment
0.67%
2.23%
0.45%
0.22%
6.70%
1.56%
87.28%
0.89%
30.00%
2.00%
17.00%
The 2009 API Scores for Buckeye School were 860 for all students, 864 for White
(not Hispanic), 792 for Socioeconomically Disadvantaged and 730 for students
with disabilities.
The school’s vision is to provide an environment that encourages each child to
make maximum learning progress. Their mission supports students, staff,
parents, and the community working together to help students be the best they
can be intellectually, emotionally, socially, and physically.
The Buckeye Elementary School students and staff believe that they are jointly
accountable for high expectations and academic accountability. The staff enjoys
teaching and the students enjoy learning. Their motto says it all – together we can
make a difference.
101
Program Quality Review
Final Report by Standards Area
School:
Buckeye Elementary School
Program:
K-5 Full Inclusion
Date of Review:
Participants:
Betsy Christ, Kathleen Tourigny, Sandy Keefe, Deedra Devine
Date of Final Report:
Standard Area – Assessment
Examples
Students’ learning styles and preference
areas are considered when developing
instructional plans.
Parents are part of the planning, placement and
IEP process.
Parent questionnaires and interviews are utilized
in the development of IEP goals and program
planning.
Comments
Standard Area – Least Restrictive
Environment
Students participate with same-age general
education peers in a variety of academic and
non-academic activities and settings, with
support.
School-wide instructional programs (Media
Center, Computer Lab, P.E., Music) incorporate
planned, frequent, ongoing interaction with age
appropriate general education students.
Educational placement of each student is based
on student needs and not on the disability
category.
Prior to a change of placement for behavioral
reasons a Behavior Support Plan has been
implemented.
Community based instruction is provided
as appropriate.
Examples
102
Students follow the same bell schedule as the
general education student body (calendar, hours,
etc.).
Students attend school during the same
hours and for the same number of
instructional minutes as the general
education student body.
Comments
Standard Area – Classroom Setting
Behavioral needs are addressed through nonaversive methods, using positive behavior
support strategies designed to promote selfdetermination and self-management.
A written schedule is posted in the
classroom that reflects time, grouping
and location of instruction and staff
responsible. Modified or adapted
schedules (Boardmaker, icons, etc.) are
available as needed.
Activities and school support and resources
personnel are provided to enhance positive
social relationships.
The school promotes and supports
participation of all families in school
functions (PTA, school committees, Sober
Grad Night, sports, parent activities).
School resources are available and
accessible to all students (computer labs,
AV equipment, library, furniture,
curricular materials).
Classroom and other instructional settings
reflect the chronological age of the
students being served.
Classes are heterogeneous, composed of
students of wide-ranging abilities and
Examples
103
needs.
Comments
Standard Area – Instruction
Modifications to the general education
classroom are implemented and
documented as appropriate in the
student’s IEP.
Student instructional needs are met through
individualized modifications of general education
core standards.
Students receive instruction along side
typically disabled peers to the maximum
extent possible.
Students are included in age appropriate
instructional activities regardless of severity of
disability.
Curriculum and instruction are based on
grade-level curriculum standards for ageappropriate general education peers.
Instruction for all students includes
development of social, behavioral and
academic skills necessary to participate in
general education environments.
Independence, self-management, social
communication and related skills are
targeted instruction during daily routines
and transition times.
Teaching activities and instructional
programs are age-appropriate, functional
and of immediate usefulness to students.
Teaching materials that are real rather
than simulated are used.
Examples
104
Student goals are based on CA State
Standards (i.e. SEACO curriculum).
Vocational and career options, including
supported work opportunities, are available for
secondary students.
An Individualized Transition Program is
considered at age 14, developed and
implemented by age 16.
Instruction occurs in small groups or 1:1,
when appropriate, and is individualized
per student need.
Instructional Assistants are assigned to
the program and not to individual
students.
Confidentiality of student information is
maintained (IEP goals, medical and
behavioral information).
Comments
Standard Area –
Accountability
Examples
Supervision and evaluation of staff providing
services to students with moderate/severe
disabilities is completed by EDCOE
administration, with consultation provided by site
and district special education administration.
Anecdotal information and measurable
data is collected on each student’s IEP
goals regularly (daily, weekly, monthly).
Student’s participation in CA state
assessments is appropriately identified
and documented on the student’s IEP.
Comments
Standard Area –
Communication and
Examples
105
Collaboration
General education and special education
staffs collaborate regularly to plan
modifications and adaptations for diverse
student needs.
General education and special education
staff collaborate to provide access to core
curriculum.
Special education teachers attend age
and grade level team meetings at their
school sites.
DIS and related services are provided in a
variety of ways, including 1:1 pullout and
integrated groups including typically developing
peers.
Comments
Standard Area – Staff
Development
Written policy and procedures exist in
both the classroom and the health office
for individual medical and behavioral
emergencies.
Prior to the start of school, and
throughout the school year, staff are
trained and monitored in emergency
procedures and individual medical
protocols.
In-service is provided to general education
students, staff paraprofessionals, parents and
administrators regarding:





Ability awareness
Inclusive practices
Learning styles
Social interactions
Behavioral strategies
Examples
106
Multicultural practices and staff
development activities support English
language learners according to linguistic
and cultural needs.
In order to promote best practices in
special education, staff attend
professional development activities and
implement strategies gained through inservices and seminars.
Classroom personnel, volunteers and
visitors are made aware of the need to
maintain confidentiality of student
information.
Comments
107
Program Quality Review
Final Review Team Recommendations/Commendations
Program: K-5 Full Inclusion at Buckeye School
Standard
Assessment
Least Restrictive
Environment
Classroom
Setting
Instruction
Accountability
Communication
and
Collaboration
Staff
Development
Comments/Notes
Recommendations
Commendations
Site:
Buckeye Elementary School
Recommendation
ACTION PLAN
Class: K-5 Full Inclusion
Action for Improvement
Date Submitted:_____________
Timeline
Resources
Needed
Staff
Responsible
Date Verified
Assessment
None
LRE
Classroom Setting
Instruction
Accountability
Communication and Collaboration
Staff Development
108
109
REFERENCES
AbilityPath.org, 2010. Support for parents of children with special needs
.http://www.abilitypath.org/
Bjork, L.G., & Blase, J. (2009). The micropolitics of school district decentralization.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 195-208.
Bolt, S.E., & Roach, A. T., (2009). Inclusive Assessment and Accountability: A Guide to
Accommodations for Students with Diverse Needs, New York: Guilford Press.
Calculator, S.N. & Black, T., (2009). Validation of an inventory of best practices in the
provision of augmentative and alternative communication services to students
with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology 18, 329-342.
California Department of Education, Specialized Programs, State Administration, 2010,
List of state statutes, regulations, or policies that are state-imposed and are not
required by the IDEA of 2004. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/as/stateadminlst10.asp
Cameto, R., Knokey, A., Nagle, K., Sanford, C., Blackorby, J., Sinclair, B., et al. (2009).
State Profiles on Alternate Assessments Based on Alternate Achievement
Standards: A Report from the National Study on Alternate Assessments. NCSER
2009-3013. National Center for Special Education Research, Retrieved October
17, 2010, from ERIC database.
110
Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M. & Landrum, T.J. (2009). Determining evidence-based
practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children, 75(3), 365383.
Cooney, B. (2001). The widening gap of intolerance: An analysis of standards-based
reforms and special education in secondary schools. American Educational
Research Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA. Retrieved September 29,
2008, from ERIC database.
Dorn, S., (2010). The political dilemmas of formative assessment. Council for
Exceptional Children, 76(3), 325-337.
Downing, J.E., (2010). Academic Instruction for Students with Moderate and Severe
Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Downing, J.E. & Peckham-Hardin, K.D., (2007). Inclusive education: what makes it a
good education for students with moderate to severe disabilities? Research and
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 16-30.
Dymond, S.K., Renzaglia, A., Rosentein, A., Chun, E. J., Banks, R. A., Niswander, V., &
Gilson, C. L. (2006). Using a participatory action research approach to create a
universally designed inclusive high school science course: a case study. Research
and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 293-308.
Engelmann, S. & Carnine, D. (1991). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications.
Eugene, OR: ADI Press.
111
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of
special education reform. Exceptional Children 60, 294-316. Retrieved October
11, 2008, from Questia database.
Furney, K., Brody Hasazi, S., Clark/Keefe, K., Hartnett, J. (2003). A longitudinal
analysis of shifting policy landscapes in special and general education. Council
for Exceptional Children, 70(1), 81-94.
Greenwood, C.R., Walker, D., Hornbeck, M., Hebbeler, K., Spiker, D. (2007). Progress
developing the Kansas early childhood special education accountability
system. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27(1), 2-18.
Halvorsen, A.T., & Neary, T., (2001). Building Inclusive Schools: tools and strategies
for success. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Itkonen, T., & Jahnukainen, M. (March 2007). An analysis of accountability policies in
Finland and the United States. International Journal of Disability, Development
and Education, 54(1), 5-23.
Jackson, L.B., Ryndak, D.L., Wehmeyer, M.L. (2009). The dynamic relationship
between context, curriculum, and student learning: a case for inclusive education
as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 33-4(4-1), 175-195.
Johnson, G.M. (2009). Instructionism and constructivism: reconciling two very good
ideas. International Journal of Special Education 24 (3), 90-98. Retrieved
September 23, 2010, from ERIC database.
112
Kubina, R.M., Kostewicz, D.E. & Datchuk, S.M. (June 2010). Graph and table use in
special education: a review and analysis of the communication of data.
Evaluation & Research in Education 23(2), 105-119.
Madden, N., Slavin, R, Karweit, N., Dolan, L., and Wasik, B. (1991). Success for all.
Phi Delta Kappan 72: 593-599.
McLaughlin, M.J., Malmgren, K., Nolet, V. (2006). Accountability for students with
disabilities who receive special education: characteristics of the subgroup of
students with disabilities. Educational Policy Research Reform Institute.
Retrieved October 15, 2010 from www.eprri.org.
McLaughlin, M.J. & Rhim, L.M. (2007). Accountability frameworks and children with
disabilities: a test of assumptions about improving public education for all
students. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(1),
25-49.
McDonnell, L., McLaughlin, M., & Morison, P. (Eds.) (1997). Educating one and all:
Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press. Retrieved September 29 and October 11, 2008, from
National Academies Press.
Ryndak, D.L., Moore, M.A., Orlando, A. & Delano, M. (2009). Access to the general
curriculum: the mandate and role of context in research-based practice for
students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 33(4), 199-213.
113
Sailor, W., & Skrtic, T. (1969, September). School/community partnerships and
educational reform. Remedial & Special Education, 17 (5), 267. Retrieved
September 29, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Samuels, C., (2008). Ed. dept. not backing down on disabilities-data mandate.
Education Week 28(13). Retrieved October 17, 2010, from EBSCO Publishing.
Samuels, C., Delgado, R., & Lincoln, R. (2010). Value of IDEA ratings questioned.
Education Week 28(36). Retrieved October 15, 2010, from EBSCO Publishing.
Shippen, M., Houchins, D., Calhoon, M., Furlow, C., & Sartor, D. (2006,
November/December). The effects of comprehensive school reform models in
reading for urban middle school students with disabilities. Remedial & Special
Education, 27, 322-328.
Schrag, J. (2003, Spring). No child left behind and its implications for students with
disabilities. The Special Edge 16(2), 1-12.
Skrtic, T. (2005, Spring). A political economy of learning disabilities. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 149-155. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from
Academic Search Premier database.
Skrtic, T., & Sailor, W. (1996, September). School-linked services integration. Remedial
& Special Education 17(5), 271. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from Academic
Search Premier database.
Sorrells, A., Rieth, H., & Sindelar, P. (2004). Critical issues in special education:
Access, diversity, and accountability. Boston: Pearson.
114
Spaulding, L.S. (2009, January). Best practices and interventions in special education:
how do we know what works? TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 5(3)
Article 2. Retrieved February 17, 2010 from
http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol5/iss3/art2.
Spooner, F., Dymond, S. K., Smith, A., Kennedy, C.H. (2006). What we know and
need to know about accessing the general curriculum for students with
significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 31(4), 277-283.
Taut, S. (2008, October). What have we learned about stakeholder involvement in
program evaluation? Studies in Educational Evaluation 34(2008) 224-230.
Retrieved from www.elsevier.com/stueduc.
Thornton, B., Hill, G., Usinger, J. (2006). An examination of a fissure within the
implementation of the NCLB accountability process. Education ,127(1), 115120.
Tolley, H., & Shulruf, B. (2009, June). From data to knowledge: the interaction between
data management systems in educational institutions and the delivery of quality
education. Computers and Education, 53(2009) 1199-1206. Retrieved from
www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu.
Towles-Reeves, E., Kleinert, H., Muhomba, M. (2009). Alternate assessment: have we
learned anything new? Council for Exceptional Children, 75(2), 233-252.
115
Truscott, S., Catanese, A., & Abrams, L. (2005, May 1). The evolving context of special
education classification in the United States. School Psychology International,
26(2), 162-177. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from ERIC database.
VanSciver, J.H., & Conover, V.A., (2009). Making accommodations work for students
in the special education setting. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 6(2), 110.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(OSERS), Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), Data Analysis System
(DANS), 1976-2006. Retrieved October 14, 2008, from
http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml.
Will, M., (1986, February). Educating children with learning problems: A shared
responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52(5), 411-415.
Willis, L., (2010). Is the process of special measures an effective tool for bringing about
authentic school improvement? Management in Education 24(4), 142-148.
Retrieved October 15, 2010, from http://mie.sagepub.com.
Yell, M.L., Shriner, J.G., Katsiyannis, A., (2006). Individuals with disabilities education
improvement act of 2004 and IDEA regulations of 2006: implications for
educators, administrators and teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children,
36(1), 1-24.
Young, V. M., & Kim, D. H. (2010, August). Using assessments for instructional
improvement: a literature review. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18 (19).
Retrieved September 23, 2010, from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/809.