A Descriptive Landscape of District Special Education Policy Reform for School Improvement

• In Event: What Does a District’s Commitment to “Inclusive Practices” Mean and How Does It Affect School Practices?

Abstract

Traditional theoretical models of systemic reform in education tend to be either bottom up – real reform starts with local school sites - or top down – real reform starts with state/federal agencies (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), but reality is more complex than these models suggests (Finn, 1990). In fact, Rorrer, Skrla, and Scheurich (2008) propose that school districts are active agents with “essential roles” in reform. These roles include: “(a) providing instructional leadership, (b) reorienting organization, (c) establishing policy coherence, and (d) maintaining an equity focus” (p.335). On the basis a theoretical model, this research team focused on the school district as our primary unit of analysis.
As recommended by Stake (1995) and Cresswell (2003) the research team used a mixed-methods case study approach to (a) understand how the school district leadership acted as an independent agent in systemic reform efforts to improve special education service delivery, (b) understand how some elementary, middle, and high schools responded to these district initiatives, and (c) understand how students with disability labels performed in conjunction with these reform efforts. The district itself is located in one of nine states in the nation expected to experience the highest rate of change (projections indicate more than 15% growth) in K-12 enrollment between 2005 and 2017 (NCES, 2008).
Data sources utilized in this case study include a “cleaned” electronic longitudinal database from students (n=approximately 1,400) nested in six school sites (two elementary, two middle, and two high school level). The database contained key demographic variables on students with their state test scores for the past six years. In addition, the research team looked at publically available records (e.g., Annual Progress Reports, District Profiles, School Grade Reports, etc.), conducted interviews with central office staff, observed central office special education leadership meetings and reviewed special education department action plan documents.
Following the tenants of a Stake (1995) case study, both categorical aggregation and direct interpretation were used to analyze the qualitative observation, interview and document data. The research team relied upon a triangulation of data to analyze and understand how the district was seeking to be an active agent in systemic reform of special education service delivery policies and practices. These methods included conducting a textual analysis of (a) official district action plan documents, (b) conducting, transcribing, and analyzing semi-structured interviews with the director of special education and two other district administrators, and (c) observing district-level special education department meetings and training in inclusive practice for principals.
In addition, the research team conducted a hierarchical linear model analysis to interpret the student test score database. Specifically, the research team examined whether differences in learning gains between learning gains of youth with identified exceptionalities and youth without identified exceptionalities existed, controlling for other salient variables. The results indicate overall growth in performance of students with disabilities, noting particularly salient differences between schools that reacted differently to district level reform efforts.

Authors

• Amy Lenee-Monnier Toson, University of South Florida

• Tyler Hicks, University of South Florida

• Sarah R. Semon, University of Northern Iowa

• Leonard C. Burrello, University of South Florida

• Jeannie Kleinhammer-Tramill, University of South Florida