In an investigation of three comprehensive school reform models, Accelerated Schools, Roots and Wings, and Voices of Love and Freedom, teacher surveys were collected and analyzed to determine their impact on special education. There were no differences found in the special education teachers' perceptions of the models in the areas of professional development, resources, pedagogical changes, or outcomes. Teachers reported that there was increased inclusion and social interaction for special education students as well as some accommodations for students' learning needs. Weaknesses identified in implementation included a fast-paced curriculum and lack of modifications for special education students. Although the literature on these school reform models promises to improve the learning of all students at the school, especially at-risk students, the special education teachers in the urban school district gave mixed views on whether implementation of their school's model was of great benefit to their students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ahearn, E. M. (1994). Involvement of students with disabilities in the New American Schools Development Corporation projects. Project FORUM. ERIC Document No. ED371513.
2.
Alexander, K. (1992). Financing the public schools of the United States: A perspective on effort, need, and equity. Journal of Educational Finance, 17(3), 122-144.
3.
Alberg, M., & Ross, S. M. (1999). The Comprehensive School Reform Teacher Questionnaire (CSRTQ). Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
4.
Bol, L., Nunnery, J. A., Lowther, D. L., Pace, J. B., Anderson, R. S., Bassoppo-Moyo, T. C., et al. (1998). Inside-in and outside-in support for restructuring: The effects of internal and external support on change in the New American Schools. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 358-384.
5.
City school reform models hold lessons. (2001, June 21). Commercial Appeal, p. A10.
6.
City University of New York, National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. (1994). National study of inclusive education. New York: Author.
7.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.
8.
Cook, B. G., Semmel, M. I., & Gerber, M. M. (1999). Attitudes of principals and special education teachers toward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities—Critical differences of opinion. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 199-209.
9.
Cooper, R., Slavin, R., & Madden, N. (1998). Success for all: Improving the quality of implementation of whole-school change through the use of a national reform network. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
10.
Cronis, T. G., & Ellis, D. N. (2001). Issues facing special educators in the new millennium. Education, 120(4), 639-649.
11.
Davila, R. R. (1991). America 2000: A challenging opportunity for special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, 5.
12.
Designs for a new generation of American schools: Request for proposals. New American Schools idea gaining converts in legislatures. (1991). Education Week, 12(39), 18.
13.
Fishkin, A. S., & Sullivan, M. (1993). Reforming special education. Eric No. 358985.
14.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
15.
Herman, R. (1999). An educators' guide to schoolwide reform. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
16.
Heward, W. L. (1996). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17.
Koh, M. S. (2002). A study of the relationship between school reform models and special education in Title I elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Memphis.
18.
Memphis City Schools (1999). 1998-1999 School Profiles. Memphis City Schools, Memphis Tennessee.
Pazey, B., Buentello, N., Charney, C., Devanney, M., & Seay, A. (1993). America 2000 and special education: Can the two be merged? Educational Resources Information Center #: ED 360773.
21.
Public Law 103-227. Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
22.
Public Law 105-17, now codified as the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 20 U. S. C. §§ 1400, et seq. (1997).
23.
Ross (2001, August 19). Memphis' school reform models did not have to fail. Commercial Appeal, p. B3
24.
Ross, S., Anderson, R., Bassoppo-Moyo, T., Bol, L., Buggey, T., Dietrich, A., et al. (1997). Evaluation of New American Schools designs: 1996-1997 (Report prepared for Memphis City Schools). Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
25.
Ross, S. M., Alberg, M., Smith, L., Anderson, R., Bol, L., Dietrich, A., et al. (2000). Using whole-school restructuring designs to improve educational outcomes: The Memphis story at year 3. Teaching and Change, 7(2), 111-126.
26.
Ross, S. M., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Stringfield, S. (1998). The Memphis restructuring initiative: Achievement results for Years 1 and 2 on the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS). Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
27.
Ross, S. M., Sanders, W. L., & Wright, S. P. (2000). Fourth-year achievement results on the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System for Restructuring Schools in Memphis. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center For Research in Educational Policy.
28.
Ross, S. M., Wang, L. W., Sanders, W. L, Wright, S. P., & Stringfield, S. (1999a). Two- and three-year achievement results on the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System for Restructuring Schools in Memphis. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
29.
Ross, S. M., Wang, L. W., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Stringfield, S. (1999b). Teacher mobility and effectiveness in restructuring and non-restructuring schools in an inner-city destrict. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
30.
Sailor, W. (1991). Special education in the restructured school. Remedial and Special Education, 12(6), 8-22.
31.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Neverstreaming: Preventing learning disabilities. Educational Leadership, 53(5), 4-7.
32.
Slavin, R., & Madden, N. (1999). Success for All/Roots & Wings: Summary of research on achievement outcomes (Report No. 14). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University & Howard University.
33.
Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. P. (1994). Special education analysis for Success For All in four cities: Final report submitted to Johns Hopkins University. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
34.
Smith, L., Ross, S., McNelis, M., Squires, M., Wasson, R., Maxwell, S., et al. (1998). The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that affect implementation success. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 296-325.
35.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Herman, R., & Berkeley, C., (1997). Introduction to the Memphis restructuring initiative. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(1), 3-35.
37.
Taylor, C. T. (1994). Assessment for measurement of standards: The peril and promise of large-scale assessment reform. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 231-262.
Tye, K. (1992). Restructuring our schools: Beyond the rhetoric. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 8-14.
40.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J., (2000). Laboratory for student success at Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education. Retrieved from http://www.reformhandbook-lss.org/criteria.htm
41.
Wells, A., & Oakes, J. (1996). Potential pitfalls of systemic reform: Early lessons from research on detracking. Sociology of Education, pp. 135-143.
