The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) requires that all students with disabilities (SWD) receive a free, appropriate public education designed to meet their unique needs to prepare them for post-school education and employment (American Psychological Association, 2018). In the past two decades, momentum has grown for a supplementary idea: that schools be held accountable for SWD achieving grade-level standards. Thus standards-based reform for SWD is often caught between ideals of standardization and principles of differentiation.
Purpose and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which district administrators, principals, general educators, and special educators differ in their policy perceptions of the newest college- and career-readiness standards (CCRS) for SWD versus other learners. Our research questions were: To what extent do teachers of SWD report delivering similar or different instructional content compared to general education teachers? What types of instructional supports do teachers provide, what types of professional development do teachers receive, and how do these differ by teacher type? How do policy perceptions differ between teachers of SWD and general education teachers? How do district administrators, principals, and teachers differ in their policy perceptions of the CCRS as they relate to SWD?
Research Design
In three states (Texas, Ohio, and Kentucky), we surveyed a stratified sample of teachers, principals, and district administrators on the implementation of their state's standards and directed them to respond for SWD who participate in the regular accountability system.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Results indicate an environment where SWD continue to receive less grade-level content and, in Texas and Ohio, are served by personnel who do not believe that the standards are appropriate. Kentucky demonstrated greater consistencies between general education and SWD instruction and policy environments. Findings raise questions about whether CCRS are being implemented for all students.
BlankR. K. (2004). Findings on alignment of instruction using enacted curriculum data: Results from urban schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA. Retrieved from https://secure.wceruw.org/seconline/Reference/BlankAlignmentPaperAERA04.doc
5.
BurnsE. (2003). A handbook for supplementary AIDS and services: A best practice and IDEA guide to enable children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.
6.
CarmichaelS. B.MartinoG.Porter-MageeK., & WilsonW. S. (2010). The state of the state standards—and the Common Core—in 2010. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED516607.pdf.
7.
CluneW. H. (1993). Systemic educational policy: A conceptual framework. In FuhrmanS. H. (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy (pp. 125—140). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8.
CohenD. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 123, 327—345.
9.
CohenD., & MehtaJ. (2017). Why reform sometimes succeeds: Understanding the conditions that produce the reforms that last. American Educational Research Journal, 545, 644—690.
DesimoneL. M. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented?Review of Educational Research, 723, 433—479.
12.
DesimoneL. M., & Le FlochK. C. (2004). Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive interviews to improve surveys in education research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 261, 1—22.
13.
DesimoneL. M.StornaiuoloA.FloresN.PakK.EdgertonA. K.NicholsT. P.PlummerE., & PorterA. (2019). Success and challenges of the “new” college- and career-readiness standards: Seven implementation trends. Educational Researcher, 483, 167—178.
14.
DornS.FuchsD., & FuchsL. S. (1996). A historical perspective on special education reform. Theory into Practice, 351, 12—19.
15.
EdgertonA. K., & DesimoneL. M. (2018). Teacher implementation of college- and career-readiness standards: Links among policy, instruction, challenges and resources. Manuscript submitted for publication.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.WehbyJ.SchumacherR. F.GerstenR., & JordanN. C. (2015). Inclusion versus specialized intervention for very low-performing students: What does access mean in an era of academic challenge?Exceptional Children, 812, 134—157.
18.
GartnerA., & LipskyD. K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 574, 367—396.
19.
HendersonM. B.WestM. R.PetersonP. E., & BarrowsS. (2017). Ten-year trends in public opinion from the EdNext poll. Education Next, 171, 8—28.
MayerD. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 211, 29—45.
22.
McLeskeyJ., & WaldronN. L. (2011). Educational programs for elementary students with learning disabilities: Can they be both effective and inclusive?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 261, 48—57.
23.
MehtaJ. (2013). The allure of order: High hopes, dashed expectations and the troubled quest to remake American schooling. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
MillardM., & AragonS. (2015, June). State funding for students with disabilities. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561943.pdf
25.
National Research Council. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
PakK.EdgertonA. K.DesimoneL. M, & SongM. (2018). Implementation of college- and career-readiness standards: A 50-state comparison. Manuscript submitted for publication.
29.
PiantaR., & WalshD. (2013). High-risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining relationships. New York: Routledge.
30.
PolikoffM. S. (2012). The association of state policy attributes with teachers’ instructional alignment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 343, 278—294.
31.
PolikoffM.PorterA., & SmithsonJ. (2011). How well aligned are state assessments of student achievement with state content standards?American Educational Research Journal, 484, 965—995.
32.
PorterA. C. (1994). National standards and school improvement in the 1990s: Issues and promise. American Journal of Education, 1024, 421—449.
33.
PorterA. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 317, 3—14.
34.
PorterA. C.FlodenR.FreemanD.SchmidtW., & SchwilleJ. (1988). Content determinants in elementary school mathematics. In GrouwsD. A., & CooneyT. J. (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematical teaching (pp. 96—113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
PorterA. C.McMakenJ.HwangJ., & YangR. (2011). Common Core Standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 403, 103—116.
36.
PorterA. C.PolikoffM. S.ZeidnerT., & SmithsonJ. (2008). The quality of content analyses of state student achievement tests and content standards. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 274, 2—14.
37.
PowellS. R.FuchsL. S., & FuchsD. (2013). Reaching the mountaintop: Addressing the Common Core Standards in mathematics for students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 281, 38—48.
38.
SpillaneJ. P. (2009). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
SupovitzJ. (2017). Social media is the new player in the politics of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 993, 50—55.
40.
ThompsonS. J.MorseA. B.SharpeM., & HallS. (2005). Accommodations manual: How to select, administer, and evaluate use of accommodations for instruction and assessment of students with disabilities. Washington, D.C.: The Council of Chief State School Officers.
41.
ThurlowM.RogersC., & LazarusS. S. (2017). 2016 survey of states–Initiatives, trends, and accomplishments. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/2016stateSurveyReport.pdf
