This research contrasts two urban school districts that serve similar populations yet vary notably with respect to the provision of speech and language services. The results suggest that variation in the provision of speech-language services is driven by district-level variations in budgetary and legal contexts as well as procedural differences. This article explores how federal and state education policies, district policies, budgetary and legal pressures, as well as procedural differences work in concert to shape the implementation of Individuals With Disabilities Education Act with respect to the provision of services to students with speech-language impairments.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Admission/discharge criteria in speech-language pathology. Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved from www.asha.org/policy
2.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010a). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in schools. Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/policy/PI2010-00317/
AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS. (2007). Making sense of school sanctioning policies in urban high schools: Charting the depth and drift of school and classroom change. Teachers College Record, 109, 1261-1302.
5.
AudS.FoxM.KewalRamaniA. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups (NCES 2010-015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015.pdf
6.
BerningerV. W.VermeulenK.AbbottR. D.McCutchenD.CottonS.CudeJ.. . . SharonT. (2003). Comparison of three approaches to supplementary reading instruction for low-achieving second-grade readers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 101-116.
7.
BogdanR. C.BiklenS. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
8.
Booher-JenningsJ. (2006). Rationing education in an era of accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 756-761.
9.
BrandelJ.LoebD. F. (2012, January17). Service delivery in schools: A national survey: A survey finds that 30-minute speech-language sessions once or twice a week remain the norm. The ASHA Leader.
10.
ChambersJ.ParrishT.HarrJ. (2002). What are we spending on special education services in the United States, 1999-2000 (Special Education Expenditures Project [SEEP]). Palo Alto, CA: Center for Special Education Finance, American Institutes for Research.
11.
CoburnC. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145-170.
12.
CoburnC. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211-244.
13.
CoburnC. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 343-379.
14.
DatnowA.CastellanoM. (2000). Teachers response to success for all: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations share implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 775-799.
15.
DornerL. (2012). The life course and sense-making: Immigrant families’ journeys toward understanding educational policies and choosing bilingual programs. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 461-486.
16.
DrakeC. (2002). Experience counts: Career stage and teachers’ responses to mathematics education reform. Educational Policy, 16, 311-337.
FieldingN.FieldingJ. (1986). Linking data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19.
GillamR. B.LoebD. F.Friel-PattiS. (2001). Looking back: A summary of five exploratory studies of Fast ForWord. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 269-273.
20.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.
21.
HallP. M.McGintyP. J. M. (1997). Policy as the transformation of intentions: Producing programs from a stature. Sociological Quarterly, 38, 439-467.
22.
HanushekE. (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. Economic Journal, 113(485), F64–F98.
23.
HarryB.KlingnerJ. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
HehirT. (2005). New directions in special education: Eliminating ableism in policy and practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
26.
HehirT.FigueroaR.GammS.KatzmanL.GrunerA.KargerJ.HernandezJ. (2005, September20). Comprehensive management review and evaluation of special education (Submitted to the New York City Department of Education). Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/FinalHehirReport092005.pdf
27.
HehirT. F. (1990). The impact of due process on the programmatic decisions of special education directors (Doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
28.
HillH. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 289-320.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446 (2004).
31.
KaegiS.SvitichK.ChambersL.BakkerC.SchneiderP. (2002). Job satisfaction of school speech-language pathologists. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 26, 126-137.
32.
KatsiyannisA.LosinskiM.PrinceA. T. (2012). Litigation and students with disabilities: A persistent concern. NASSP Bulletin, 96, 23-43.
LinA. C. (1998). Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26, 162-180.
35.
LincolnY.GubaE. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36.
LortieD. C. (2002). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
37.
MaxwellJ. A. (2006). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
McFaddenT. U. (1996). Creating language impairments in typically achieving children: The pitfalls of “normal” normative. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 3-9.
39.
McLaughlinM. W.TalbertJ. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
40.
MeyerH. (2006). The rise and decline of the common school as an institution: Taking “myth and ceremony” seriously. In MeyerH.RowanB. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 51-56). Albany: State University of New York Press.
41.
MeyerH. D.RowanB. (2006). Institutional analysis and the study of education. In MeyerH. D.RowanB. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 1-13). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
42.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
43.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The nation’s report card: Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 NAEP reading assessment (NCES 2013-452). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2013452.pdf
44.
ParrishT. (2002). Racial disparities in identification, funding, and provision of special education. In LosenD.OrfieldG. (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 15-37). Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project and the Harvard Education Press.
45.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. J. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Albany: State University of New York Press.
47.
RyanC. (2013, August). Language use in the United States: 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf
48.
RylanceB.ChiangB.RussS.Dobbs-WhitcombS. (1999). Special education caseload and class size policies in the fifty states. Madison: Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction.
SeidmanI. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
51.
SpauldingT.PlanteE.FarinellaK. (2006). Eligibility criteria for language impairment: Is the low end of normal always appropriate?Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 61-72.
52.
SpillaneJ. P.BurchP. (2006). The institutional environment and instructional practice: Changing patterns of guidance and control in public education. In RowanB.MeyerH. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 87-102). Albany: State University of New York Press.
53.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387-431.
54.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
SylvanL. (2013). Speech-language services in public schools: How ambiguity in IDEA eligibility criteria impacts speech-language pathologists in a litigious and resource constrained environment (Doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
TyackD.CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58.
UkrainetzT. A. (2006). The implications of RTI and EBP for SLPs: Commentary on L.M. justice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 298-303.
59.
UkrainetzT. A.FresquezE. F. (2003). What isn’t language? A qualitative study of the role of the school speech-language pathologist. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 284-298.
60.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2010, June). Process and Criteria Used to Evaluate a Request by States to Waive Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Requirements Under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/moe-waivers.pdf
61.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2012). Thirty-first Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2009/parts-b-c/31st-idea-arc.pdf
62.
WarrenS. F.FeyM. E.YoderP. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 70-77.
63.
WeatherlyR. A.LipskyM. (1977). Street level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 171-197.
