Learning Disabilities and the LRE Mandate: An Examination of National and State Trends

This study was conducted to examine changes in the identification rates and national and state placement practices for school age students with learning disabilities (LD) between 1990–1991 and 2008–2009. Findings revealed that while identification rates of students with LD declined by about 4 percent during this time, general education placements increased over 166 percent, pullout placements declined by more than 50 percent, while students educated in highly restrictive separate class and separate school settings declined by approximately 60 percent. Unlike earlier studies, most states made at least some progress toward educating students with LD in less restrictive settings. Much of the change in placement practices for students with LD occurred since 2000.     

The Self–Concept of Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta–Analysis of Comparisons Across Different Placements

Although placement in less restrictive settings is generally believed to be associated with more positive social outcomes for students with disabilities, the empirical research has yielded equivocal findings. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the empirical research comparing the self–concept of students with learning disabilities (LD) in different educational placements. Meta–analysis revealed no overall association between self–concept and educational placement for four out of five comparisons: regular class vs. resource room, regular class vs. self–contained class, resource room vs. self–contained class, and regular class vs. special school. Students with LD receiving instruction in self–contained classrooms in regular schools exhibited lower self–concept compared to students with LD attending special schools. Follow–up analyses were conducted to explore whether the variability of effect sizes in regular class–resource room comparisons was associated with any of several potential moderator variables; the only variable for which the association approached significance was whether students in the regular classroom were provided with appropriate special education supports and services. The findings are discussed in light of documented individual variation in students’ placement preferences.     

Understanding least restrictive environment—A key to avoiding parent-school conflict

The concept of least restrictive environment is at the core of federal and state laws governing special education. Unfortunately, the concept is vague and difficult to operationalize. Thus, it is not unusual for parents of educationally handicapped students and school districts to find themselves in conflict over what environment or program is least restrictive for the student. Such conflicts often escalate into acrimonious legal and emotional battles. Understanding the salient characteristics of the least restrictive environment for individual students can preclude or minimize unnecessary conflicts that have little chance of generating creative solutions. This article identifies many of these characteristics and details what administrators can do to assure that placement decisions conform to the requirements of least restrictive environment.     

ADMINISTRATIVE PRESSURE TO PRACTICE UNETHICALLY AND BURNOUT WITHIN THE PROFESSION OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY

This investigation involved the surveying of school psychology practitioners (N = 291) to determine the possible existence of a relationship between administrative pressure to practice unethically and impaired occupational health, as manifested in elevated levels of burnout, job dissatisfaction, and intent to exit the workforce. Almost one‐third of participants claimed to have been pressured to behave unethically, with directives most commonly consisting of instructions to withhold recommendations for support services and to agree with inappropriate special education placement decisions. Practitioners who experienced administrative pressure reported higher levels of burnout, less satisfaction with their current position and the profession, and a greater desire to leave their job and the field of school psychology. The findings are presented within the context of current and projected shortages of practicing school psychologists. Implications for preventing burnout and promoting school psychologists’ occupational well‐being are discussed.     

School consultation: The training needs of teachers and school psychologists

This paper describes the roles of teachers and school psychologists and presents an overview of current and prospective methods of providing services to special needs children. On the basis of the literature and professional experience, it is suggested that changes are needed in the provision of special education services. The consultative relationship between teachers and school psychologists is viewed as the key to successful classroom intervention for special needs children. Although each profession brings expertise into the consultative relationship, better training is needed for teachers and school psychologists to ensure that effective intervention strategies are developed.     

Can ability-achievement regression to the mean account for MDT discretionary decisions?

The test scores of 153 referred students who received inconsistent placements according to California's discrepancy criterion, which does not take regression into account (standard score distribution procedure), were reanalyzed using a procedure that accounts for regression. Students involved in these MDT discretionary decisions were placed into one of three groups: ineligible (originally met discrepancy criterion, but not placed), resource class (originally did not meet discrepancy criterion, but placed in a less restrictive pull-out program), and special day class (originally did not meet discrepancy criterion, but placed in a more restrictive, essentially full-time special education class). All of these placements were inconsistent with the nonregressed ability-achievement discrepancy criterion the MDTs used at the time of the IEP meeting. To evaluate how many of these students could be considered to be underachieving when regression is considered, regressed discrepancy scores were computed using the students' scores on the WISC-R and one or more of the following achievement tests: WRAT, PIAT, and W-J. Regression “accounted” for a significant proportion of the inconsistent placements in all three groups: ineligible (25.0%), resource class (31.5%), and special day class (46.9%). Implications for professional practice and public policy are discussed.     

IDENTIFYING STUDENTS WITH EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE: SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS’ PRACTICES AND PERCEPTIONS

From its inception as a disability category in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, serving students under the special education category Emotional Disturbance (ED) has been a challenging task for school psychologists. In particular, the vague and ambiguous federal definition has created an environment in which inconsistent assessment practices and decision making are almost inevitable. In this study, we examined school psychologists’ (N = 214) assessment practices when determining initial eligibility for ED, as well as their perceptions regarding the language contained within the federal ED definition. Findings indicated that although school psychologists recognize the need for a multimethod, multisource assessment model when ED is a classification consideration, in many instances, their actual assessments are missing commonly recommended sources of data for making eligibility decisions, including classroom observations; parent, teacher, and student interviews; and behavior rating scales. The results from the study provide a useful overview of school psychologists’ assessment practices and are couched within the questions and confusion that have surrounded the federal ED definition since its codification into law.     

Interdisciplinary Collaboration Supporting Social-Emotional Learning in Rural School Systems

In this article we illustrate the roles of school psychologists, administrators, social workers, teachers, and parents in school reform by describing the adoption, initial implementation, and formative evaluation of an evidence-based social and emotional learning (SEL) program within several rural Midwestern school districts in a geographically large county. As part of a countywide initiative aimed at improving children's mental health services, an interdisciplinary team collaborated to select and implement a universal school-based curriculum addressing SEL objectives. Professionals in the county's special education cooperative lead the reform effort, general education teachers deliver the curriculum, and school psychologists and school social workers have served as trainers and consultants to educators and building administrators. An ecological model of organizational consultation informs these efforts. We illustrate this model by describing its application to the collaborative school-based initiative addressing SEL objectives. We also discuss implications for future consultation research, training, and practice.     

Is Inclusion an Illusion? An Examination of National and State Trends Toward the Education of Students with Learning Disabilities in General Education Classrooms

The inclusion of students with learning disabilities (LD) remains one of the more controversial issues in special education. Although research evidence seems to reveal that students with LD should spend most of the school day in the general education classroom, little data are available regarding the extent to which states are moving toward educating these students in less restrictive settings. This investigation was conducted to examine national and state data related to changes that occurred during the 1990s in educating students with LD in less restrictive settings. The results revealed that little change occurred across the United States as a whole, and that only 15 states moved toward educating students with LD in less restrictive settings during this time. The findings of this investigation further revealed that much of the apparent movement toward educating students with LD in general education classrooms is largely an illusion, explained primarily by the increasing identification rate for students with LD. The implications of these findings for future research and practice are discussed.     

School placement and conductive education: the experiences of education administrators

A placement at the National Institute of Conductive Education (NICE) in Birmingham for children with motor disorders is strongly preferred over mainstream or special schools by some parents, but it has been noted that this is usually refused following the current statementing process. Although funding constraints have been articulated, Angela Morgan, a Research Fellow at the Wolverhampton University Policy Research Institute, and Kevin Hogan, also at the University of Wolverhampton, contend in this article that other explanations are possible, as variability remains in placement decisions. The experiences of education administrators working within the special educational needs departments of local education authorities who make the ultimate decision regarding school placement have hitherto been unexplored. This study offers findings from an exploratory qualitative study, which suggests that administrators are working from disparate understandings of conductive education within an arena fraught with conflict. Recommendations derived from the study include further in-service training for education administrators and prior training for individuals seeking a career in education administration to enhance collaborative working partnerships between administrators and parents.     

Learning disabled and emotionally disturbed: Will the labels affect teacher planning?

Teachers' conception and use of the terms “learning disability” and “emotional disturbance” was investigated in two studies to determine the implications for developing educational programs. In Study I, experienced teachers in a special education certification program categorized 106 child characteristics as LD, ED, or both LD and ED. In Study II, in-service teachers specified annual achievement goals and extent of regular class placement for the same child bearing either the LD or ED label. Results from Study I showed that the majority of child characteristics were considered by teachers to be relevant to either LD or ED labels. A subset of 23 characteristics was significantly related to one or the other label—LD characteristics representing academic and health/development areas, and ED characteristics representing psychological and behavioral areas. In Study II, teachers recalled the ED label significantly more often than the LD label, but did not specify significantly different goals or regular class participation for the child under the two labeling conditions. The findings support the conclusion that teachers can treat the LD and ED constructs as mutually exclusive when eligibility for special service is the decision, and as mutually inclusive when program-planning decisions are made.     

Transforming administration to support science in the schoolhouse for students with disabilities

I examine the role that administrators play in facilitating the development, adoption, use, and evaluation of scientifically based interventions within the school culture to support the educational outcomes of students with learning disabilities (LD). Two ways of transforming the administrative role to support science in the schoolhouse are presented; one considers the importance of including language in future legislation that acknowledges the role of administrators in school reform, and the other focuses on establishing a national research agenda addressing issues of leadership and special education. I argue that these 2 venues should serve to identify and to stimulate the use of evidence-based administrative practices that ultimately increase educational outcomes for students with LD, improve teacher instruction, and transform the leadership mission.     

To the maximum extent appropriate: determining success and the least restrictive environment for a student with autism spectrum disorder

This case study uses an institutional ethnography approach to investigate the experiences of the parents of a son who has autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as they engaged in meetings related to his progress and placement with school personnel over the course of one school year. Through an analysis of the discourse used in these meetings and documents generated by the district and the parents, the researcher highlights how administrators managed and controlled meetings and decision-making when there was disagreement over the least restrictive environment for this child. Analyses of these meetings show how the structure and wording of behavioural plans and other formal documents reinforce common stereotypes about children with ASD – even when information is presented to suggest that such stereotypes are incorrect.     

A comparative study of the impact of mainstream and special school placement on the behaviour of children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

The current study examined the impact of school placement in mainstream or special settings on the behavioural functioning of children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). Children were assessed at the start of the school year and then again at the end of the school year using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale. Children with ASD made improvements in both types of placements; however, those children in specialist provisions made greater improvements in areas of conduct and socialisation. These results confirm other recent demonstrations of superior performance in special schools for children with ASD. The need to re‐address specialist school placement as a viable alternative to mainstream education for children with ASD is discussed.     

Dilemmas of difference,inclusion and disability: international perspectives on placement

This paper reports findings about placement questions relevant to disability in education. It is part of a larger international study of the perspectives of 132 education practitioners and administrators in England, the USA and The Netherlands to several dilemmas of difference. Participants were interviewed about their perspectives to a presented placement dilemma about the consequences of having inclusive/separate placements for children with more severe disabilities/special educational needs. The data are presented in quantitative terms (degrees of recognition and resolution of dilemma) and qualitative terms (reasons, justifications and suggested resolutions). The findings show the continued recognition of this dilemma and commonalities in the resolution of the dilemma across the countries. Variations in responses to the dilemmas that relate to national differences are also discussed.     

Consistently inconsistent: An examination of the variability in the identification of emotional disturbance

The federal definition of emotional disturbance (ED) has been heavily criticized as vaguely defined and poorly operationalized yet there has not been a formal analysis of the reliability of the ED criteria. This study examined the reliability of the federal criteria for a special education designation of ED. A total of 179 school psychologists reviewed a mock special education report, made an eligibility determination, and provided information about their eligibility decision. In all, 56 participants found the student met ED eligibility criteria using 16 different combinations of the five criteria. Krippendorff’s α, a statistic preferred for content analysis, was calculated as a measure of criterion reliability. Results indicated extremely poor reliability (α = 0.2011). These findings demonstrate the importance of redefining the existing criteria.     

Elevating Instruction for Secondary‐School Students with Learning Disabilities by Demystifying the Highly Qualified Subject Matter Requirement

The highly qualified mandate of the No Child Left Behind Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has created unnecessary confusion, particularly among secondary‐school special educators and administrators with respect to instruction in core academic subjects. The pursuit of compliance solutions to meet this requirement has generally distracted stakeholders from re‐examining the mission of secondary‐school special education for students with learning disabilities (LD). Because effective subject matter instruction within inclusive classrooms is dependent upon general and special educators capitalizing on each other's areas of expertise, the necessity of requiring special educators to possess a comparable level of subject matter knowledge as the general educator is not only of questionable merit, but often counterproductive. This article poses and examines several fundamental philosophical questions related to the delivery of core academic subject matter to students with LD.     

Mainstreaming remains the goal

Conclusion Special-needs children continue to have difficulty finding mainstream placements. Issues which have not been resolved in the fifteen years since handicapped children were admitted to schools discourage least restrictive environment placement. These issues include the isolation of special-needs children in schools, the increasing numbers of eligible children as funding decreases, the short-age of trained personnel, and the questions of efficacy and cost effectiveness. The right to a public education in the least restrictive environment is mandated by law and is fiscally, and socially, good practice. Mainstreaming, which has significant advantages for special children, their families, and society, should become an educational priority.Doris Bloom is a registered occupational therapist and provides consulting occupational therapy services for special education programs.     

An examination of an implementation of the simple difference score distribution model in learning disability identification

An important part of the PL 94–142 learning disability (LD) definition is the requirement that a child manifest a discrepancy between ability and achievement to be eligible for special education services. Because the language used in PL 94–142 is generic, it has been left to each state to determine how this discrepancy criterion is to be implemented. Subsequently, numerous discrepancy formulas have been proposed, and many of them have been rejected as statistically unsound. In response to this professional paralysis, and faced with continued increasing LD enrollment, the California State Legislature took matters into its own hands and passed legislation mandating the use of the simple difference score distribution model as part of the state LD eligibility criteria. This study examines the implementation of this procedure in six California school districts. The results revealed that the IEP teams' placement decisions were influenced by the students' discrepancy scores, but that prereferral status (initial evaluation vs. reevaluation) was a better predictor of postevaluation special education status. Shortcomings of this discrepancy procedure and implications for the IEP team decisionmaking process are discussed.