Chapter 1 of on building level principals' knowledge of special education law - Dissertation Example

?CHAPTER INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem A quick glance of statistics on with disability may lead to a swift generalization thatthey have been emancipated from their plight to obtain education side-by-side with other students. Church and Glaaser (2010) noted that more and more students with disability are now benefitting from special education services being offered in various schools. From 4.7 million in 1990, the figure rose to 6 million in 14 years. Legislations like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) or IDEIA, a successor of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which had been reauthorized since 2004, facilitated increase in elementary and secondary completion rates, as well as the dropout rates among students with disability (Church and Glaaser, 2010). Sometimes, however, numbers do not necessarily reflect the whole story. Qualifying for eligibility for education under the provisions of IDEA entails two parts: first, the disability identified is defined under the provisions of IDEA, and second, if the individual with disability requires special education and related services in order to benefit from education. Apart from qualification, school administrators provide decisions to multitudes of issues pertaining to the rights of students with disability and the technicalities and legal aspects of special education law. For example, deciding whether to keep students with disability in the mainstream or with regular students, or to transfer them to special education classes, will not be an easy one for a principal without a working knowledge of special education law. In Pennsylvania, Andren (2010) reported of such a case involving a student afflicted with Down Syndrome. In the same report, Zirkel (as cited in Andren, 2010) revealed that due process hearings had been on the rise over the past 20 years in the state. Moreover, Pennsylvania figures out among the 10 most litigious in terms of special education in the US (Andren, 2010). Litigation in any language connotes that funding for education had to be diverted to finance legal fees paid by school districts as parents or guardians contest the school’s position pertaining to students with disability. Without putting the blame on the principals, it is, however, important to make sure that the authorities charged with such crucial decisions possess ample knowledge on the legal aspects of special education. Moreover, sound decisions in this regard can only be arrived at when the decision-maker is familiar with the pertinent laws on special education and has formal or any comparable educational background on special education law. A state-wide study, in this regard, will serve as an essential step towards a better understanding of school administrator’s level of proficiency in special education law. Such study will also shed light as to what interventions may be designed and implemented to see to it that the needs of students with disability can be better served, vis a vis the regular students, en route to the optimization of the academic potentials of both types of students. Background of the Study Historically, students with disabilities have not always been guaranteed access to education (Church and Glaaser, 2010; Ebersold, 2011; Flexer, Baer, Luft & Simmons, 2008; Wearmouth, Glynn & Berryman, 2005). The 19th century saw the beginnings of public support for free public education through the passing of compulsory laws on education which allowed representation of both genders, different ages, socio-economic status, and cultural background. One of the most popular legal battles fought for equality in education was Brown v. Board of Education (of Topeka) where Oliver Brown challenged and conquered racial segregations in American schools in 1954 (Miller, 2004). Yet, until the middle of the 1970s, individuals with disabilities did not benefit from the so-called free education. In 1972, a court ruling in Parc v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had to decide that children suffering from mental retardation can not be denied access to a free and suitable public education. The landmark ruling also provided that exposure of students with disability in the mainstream is more desirable than restraining environments; and that students with disability can not be transferred to a different placement without due process (Church and Glaaser, 2010). In 1975, the US Congress passed the law Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) which buttressed the highlights of the Parc v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Winzer, 1993). The EHA (1975) is now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The legislation mandated free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for youth with disabilities aged 5-21, where special education and related services will be provided by a public agency for free. The legislation also stipulates the development of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) grounded on a multi-disciplinary assessment. Furthermore, students with disability will be taught in a least restrictive education (LRE) setting to the fullest level appropriate. The EHA (1975) also guaranteed the involvement of parents in the qualifying, evaluation and placement procedures pertaining to their child, including and due process for appeal proceedings. EHA or IDEA identified 14 classifications of student disability under which children can qualify for special education after rigorous assessment, namely: mental retardation, hearing impairment, deafness, speech or language impairment, visual impairment, emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, specific learning disability, multiple disabilities, deaf-blindness, traumatic brain injury, autism and developmental delay. The last classification applies only to children aged 3-5 years old (Church and Glaaser, 2010). To address some deficiencies and better serve the needs of students with disability, EHA (1975) was amended six times since its enactment – 1978, 1983, 19861, 1988 1990, and 1997. The amendments were codified as PL 98-773, PL 98-199, PL 99-372, PL 99-457, PL 100-630, and PL 105-17, respectively (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005; Assistive Technology Training Online Project, 2005). With all due respect to school administrators in general, there have actually been schools which can create loopholes to circumvent total compliance with the stipulations of EHA and its amendments. Circumstances of this nature can precipitate litigations springing out of due process procedures from complaints lodged by parents. To wit, a Web post by a concerned parent decried the difficulties of scheduling a follow-up IEP meeting with the school, regarding a 12-year old child with Asperger’s Syndrome. According to the parent, the child is also being labeled in school with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), dysgraphia, and depression. As narrated by the parent, the teacher is not following the IEP and the school had not accommodated the meeting request four times already. No meeting can be scheduled because according to concerned school authorities, teacher meetings are scheduled before school hours, there are classes during school hours, and there are other school-related work after school hours (Autism-PDD, n.d.). In another special education case which had to be decided through a court ruling, officials of a US school district expelled two students with disability based on the recommendations of a school principal. The two students were described as “emotionally disturbed children … [who had to be suspended] indefinitely for violent and disruptive conduct related to their disabilities” (Russo, & Osborne, 2008, p. 176). The IEP of one of these students revealed that the student experiences continuing difficulty with his peers, and that his social skills have declined, which meant that the student would only be capable of enduring minor frustration prior to a burst of temper (Russo & Osborne, 2008). In the ensuing proceedings, the court determined a number of violations of the school district officials of EHA provisions, particularly the expulsion and the indefinite suspension of the students concerned for conduct which was caused by their disabilities which “deprived them of their congressionally mandated right to a free and appropriate public education, as well as the right to have that education provided in accordance with the procedures set out in EHA” (Russo, & Osborne, 2008, p. 177). Other violations of the EHA in this case include: (1) suspension for disciplinary action longer than the 2- or 5-day; (2) change of educational placement without parental consent prior to the completion of the EHA procedures (Russo & Osborne, 2008). The two aforementioned cases regarding non-compliance with IEP and violations of the provisions of free and appropriate public education and change of placement without parental consent are basic provisions of IDEA. Yet, the concerned principals failed in providing sound judgment on the issues. It should be borne in mind that every fallacious judgment emanating from the principal accrues as additional burden on the legal fees being paid for by the government. In a period of two years, four Pennsylvania school districts, namely: Central Dauphin, Cumberland Valley, Harrisburg, and West Shore had appropriate a huge sum amounting to $601,900.00 for special education litigation (Andren, 2010). This should not, however, come as a surprise, since it was pointed out in Russo and Osborne (2008) that ‘IDEA and its regulations have generated more litigation than any other educational law in American legal history” (p. viii). As decision makers in school, the principals are in the best position to use their knowledge, expertise and experience in the American educational system to guide their teachers and other school staff to fully comply with the provisions of IDEA and its enhanced version, IDEIA. This would entail a significant working knowledge of special education laws and other pertinent legislation. At best, a special course or program in this regard may be designed, developed and implemented as a component of the principals’ continuing professional development. Benchmarking should, however, be performed to find out the level of knowledge or awareness of the principals of relevant aspects of the law on special education to serve as a springboard from which intervention can be designed. This is precisely what this proposed study hopes to accomplish. Statement of the Problem Given the intricacies of a 36-year old law with a string of amendments, a recent reauthorized and enhanced version, and the increasing number of special education litigations facing various school districts in Pennsylvania and the rest of the states, one significant piece of information is missing from the puzzle. There is a gap in existing literature as to the proficiency of building level administrators in Pennsylvania pertaining relevant special education laws. Special education practices should be carried out in conformance with laws and regulations instituting such services for students with special needs. The building level administrators, otherwise, the principals carry the responsibility of ensuring that the special education programs within their respective schools are complied with. It is, therefore, a “must” that principals are competent in the procedures, regulations and laws that oversee the provision of special education services. This study will make an attempt to objectively evaluate the level of proficiency of building level administrators on special education laws and if necessary, propose interventions to address the problem. Purpose of the Study The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the level of proficiency of building level administrators in Pennsylvania of special education laws and look at possible factors which facilitate or deter their decision making on special education issues by way of a mixed methods design. An investigation of factors facilitating and hindering decision making will entail a profound analysis of the type and level of the administrators’ background in special education law; experience and confidence level in handling special education issues; and proficiency of basic special education law in terms of their perceptions on selected cases. Another purpose of the study purpose is to scrutinize specific areas of trepidation for administrators, based on their self-reported areas of greatest concern in special education law, in order to identify possible areas for professional development. Theoretical Framework The proposed study will adopt the input-process-output model as its theoretical framework grounded on Anderson and Arsenault (2002) who recognizes this paradigm for its simplicity simple and wide applicability to education research. Figure 1 shows the theoretical paradigm of the proposed study. Input represents the knowledge requirements which need to be collected or gathered as part of the research procedure. In this study, inputs include: (1) the perceptions of building level administrators on selected issues covered in relevant special education laws in Pennsylvania; (2) information on the type and level of special education back- Figure 1. Theoretical Paradigm of the Proposed Study. INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT Legend: SPED =special education; BLAs = building level administrators; ANOVA = one-way analysis of variance; ANCOVA = analysis of covariance ground among building level administrators; (3) self-reported experience of the building level administrators in handling special education issues in school; (4) self-reported confidence level of the building level administrators when handling special education cases; and (5) areas of greatest concern in special education law as self-reported by building level administrators in their disposition on relevant issues in school. Process, on the other hand, refers to the methods which will be employed in the research study to transform the input into more useful output. Three procedures will be applied in this study to generate the desired results: (1) parallel mixed methods research using a quantitative strand (survey) and a qualitative strand (semi-structured interview); (2) competency assessment on the basic aspects of special education law, which involves questionnaire development and pilot testing; and (3) Statistical analysis of survey data and competency assessment results using analysis of variance and analysis of covariance. The output in the theoretical framework refers to the expected results from the conduct of the research. In this study, the desired outcomes include a proficiency profile of Pennsylvania building level administrators on special education law. Additionally, a set of recommendations will be formulated in terms of a special education law component for the administrators’ continuing professional development, if the resulting profile indicates the need for an intervention. As the building level administrators embark on continuing education to further hone their expertise in handling special education laws in Pennsylvania, parents of students with disability can be better assured that the needs of their children can be addressed based on the stipulations of the special education laws currently in effect. Hopefully, parents can rest assured that the special education needs of their children are addressed. Litigations will be lessened and the corresponding expenses on legal fees will also be minimized. Research Questions and Hypothesis This study will be guided by the following research questions and hypothesis: 1. What is the profile of the building level administrators in Pennsylvania in terms of the following variables: a. level of proficiency in special education laws and regulations; b. type and level of education received in special education law; c. experience and degree of confidence in handling special education issues; d. areas of greatest concern in special education law in their capacity as building level administrators? 2. Are there significant differences in the proficiency of the building level administrators of special education laws and regulations? a. Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in the proficiency of building level administrators of special education laws and regulations. b. Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in the proficiency of building level administrators of special education laws and regulations. 3. To what extent do building level administrators in Pennsylvania differ in the type and level of education received in special education law? a. Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in the type and level of education received in special education law by the building level administrators. b. Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in the type and level of education received in special education law by the building level administrators. 4. Are there significant differences in the self-reported experience and degree of confidence of building level administrators concerning special education legal issues in their practice? a. Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in the self-reported experience and level of confidence of building level administrators concerning special education legal issues in their practice. b. Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in the self-reported experience and level of confidence of building level administrators concerning special education legal issues in their practice. Significance of the Study The proposed study will venture to examine the level of proficiency of building level administrators in Pennsylvania of special education laws and look at possible factors which facilitate or deter their decision making on special education issues. It will also scrutinize specific areas of trepidation for administrators, based on their self-reported areas of greatest concern in special education law. A definitive knowledge of the proficiency profile of the building level administrators in special education law will provide a comprehensive basis for which continuing education of the administrators may be designed, developed and implemented to enhance the effectiveness of the principals or assistant principals in disposing their duties. This will be significant to the following: Students with disability. The sole targets of IDEIA and other pertinent special education laws are the students with disability, whether they be physical or learning disabilities. As principals enhance their knowledge of special education laws, they can better serve the interests of students with disability by offering informed and sound judgment in the implementation of the special education laws in their institutional jurisdictions. Teachers handling special education classes. Well-informed principals will be able to transmit knowledge to teachers so that the teachers who directly facilitate compliance with the IEP will be properly guided towards the optimization of learning even among the learning disabled. As teachers attain experience in preparing and implementing the IEP, they will be more adept in handling special education classes, can experience the personal gratification of seeing their students learn as designed in their IEP and even beyond. Parents of students with disability. Parents are at the forefront of legal battles either in the court room or in school to assure that their children with disability are given their mandated right to a free and appropriate public education. If principals will be highly proficient in special education laws and regulation, parents of students with disability would have won an ally in their fight for their disabled children’s access to a free and appropriate public education sans the heartaches of segregation and other significant issues being decried by many parents today. School charters. Officials of Pennsylvania school charters also stand to benefit from principals who have enhanced proficiency in special education laws. Principals who can not resolve conflict with parents resulting from special education issues forward the case to school charters for resolution. As principals gain higher proficiency in handling special education issues, they can settle the problem within the school level. This translates to lesser cases for the school charter and hopefully, minimized litigation and legal expenditures. Definition of Terms Building level administrator: Individuals who are employed full time as principal or assistant principal positions. Child with a Disability: (A) The term `child with a disability' means a child-(i) with mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this title as `emotional disturbance'), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and (ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services. [20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)A)(i)(ii)] Due Process Hearing: Under IDEA, a due process hearing is a procedure where a parent can request if they are not satisfied with the procedures used or with the educational services provided to their child with a disability. It is a legal avenue that gives parents the right to challenge a school practice pertaining to special education (Bateman & Bateman, 2001). Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): a term which refers to “special education and related services that--(A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 1414(d) of … title 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9)(A)(B)(C)(D)” (as cited in Rothstein & Johnson, 2010). Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA): The federal act containing the provisions that all qualifying children with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education. It includes special education and related services and provides procedural safeguards for the students and their parents (IDEA, 1975). Individual Educational Program (IEP): The term individualized education program or IEP means a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in accordance with IDEA(IDEIA, 1975). Knowledge of Special Education Law: Knowledge of procedural safeguards and the provision of educational services in accordance with IDEA and its regulations, and litigation. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): To the maximum extent appropriate children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling , or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature and severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. [20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A)] Litigation: A petition filed for judicial review in state courts for the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy for special education mandates. Local Educational Agency (LEA): The term `local educational agency' means a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or for such combination of school districts or counties as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools. [20 U.S.C. § 1401(19)(A)] Procedural Safeguard – Rules of law that govern the means by which individuals can maintain their substantive rights. Procedural safeguards guide the method by which school officials make decisions regarding the education of students. Professional/Staff Development – Continuing education for principals and teachers. Related services: The term ‘related services’ means transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services (including speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, social work services, school nurse services designed to enable a child with a disability to receive a free appropriate public education as described in the individualized education program of the child, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility services, and medical services, except that such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes only) as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, and includes the early identification and assessment of disabling conditions in children. [20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A)] Special education: The term ‘special education’ means specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including--(A) instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; (B) instruction in physical education. [20 U.S.C. § 1401(29)(A)(B)] Special Education Law: Legislation and case law that enforces the rights to a free appropriate education for students to include: Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA, 2004) State Education Agency (SEA): The state board of education or other agency or officer primarily responsible for the state supervision of public elementary and secondary schools. Supplemental aids and services: The term “supplementary aids and services’ means aids, services, and other supports that are provided in regular education classes or other education-related settings to enable children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate in accordance with section 1412(a)(5) of this title. [20 U.S.C. § 1401(33)] Assumptions and Limitations The study made the following assumptions: 1. The respondents will complete the survey truthfully and accurately. It is, therefore, further assumed that the survey will be completed without assistance from anybody. 2. The respondents will respond to the semi-structured interview honestly and accurately. 3. The building level administrators at both the elementary and secondary levels are exposed to special education legal issues on a routine basis as part of their job responsibilities. The study will be carried out with the following limitations. 1. Findings and conclusions from this study may only be generalized to public school districts in Pennsylvania and to building level administrators having characteristics similar to those in the sample. The study cannot claim to be representative of all school administrators 2. This study is based on building level administrators perception or self-reports of their knowledge of special education law. 3. Because individuals who completed this survey did so on their own with no monitoring, assurances cannot be made that it was completed without assistance from other sources. 4. The instrument was limited to questions relating to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its 2004 amendment. Nature of the Study The intended design of this proposed study is sequential mixed methods research study, with the supplementary qualitative component for triangulation. Since there is a dearth of published studies similar to the proposed study, triangulation of data will facilitate validation of the survey results. The research will, therefore, be conducted using survey methodology for the quantitative strand and semi-structured interview for the qualitative strand. The study will build upon a compilation of the successful use of Overturf’s (2007) and Finley (2006) survey instruments. The three-part questionnaire will be the primary source of data for this study. However, a researcher-constructed semi-structured interview guide will be used in the qualitative strand of the study. Random sampling will be utilized in the calculation of minimum required sample size for the respondents of the primary instrument. The questionnaire will assess the participants’ proficiency of special education laws based on their responses to selected cases in the third part of the questionnaire, as well as demographic and other relevant information from the respondents. Purposive sampling will be employed in the selection of respondents for the semi-structured interview and the pilot testing. Participants will be selected using a stratified random sampling using a list of all public schools and working administrators which can be generated from the Pennsylvania Department of Education. In order to ensure the closest possible match between the surveyed sample and the total principal population, stratification will be carried out as elementary and secondary level administrators. Data which will be gathered in this mixed-methods study will be processed and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics will be used to illustrate the profile of the building level administrators in Pennsylvania in terms of the following variables: level of proficiency in special education laws and regulations; type and level of education received in special education law; experience and degree of confidence in handling special education issues; and areas of greatest concern in special education law in their capacity as building level administrators. Inferential analyses will be used to determine significant differences among the building level administrators in terms of the profile described above. Hypothesis testing will be carried out using two-tailed analysis and a 0.05 level of significance. Organization of the Remainder of the Study This study will be organized into five chapters. Chapter One presents the background information to the problem, the purpose of the study, its significance, the limitations and assumptions made in the study, as well as the definitions of relevant terminology and the nature of the study. Chapter Two presents a review of the literature concerning administrators’ knowledge of special education law and legal issues. Chapter Three describes the methodology that will be used in conducting the study, the population and sample, the design of the survey instrument to be used, the process to be used for data collection and the methodology for data analysis. Chapter Four will present the findings of the study in charts and tabulations, and a discussion of the analysis of the findings . Chapter Five will summarize the findings of the study, and formulate the conclusions and recommendations grounded on the findings and conclusions. References Anderson G. & Arsenault, A. (2002). Fundamentals of educational research. Philadelphia, PA: RoutledgeFalmer / Taylor & Francis. Andren, K. (2010). School districts spend thousands on litigation over special education. Retrieved from http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/01/ school_districts_spend_thousan.html Assistive Technology Training Online Project (2005). 1997 amendments (P. L. 105-17). Retrieved from http://atto.buffalo.edu/registered/ATBasics/Foundation/Laws/ specialed.php#IDEA Autism-PDD (n.d.). Schools and IEP. Retrieved from http://www.autism-pdd.net/testdump/ test15241.htm Church, R. P. & Glaaser, D. (2010). Legal and practical aspects of special education. In R. C. Dryden-Edwards & L. Combrinck-Graham (Eds.), Developmental disabilities from childhood to adulthood: What works for psychiatrists in community and institutional settings. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Ebersold, S. (2011). Inclusion of students with disabilities in tertiary education and employment: Education and training policy. Paris, FRA: OECD Publishing. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975). Flexer, R. W., Baer, R. M., Luft, P. & Simmons, T. (2008). Transition planning for secondary students with disabilities (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson / Merrill Prentice Hall. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2679 (2004). Lowman, J. & Darr, K. (2009a). The right to special education in Pennsylvania: A guide for parents and advocates. Philadelphia, PA: Education Law Center, PA. Retrieved from http://www.elc-pa.org/pubs/downloads2010/2009A-TheRighttoSpecialEducationinPennsylvaniaGuideforParents.pdf Lowman, J. & Darr, K. (2009b). The basics of special education law: What parents need to know to get started. Philadelphia, PA: Education Law Center, PA. Retrieved from http://www.elc-pa.org/pubs/downloads2010/ Basics%20of%20Special%20Education%20Booklet%204-9-09AWEB.pdf Miller, J. (2004). Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka: Challenging school segregation in the Supreme Court. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group. National Center for Education Statistics (2009a). Digest of education statistics: Number & percentage of children served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B, by age group and state or jurisdiction. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/ digest/d09/tables/dt09_052.asp National Center for Education Statistics (2009a). State education data profiles. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/stateprofiles/sresult.asp?mode=short&s1=42. Raosoft (2004). Sample size calculator. Retrieved from http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H. & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. New York: The Guilford Press. Rothstein, L. & Johnson, S. F. (2010). Special education law (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Russo, C. J. & Osborne, A. J. G. (2008). Essential concepts & school-based cases in special education law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press / Sage. Wearmouth, J., Glynn, T., Berryman, M. (2005). Perspectives on student behavior: Exploring theory and developing practice. New York: Routledge. Winzer, M. A. (1993). The history of special education: From isolation to integration. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University. Read More