Why Special Education Students Dont Graduate From High School - Dissertation Example

? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE COMMON REASON SPECIAL EDUCATION DON’T GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL by Richard Wieringo Liberty A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Liberty University Month, Year CONFRONTING COMMON CRITICAL REASONS SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS “QUIT” HIGH SCHOOL by Richard Wieringo A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA Month, Year APPROVED BY: NAME, Chair Date NAME, Committee Date NAME, Committee Date NAME, Chair of Graduate Studies Date WILL INSERT COPYRIGHT INFO AFTER REWORKING TEMPLATE © ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ABSTRACT Richard Wieringo. AN INVESTIGATION OF THE COMMON REASON SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS DON’T GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL. (Under the direction of Dr. Verlyn Evans, Ed.D.) School of Education, Research indicates that special education students who drop out of high school typically are lower wage earners and are less likely to succeed professionally later in life. Unsurprisingly, these students drop out of school at a rate double and sometimes triple that of regular high school students. This qualitative case study identifies a number of common critical reasons special education students abandon their educational pursuits prior to earning their high school diplomas. Using information from interviews with recent dropouts from Ridgeville High School (pseudonym for a Virginia high school), in conjunction with findings from current literature, this study will contribute to the development of recommendations for more effective dropout prevention programs for special education students. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 CHAPTER I 3 INTRODUCTION 3 Background 2 Problem Statement 9 Purpose of the Study 11 Research Questions 12 Hypothesis 12 Identification of Variables 13 Definition of Terms 14 Research Plan 16 REFERENCES 20 APPENDIX A 26 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION High School Dropout Concerns Education Week and the Editorial Projects in Education (EPE) Research Center (2010) conducted a national report, which states that approximately 1.3 million youth drop out of high school every year. However, the White House (as cited in America’s Promise Alliance, 2009) reports the number as a slightly lower figure of 1.2 million. A quantitative review of statistics by Sum, et al. (2009) shows that “the incidence of institutionalization problems among young high school dropouts was more than 63 times higher than among young four-year college graduates” (p. 9). The need for effective dropout prevention strategies is important because the increasingly significant gap between the student who leaves high school without earning his diploma and the high school graduate has increasingly widened since the 1970s with regard to career mobility, unemployment rates and wages. Research forecasts an even grimmer outlook for special education (special ed) students who drop out of high school. These students typically earn less than other dropouts and are less likely to succeed later in life. Feng and Sass (2010) report that the likelihood a special education student will drop out of school is double that of his/her peers. Furthermore, “compared to their nondisabled peers, students with disabilities are more likely to experience unemployment or underemployment, lower pay, and job dissatisfaction” (Dunn, 1996 as cited in Levinson and Palmer, 2005, p. 11). This contemporary concern contributes to this qualitative case study which seeks to identify a number of common critical reasons special education students abandon their educational pursuits prior to earning their high school diplomas. Background Because an American’s financial stability and professional achievement have primarily depended on his educational attainment, obtaining a high school diploma significantly enhances an American’s potential to build a solid foundation for achieving professional success (Shore, 2003). “High school graduation captures both the cognitive and the non-cognitive attributes that are important for success in adulthood, and it is usually a minimum requirement for engaging in further training and higher education” (Levin, 2009, p. 8). Earning a high school diploma generally constitutes the initial step one takes to begin to successfully secure higher education. Higher education, in turn, characteristically stimulates and enhances the number of opportunities one receives in their chosen profession. A student who does not graduate from high school encounters increasing challenges in securing employment with the increasingly competitive market and the ongoing recession narrowing his potential prospects even more. According to a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010a) report, in January of 2010, “thirty states and the District of Columbia recorded over-the-month unemployment rate increases, 9 states registered rate decreases, and 11 states had no rate change.” Another report released in July 2010 purports that despite the current federal administration’s campaign to control the onslaught of an economic depression, the unemployment rate has not changed across all states; remaining at 9.50%, (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010b). As the unemployment rate increases, companies’ expectations of new hires have also increased; indicated by the number of unemployed college graduates surpassing the available entry-level jobs. More than any other component, contemporary companies need talent. The company can secure excellent, young talent for a fraction of what the company pays an older individual who has worked with the organization for ten years or more to fill that need (Fisher, 2008). Current competition for particular positions in companies as well as educational constraints confirm that if college students experience difficulties securing employment at entry-level positions, the chances for a high school dropout securing a job is considerably diminished. High school dropouts generally face negative ramifications relating to their failure to complete their educations throughout the rest of their lives. These corollary constraints may range from, but not be limited to, unemployment and/or sub-standard pay to a prison sentence. Rumberger (2003) asserts that some people tend to confront their financial difficulties with criminal activities. “Students who drop out of high school are more likely to be unemployed, to earn less than those who graduate, to be on public assistance, and to end up in prison” (Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2007, p. 325). Consequently, the decision not to graduate from high school can contribute to those Americans with the least education experiencing a pattern of increased economic marginalization (Shore, 2003). In an economic climate becoming increasingly advanced and more complex, the individual who drops out of high school restricts his options and opportunities in the labor market. In terms of financial ability and future productivity, not completing high school further prompts serious negative consequences for both the individual and society (Ѕtrothеr, 2006). Students with disabilities, like special education students, routinely face negative odds directly relating to their disabilities. When special education students also have disabilities, this further augments the potential for even more negative, related ramifications. Even though times of economic recession limit employment opportunities for the high school dropout, these trying times impact special education students without a high school diploma even more dramatically. Much attention has recently been devoted to determining rates of high school graduation but with no agreement on the exact numbers. Some students may complete 4 years of high school but not graduate. Others graduate late. A nontrivial proportion obtains a General Educational Development (GED) diploma, which has been found to be inferior to graduation in terms of earnings and human capital. (Cameron & Heckman, as cited in Levin, 2009, p. 8) Blackorby and Wagner (2006) and deBettencourt, Zigmond and Thornton (2005) postulate that at a minimum, the dropout rate of special education high school students double, and at the most, triple that of regular students. Dropout prevention depicts an effective strategy used to increase literacy rates and decrease unemployment rates within the United States. Former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, the National Governorѕ' Aѕѕociation, and the Council of Chief State School Officers have all staunchly supported the concept to decrease high school non-completion rates (MacMillan et al., 2002). Dropout prevention programs have consistently comprised part of Presidential administrations. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001) and IDEA (2004) portray two pieces of legislation that support the goal of decreasing dropout rates. Standardized testing and assessment; however, frequently facilitate legitimate loopholes. In the publication, “Special Ed's greatest challenges ... and solutions…,” Pamela Wheaton Shorr (2006), editor of the Heller Reports’ Educational Sales and Marketing Insider and a frequent contributor to Scholastic Administrator, recounts that as far back as 35 years ago, Congress reported that “more than half of American children with disabilities were not receiving appropriate educational services” (p. 1). Although American schools reportedly support a world-class system to differentiate instruction for all students, “regardless of cognitive, emotional or physical limitations,” the fact that some special ed students do not receive the education they deserve constitutes a primary concern that needs to be better addressed (p. 1). Special education issues that need attention include; but may not be limited to the fact that some students do not receive the education they deserve as well as the following four concerns: 1) Ensuring special ed teachers have appropriate textbooks; 2) Providing special ed teachers with help to complete needed paperwork; 3) Investigating why “a disproportionate number of children of color end up in special education” (Shorr, 2006, p. 1). Statistics don't lie: Children of color get labeled special needs more often than white kids. In fact, a landmark study by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University found that in most states, African-American children are one-and-a-half to four times as likely to be identified as having an emotional disturbance or being mentally retarded (p. 2; p. 4) The number of students classified as special ed students increases while the number of dollars allocated to the educational budget decrease. In many districts, the issues of morale, paperwork, and race pale when one compares these issues to the overwhelming concerns of decreased budgets and increased numbers of special-needs students. Educational systems depend heavily on two forms of contemporary achievement tests. One form of tests which evaluates large groups like schools or entire school districts “include annual state assessments for No Child Left Behind, (NCLB) and well known standardized tests such as Iowa Basics and Terra Nova tests” (Webster, 2011, p. 2). Educators utilize other forms of achievement tests to evaluate individual students.  Compliance with standardized testing, albeit, has permitted some school administrations to misclassify a number of low achieving students as students with disabilities to avoid the negative impacts of lowering the overall average of the school. In response to recurring concerns regarding standardized tests, President Barrack Obama declared his intention to replace these evaluation tools with more intricate assessments (Snell, 2010). To reform public education and increase the current standard of teaching in public schools, the current Federal administration created the Race to the Top public education reform program; reflecting an increase in the allotted budget for education of $100 billion (Snell, 2010). This program rewards States with funds that confirm their educational systems raised student performance in the past as well as possess the capability to utilize innovative reforms to accelerate student achievement gains (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Statistics reveal that increased government spending does not reduce the high school dropout rate. Even though funding and spending on education has continued to increase with each administration, the high school dropout rates basically remain the same and sometimes even increasing (Dynarski, et al., 2008). Christle, Jolivette and Nelson (2007) stress: Despite “the importance of graduating from high school, the high school dropout rate has remained relatively stable over the past 30 years, [which is] currently at 10.9%” (p. 325). Race to the Top and other State and Federal programs reflect the US government’s reported stance to place a high priority on education; confirming that a good education can help students become successful and productive members of the labor force and society. The recurring failure of government entities to reverse the dropout rate in the U.S. confirms the need for a concerted effort to determine the real reasons high school students quit or drop out. Therefore, this study determines to acquire more exact and explicit data revealing the specific reasons special education high school students drop out. This study bases its premise on the contention that each school and/or school district has different dropout characteristics. Ascertaining the characteristics dropouts display as well as identifying common reasons high school special education students drop out proves vital to aptly developing and applying appropriate dropout prevention strategies and programs to ultimately counteract the dropout rate. A clear understanding of what criteria contribute to defining a student as a special education student, albeit, needs to be initially established. According to the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), a professional, international organization which seeks to improve the educational success of special ed students, in the article, “Who Are Special Education Students?” (2010): Students with disabilities “who receive special education instruction and related services vary greatly in their needs and backgrounds” (p. 1). The CEC (2010) explains that special education students: Like all children, they differ from one another in ability, age, learning style, and personality. Students with disabilities come from all cultural backgrounds and may speak languages other than English. They all have unique learning needs based on their disabilities that require a number of special education and related services, such as specially designed instruction, adapted materials, speech-language therapy, or adaptive physical education. Some students with disabilities have cognitive impairments, such as mental retardation, which can range from mild to profound. Others have learning disabilities that require specific teaching strategies, including accommodations and modifications to the general education curriculum. Still other students have physical disabilities that require the use of wheelchairs or other assistive devices. Some students' impairments are sensory, such as hearing loss and vision impairments. Others have emotional conditions. In addition, chronic health problems and multiple disabilities can complicate learning for some. Contrary to a number of common myths that claim otherwise, special ed students can succeed in school. When special ed students receive an adequate education, they grow mentally and socially (CEC, 2010). Special ed students not only regularly attend high school, but many possess the capability to graduate. In the report, “Special Education in America, The state of students with disabilities in the nation's high schools,” Christopher B. Swanson (2008), director of Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, explains that approximately 33% of special ed students are typically high school age. Much variation exists within the special education population; however, particular disability classifications are more likely linked to negative educational outcomes. In addition, special ed students “more likely become involved in major disciplinary incidents like suspensions and expulsions than are their peers in general education programs… [They regularly] attain significantly lower levels of academic performance than the average student” (Swanson, Executive summary, p. 1). The current focus of increasing performance-based school accountability in conjunction with the expanding inclusion of students with disabilities in both Federal/State testing and liability systems have made special ed concerns more prominent. Problem Statement When compared to regular students, the disabilities of special education students automatically place them at a disadvantage when striving for financial stability and professional success. Not completing high school inherently increases the challenges that special education students face as they strive to become productive members of society and embark on personal independence. To produce significant results in decreasing dropout rates of special education students, different strategies other than increased government spending on special education programs need to be investigated. In the study, “Preventing Student Disengagement and Keeping Students on the Graduation Track in High-Poverty Middle-Grades Schools: Early Identification and Effective Interventions,” Robert Balfanz, Center for the Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University; Liza Herzog, Philadelphia Education Fund, and Douglas Mac Iver (2006), of the Center for the Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, examine whether student’s disengagement at the start of the middle grades reduces the likelihood these students will eventually graduate. Balfanz, Herzog and Iver (2006) assert that the following four indicators prove to be predictive of the student’s risk of dropping out of high school: 1) missing more than 20% of the time; 2) earning a poor final behavior grade; 3) failing English; 4: failing math. “Dropout predictors based on status variables (race, gender, age, special education or ELL status) have often been of limited practical utility because either many of the students with the characteristics ultimately graduate” (Balfanz, Herzog and Iver, 2007, p. 7). Directing additional interventions toward students like those in special education, Balfanz, Herzog, and Iver suggest it may drain resources that could potentially yield results elsewhere. They also contend that special education students routinely receive extra interventions, albeit, a number of students who need additional interventions are not successfully identified. The researcher for the current study contends that interventions toward helping ensure special ed students graduate from high school should not be perceived as a financial drain but as an investment. Interventions for one group of students may simultaneously serve to benefit the other group. Identifying common reasons high school students with disabilities drop out, albeit, proves crucial to the successful application of various dropout prevention strategies and techniques. As every school population differs from others, it can logically be assumed that high schools with different school and student characteristics would demonstrate diverse reasons relating to why special education students drop out. Although common reasons for dropping out may exist, the degree of their significance for each school differs. Hence, dropout prevention strategies that target the specific reasons high school students with disabilities drop out of school should be implemented for the intervention to be effective. A preliminary investigation conducted to determine the reasons students with disabilities drop out of high school could also help the Federal administration’s High School Graduation Initiative, “Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title I, Part H,” (High School Graduation Initiative, 2011) and the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) increase completion rates. Applying information from such investigations could contribute to helping ensure the various dropout prevention strategies and programs attain maximum effectiveness. The investigative process proves analogous to medical treatments. Preliminary examinations, interviews or observations need to be routinely conducted to ascertain the causes for the disease. Appropriate treatment can only be applied to cure the illness after a physician correctly diagnoses the problem. Similarly, determining the reasons students drop out of high school proves crucial to the success of dropout prevention programs. No specific method; however, has been developed as a standard for obtaining this type of sensitive data that varies, not only per State, but per school and/or school district. Purpose of the Study The study relates specific and accurate data regarding the critical common reasons high school special ed students drop out and do not earn their diplomas. The retrieved data contributes to the creation and implementation of appropriate dropout prevention strategies and programs for Ridgeville High School, the particular school chosen because of its significant population of students with disabilities and high dropout rates. The study utilizes a methodology with the capacity to ascertain the reasons students with disabilities drop out of high school and ultimately recommends concepts to help decrease the dropout rates of special education students. The National High School Center (NHSC) (2007) confirms the need exists for a standard methodology to secure data that can be compared across States as well as within States. The study may be readily replicated and implemented within different schools and school districts with high dropout rates. Research Questions The research questions for this study are: (a) What characteristics commonly describe high school special education students with disabilities who drop out of school? (b) What reasons comprise the most common reasons high school students with disabilities drop out of school? (c) How can determining the primary reasons special education high school students drop out from a particular school positively contribute to the development of dropout prevention programs and strategies? Hypothesis The inclusion of special education in the inclusion program of IDEA 2004 and in NCLB, signifies that students with disabilities share classes and classrooms with regular students. In response to this practice, because special ed students are different, it can be expected that these students may experience some discrimination. It can then be hypothesized that the top reasons special education high school students drop out of school include lack of interest, relating to the lack of a sense of belonging; absenteeism because they do not want to attend school, which they deem to be a hostile environment, and inappropriate curriculum because the school does not completely meet their special academic needs. Identification of Variables There are many factors and variables that relate to why special ed students drop out of high school (Lehr, et al., 2004, p. 12). All of these need to be considered throughout the study as a unique combination of variables are present in each student and they likewise have distinctive effects on the student. These variables will be identified through the preliminary questionnaire given to interviewees that will indicate the status variables and the type of disability the student has. Lehr, et al. (2004, pp. 12-13) identify the important status variables—those that are defined as not likely to change—that characterize dropouts as: age, gender, socioeconomic background, ethnicity, native language, region, mobility, ability, parental employment, school size and type, family structure and type of disability. The type of disability the student has and its severity are critical to the study they affect other variables. For instance, the more severe the disability, the higher the chances that the student will have a high absenteeism, which positively correlates to the probability of that student dropping out (Lher, et al., 2004, pp. 12). A legal definition of an individual with severe disability has been provided in article 34 CFR 350.5 of the Federal Code of Regulations (as cited in USLaw, Inc., 2011). Each student’s disability will be classified by the level of its severity using this definition (See Appendix A) and the classification will be validated by a professional school counselor. Because a professional school counselor is present for each interview, the severity of the student’s disability will also be observed firsthand. Federal legislation (as cited in Flagle, 2007) “has established 12 disability categories: autism, deaf-blindness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairments, mental retardation, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairments, other health impairments, specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairments, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairments.” These categories will be used to identify, classify and code the participants’ disabilities. The transcription and coding of the questionnaires, interviews and field notes provide ways of identifying the alterable variables, which are those that are not fixed and can be changed (Lehr, et al., 2004, p. 12). Because of this, “alterable variables are the focus of efforts to increase school completion” (p. 12). Hence, these variables need to be classified with careful consideration as their identification also depends on what the participants are willing to share. For instance, stressful life events is one alterable variable that is very personal; and if the participant chose not to disclose these painful experiences, it will become difficult for it to be identified for the purposes of this study. Hence, access to school counseling records prove to be essential to this study—access the school administration has generously given to the study. The alterable variables commonly associated with the act of dropping out are: grades, disruptive behavior, absenteeism, school policies, school climate, parenting, sense of belonging, attitudes toward school, educational support in the home, retention, and stressful life events (pp. 12-13). Other variables are easy to identify, while some may need careful observation and access to private information. Definition of Terms Disability – As stated in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, disability is defined as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities” (Mountain State, 2009). Dropout – This term denotes students, in this case special education high school students, that have officially dropped out of school. Dropouts usually have not attended school for one year, with the intention of not graduating due to reasons that are relative to the student. Dropout Prevention – This may come in the form of strategies, techniques and programs that have the objective and/or result of decreasing dropout rates. IDEA 2004 – The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a law that guarantees that children with disabilities are provided with services like early intervention, special education, and other related services that aim to give them equal opportunities. Dropping out – defined by Finn as a slow process of disengagement that begins early and is manifested in warning signs like absenteeism and low grades. This ends in the decision to ultimately quit school with the intention of not graduating. IEP – An Individualized Education Plan is a program specifically designed to address the distinctive needs of children, especially those with disabilities. This is mandated by IDEA and is subject to federal regulations. Inclusion – The act and concept of including students with disabilities in regular classrooms and schools without special treatment, supposedly so that they would feel that they belong and so that they can immerse themselves in the real world. NCLB – The No Child Left Behind Act was enacted by the United States Congress to upgrade American primary and secondary education by holding states, school districts and schools liable through strict compliance and by providing parents more freedom of choice of schools. QDA – Qualitative Data Analysis is a flexible process of mainly noticing things, collecting them, and thinking about them. Special Education – the “specialized instruction for students with disabilities” (Conderman and Pedersen, 2005). Student Engagement – This comes in the form of active student participation in school activities—both academic and extra-curricular, positive attitudes and behavior towards school, and the personal initiative of students to perform better in school (Harris, 2008). Research Plan The study seeks to identify the primary reasons students with disabilities opt to drop out of high school by conducting in-depth interviews of special education high school student dropouts from a chosen high school with a high percentage of students with disabilities. The researcher will develop a set of interview questions that considers each participant’s characteristics. These characteristics include status variables, race/ethnicity, age, financial situation and alterable variables like grades and extra-curricular activities are validated through the examination of each student’s school records. This step comprises the preliminary investigation into the reasons the participants dropped out of high school. After the researcher sorts and categorizes the data, he will conduct the next step; following through with conducting in-depth interviews with participants in the order most convenient for the participants. When needed, the researcher will address follows up questions with participants. Additionally, a psychology expert who regularly works with special education students will attend each of the interviews and record observations to help ensure the researcher conducts the interviews in an unbiased and professional manner. The researcher will also relate excerpts from these observations as a part of the analysis of the data. The researcher will secure assistance to transcribe the interviews and afterwards analyze the transcription, together with field notes, using qualitative data analysis (QDA). Qualitative data analysis involves a flexible process of mainly noticing things, collecting them, and thinking about them (Seidel, 1998). This process is derived from the QDA process of “Noticing, Collecting, and Thinking about interesting things” developed by John V. Seidel (1998). Noticing things pertinent to the topic involves the observations made during the course of research and in-depth interviews. These observations will be translated into field notes and the transcription of the interviews will be thoroughly read and reviewed. During this process of noticing interesting things, coding has also begun. As the data is being reviewed and analyzed, the researcher codes these data and classifies them into general categories. “Codes are tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study” (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 56). Once the data has been coded, it is now imperative to collect and sort them. This involves “searching for types, classes, sequences, processes, patterns or wholes” that will “assemble or reconstruct the data in a meaningful or comprehensible fashion” (Jorgensen, 1989, p. 107 cited in Seidel, 1998). In this way, the coded data can be organized and categorized into meaningful groups of data that can be easily analyzed and examined. Subcategories will be made when needed and new categories may arise throughout the course of sifting through data that has already been initially coded. This is essentially the coding system that is known today. Throughout this process, data will make more sense and spotting correlations and relationships between variables and the reasons why special education students drop out of high school will become less problematic and complicated. Because setting up personal meetings might prove difficult with a number of students who may have relocated since dropping out of high school or who began to work during the study time frame, the researcher will secure information for the interview questions sent via e-mail. The researcher will also tabulates these results, combined with face-to-face interview results to ascertain the primary reasons these students chose to drop out of high school. The researcher will make recommendations with regards to the appropriate dropout prevention strategies that best suit the specific school setting. The recommendation of dropout prevention strategies is based on the participant’s interviews, conjoined with the analysis of secondary academic sources. Ultimately, the researcher hopes, these recommendations will transition into applications that serve to strengthen the special education student’s resolve not to quit high school and to instead earn his diploma. REFERENCES America’s Promise Alliance. (2009). High school graduation rates rise in some major U.S. cities, but significant work remains to curb dropout crisis. Retrieved April 16, 2011 from http://www.americaspromise.org/About-the-Alliance/Press-Room/Press-Releases/2009/2009-April-22-High-School-Graduation-Rates-Rise.aspx Balfanz, R., Herzog, L. and Iver, D.J.M. (2006). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation track in poverty middle-grades schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Retrieved April 16, 2011 from http://www.lausd.net/SLC_Schools/docs/ms/rsrch/PhiladelphiaMacIverBalfanzHerzog.pdf Bear, G. G., Kortering, L. J. & Braziel, P. (2006). School completers and noncompleters with learning disabilities: Similarities in academic achievement and perceptions of self and teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 27(5), pp. 293+. Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & Iver, D. M. (2006). Preventing Student Disengagement and Keeping Students on the Graduation Track in High-Poverty Middle-Grades Schools: Early Identification and Effective Interventions. Retrieved January 27, 2011 from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd= 35&ved= 0CDQQFjAEOB4url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csos.jhu.edu%2Fnew%2… Blackorby, J. & Wagner, M. (2006). Longitudinal poѕtѕchool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62(5), pp. 399-413. Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K. & Michael, N. C. (2007). School characteristics related to high school dropout rates. Remedial and Special Education,28(6), pp. 325+. Conderman, G. and Pedersen, T. (2005). Promoting positive special education practices. NASSP Bulletin, 89, pp. 90-98. Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (2010). Who are special education students? Retrieved January 27, 2011 from http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ProfessionalDevelopment/CareerCenter/WhoAreStudentswithDisabilities/default.htm deBettencourt, L. U., Zigmond, N., & Thornton, H. (2005). Follow-up of postsecondary- age rural learning disabled graduates and dropouts. Exceptional Children, 56(1), pp. 40-49. Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumberger, R., & Smink, J. (2008). Dropout Prevention: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2008–4025). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2010). Progress on graduation rate stalls; 1.3 million students fail to earn diplomas. Washington: EPE Research Center. Feng, L. and Sass, T. R. (2010). The determinants of educational attainment in and employment for students with disabilities. Florida: U.S. Department of Education. Fisher, A. (2008). Who's hiring new college grads now. CNN Money.com. Retrieved March 9, 2010 from http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/27/news/economy/new.grads.fortune/index.htm Flagle, R. (2007). Raven’s guide to special education: Disabilities. Retrieved from http://seformmatrix.com/raven/raven2.htm Harris, L. R. (2008). A phenomenographic investigation of teacher conceptions of student engagement in learning. Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 57+. High School Graduation Initiative. (2011). Catalog of federal domestic assistance. Retrieved January 28, 2011 from https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program& mode=form&tab=step1&id=8cdd5eca7e5fedef86288ec436703a5a Lehr, C. A., Johnson, D. R., Bremer, C. D., Cosio, A. and Thompson, M. (2004). Increasing rates of school completion: Moving from policy and research to practice. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET). Levin, H. M.. (2009). The economic payoff to investing in educational justice. Educational Researcher, 38(5), pp. 5-20. Levinson, E.M. and Palmer, E.J. (2005). Preparing students with disabilities for school- to-work transition and post-school life. Retrieved April 16, 2011 from http://www.nasponline.org/resources/principals/Transition%20Planning%20WEB.pdf MacMillan, D. L., Widaman, K. F., Balow, I. H., Borthwick-Duffy, Ѕ., Hendrick, I. G., & Hemѕley, R. E. (2002). Ѕpecial education ѕtudentѕ exiting thе educational ѕyѕtem. Thе Journal оf Ѕpecial Education, 26(1), 20-36. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mountain State. (2009). Americans with disabilities act. Retrieved April 15, 2011 from http://www.mtstcil.org/skills/ada2-b.html National High School Center. (2007a, May). Dropout prevention for students with disabilities: A critical issue for state education agencies. Retrieved September 20, 2009 from http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/NHSC_DropoutPrevention_052507.pdf National High School Center. (2007b, October). Approaches to dropout prevention: Heeding early warning signs with appropriate interventions. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/NHSC_ApproachestoDropoutPrevention.pdf Reschly, A., & Appleton, J. (2008). Engaging students in school: The essential dimension dropout. Retrieved January 28, 2011 from http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=Finn%E2%80%99s+Participation-Identification+Model+of+School+Engagemet+&btnG =Google+Search&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=9f208f9e856ec787 Rumberger, R. W. (2003). High ѕchool dropout: A review оf thе iѕѕueѕ аnd evidence. Review оf Educational Reѕearch, 57, pp. 101-121. Rumberger, R. W. (2008). Dropping out оf high ѕchool: Thе influence оf race, ѕex, аnd family background. American Educational Reѕearch Journal, 20, pp. 200-220. Seidel, J. V. (1998). Qualitative data analysis. Retrieved August 12, 2009 from ftp://ftp.qualisresearch.com/pub/qda.pdf Shore, R. (2003). Kids Count indicator brief: Reducing the high school dropout rate. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Shorr, P.W. (2006). Special Ed's greatest challenges ... and solutions: Here are the top five special ed issues that affect school administrators, with resolutions for each. District Administration. Professional Media Group LLC. Snell, L. (2010). Obama’s education spending frenzy: After the administration’s first year, it’s status quo 20, reform 1. Reason, May issue. Retrieved from http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/09/obamas-education-spending-fren Ѕtrothеr, D. B. (2006).. Dropping out. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(4), pp. 325-328. Sum, A. (2009). The consequences of dropping out of high school. Retrieved April 16, 2011 from http://www.clms.neu.edu/publication/documents/The_Consequences_of_Dropping_Out_of_High_School.pdf Swanson, C. B. (2008). Special Education in America, The state of students with disabilities in the nation's high schools. Retrieved January 27, 2011 from http://www.edweek.org/media/eperc_specialeducationinamerica.pdf USLegal, Inc. (2011). Individual with a severe disability [education] law & legal definition. Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/individual-with-a-severe-disability-education/ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010a). United States Unemployment Rate. Retrieved from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-Rate.aspx?Symbol=USD _____. (2010b). United States Unemployment Rate. Retrieved from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment Rate.aspx?Symbol=USD U.S. Department of Education. (2009). U.S. department of education opens race to the top competition. Retrieved January 27, 2011 from http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/11/11122009.html Webster, J. (2011). Testing and Assessment for Special Education - a Testing Overview, The Varieties of Assessments for Different Purposes. The New York Times Company. Retrieved January 27, 2011 from http://specialed.about.com/od/assessment/tp/assessmentoverview.htm APPENDIX A Individual with a Severe Disability [Education] Law & Legal Definition According to 34 CFR 350.5 [Title 34 – Education; Subtitle B -- Regulations of the Offices of the Department of Education; Chapter III -- Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education; Part 350 -- Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program; Subpart A – General] the term individual with a severe disability means -- “(1)(i) An individual with a disability who has a severe physical or mental impairment that seriously limits one or more functional capacities (such as mobility, communication, self-care, self-direction, interpersonal skills, work tolerance, or work skills) in terms of an employment outcome; (ii) Whose vocational rehabilitation can be expected to require multiple vocational rehabilitation services over an extended period of time; and (iii) Who has one or more physical or mental disabilities resulting from amputation, arthritis, autism, blindness, burn injury, cancer, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, deafness, head injury, heart disease, hemiplegia, hemophilia, respiratory or pulmonary dysfunction, mental retardation, mental illness, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, musculoskeletal disorders, neurological disorders (including stroke and epilepsy), paraplegia, quadriplegia, other spinal cord impairments, sickle cell anemia, specific learning disability, end-stage renal disease, or another disability or combination of disabilities determined on the basis of an assessment of rehabilitation needs to cause comparable substantial functional limitation; or (2) An individual with a severe mental or physical impairment whose ability to function independently in the family or community or whose ability to obtain, maintain, or advance in employment is substantially limited and for whom the delivery of independent living services will improve the ability to function, continue functioning, or move towards functioning independently in the family or community or to continue in employment, respectively.” (Authority: Section 7(15)(C); 29 U.S.C. 706(15)(C)) (USLegal, Inc., 2011) Read More