SPECIAL EDUCATION - Essay Example

TYPE OF RESEARCH: Qualitative. Study size and combining of various types of special needs children ● POPULATION SAMPLE: Within of Virginia Department of Education, 1991 all special education directors in the State (80 percent responded)1,000 randomly selected special education teachers of students with high incidence disabilities--educable mental retardation, emotional disabilities, and learning disabilities (85 percent responded); and more than 3,000 other special educators serving students with low incidence, moderate and severe disabilities such as hearing and vision impairments, speech-language impairments, and preschoolers with disabilities.

● SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES: The purpose of the study is to evaluate practices in the special education classroom that have existed since the 1970s. The study begins with a varied group of stakeholders. “73 members included local school board members; principals; directors of special education; general, vocational, and special education teachers; parents; students; and VDOE staff”(VDOE 1991). This group of stakeholders identifies the most importantquestions to be answered in special education settings, to complete Phase I of the study.

Phase II (Fall 1992-Spring 1993) collects statewide information, through mail surveys toeducators in all districts within the state. Phase III of the study involves (Fall 1993-Spring 1994), recommended revisions to the program standards for students with disabilities. Recommendations are based on information gathered during Phase I and Phase II of the study, studies of class size, funding policies in other states and prior studies of special education in Virginia. The two questions identified as the most important are: 1.

What are the effects on student achievement of varying class sizes and mixing students with different disabilities? 2. How do the special education program standards inhibit or facilitate effective service delivery? ● SUMMARY OF RESULTS: Educators and administrators often view the current program standards in special education as too rigid, creating difficulty in placing students in specific programs. Overall, students achieve at lower levels in larger class sizes. Other aspects of development, such as emotional and social, are apparently not affected by class size.

There is also some disagreement on standards of class size. However, teachers andAdministrators both agree that smaller classes are needed. Teachers judge size Standards for special education classes as high, while administrators judge them aslow. The mixing of various types of disabilities within a single classroom does not appearto affect academic achievement, according to teachers, while fewer resources and methods are used in the mixed classroom. Teachers, as a whole, oppose mixing studentsof various types of disabilities.

Class size and mix standards for students with lesssevere or low incidence disabilities are less problematic for teachers and students, fromthe perspective of teachers. However, there are a few exceptions, “most notably caseload sizes for early childhood special education and speech-language impairment”(VDOE).● STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF STUDY: The study takes into account the views or perceptions of administrators and teachers,through the mail questionnaire. It fails to take into account the views and perceptions ofparents.

While special education teachers spend a significant amount of time with thechildren they teach, parents live with the children and see them in their most natural environments at home, in the family, neighborhood and community setting. Their input and perceptions may vary greatly, in terms of achievement and social/emotionaldevelopment. Teachers may respond in terms of expectations and abilities, rather thanfrom the perspective of what is best for each child. Teachers want to be successful andtherefore, respond in a manner that reinforces success, even when problems are identified.

However, most admit that classroom size and types of disabilities affect theirown abilities to apply more individualized or specialized methods, due to logistics andtime constraints. Administrators also want to view their programs as successful. Inopposition to teachers, they appear to be lacking the first hand knowledge on the effectsof class size, types of disabilities and methods available to teachers. Administrators oftenmust work within budgets as well, failing to take into account the individual child.

Theymay tend to look at programs as a whole, in terms of effectiveness, believing that fundingand programming is adequate. Teachers do admit, that mixing various types of disabilities in the classroom, posesgreater challenge in providing an expected level of quality in education. This is reinforced by teacher views on standards for classroom size. While they may believe that students with special needs receive adequate educational services, they believe thatachievement and provision of services can improve, based on changes in class size andgrouping of students according to type of disability.

Teachers are often the strongestadvocates for their students. The study indicates that special education students in Virginia do advocate for their students. Teacher responses also indicate that they can identify realistic standards and effective strategies for students with learning disabilities.ReferencesVirginia Department of Education (1991). Special Education Program Standards Study of Class Size and Combining Students with Various Disabilities. Retrieved 19 September, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/OSEP96AnlRpt/appb-4.html.A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o nTo Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education of All Children with Disabilities - 1996 Special Education Program Standards Study of Class Size and Combining Students with Various DisabilitiesVirginia Department of Education, FY 1991The Policy ContextVirginias Special Education Program Standards define the maximum caseloads special education teachers can carry and the conditions under which students with different disabilities can be instructed together.

Virginias special education delivery system is based on the categorical placement of students with disabilities who receive special education services for 50 percent or more of the day. As of 1992, when this study was initiated, special education class size and class mix standards in the State had not changed since the 1970s. Evidence of the need to evaluate these standards in light of changing practices included: 1) an increase in the number and types of waivers requested by local school divisions; 2) an increase in parent and advocate complaints about approved waivers; and 3) a consensus of key stakeholders that the standards might have become too rigid for determining appropriate programs for individual students.

The Research Questions The study, conducted by The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) in conjunction with researchers from the Virginia Polytechnic University and the University of Virginia, gathered information designed to enable the Superintendent of Schools and State Board of Education to determine those areas in which the special education standards are successful or need improvement. The project team examined two primary research questions: 1. What are the effects on student achievement of varying class sizes and mixing students with different disabilities? 2. How do the special education program standards inhibit or facilitate effective service delivery?

MethodsInvestigators took a stakeholder-based approach to answering the research questions. Stakeholders were chosen to represent diverse constituencies with disparate views on the key issues and high stakes in the outcome of the program standards study. The composition of the stakeholder group was carefully balanced with the aim of promoting a common framework for understanding the issues involved in analyzing and developing policy. The larger stakeholder group of 73 members included local school board members; principals; directors of special education; general, vocational, and special education teachers; parents; students; and VDOE staff.

This group provided input concerning all aspects of the study. Seventeen representatives of the larger group formed the stakeholder steering team, which was actively involved in designing the instruments, collecting data, and formulating recommendations. Study activities were carried out in three phases. During Phase I (Spring 1992), determinations were made about which issues warranted full-scale study and the best methods for collecting statewide data from multiple sources. This phase included a literature review on the effects of varying class size and class mix, and site visits to three school divisions to gather in-depth information through interviews, document reviews, observations, and surveys.

During Phase II (Fall 1992-Spring 1993), broad-based, statewide information was collected, primarily through administration of mail surveys to: all special education directors in the State (80 percent responded); 1,000 randomly selected special education teachers of students with high incidence disabilities--educable mental retardation, emotional disabilities, and learning disabilities (85 percent responded); and more than 3,000 other special educators serving students with low incidence, moderate and severe disabilities such as hearing and vision impairments, speech-language impairments, and preschoolers with disabilities (45 percent responded).

Opinions on the program standards for students with disabilities were also solicited from persons attending statewide public hearings. Twenty-five attendees at three hearings provided public testimony. In addition, 255 written comments were received during the public comment period. During Phase III (Fall 1993-Spring 1994), recommended revisions to the program standards for students with disabilities were formulated. The recommendations were based on information gathered during Phases I and II, on studies of class size and funding policies in other States, and on prior studies of special education in Virginia.

During this phase, the information was collected during monthly stakeholder steering team meetings; quarterly focus group meetings with the broader stakeholder groups; presentations to the Virginia Department of Education management and the Board of Education; and meetings on selected topics held with various advisory councils,faculty at institutions of higher education, and advocacy groups. FindingsThe major study findings are described below. Many administrators, as well as some teachers and parents, perceive the program standards as too rigid for determining appropriate programs for individual students.

On the whole, students achieve at lower levels in larger classes, while other areas (social and affective indicators, as well as teaching methods) are unaffected by class size. Teachers and administrators agreed on some aspects of class size standards and disagreed on others. Both groups consistently recommended smaller resource classes. However, teachers judged size standards for most self-contained and departmentalized classes as high, while administrators regarded most as manageable. Neither student achievement nor social and affective indicators (e.g., motivation, self-concept, work habits, etc.) appear to be discernibly affected when students with educable mental retardation, emotional disturbances, and learning disabilities are instructed together.

Teachers in mixed classrooms used significantly fewer methods of instruction, as well as more large group instruction, than those in classrooms where students with only one type of disability were taught. Unlike special education directors, teachers in all categories oppose the practice of mixing students with educable mental retardation, emotional disturbances, and learning disabilities. In general, class size and class mix standards for students with low incidence disabilities are seen as less problematic than those for students with emotional disturbances, educable mental retardation, and learning disabilities.

However, there are a few exceptions, most notably caseload sizes for early childhood special education and speech-language impairment. Another of the studys significant accomplishments, as documented by an external process evaluation by the Evaluation Center of the University of Virginia, was its successful implementation of a complex, participatory stakeholder-based design, that incorporated stakeholder input into the study process and formulation of findings. Recommendations The study resulted in nine recommendations that have been or will be used to develop new statewide standards for students with disabilities in Virginia.

The major recommendations to the State Board of Education are described below. The caseload for students with educable mental retardation and speech or language impairments should be reduced. On the strength of this recommendation, the State Board of Education requested additional funds in their 1994 budget to support the States share of costs for reducing class sizes for students with educable mental retardation and speech or language impairments. Study personnel further recommended that this budget request be approved by the General Assembly for implementation in the 1994-1995 school year.

Current teacher caseloads should be preserved when students with disabilities are integrated in general education settings. New standards should not require that students with disabilities be grouped exclusively by disability category. Placement should be decided by a students individualized education program (IEP) committee based on appraisal of each students needs. New standards should permit exceptions to be made to State regulations for innovative programs that are locally planned with stakeholder and local school board involvement, provided such programs do not override students IEPs or violate Federal regulations.

Additional recommendations call for conducting further studies in several areas, including investigating the impact of inclusion. -###-