Investigating the Interrelationships Preventing Impoverished Students from Exiting Special Education: A Case Study. PDF Free Download
1 / 201/201
100%
Investigating the Interrelationships Preventing
Impoverished Students from Exiting Special
Education: A Case Study.
Bolden, Denisha Yvette
https://researchdiscovery.drexel.edu/esploro/outputs/doctoral/Investigating-the-Interrelationships-Preventing-Impoverished-Students/991021120114
604721/filesAndLinks?index=0
Bolden, D. Y. (2023). Investigating the Interrelationships Preventing Impoverished Students from Exiting
Special Education: A Case Study [Drexel University]. https://doi.org/10.17918/00001719
Document Version: PDF
Downloaded On 2025/09/14 09:48:59 -0400
Research:Open
Open Access (License Unspecified)
Contact: libsystems.drexel.edu
Repository homepage: https://researchdiscovery.drexel.edu/
Please do not remove this page
GRADUATE THESIS APPROVAL FORM
AND SIGNATURE PAGE
Instructions: This form must be completed by all doctoral students with a thesis requirement. This form MUST be included
as page 1 of your thesis via electronic submission to ProQuest.
Thesis Title: Investigating the Interrelationships Preventing Impoverished
Students from Exiting Special Education: A Case Study
Author’s Name: Denisha Yvette Bolden
Submission Date: 06/19/2023
The signatures below certify that this thesis is complete and approved by the Examining Committee.
Role: Chair Name: Amanda Lannie
Title: Assistant Clinical Professor
Department: School of Education
Approved: Yes Date: 06/21/2023
Role: Member Name: Dr. Charlene Symia
Title: Principal
Institution: Easton Area School District
Approved: Yes Date: 06/19/2023
Role: Member Name: Bridget Blakely
Title: Associate Clinical Professor
Department: School of Education
Approved: Yes Date: 06/22/2023
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
Investigating the Interrelationships Preventing Impoverished Students from Exiting
Special Education: A Case Study
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty
of
Drexel University
by
Denisha Yvette Bolden
In partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Education
May 2023
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
© Copyright 2023
Denisha Y. Bolden. All Rights Reserved.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
iii
Dedications
Words can never explain my gratitude toward the important people in my life
without them this dissertation would not be feasible. To my mother, thank you for always
pushing me to do more and be more. Your love and support laid the foundation for my
success.
To Rodney, to describe our relationship as complex would be an understatement.
Nevertheless, I wanted you to know that I love and appreciate you. Thank you for dealing
with me and all the craziness during my educational journey and our lives together.
To my daughter, Avery, my natural-born scholar; you have always studied and
applied the lessons you learned from books. Remember that you can also learn from
living. Experience is a wonderful teacher. To my daughter, Kendall, my sensitive artist;
stay sensitive, kind, and caring. You are the first person in my life to demonstrate what
empathy really means and it has made all the difference in my world and will continue to
in yours. You girls are two halves of a whole, continue to be good friends and elevate one
another as you move into adulthood. I love you both more than you know.
To my students, please know that you are the reason I return to this profession
year after year. If you learn nothing else from me always remember one thing: there is no
tool or test that can ever define you. Just keep growing and reflecting, it will not only
help you become better students, but most importantly, it will help you become better
people. You are the inspiration this world needs to pause long enough to understand that
we are all different for a reason.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
iv
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dr. Amanda Lannie; without all your support and patience I
would not have made it through the dissertation process. Thanks for the remarkable
amount of guidance throughout this journey, it simply would not have been possible
without you.
A big thank you to Dr. Bridget Blakely and Dr. Charlene Symia for serving as my
committee members, I am truly appreciative of your support.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ VI
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... VII
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... IX
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH .................................................. 1
PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEM .................................................. 5
THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................. 6
DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................................................................... 11
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS .......................................................................... 12
CHAPTER 2: THE LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 14
Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Students ............................................................... 15
School Characteristics ................................................................................................... 23
Learning Disabilities ..................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 41
RESEARCH DESIGN AND RATIONALE .................................................................... 42
DATA COLLECTION AND PROCEDURES ................................................................. 55
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS ........................................................................... 59
Documents ........................................................................................................................ 64
Surveys .............................................................................................................................. 90
Focus Groups .................................................................................................................. 103
Coding ............................................................................................................................. 104
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
vi
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. 120
Research Question One: Do special education programs/services address the negative
effects of SES for transition aged students with SLDs? ................................................. 121
Research Question Two: Do special education programs/services impact the reading
skills of impoverished, transition aged students with SLD in reading? .......................... 125
Research Question Three: What are teachers’ perceptions of the classroom factors that
impact impoverished, transition-aged students with SLD in reading from exiting special
education programs/services? ......................................................................................... 128
IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 132
LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ............ 142
LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 145
APPENDIX A TEACHER SURVEY ............................................................................ 163
APPENDIX B SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .............................. 175
APPENDIX C FAMILY DEMOGRAPHICS SURVEY ............................................... 178
APPENDIX D RESEARCH SUBJECT CONSENT FORM ......................................... 182
APPENDIX E PARENT EMAIL ................................................................................... 186
APPENDIX F TEACHER EMAIL ................................................................................ 187
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
vii
LIST OF TABLES
1. Data Instruments, Purposes, and Type of Data Collected .....................................51
2. Research Timeline .................................................................................................57
3. Elementary School Demographics .........................................................................60
4. Middle School Demographics................................................................................61
5. Student Enrollment within the District ............................................................ 61-62
6. Special Education Enrollment at the Site and District Levels ...............................62
7. Student Demographic Information ........................................................................65
8. Ivy’s Progress Monitoring Data for Grades 6-7 ....................................................76
9. Lily’s Progress Monitoring Data for Grades 6-7 ...................................................76
10. Clem’s Progress Monitoring Data for Grades 6-7 .................................................77
11. Rose’s Progress Monitoring Data for Grades 6-7 ..................................................77
12. Student Report Card Averages for Performance in Reading/ELA during Grades
6-7 ..............................................................................................................80
13. Average Number of Accommodations and Modifications Received in Grades
6-7 ..............................................................................................................86
14. Teacher Demographics ..........................................................................................92
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Literature Streams ....................................................................................................8
2. FRPL Qualifications and Special Education Population Data ...............................43
3. Race/Ethnicity of Student Population ....................................................................44
4. Possible Population Pattern....................................................................................63
5. Ability Ranges of Students ....................................................................................67
6. Student Ranges.......................................................................................................69
7. Student RR Testing Data Summaries ....................................................................73
8. Common Accommodations and Modifications Provided in Grades 6 and 7.........85
9. EF Weaknesses Listed in Elementary School (K-5) .............................................89
10. Coding Themes ....................................................................................................106
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
ix
Abstract
Investigating the Interrelationships Preventing Impoverished Students from Exiting
Special Education: A Case Study
Denisha Yvette Bolden, Ed.D.
A disproportionate number of students from low socio-economic statuses (SES)
are enrolled in special education as students with specific learning disabilities (SLD).
Despite resources provided through special education, only a small percentage of students
are exited before secondary school. This instrumental case study investigated the
variables preventing impoverished, transition-aged students from leaving special
education. This study sought to understand why low SES students identified with SLDs
in reading before middle school, are unable to exit special education by transition-age
through the exploration of SES, SLD criteria, and school characteristics. The sample
population included special education students with Individualized Education Programs
(IEP) that were enrolled in eighth-grade, itinerant and supplemental classes. This
population also included general and special education teachers that teach
reading/English Language Arts classes. The research questions were generated to
examine the following: (1) Do special education programs/services address the negative
effects of SES for transition aged students with SLDs? (2) Do special education
programs/services impact the reading skills of impoverished transition aged students with
SLD in reading? (3) What are teachers’ perceptions of the classroom factors that impact
impoverished, transition-aged students with SLD in reading from exiting special
education programs/services? Analysis of archival documents studied included
qualitative and quantitative data found in evaluation reports, IEPs, progress monitoring
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
x
reports, websites, and report cards. Teacher surveys and a focus group included the
collection of qualitative and quantitative data from closed-ended and open-ended
questions. The results identified factors contributing to academic achievement and failure
for low SES, transition-aged, special education students.
Keywords: Special education, specific learning disabilities, socioeconomic status,
transition, Individualized Education Plans, reading skills
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Research
Despite being one of the wealthiest countries in the world, the United States
(U.S.) has one of the highest rates of childhood poverty (ChildFund International, 2013).
Census.gov reported that 14.4%, or 10.5 million, Americans in poverty are children under
the age of 18 in 2019 (Semega et al., 2020). In the same year, the average estimated
poverty rate for school-age children was 13.9% for all U.S. school districts (Semega et
al., 2020).
Growing up in a low socio-economic status (SES) home can reduce a child’s
readiness for school (Lacour & Tissington, 2011). Poverty can also lead to poor physical
health and motor skills, lessen a child’s ability to concentrate on and remember
information, reduce attentiveness, curiosity, and motivation to complete assignments
(Education and Socioeconomic Status, 2017). Poverty related effects on childhood brain
development can include the presence of persistent stressors such as noise (including
background noise) and conflict among family members, as well as various sources of
disorder in the household that could change the child’s physiologic response to stress
(Blair & Raver, 2016). These stressors can lead to potentially negative effects on the
child’s developing brain; they can also lead to a range of harmful cognitive, emotional,
and behavioral conditions (Blair & Raver, 2016).
To encourage the development of all students, multi-tiered systems of supports,
also called MTSS, for academics and/or behaviors should be in place in schools. MTSS is
a multi-tiered approach to help all students benefit from extra assistance in academics
and/or behaviors. Struggling learners, in particular, benefit from the MTSS process
because their needs are addressed early rather than waiting until students demonstrate
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
2
significant needs. MTSS can address any social or behavioral concerns a student may
display. In MTSS, students' progress is closely monitored at each stage of intervention to
determine the need for further research-based instruction and/or intervention in general
education or special education.
Despite the innovation that the MTSS process proposes, it has been met with
some concerns. The legal requirements for special education referrals and evaluations
have remained the same for more than 30 years, leaving many schools struggling to
comply with the requirements set by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), such as the child-find process (Martin, Legal Implications of Response to
Intervention and Special Education Identification, 2020). The child-find process requires
schools to locate any students that may have a disability, whether that disability has been
documented or not, and may require the services of special education. Once located,
districts are required to evaluate such students for potential eligibility for special
education services (Martin, Legal Implications of Response to Intervention and Special
Education Identification, 2020).
Because of this mandate, schools cannot wait for parents to make a formal request
for a special education referral because of a probable disability that may be affecting their
child’s academic success. Instead, the school is required to “maintain a system of notices,
outreach efforts, staff training, and referral process” that establishes a foundation for a
special education referral when a student is suspected of having a disability (Martin,
Legal Implications of Response to Intervention and Special Education Identification,
2020). This legislation attempts to help schools identify students who need special
education services and intervene promptly. However, in 2004, Congress expressed
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
3
concerns about the growing population of students placed in special education programs
as students identified with a specific learning disability (SLD) (Martin, Legal
Implications of Response to Intervention and Special Education Identification, 2020).
SLD is the largest of the main categories of special education exceptionalities for
students who are not physically or mentally impaired but still struggle in the classroom
(National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2021b). SLD is a “disorder in one or
more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language,
spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak,
read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations” (Hussar et al., 2020). This category
has grown considerably over the years and has often become a place for students who are
failing, or not responding to general education programming or interventions. Reading
disabilities are the most common SLD, accounting for 80% of all identified SLDs (Kohli
et al., 2018).
In the 2019-2020 school year, the number of school age students receiving special
education services was 7.3 million (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES],
2021b). That is 14% of all public schools in the U.S. (National Center for Education
Statistics [NCES], 2021b). Statistics also show that 33% of all students receiving special
education services nationally were identified as having an SLD; the most common
category (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2021b). That statistic is 14%
higher than students with speech or language disabilities and 18% higher than students
identified with Other Health Impairment (OHI) exceptionalities (Hussar et al., 2020).
According to the state of Pennsylvania’s (PA) Child Count report, 39.2% of the
state’s students with disabilities were identified as having an SLD (Pennsylvania State
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
4
Data Center, 2020). This is PA’s largest category of disability for the last five school
years (Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2020). While the state’s population of students
with disabilities continued to grow, only 1,836 of student with disabilities between the
ages of 14-21 were transferred back to regular education (Pennsylvania Department of
Education, 2020).
School districts across PA reported 44.2% of their students to be
economically disadvantaged (Christ, 2020) These statistics also show that children
from low SES backgrounds are more than twice as likely to be identified as a
student with an SLD as children in households with income four times above the
poverty level (National Center for Learning Disabilities [NCLD], 2017).
Despite the research provided showing how a student’s low SES
background can be a direct association to their qualifications for SLD, these
students are continuously overrepresented in special education programs. While a
large quantity of research is available to discuss the overrepresentation of
impoverished students in special education, the opportunity to research and
discuss how special education influences the achievement of low SES students
before secondary school are limited.
Statement of the Problem to be Researched
Research indicates there are less students with learning disabilities exiting special
education than entering, even with the time and resources provided by special education
programs and services. When low SES students are not able to exit special education
before secondary school their ability to progress efficiently into adulthood could be
impacted, possibly affecting their transition abilities and aspirations for adulthood.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
5
Purpose and Significance of the Problem
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this instrumental case study was to explore the effect of special
education programming on the academic skills of impoverished special education
students, particularly those students identified with specific learning disabilities in
reading who have not exited special education by transition age. The research focused on
student reading achievement before and after receiving special education services and its
relationship with SES to determine what special education programs/services had the
most impact on students exiting special education before transition age. Although this
research recognized the overrepresentation of low SES students in special education, it
did not seek to correct or remedy issues found within the process of overidentification of
low SES in special education. Results from this research provided details needed for
preparation programs aimed at teachers, school leaders, and child development
professionals.
Significance of the Problem
Though available literature explains the interrelationships among SES, language
proficiency, and race and ethnicity in the U.S., there is a lack of research on the
interventions and supports used in special education programming to combat the negative
effect of SES factors in the classroom when focused directly on students exiting special
education. When contemplating the results of student academic achievement, previous
research has not considered the impact of SES on students, teacher perspectives, SLD
criteria, and school characteristics after students are placed in special education in an
effort to exit them from the special education. Exploring these notions allowed the
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
6
researcher to possibly triangulate why these students do not exit special education on a
regular basis.
Research Questions Focused on Solution Finding
This study addressed the following research questions:
1. Do special education programs/services address the negative effects of SES for
transition aged students with SLDs?
2. Do special education programs/services impact the reading skills of impoverished
transition aged students with SLD in reading?
3. What are teachers’ perceptions of the classroom factors that impact impoverished,
transition-aged students with SLD in reading from exiting special education
programs/services?
The Conceptual Framework
Researcher Stances. As a critical theorist, I recognize that some teachers see special
education services as the only means for low SES students to be successful in the
classroom, sometimes unconsciously clinging to the notion that low SES students cannot
meet the expectations of a general education classroom. The negative attitude received
from general and special education teachers that do not want students to exit special
education disturbs me. Those feelings lead me to want to protect and “emancipate” my
students from biased teachers and administration.
As a social constructivist, I understand that my background, beliefs, and
experiences could shape the interpretation of my data. Therefore, it was imperative that I
kept my personal feelings about my research neutral particularly because my worldviews
as a special education teacher in a low SES school setting influenced my perspectives of
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
7
education from K-12. Machi and McEvoy (2016) further explain, “Personal attachment
can also carry bias and opinion, causing researchers to jump to premature conclusions”
(p. 21). To effectively explore this topic, I needed to present perspectives from all sides
of the topic.
Students living in low SES communities are more likely to be involved in the
cycle of poverty, MTSS process, and/or receive some type of special education services.
In addition, a teacher’s perspective can have an effect on a student’s education. These
realities had a direct impact on my thoughts and beliefs about education in low SES
school settings, and therefore an impact on my research lens.
While previous studies have largely focused on the disproportionate rates of
economically disadvantaged students entering special education, there has been little
focus on their exit from special education programs. I strongly believe that special
education was designed to utilize differentiated instruction for each of their students.
Differentiated instruction is a teaching strategy that adapts instruction to students’
different learning needs. Once the right “pieces” have been put into place, students
should make tremendous gains educationally and behaviorally, providing the opportunity
to exit from special education programs. The lack of opportunity provided to low SES
students to exit special education programs/services became an interest from me in this
research study.
Experiential Base. While my interest in special education programs led me to study
exiting impoverished students by transition age, my philosophical paradigms of critical
theory and social constructivism led me to select an instrumental case study. A case study
allows for an in-depth exploration of a bounded system based on extensive data
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
8
collection (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). An instrumental case study was most
appropriate because it allowed the research to illustrate concerns and provide insight into
the issue (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019).
Conceptual Framework. To provide essential background knowledge for this case
study, topics in the literature streams included information about behaviors and academic
achievement of students from low SES backgrounds to be compared with the behaviors
and academic achievement of students with learning disabilities. The literature review
also included information about school characteristics and their special education
processes, as well as information on how students are assessed for learning disabilities.
The figure 1 displays the relationships among these topics in the figure below.
Figure 1
Literature Streams
SES Status
Relevant literature indicates a strong correlation between SES experiences and
academic performance in reading (Education and Socioeconomic Status, 2017). Lower
SES students often perform below those from higher SES backgrounds on tests of
SES Status
Learning
Disabilities
School
Characteristics
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
9
intelligence and overall academic achievement (Hair, Hanson, Wolfe, & Pollak, 2015).
Because of their backgrounds, low SES children show cognitive problems, short attention
spans, elevated levels of distractibility, difficulty monitoring the quality of their work,
and difficulty problem-solving in the classroom (Education and Socioeconomic Status,
2017).
Regrettably, students from low-income families are less likely to have the
background knowledge to recognize the academic words used in classrooms, including
the phonic patterns that appear in grade-level reading materials (Lervag, Dolean, Tincas,
& Melby-Lerbag, 2018). Unfortunately, early difficulties with basic reading, or decoding,
skills typically result in limited time engaged in the text reading due to frustrations in
fluency and comprehension (Denton & Al Otaiba, 2011). Not knowing the words also
diminishes their confidence, causing students to dislike school and internalize their
feelings (Klassen, 2010). Because of these behaviors students from low SES schools are
more likely to be classified as having a learning disability than students from higher SES
areas (Education and Socioeconomic Status, 2017).
Learning Disabilities
Learning disabilities make up the largest category of special education
exceptionalities for students who are not physically or mentally impaired but still struggle
academically in the classroom (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2021b).
A learning disability is a “disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes
involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself
in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical
calculations” (Hussar et al., 2020).
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
10
Students found to have learning disabilities are diagnosed with a particular
academic skill deficit to identify their specific learning disability/disabilities. An SLD can
be in mathematics and include math calculation and/or math problem-solving (Wisconsin
State Reading Association, 2013). A diagnosis of SLD can also be for written expression
in the areas of spelling, vocabulary, or writing conventions (Wisconsin State Reading
Association, 2013). If a student is diagnosed with an SLD in reading, that identification
may include a disability in basic reading, reading fluency, and/or reading comprehension
(Wisconsin State Reading Association, 2013). When considering SLDs, reading
disabilities are the most common, accounting for 80% of all identified SLDs ( (National
Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2021b).
School Characteristics
The number of children from poor, or low socioeconomic status, backgrounds
within a school district vary from one school area to the next but can be tracked through
the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Data received from the NSLP provides an
estimate of the number of students that are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals
(FRPL) within a school district (Hussar et al., 2020). These statistics can provide an
informal estimate of the number of low-income students within a local public or charter
school. A school’s category is then based on the number of students that are eligible for
FRPL in their district. Schools where more than 75% of the students are eligible for
FRPL during the school year are deemed high-poverty schools (Hussar et al., 2020).
Using the eligibility data provided from the NSLP can help school administration
determine how their students’ backgrounds influence the learning process.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
11
A website called, The Nation’s Report Card, is an organization that assesses U.S.
students in public and private schools, and tracks student subgroups from various
jurisdictions to report their progress made in several subject areas, including reading, in
grades 4, 8, and 12 (The Nation's Report Card, 2021). According to this site, PA students
with disabilities that were not eligible for FRPL scored significantly higher on the 2019
NAEP Reading Assessment than students with disabilities that were eligible for FRPL
(The Nation's Report Card, 2021). When comparing students without disabilities,
students that were not eligible for FRPL still scored significantly higher on the 2019
NAEP Reading Assessment than students that did qualify for FRPL.
Definition of Terms
Full-time Support - refers to special education supports and services provided by special
education personnel for 80% or more of the school day.
Individualized Education Program (IEP) - A legally binding document by the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that public schools create an
IEP for every child receiving special education services to address each child’s unique
learning issues and include specific educational goals.
Itinerant Support- refers to special education supports and services provided by special
education personnel for 20% or less of the school day.
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) - the requirement in federal law that students
with disabilities receive their education, to the maximum extent appropriate, with
nondisabled peers and that special education students are not removed from regular
classes unless, even with supplemental aids and services, education in regular classes
cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
12
Multi-tiered System of Support (MTSS) - is a multi-tiered approach to the early
identification and support of students with learning and behavior needs.
Socio-economic status (SES) - status received after considering the social grouping,
income, and education of a person.
Specific Learning Disability (SLD) - A disorder in one or more of the basic
psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or
written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak,
read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.
Supplemental Support - refers to special education supports and services provided by
special education personnel for more than 20% but less than 80% of the school day.
Assumptions and Limitations
There were multiple assumptions and limitations in this study. A safe assumption
was the limited number of students in this study limited the generalizability of the data
collected. Another assumption was that the responses of the parent demographic surveys
were not completely honest. Also, students in low SES districts can be transient, resulting
in one or more of the students transferring out of the selected site while the study is being
conducted. Finally, it was assumed that not all archival student data was completely
accurate due to human error in the creation of said documents. Inaccurate student data
could also be the result of an error in the learning management system.
A limitation from teacher surveys was possible; self-reported data provided
through teacher surveys could be biased in one of two ways, making the responses look
better than they are or make responses look worse than they are. Another limitation could
have come from archival data since documents may not list accommodations and
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
13
modifications provided by the classroom teacher in student documents. In addition,
archival data may have presented accommodations and modifications in a student’s IEP
that were not actually provided in the classroom.
Summary
There is much literature on how poverty affects students overall. However, there
needs to be more training provided to school staff on the differences between learning
disabilities and learning difficulties displayed by poverty-stricken students. Therefore,
this study addressed impoverished students identified with learning disabilities and the
limitations they may have experienced exiting special education programs and services.
Results from this research provided data necessary to effectively train teachers, school
leaders, and child development professionals to ensure students from low SES
backgrounds that qualify for special education services are appropriately placed in their
least restrictive environment and could exit special education programming in a timely
manner. Doing so could have a positive overall effect on the student’s future SES after
secondary school.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
14
Chapter 2: The Literature Review
Jonathan Kozol, author of Savage Inequalities, once stated, “No matter what
happens in a child's home, no matter what other social and economic factors may impede
a child, there's no question in my mind that a first-rate school can transform almost
everything”. Kozol wrote his poignant novel in 1992. Thirty-one years later, the
disparities in education he described are still relevant, particularly in special education.
When contemplating the results of student academic achievement, previous research
considered the impact of SES of students, parental involvement, and school
characteristics before students were referred for special education services. Present
literature also examines the overrepresentation of particular racial and/or ethnic groups in
special education. Although there is less research examining the identification and
placement of low-SES students in special education services there is no research on the
overall effect of special education programs/services on low SES students (Schifter, et al,
2019).
Living in a low-income household can create a greater likelihood of lower
cognitive skills, poor health, and inferior performance in school with a variety of poor
outcomes in adolescence (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014). Students coming from low SES
backgrounds are more likely to be involved in the cycle of poverty, MTSS process and/or
receive some type of special education services. It has also been proven that “poverty in
childhood and adolescence is associated with a higher risk for poorer cognitive and
academic outcomes, lower school attendance, lower reading and math test scores,
increased distractibility, and higher rates of grade failure” (Child Trends Data Bank:
Children in Poverty, 2016, p. 2). Children from low SES households are twice as likely to
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
15
be identified with a specific learning disability than their higher income peers because of
the combination of these factors (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020).
Students identified with learning disabilities account for almost half of the
children enrolled in special education programs throughout the country (Wright &
Wright, 2019). This statistic led experts to begin questioning the methods in which
children are identified with learning disabilities. Their research indicated that that family
characteristics and school conditions could also contribute to differences in learning rates
(Education and Socioeconomic Status, 2017). Therefore, students, families, and educators
need more information on effective interventions before beginning the special education
referral process.
This case study examined the impact of special education programs/services on
low SES special education students before, during, and after the special education referral
process. Research conducted focused primarily on special education students identified
with learning disabilities in reading. The literature review discussed key similarities
found in learning disability criteria and the impact of SES on the classroom performance
of impoverished students. It will also examined the special education referral process,
special education services, and the process to exit special education.
Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Students
Children in Poverty
In 2014, there were approximately 15 million children under the age of 18 living
in poverty (Musu-Gillette, et al., 2016). Children under the age of 5 are more likely to
live under the poverty line than older children. From 2000 to 2014, the poverty rates
increased for Blacks, Hispanics, and White children. The rates did not change for Asian
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
16
children. The highest rates reported belonged to Blacks and Hispanics (Musu-Gillette, et
al., 2016). Black children were more likely than Hispanic children to be in deep poverty;
both were more likely to be in deep poverty than white or Asian children (Child Trends
Data Bank: Children in Poverty, 2016). Poverty rates by gender ranged from 13% to
16%. By these rates, females compromise a greater share of the population in poverty at
16%, than males at 13% (Musu-Gillette, et al., 2016). Poverty rates for U.S. citizens
under the age of 18 increased from 14.4% to 16.1% in 2020. In the state of PA, 17% of
children under the age of 18 were reported to be living in poverty in 2019 (The Annie
E.Casey Foundation Kids Count Data Center, 2021). 10% of the state’s children under
the age of 18 live in high poverty areas (The Annie E.Casey Foundation Kids Count Data
Center, 2021).
Households
Characteristics of households are associated with children's educational
experiences as well as their academic achievement (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2021). In 2019, almost half of children under the age of 18 lived in households
in which no parent had a college degree. 9% lived in households in which no parent had
completed high school and 19% lived in households in which the highest level of
education completed for a parent was high school (National Center for Education
Statistics [NCES], 2021a). The poverty rate for children under 18 was highest for those
that lived in households in which no parent had completed high school (National Center
for Education Statistics [NCES], 2021a). Furthermore, 26% of children lived in mother
only households and 8% lived in father only households (National Center for Education
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
17
Statistics, 2021). The poverty rate for children in mother only households was higher than
those living in father only households (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021).
Parental Involvement
Researchers agree that rates of parental involvement are lower in low-income
communities than in higher income schools (Abrams & Gibbs, 2002). There is a direct
link between frequent parent-child conversation, reading, and learning activities in the
home with child school readiness (Okado, Bierman, & Welsh, 2014). Studies have shown
that low SES is associated with long-term stress, making parents less effective
(Willingham, 2012). Parents in low-income families are more likely to experience
financial strain, poor living conditions, single parent status, and social isolation;
supporting a correlation between low levels of parent-child conversation with depressed
moods (Brooks-Gunn & Markman, 2005) (Okado, Bierman, & Welsh, 2014).
Parents that frequently talk with their children by explaining things within their
environment, talking through thoughts and feelings help to shape their child's attention
skills; at the same time, they are helping their child build oral language skills and an
understanding of narrative (Okado, Bierman, & Welsh, 2014). Cheadle (2008) termed the
phrase “concerted cultivation” in which he determined a set pattern of parent involvement
that predicted reading achievement in first grade (Cheadle, 2008). Concerted cultivation
refers to high rates of verbal interaction with children, a tendency to provide children
with structured, extracurricular learning opportunities, and a high degree of engagement
with adults (Cheadle, 2008). Concerted cultivation supported previous studies that
determined a high-quality interactions impact student achievement early in childhood
(Cheadle, 2008).
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
18
Wealthier parents have the resources to provide more and better learning
opportunities for their children (Willingham, 2012). Potential challenges for
impoverished students with a lack of parental involvement include but are not limited to
fewer educational resources at home (e.g., books, computers), less access to enrichment
(e.g., tutors, museums), reduced opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities at
school or in the community (Perspectives and Resources, 2018).
A study conducted videotaped interactions between mothers and children found
that income and maternal education predicted parenting quality for children ages one to
three years of age (Perkins et al., 2013). Mothers from higher SES had more sensitivity
and positive reactions during teaching tasks than their lower SES peers (Perkins et al.,
2013). Higher SES mothers were rated higher on supportive presence and quality of
assistance when based on complex tasks (Perkins et al., 2013). Children raised by affluent
parents are in households that are more cognitively stimulating, which positively impacts
cognitive and academic attainment.
Further research has determined that maternal reading patterns can predict
parenting quality (Perkins et al., 2013). “For example, parental use of language and
evidence of reading as a leisure time activity predicts cognitive and language
development” (Perkins et al. 2013, p.14). Maternal vocabulary facilitated the correlation
between SES and language development, stressing the suggestion that impoverished
families can shield their children from late development by using complex and varied
language (Perkins et al., 2013).
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
19
Child Development in Poverty
There is adequate literature explaining that poverty leads to unequal distribution
of power and resources that impact the environmental and psychosocial conditions in
which children live (Pace et al., 2017). During the first five years of a child’s life there is
a foundational period of brain development that moves through stages; the rapid growth
of the brain and early life is shaped by our environments with some constraints, including
our genetics, leaving a child’s brain vulnerable to complex context like growing up in
poverty (Schmidt et al., 2021). Children raised in poverty have poor neurocognitive
outcomes, lower educational attainment, higher rates of behavioral problems, and an
increase in the risk of mental health problems when compared to their wealthier peers
(Schmidt et al., 2021).
Schmidt et al. (2021) found that there is a correlation between low household
income and the total and regional gray matter volumes of the brain. The gray matter of
the brain can be found throughout the central nervous system and enables individuals to
control movement, memory, and their emotions (Mercadante & Tadi, 2021). Gray matter
develops until about age 8, then decreases in areas of the brain but its density increases,
allowing for higher processing speeds and further mental development of individuals
(Mercadante & Tadi, 2021).
In addition, children being raised in low-SES households exhibit worse working
memory skills than children in higher SES homes (Rosen et al., 2018). These skills
include the ability to hold information in mind, manipulate, and update information in the
mind (Rosen et al., 2018). Working memory is strongly correlated to academic success in
students (Rosen et al., 2018). Working memory is also needed for strong executive
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
20
functioning (EF) skills. “Executive function is a set of mental skills that include working
memory, flexible thinking, and self-control” (The Understood Team, 2022). EF skills are
necessary in everyday life to focus, follow instructions, maintain emotional control, and
planning. Wexler et al. (2020) found that the effects of poverty on academic achievement
are determined by the effects of poverty on a students’ EF skills (Wexler et al., 2020).
Finally, stress is linked to communication and language development in the home
(Perkins et al., 2013). The stress found in poverty in early childhood leads to lasting
impacts on the child’s learning, behavior, and health (Education and Socioeconomic
Status, 2017). The stress of their family’s economic constraints effects student emotional
distress and impacts their academic outcomes (Education and Socioeconomic Status,
2017).
Poverty in PA Schools
During the 2019-2020 school, PA’s Building Data Report identifies students that
have been reported by each Sponsor of the School Nutrition Programs (SNP), as well as
their corresponding meal service sites/schools. In that year, about 65% of students
enrolled in those sites reported were eligible and utilized the FRPL program at their
school (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2021). Further reports inform researchers
that PA is one of ten states where the number of children living in impoverished area has
grown (Sears, 2019). The data shows a nine-point increase in the percentage of
impoverished children from 2013-2017 over the previous four years (Sears, 2019).
PA’s rural school districts report that 44.6% of their students are economically
disadvantaged while their urban districts claim to have 71.4% of their students to be
economically disadvantaged (Christ, 2020). Suburban districts in the state report that
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
21
33.5% of their students are considered to be economically disadvantaged (Christ, 2020).
When comparing students that qualify for FRPL, rural school districts report 47.0% of
eligible students (Christ, 2020). Urban school districts report having 93.3% of their
students qualified for FRPL whereas suburban districts reported 36.1% (Christ, 2020).
Classroom Performance
Language Acquisition
There is good evidence that low SES is a stressful condition associated with deficits
in the regions of the brain that are associated with typical language development. Stressors
among low-income families may include living in overcrowded, substandard housing or
unsafe neighborhoods, separation or divorce, domestic violence, loss of family members,
material deprivation, forced mobility, and experiencing financial strain (Jensen, Teaching
With Poverty in Mind, 2009).
Studies demonstrate that SES is a powerful predictor of children’s early reading
development (Cheng & Wu, 2017). The relevance of a child’s SES to reading
comprehension is particularly important to track because students from low-SES
backgrounds may be at an elevated risk for reading difficulties. In addition, children of
lower SES display lower levels of morphological awareness and word recognition
(Cheng & Wu, 2017).
There is also a relation between poverty and vocabulary growth. Results found
that SES gap in vocabulary size begins by 36 months of age, widens until age four, and
then remains relatively constant through to 13 years of age (Farkas & Beron, 2004).
Given that children’s vocabulary is a predictor of reading comprehension, children’s
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
22
vocabulary knowledge may be a likely candidate to facilitate the relationship between
low SES and reading comprehension (Cheng & Wu, 2017).
Behaviors
There are also associations between low SES and class behavior. Children from
lower SES homes are twice as likely to display learning-related behavior problems
(Education and Socioeconomic Status, 2017). Palacious-Barrios and Hanson (2019)
found that “executive attention”, or “the ability to hold and use stable representations to
guide behavior, while also adapting to and incorporating important incoming
information” is critical for student’s to be able to control their behaviors while learning
(Palacios-Barrios & Hanson, 2019).
Executive attention is essential to a student’s self-regulation in the classroom.
Self-regulation includes cognitive, behavioral, and emotional components, characterized
by the inverse interactions between the conscious, effortful, and reflective abilities of the
person with non-conscious, automatic, and reactive aspects of emotional and
physiological responses to classroom stimulation (Blair & Raver, 2016). In short, self-
regulation is the child’s ability to manage their emotions and behavior based on the level
of demands placed on the situation. Unfortunately, the negative effects of an
impoverished home life on school aged students has contributed to considerable
disparities in the cognitive, behavioral, and emotional domains of self-regulation for
these students (Brandes-Aitken et al.). Therefore, impoverished students are also more
likely to exhibit inattentiveness, lower self-esteem, anxiety, and impulsiveness (Moore et
al., 2009).
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
23
School Characteristics
Multi-tiered System of Supports
Multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) is a framework schools use to give
pointed supported to struggling students (Rosen, 2021). MTSS models are used to
identify academic, behavior, social, and emotional difficulties of students as early as
possible to provide the necessary supplemental educational services. In the MTSS model,
educators assess a student’s academic and/or behavior progress by using early screening
assessments to determine student needs.
Key components of the MTSS model include universal screenings for all students
at the start of the school year, delivery of tiered interventions, and ongoing data
collection. Students’ progress is systematically monitored during interventions, and
depending on their performance, they can be moved to from one tier to another. These
three tiers include universal, secondary, and tertiary tiers of intervention. Tier 1 is the
universal, primary, tier. Tier 1 includes core instructions and basic interventions for all
students. This tier encompasses positive, practical classroom management strategies
aimed at creating a supportive learning environment.
Students that do not respond to these interventions may be moved into the Tier 2
level of supports. Tier 2 utilizes small group instruction to provide students extra
assistance in meeting individual academic and behavioral goals. Tier 3 are an even
smaller group of students that have significant challenges and are not responding to the
interventions and supports provided in Tier 1 and/or Tier 2. At Tier 3, students may
receive individualized supports from inside and outside of the school building.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
24
Curriculum
The U.S. Department of Education explains that “Schools enrolling at least 40
percent of children from low-income families are eligible to use Title I funds for
schoolwide programs designed to upgrade their entire educational programs to improve
achievement for all students, particularly the lowest-achieving students” (Office of State
Support, 2015). These schools are allowed to use Title I funds along with other federal,
state, and local funds, to run a "schoolwide program" to upgrade the instructional
program for the whole school (Office of State Support, 2015).
Despite the extra funding made available, studies have shown that higher SES
schools differ from lower SES schools in multiple ways. First, compared with higher SES
schools, lower SES schools often have fewer material and financial resources (Perry,
2010).
Although the current curriculum frameworks and standards are found at the
national level (Common Core) and at the state level, all schools, whether private or
public, are required to teach the same standards with the same amount of rigor. However,
because the curriculum frameworks vary from state to state, the actual curriculum being
taught can vary between schools. Research shows that lower SES schools are more likely
to offer vocational education and a limited range of university preparation courses as
contrasted with higher SES schools (Perry, 2010). Low SES schools require less
homework and offer a less academically rigorous curriculum (Perry, 2010).
Teachers
Experience and Education Levels. Benner and Mistry (2007) found that the most
powerful expectation on academic outcomes for impoverished students is that of the
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
25
teacher (Benner & Mistry, 2007). However, disadvantaged students are not always
provided with effective teachers (OECD, 2012). Further research has shown that schools
serving low-income students do not always have comparable access to qualified teachers.
These schools are more likely to employ inexperienced, uncredentialed, and/or out-of-
field teachers than schools serving more economically advantaged students (Cook-
Harvey et al., 2016).
The Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA), better known as Title I,
was signed into law in 1965 to provide funding to all children, giving schools significant
opportunity to close educational achievement gaps (Office of Elementary & Secondary
Education, 2020). However, finding and retaining effective teachers in low-income
schools is still an issue (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017).
Schools serving predominantly low-income students are often subjected to
constant, consistent turnover rates of less experienced teachers. Research has found
conditions for these high turnover rates. Schools with primarily low-income student
populations are staffed by newer teachers and teachers with less preparation; these
teachers report having inferior teaching support and working conditions that have a major
impact on their accountability measures (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017).
Because of this, teachers who lack comprehensive preparation are two to three times
more likely to leave teaching in their early years than those who feel they are fully
prepared. In addition, teachers who receive less mentoring and induction support during
their early years are more likely to leave (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017).
Teachers serving vulnerable populations like impoverished students are also responsible
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
26
for supporting community concerns, such as food insecurity, access to adequate health
quick care and housing.
Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond also found that the teacher turnover rate
in Title I schools is nearly 50% more than the turnover rate in non-Title I schools.
Furthermore, they found that the turnover rates for teachers with four or more years of
professional experience are nearly 80% higher in Title I schools than in non-Title I
schools. In addition, these researchers found that special education teachers were more
likely to leave a Title I school than a non-Title I school. Special education teachers were
also less likely have adequate professional experience in a Title I school than in other
schools (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017).
To address this issue, President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA), a mandate affecting public schools serving students in grades K-12, into law in
2015. ESSA replaces the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) law from 2002. “The
purpose of this act is to provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair,
equitable, and high-quality
education, and to close educational achievement gaps” (Every Student Succeeds Act ,
2015). Under ESSA, each state must create a plan addressing their disproportionate rates
of ineffective or inexperienced teachers in schools that serve low-income students and
students of color (Cook-Harvey et al., 2016).
The plans must also explain any public-school teachers that are teaching outside
of their certification area (Cook-Harvey et al., 2016). This plan must examine sources of
inequities across and within both districts and their respective schools (Cook-Harvey et
al., 2016). Finally, the plan must include a proposal for addressing these issues. “Where
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
27
inequities do exist, state plans will need to outline how they will evaluate access to
effective teachers, address inequities, and publicly report progress” (Cook-Harvey et al.,
2016, p.11) These progressive changes were praised by many, but the ESSA mandate
also brought about other changes to teacher equity concerns.
The ESSA law no longer requires core content area teachers to be highly
qualified. To be endorsed as a highly qualified teacher in the state of Pennsylvania (PA) a
teacher must hold at least a bachelor’s degree, a PA teaching certificate, and demonstrate
subject matter competency for the core content area they teach. Demonstration of subject
matter competency is displayed through content area testing. However, before ESSA was
enacted there were already significant numbers of teachers without the credentials to be
considered as highly qualified. Research found that 8.8% of teachers in the 2015-2016
school year were not fully certified and 22.4% had five or fewer years of experience
(García & Weiss, 2019). “Moreover, nearly a third of teachers (31.5 percent) do not have
an education background in their subject of main assignment” (García & Weiss, 2019, p.
4). Currently, special education “who teach core content in a self-contained classroom
only need a valid Pennsylvania Special Education certificate with the appropriate age and
grade level” (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2021d)”.
Perspectives. Teacher attitude and beliefs of low SES students can also influence
the classroom. Teachers may interpret students’ emotional and social deficits as
disrespect or a lack of basic manners (Jensen, Teaching With Poverty in Mind, 2009).
Unknowingly, teachers may project their unconscious attitudes and stereotypes, or
implicit bias, onto their students. Implicit bias is directly related to how our brains are
hardwired, telling us what seems to be “normal” according to the larger society
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
28
(Hammond, 2015). Unfortunately, larger society norms have supported the notion of a
“mythical” culture of poverty.
Gorski (2008) explains this idea in his article when explains that poor people are
often stereotyped as lazy; when in fact impoverished working adults work more hours per
week than their wealthier counterparts (Gorski, The Myth of the "Culture of Poverty",
2008). Gorski goes on to clarify that low-income parents hold the same attitudes about
education that their high-income peers (Gorski, The Myth of the "Culture of Poverty",
2008). It is only because they work so many hours to afford necessities that they are
unable to attend school functions and meetings (Gorski, The Myth of the "Culture of
Poverty", 2008).
Teachers’ negative expectations of low-income students can lead to a self-
fulfilling prophecy of low achievement. When teachers perceive the most underprivileged
students as “slow learners” with less potential than other students; they unknowingly
provide them with fewer educational opportunities (Rochmes, 2015). Furthermore,
expectations matter more for students from socially disadvantaged groups because it
seems likely that teachers’ beliefs about students’ social disadvantage have distinct
effects on students (Rochmes, 2015).
This is often evident in the disproportional identification of certain socio-
demographic groups in for special education services across the nation. Despite the
federal guidelines requiring “evidence based” approaches for the identification of
students with SLDs research suggests that diagnoses may be conducted based more on
social or functional perspectives provided by educational professionals (Shifrer, Muller,
& Callahan, 2011).
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
29
Resources. PA has the widest funding gap between wealthy and poor school
districts of any state in the US (PA School Work, 2021). The wealthiest school districts
spend up to 33% more on each student than the poor districts (PA School Work, 2021).
School districts in PA with the highest rates of poverty report having less resources due
to the reduced ability to generate local revenue sources (Christ, 2020). On average, the
highest poverty schools report spending about $16,697 per student compared to $18,453
per student in wealthier schools (Christ, 2020)..
From a national perspective, PA ranks 45th out 50 states in the amount of public-
school funding received from state revenues (PA School Work, 2021). PA receives
38.7% in state revenues for public school funding compared to 47.1% nationally (Christ,
2020). Historically, the percentage of revenue PA school districts receive from local and
state sources are approximately the same when comparing the 1993-1994 and 2017-2018
school years (Christ, 2020). In 1993-1994, schools were provided with 59.9% of local
revenue and 40.1% in state revenue (Christ, 2020). In 2017-2018, districts were given
60.3% in local revenues and 39.7% in state revenues (Christ, 2020). The major difference
in terms of dollars contributed to these statistics is the $2.3 billion adjustment for
inflation (Christ, 2020).
The federal law commits the U.S. government to pay 40% of the average per
special education student cost, but in 2019, the federal government provided less than
half of the full funding commitment (National Education Association, 2021). The federal
share of the average per special education student cost was 13% in the 2020 fiscal year,
the lowest share since the 2000 fiscal year leaving the financial burden on states to meet
(National Education Association, 2021). Since 2008, special education costs have grown
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
30
by 66% but PA state funding has only increased by 11% (PA School Work, 2021). In the
last decade, PA’s share of special education funding has fallen from 32% to 22% overall
(PA School Work, 2021).
Learning Disabilities
The Eunice Kennedy Shriver Institute of Child Health and Human Development
list some common signs of a learning disability as: difficulty with reading and/or writing,
problems with math skills, problems paying attention, trouble following directions, and
problems staying organized (Office of Communications, 2016). A child with a learning
disability may also exhibit one or more of the following behaviors in the classroom:
impulsive behavior, difficulty staying on task, inconsistent school performance, difficulty
listening well, problems understanding words or concepts (Office of Communications,
2016).
According to IDEA regulations, a child may be determined to have a specific
learning disability, as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c) (10), if:
the child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet State-
approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when
provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age
or State-approved grade–level standards:
o Oral expression.
o Listening comprehension.
o Written expression.
o Basic reading skills.
o Reading fluency skills.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
31
o Reading comprehension.
o Mathematics calculation.
o Mathematics problem solving (Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, 2016)
The Office of Special Education Programs goes on to explain that identification must not
be the primary result of…cultural factors, environmental or economic disadvantage, or
Limited English proficiency (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2016).
Despite specific guidelines to avoid identifying students for environmental or
economic disadvantage, many low SES students qualify for special education services.
Because students from low SES often display the same signs and behaviors related to
students with learning disabilities, more students with learning disabilities are found in
households living in poverty than any other children (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014).
Special Education
Screening Process. Disabilities or deficits in a child's developing physical and
cognitive abilities may be identified by teacher and parent observation or revealed by
academic or developmental assessment results. When a student demonstrates the
attributes of a learning disability, additional data needs to be collected to accurately
evaluate the student. Most districts utilize standardized assessments, provided by certified
school psychologists. The school psychologists will attempt to identify the academic,
social, or physical tasks which the child has difficulty performing, and why the difficulty
exists to determine if a disability or disabilities exist by using standardized testing.
Learning disabilities can be identified through a two-step process of an initial
screening followed by an in-depth evaluation. The initial screening is used to determine if
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
32
a child would benefit from additional educational support; this is usually completed in the
MTSS process. The in-depth evaluation is used to “determine if a child has a possible
learning disability and, if so, the areas of learning that might be impacted” (Hayes et al.,
2018). Evaluations can be provided by the public school or an independent evaluator. If a
public school conducts the evaluation and the parent disagrees with the evaluation results,
they may seek to have their child evaluated by an independent evaluator at the school’s
expense (Morin, Independent Educational Evaluations (IEEs): What You Need to Know,
2022).
Regardless of where the evaluation results come from, every student being
evaluated should be assessed for their individual learning strengths and needs to
accurately identify appropriate supports and services to be used in school. The
information from the evaluation should be used to help teachers create an IEP for the
student (Hayes et al., 2018).
Individualized Education Plans
Each school age child in public school who receives special education, and its
related services must have an Individualized Education Program, also known as an IEP.
Each IEP is tailored to the strengths and needs of the student it is written for. The IEP
guides the delivery of special education supports and services for the student with a
disability (Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2000). Parents,
teachers, and other school staff make up the IEP team. The IEP team is responsible for
pooling their knowledge of the child to create an IEP that becomes the cornerstone of the
child’s free, appropriate education program that provides the child’s unique needs (Office
of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2000).
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
33
By law, all IEPs must contain the following information about the child and the
educational program designed to meet their needs:
• Present Levels of Academic and Functional Performance; including the child’s
strengths and weaknesses
• Annual Goals
• Special Education Programs and Services
• Participation with nondisabled children
• Participation in state and district wide tests
• Services dates, locations, and lengths of service
• Transition services (if student will turn 14 before or during their IEP school year)
(Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2000)
Least Restrictive Environment. The Local Education Agency (LEA), or the
assigned school district, is responsible for making sure students with disabilities are
educated along with students without disabilities according to mandate 34 CFR §
300.114(a) (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2019). Part B of this IDEA
mandate states that schools should ensure “to the maximum extent appropriate that
children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care
facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled” (Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, 2019). According to this law, LEAs must also ensure that the removal of
children with disabilities for special classes, separate schooling, or other exclusions from
the regular educational environment only occurs if the nature or severity of the student’s
disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and
services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
34
2019). This mandate requires the LEA to guarantee that students with disabilities are
educated with students without disabilities to the maximum extent that is appropriate for
the special education student. “Appropriate” means that the education meets the student’s
individual needs and allows the student to make educational progress in the least
restrictive environment (LRE).
When selecting an LRE, the general education classroom should be the first
consideration for placement of a student with a disability by the IEP team (Pennsylvania
Department of Education, 2017). When considering the general education classroom for
placement, the IEP team must also consider any supplementary aids and services the
student may need to be successful in the general education classroom (Pennsylvania
Department of Education, 2017). The IEP team must also consider any accommodations
or modifications needed in order for the student to participate in the curriculum or
assignments. If the IEP team decides that the regular class placement is not appropriate,
LEAs must present a variety of placement options, also known as a continuum of
alternative placements, to meet the student’s educational needs (Pennsylvania
Department of Education, 2017).
Some LRE scenarios are more common than others and can vary in the amount of
time a student participates in the regular education setting. Itinerant support may require
the student to be placed in the general education classroom with support from a special
education teacher. Other itinerant students spend the entire day in general education
classes and receives supports and services in the classroom from the general education
teacher based on their IEP (Morin, What is least restrictive environment (LRE)?, 2021).
If a special education student is placed in a partial mainstream/inclusion classroom, he or
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
35
she spends part of the day in a general education class with some individual or small-
group instruction with a special education teacher or may be pulled out of class for
related services (Morin, What is least restrictive environment (LRE)?, 2021). The number
of minutes the student spends out of the general education setting determines if the
student receives itinerant or supplemental support. The more time spent outside the
general education setting, the closer a student moves towards supplemental support.
Supplemental support students may spend most of their day in special education
classes, a set of classes that includes programming with specialized instruction for kids
with similar learning needs (Morin, What is least restrictive environment (LRE)?, 2021).
If the LEA cannot find an appropriate LRE within the district, special education students
may be placed in a specialized program outside of the school district. These full-time
placements may include private schools, residential programs, and hospital programs
(Morin, What is least restrictive environment (LRE)?, 2021).
Transition Age. The IDEA mandate 300.1(a) requires that IEP teams begin
planning for students ages 14 and older to make the transition from high school to
postsecondary life (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2017). This section of the
IDEA mandate states that special education programming also includes preparing for
further education, employment, and independent living as part of a free appropriate
public education (FAPE) before students leave high school (Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, 2019). In other words, the present levels of academic achievement and
functional performance (PLAAFP) section of the student’s IEP needs to not only evaluate
student needs, strengths, and skills but determine student goals for postsecondary
training, employment, and independent living aspirations (PACER Center, Inc., 2021).
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
36
These goals are then used to develop a coordinated set of activities for a student
with a disability that includes exposure to said student’s options for their future post-
secondary education, employment, and independent living. Although this mandate has
been in place since 1997, transition planning for students with SLDs has fallen behind
other special education student populations (Council for Learning Disabilities, 2022).
“A major reason for this lack of attention has been an assumption that individuals
with LD have a mild disability that primarily affects academic achievement;
therefore, they have the ability to move from secondary to postsecondary
environments without a lot of difficulty” (Council for Learning Disabilities,
2022).
However, this is not always the case. Studies have suggested that many students with
SLDs do encounter difficulties in making the transition to postsecondary life (Council for
Learning Disabilities, 2022). These difficulties may include, but not be limited to,
problems related to unemployment, underemployment, consistent job changes,
dependency on loved ones, postsecondary academics, and functional skills related to
adulthood (Council for Learning Disabilities, 2022).
The Post-High School Outcomes of Young Adults with Disabilities up to 8 Years
After High School is a report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2
(NLTS2) that followed several cohorts of students with disabilities at transition age to
determine how in-school experiences impacted in-school and postsecondary outcomes
after being out of secondary school for up to eight years (Newman et al. 2011). Newman
et al. 2011 found that students with disabilities can “encounter a variety of challenges in
the transition from secondary to postsecondary school” (p.15). The study found that
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
37
students with disabilities were less likely than their peers to attend post-secondary
education programs (Newman et al. 2011). One reason for that may be in high school
IDEA requires the school not the student to identify and provide these support students
may need to be successful and post-secondary education programs. However, in higher
education, the requirement is put on the student, not the school (Newman et al. 2011).
Exiting Special Education. The exit status of a student with a disability is one of
the most important predictors of their postsecondary achievements. According to the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) approximately 423,000 special
education students ranging in ages from 14–21 exited school in the 2018–2019 school
year (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2021a). According to NCES, 72%
of those students graduated with a regular high school diploma while 16% “dropped out”
and 10% received an alternative certificate (National Center for Education Statistics
[NCES], 2021a). During that year, another 1% reached the maximum age to receive
special education services (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2021a).
“The percentage of exiting students who graduated with a regular high school
diploma was highest for students with speech or language impairments (85%) and lowest
for students with multiple disabilities (45%)” (National Center for Education Statistics
[NCES], 2021a). For students receiving an alternative certificate the highest was for
students with intellectual disabilities (32%) and lowest was for students with speech or
language impairments (3%) (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2021a).
Emotionally disturbed students had the highest dropout rate at 33% while the lowest was
for students with Autism at 7% (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2021a).
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
38
Each school year, PDE provides a report called the Special Education Statistical
Summary report to the public. The report provides special education statistical data for
districts, intermediate units (IU), correctional facilities, and charter schools. Although the
report includes data directly related to each of these entities, it does not report the number
of students that exit for each. Instead, overall exiting numbers are reported for the state.
In the 2018-2019 school year, PA reported 298,397 total school aged students
receiving special education services with 120,977 students receiving services as students
with an SLD (Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2019). During that school year, 2,183
students were exited by being transferred back to general education (Pennsylvania State
Data Center, 2019). Overall, PA reported that a total of 33,826 students from around the
state were exited from special education for various reasons. In the 2019-2020 school
year, PA accounted for 308,589 total school aged students receiving special education
services. 122,804 of those students qualified as a student with a learning disability
(Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2020). That year, PA transferred a total of 1,836
students back to general education with 32,651 total exiting (Pennsylvania State Data
Center, 2020).
Currently, there is criteria in place from the state of PA providing guidelines on
how children may exit early intervention, a program similar to school aged special
education services; early intervention was established to provide services and supports to
children (under age 3) with developmental delays and disabilities and their families.
There is no clear criteria for school aged students with disabilities to exit special
education in this mandate (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education,
2009).
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
39
The only guidance provided by the IDEA for exiting a student from special
education states that the public agency must evaluate a child with a disability before
determining if the child no longer has a disability (Individuals with Disabilities Act,
2017). During the re-evaluation process, the IEP team and other qualified professionals
review existing data, including data from the child’s parents, to determine whether the
child continues to have a disability along with educational needs of the child (PATTAN,
2019).
Summary
Accurate identification of a learning disability is generally made in the hopes of
facilitating a timely and appropriate response from the education system to meet the
needs of students (Shifrer, Muller, & Callahan, 2011). More information needs to be
provided to special education school leaders and educators about how to accurately
combat the effects of poverty for low SES students.
Relevant literature indicates a strong correlation between low SES experiences
and weak academic performance, especially regarding reading (Farkas & Beron, 2004).
The disparities found in high and low SES schools continue despite additional funding
provided by the U.S. government for low-income schools. The research points to a
continuation of overrepresentation of impoverished students enrolled in special education
programs if these disparities continue.
It is estimated that 60–80 percent of students identified with a learning disability
are from low SES households (Hibel, et al., 2010). “In 2012, children in households
receiving Medicaid benefits in the last year were nearly twice as likely to have IEPs as
children in households which did not receive Medicaid (16% and 9%, respectively)”
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
40
(Individualized Education Programs: Indicators of Child and Youth Well-Being, 2015, p.
4). In 2013, 12% of children living in families below the federal poverty line were
identified as having a learning disability, compared with 6% of children living above the
poverty line (Learning Disabilities: Indicators of Child and Youth Well-Being, 2016).
Further exploration of this topic sought to acknowledge the similarities and
differences between educational resources found in high and low SES households that
impact student learning. Continued research also considered the challenges general
education teachers face in promoting a positive learning environment within Title I
schools, as well as how the experiences and attitudes of special educators in the same
school differ from their general education peers. Finally, more investigation determined
how SES impacted overall student achievement in basic reading, reading fluency, and
reading comprehension.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
41
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of this research was to explore the variables that explained why low
SES students with literacy disabilities did not exit special education before or around
transition age. Exiting is particularly important before a student reaches transition age
because low academic achievement could affect the student’s overall SES after secondary
school. An instrumental case study was most appropriate for answering research
questions seeking to illuminate a particular issue (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). The
following research questions led to this study:
1. Do special education programs/services address the negative effects of SES for
transition aged students with SLDs?
2. Do special education programs/services impact the reading skills of impoverished
transition aged students with SLD in reading?
3. What are teachers’ perceptions of the classroom factors that impact impoverished,
transition-aged students with SLD in reading from exiting special education
programs/services?
The components of this chapter include a detailed description of the research
study’s design and rationale for the selected methodology. This chapter also provides
details on the site and population studied, research methods, and data collection. Ethical
considerations for the human subjects researched and strategies to diminish jeopardy to
the studied population are also discussed in this chapter.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
42
Research Design and Rationale
The complex factors within this study required using evidence from multiple
sources to corroborate findings (DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2017). According to Yin
(2014), the “case study’s unique strength is its ability to deal with a full variety of
evidence-documents, artifacts, interviews, and observations” (p. 12). Yin explained that a
case study is a practical inquiry that helped the researcher examine a real-world issue
when the margins of the phenomena and context are not completely obvious (Yin, 2014).
Research conducted in this study adhered to an instrumental case study design
utilizing parental surveys, teacher surveys, archival documents, and a focus group. This
research design allowed the researcher to gather qualitative data to explore the
phenomenon of the overrepresentation of low SES students in special education who did
not exit special education in a timely manner. It also collected quantitative data to explain
relationships found in the qualitative data (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). This type of
research design was chosen under the premise that an instrumental case study allowed the
researcher an in-depth understanding of the case by collecting multiple forms of data
(Creswell & Guetterman, 2019).
Site and Population
The research site was a middle school located in a district that serves students
from urban and suburban areas in northeastern PA. The district currently serves over
8,000 students from elementary, middle, and high schools (Future Ready PA, 2023). Data
collection from the Future Ready website shows that the site is a Title I school where
42.1% of the district’s student population can be categorized as economically
disadvantaged (Future Ready PA, 2023). The district currently utilizes data collected at
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
43
the elementary level to determine the number of students that qualify for free/reduced
price lunch in their middle and high school.
In the 2021-2022 school year, the district’s Special Education Data Report stated
that 19.3%, or approximately 1,563 students, of the district’s student population, were
identified as special education students (Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2021). Data also
reported that 50.3% of the special education students enrolled at the district were
classified as students with learning disabilities (Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2020).
The middle school where the research took place had about 2,000 students
enrolled in grades 6th-8th. During the 2021-2022 school year, the site reported a total of
331 students identified with an SLD between sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. At that
time, the site also reported an estimated enrollment of 363 special education students in
total. The total number of students with an SLD in reading could not be reported at that
time. Figure 2 represents the percentages of students in special education, students with
SLDs, and students that qualified for free and reduced lunch in the district and site in
2021.
Figure 2
FRPL Qualifications and Special Education Population Dat
010 20 30 40 50 60
Site
District
FRPL Qualifications and Special Education Population Data
% of Special Education Students % of Students with SLD
% of students qualifying for FRLP
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
44
Figure 3 illustrates the racial and ethnicity data for the district when comparing each
student population to the reported number of special education students based on the
2020-2021 school year (Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2020).
Figure 3
Race/Ethnicity of Student Population
Site Access
Completion of this study needed approval from the school principal, assistant
superintendent, and the board of education before any contact with the sample population
could be made. Once authorization was granted by the district, the researcher obtained a
signed consent form from all parents of students in the target population before reviewing
any family and/or student information.
0.00% 10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Hispanic
Multiracial
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific…
White
District Special Education Student
Populations
Overall Population in District
Students enrolled in District Special Education Program
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
45
Sample and Population
Students. The focus population of this research included 8th-grade special
education students with literacy disabilities who were or would be at 14 years of age
during the year of their latest annual IEP. As previously explained in Chapter 1, literacy
disabilities are the largest category of SLDs, providing the researcher with a large pool of
candidates. Since students can have a learning disability in multiple academic areas,
focusing on students with only literacy SLDs narrowed down the candidate pool while
providing the researcher with optimal opportunities for candidates.
In addition to an SLD in literacy, students enrolled in the research study should
have been from a low SES background with at least 3 years of historical special
education documents for review. These students also attended an elementary school
within the district for their 5th-grade year. Students selected were of transition age, at
least 14 years of age during the year of their latest annual IEP.
After the review process, four students from itinerant and supplemental special
education placements were selected. Students referred to special education and/or in the
process of receiving an initial IEP were not considered for the study to limit the number
of participants and to avoid any confusion.
Teachers. General education and special teachers employed to teach reading
and/or ELA were sent surveys. These teachers provided the most information on
teaching, assessment, and academic abilities of students through direct interactions with
the students in their literacy classrooms.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
46
Research Method
Description of Methods
As expected in a case study, the researcher collected multiple sources of data to
gain an in-depth understanding of the case (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). The use of
multiple data sources allowed the researcher to investigate a contemporary phenomenon
within its real-life context, particularly when the boundaries between phenomenon and
context were not clearly evident (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Future Ready PA Index. The Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE)
created the Future Ready PA Index as a tool to serve districts, teachers, and parents. The
website is “a collection of school progress measures related to school and student
success” (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2018). The website includes a range of
readiness indicators sorted by districts and schools, to report student learning, growth,
and success from year to year (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2018). The Index
tool allows users to see the composition of the student population at each school. In
addition, the Index allows users to see student achievement in state assessments and on-
track measures to determine if students are making growth toward educational standards.
Pennsylvania Department of Education Website. PDE provides guidance to
school districts via the Bureau of Special Education (BSE). The BSE information offered
to school districts also includes data on special populations, special education law, and
audit guidelines. The BSE works collaboratively with educators, schools, agencies, and
other stakeholders throughout Pennsylvania to guarantee special education students have
access to quality and meaningful education supports, services, and opportunities
(Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2021c). The PDE and BSE websites provided
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
47
statistical data about the student population in the district as well as any percentages to
compare to statewide norms for special education exceptionalities.
Documents
Documents were a valuable source of information, helping the researcher
understand the central phenomena in this qualitative study. Documents represent a good
source of text data for researchers, giving the researcher an advantage by being in the
language and words of its participants (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). It was particularly
important to seek out the paper trail for what it could reveal about the program, the things
that could not be observed, and things that had taken place before the study began
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It was also important to seek out the “paper trail” for what
could be revealed at the program level (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The documents and
reports generated by or for the program researched provided valuable data because of
what was learned directly from documents (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The following
documents were gathered and reviewed for each participating student.
Evaluation Reports. Special Education Evaluation Reports detailed the results of
the initial multidisciplinary evaluation conducted on a student (Pennsylvania Training
and Technical Assistance Network, 2018). It also documented the multidisciplinary
evaluation team’s decision about the student’s eligibility for special education
(Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network, 2018). Finally, this report
provided recommendations and information that promoted the overall functioning of the
student for families and teachers (Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance
Network, 2018).
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
48
Individualized education plans. The Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
contained the student’s present levels of academic and functional performance. The IEP
also contained annual academic and functional goals set for the student based on their
needs. It also listed any modifications and accommodations students were used in the
classroom. Lastly, the IEP provided the level of special education programming the
student received, itinerant or supplemental.
Progress monitoring reports. Progress monitoring is an ongoing process of
collecting and analyzing data for a student’s IEP goals (Pennsylvania Training and
Technical Assistance Network, 2018). These reports provided details about the data used
to determine their child’s progress toward the mastery of their IEP goals (Pennsylvania
Training and Technical Network, 2018). Progress monitoring reports are provided to the
parents after each of the school’s quarter ends. Special education students at the research
site received four progress monitoring reports each school year.
Report cards. According to the 2017-2018 handbook available on the district
website, report cards are a “significant function in school/home communication.” At the
research site, letter grades are not given. Instead, student report cards list grades as
numerical scores for each class. Currently, any score of 59 and below is considered to be
a failing grade.
Surveys
The use of surveys allowed for determining individual opinions about policy
issues and identifying important beliefs and attitudes of teachers (Creswell &
Guetterman, 2019). By using a cross-sectional designed survey, the researcher was able
to compare two educational groups, general education and special education teachers, in
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
49
terms of attitudes, beliefs, opinions, or practices (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). The
survey instrument provided to teachers was an online questionnaire. Although low
response rates from online surveys affected results, the researcher considered the
advantage of gathering extensive data quickly by using an online questionnaire that
allowed for effective and efficient surveying of a population (Creswell & Guetterman,
2019).
Instrument Description. Teacher surveys were based on the PDE Cyclical
Monitoring Survey created by the BSE for teachers. This document is used by the state of
Pennsylvania to monitor school districts, ensuring districts are complying with federal
and state special education regulations while improving the performance outcomes of
students with disabilities (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2021). Surveys also
included condensed inquiries from the Executive Skills Semi-Structured Interview -
Teacher Version assessment found in Dawson and Guare’s (2018) text, Executive Skills
in Children and Adolescents (Dawson & Guare, 2018). In their original forms, neither
assessment included all information the researcher wished to collect; each survey was
thus modified accordingly. The survey, provided in Appendix A, included closed and
semi-closed-ended questions. There was an opportunity to allow for additional responses
to semi-closed questions during the focus group if needed (Creswell & Guetterman,
2019).
Focus Groups
A focus group occurred after the teacher survey was closed. The focus group was
used to collect shared understandings from several individuals at once (Creswell &
Guetterman, 2019). Focus groups possess elements of both participant observations and
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
50
individual interviews, a unique research method (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Focus
groups allowed the researcher to gather viewpoints from specific people in the study
(Creswell & Guetterman, 2019).
The focus group allowed individuals to participate in an atmosphere that was
more natural and relaxed than a one-on-one interview (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). In
addition, the focus group allowed the facilitator the flexibility to follow and explore
unanticipated issues that arose during the discussion with participants (Bloomberg &
Volpe, 2019). Appendix B lists the guiding questions for the teacher focus group. Table 1
displays the data instruments and their purposes. It also describes the category and type
of collected from each instrument.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
51
Table 1
Data Instruments, Purposes, and Type of Data Collected
Data Instruments
Instrument Purpose
Types of Data Collected
Evaluation reports
Documents the results of the student’s initial
evaluation and their eligibility for special
education (Pennsylvania Training and Technical
Assistance Network, 2018a).
Qualitative:
-Achievement and ability tests results
-Executive functioning skills
Re-evaluation reports
Documents the review of existing student
evaluation data, any additional testing requested,
and their continued
eligibility for special education services
(Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance
Network, 2018b).
Qualitative:
-Any updated achievement and ability tests results
-Executive functioning skills
IEPs
A written plan for the providing of services for the
education of students who are disabled and/or
gifted (Pennsylvania Department of Education,
2023).
Qualitative and Quantitative:
-Executive functioning skills
-Number/types of modifications and accommodations
Progress monitoring
reports
Progress monitoring is the ongoing process of
collecting and analyzing data to determine a
student’s progress toward their educational goals
(Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance
Network, 2018).
Quantitative:
-Progress towards IEP reading goals
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
52
Report cards
Used as communication of student academic and
behavioral performance.
Qualitative and Quantitative:
-Progress towards grade level reading skills
Websites: Future
Ready Index, PDE
Websites run by the Pennsylvania Department of
Education that provide district demographics and
student progress measures.
Quantitative:
-District/site demographics
-Special Education demographics
Surveys
Used to define individual opinions about policy
issues and important views of teachers (Creswell &
Guetterman, 2019).
Qualitative:
-EF Skills
-Details of the Special Education Process at Site
Focus Groups
Used to collect mutual perspectives from several
individuals at once (Creswell & Guetterman,
2019).
Qualitative:
-EF Skills
-Details of the Special Education Process at Site
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
53
Participant Selection
Students. Using a purposeful sampling technique, the researcher intentionally
selected individuals to learn more about the central phenomenon (Creswell &
Guetterman, 2019). The theory sampling technique allowed the researcher to sample
individuals in order to learn a theory within the specific concept (Creswell & Guetterman,
2019).
To confirm that students met the criteria for the study, a demographic survey was
given to interested families. See Appendix C. The survey is based on the Prototype
Application for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals from the USDA Food and
Nutrition Service. To protect family privacy and encourage participation, the researcher
removed the request for household income data (USDA Food and Nutrition Service,
2022). Instead, the researcher requested data on previous qualifications of free/reduced
lunch during their child’s elementary years.
Teachers. “As with individual interviewing, purposeful sampling should be used
to include people who know the most about the topic” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 114).
Although it is best for participants to be strangers, the researcher planned to act as a
moderator for two groups of educators who were familiar with one another. In this case,
participants were selected because of the shared social experience related to the
researcher study (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019).
The first group was general education teachers teaching literacy courses while the
second group was special education teachers teaching literacy courses. The goal of a
focus group with like-minded individuals is to create an honest dialogue between
participants that addresses a selected topic in depth; the researcher assumed that a
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
54
permissive atmosphere would foster a range of opinions, providing a more complete and
revealing understanding of the phenomenon be obtained (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019).
Identification and Invitation
Students. The researcher recruited students via email sent to parents (Appendix
E). Once approval was received from parents, an electronic consent form was sent to
parents to get their signature of consent. Once the consent was received, a brief
demographic survey was sent electronically. The brief survey was used to gather
demographic information about their families.
Teachers. Links to the teacher survey were sent from the researcher’s Drexel
email account to relevant teacher participants. The emails included a summary of the
study’s purpose, researcher contact information, and confidentiality information. At the
conclusion of the survey, respondents could volunteer to participate in the focus group.
To encourage a high response return rate, the survey administration procedure
was conducted in three parts over a six-week period. Contacting participants multiple
times, before and after the survey, improves response rates according to researchers
(Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). This study utilized the “good follow-up procedures” as
another strategy to encourage a high response return rate from participants (Creswell &
Guetterman, 2019). In the first two weeks of the survey administration, teachers invited
by the researcher to participate received a link to complete the survey via Qualtrics.com.
During the next phase, the link was sent a second time reminding participants to complete
their survey. In the last two weeks, or the third phase, invitees received a final reminder
with the survey link.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
55
Data Collection and Procedures
Data Collection Process
Data collection. A quantitative review of records for selected students included a
review of initial/re-evaluation reports, IEPs, report cards, progress monitoring reports,
and report cards. The students’ previous qualification for free and reduced-price school
lunch was also reviewed through the family demographic survey. The family
demographic survey provided data on the student’s racial, ethnic, and family
backgrounds. This data provided the researcher the opportunity to confirm information
about the students’ SES.
Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from electronic surveys and the
teacher focus group. Electronic surveys were administered to general education and
special education staff to assess their knowledge of the special education process, as well
as the special education students, within their district. During the focus group session, the
researcher used the audio recorded from the link for the Zoom online conferencing call.
No participant cameras were on during the Zoom call. In addition, the researcher
changed all participant names to pseudonyms before the meeting began. After all
recording sessions, the information was stored on an encrypted computer. All
transcriptions were protected on the same computer. No names or identifiers were used to
maintain the confidentiality of all participants.
Researcher’s notes. During the focus group session, the researcher took notes to
help guide the discussion and gather more understanding from the participant’s
responses. “These working notes help interviewers concentrate on what the participant is
saying. They also help to keep interviewers from interrupting the participant by allowing
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
56
them to keep track of things that the participant has mentioned in order to come back to
the subject when the timing is right” (Seidman, 2013, p. 82).
Coding
Qualitative data collected from the focus group was transcribed on a secure
computer. The data were then transcribed and coded to determine if any patterns of
information, or themes, emerged from within the transcripts. This cycle of coding, the
first cycle, allowed the researcher to identify the educators’ knowledge of their special
education processes and students as they started to arise.
The researcher used in vivo coding with Atlas.ti tools to assist in the highlighting
of information, making comments in the margin about words or phrases that stood out as
relevant information from the focus group’s transcript. Using a concept coding method
was necessary to find a “bigger picture”, suggesting an idea rather than an observable
behavior (Saldana, 2016). Concept coding was valuable to the coding process, allowing
the researcher to acknowledge smaller notions in the transcripts that could add up to a
broader scheme (Saldana, 2016).
Data Analysis Procedures
Since much of the data collected was qualitative in nature. Categories based on
the key questions were set to determine how the data related to the program. Qualitative
data was time-consuming so Qualtrics, a data analysis software, was utilized to process
some information received from surveys. Various pieces of qualitative data collected
were reported in figures and tables, while others were described in paragraph form. Some
quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and then listed in tables. Table
2 describes the research timeline of this case study.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
57
Table 2
Research Timeline
Dates
Research Phase
March 2022
Proposal Defense
April 2022
IRB application submitted
June 2022
IRB application revised and re-submitted
July 2022
Received IRB approval
July 2022
Data Collection: Requested permission to access the site’s learning
management system for potential student participants
August 2022
Data Collection: Permission granted to access the site’s learning
management system for potential student participants
September 2022
Data Collection: Received login details to access site’s learning
management system for potential student participants
October 2022
Data Collection: Survey emails sent out to teachers
October 2022
Data Collection: Focus group conducted with special education teachers
October-
December 2022
Data Collection: Recruitment emails sent out to potential student
participants
January 2023
Data Collection: Recruitment emails sent out to potential student
participants
January 2023
Data Collection: All parental consents obtained for student participants
January 2023
Data Analysis: Researcher reviewed student records
February 2023
Data Analysis: Researcher organized student, survey, and focus group
data
February 2023
Findings Reported: Researcher organized and analyzed findings
March-May 2023
Findings Reported: Researcher revised and reported findings
May 2023
Final Defense
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations were considered in the design of this study. As part of the
research study, the researcher was required to go through the Institutional Review Board
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
58
(IRB) process with Drexel University. The IRB process was necessary to ensure that the
researcher maintained compliance with all policies and matters related to ethical
standards and conflicts of issues when working with the sample population.
It was anticipated that participants would not suffer physically or psychologically
during this study. The confidentiality of this research will remain intact since the research
information collected does not report any actual family or student names. Final reports
include pseudonyms for any students as well as teachers. No persons, other than the
researcher, will have access to the data. The research data will be destroyed five years
after the original collection date. Participants will be able to withdraw from the study at
any time.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
59
Chapter 4: Research Findings
Research Questions Focused on Solution Finding
This study addressed the following research questions:
1. Do special education programs/services address the negative effects of SES for
transition aged students with SLDs?
2. Do special education programs/services impact the reading skills of impoverished
transition aged students with SLD in reading?
3. What are teachers’ perceptions of the classroom factors that impact impoverished,
transition-aged students with SLD in reading from exiting special education
programs/services?
Method
An instrumental case study methodology was used to explore the effect of special
education instruction on the academic skill of impoverished special education students,
specifically students identified with a specific learning disability in reading. This case
study sought to explain why these students did not exit special education by transition
age.
Site/District Demographics
Over the last few decades, research has shown a correlation between a student’s
SES and their education (American Psychological Association, 2017). In other words, a
student’s SES has one of the largest impacts on their overall learning. Research has
proven that students from low SES backgrounds are more likely to develop academic
skills slower than students coming from higher SES backgrounds (Noble, et al., 2015).
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
60
Knowing the demographics of their student population can help districts serve their
students in the most appropriate manner.
Future Ready PA Index. Each student attended and began their special education
programs in different elementary schools in the district. In August of 2022, the Future
Ready PA Index posted the district’s student population data to their website. To further
investigate the demographics of the selected students, the following data were obtained
from their website for the 2022-2023 school year. Table 3 presents the populations of the
elementary schools that each of the student participants attended (Pennsylvania
Department of Education, 2023b). It also exhibits whether each school is considered to be
a Title I school (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2023b).
Table 3
Elementary School Demographics
Student
Participants
District
Schools
Title I
School?
Total
Population
Percent of
Economically
Disadvantaged
Students
Percent of
Special
Education
Students
Lily
Elementary
School A
Yes
573 students
69.3%
17.1%
Rose
Elementary
School B
Yes
277 students
49.1%
15.1%
Ivy
Elementary
School C
Yes
520 students
35%
16.4%
Clem
Elementary
School D
Yes
626 students
80.8%
20.9%
All students in the district attend the same middle school regardless of their
elementary school locations. The data available for the middle school during the 2022-
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
61
2023 school year is included in Table 4 below (Pennsylvania Department of Education,
2023a).
Table 4
Middle School Demographics
District School
Title I
School?
Total
Population
Percent of
Economically
Disadvantaged Students
Percent of
Special Education
Students
Middle School
Yes
1928 students
42%
21.6%
Pennsylvania Department of Education Website. According to the Special
Education Data Report for the 2021-2022 school year, the district’s total enrollment
dropped by 2.4%. However, their special education population grew by 8.9% overall
(Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2022). Additionally, the number of students
identified with a specific learning disability climbed 1.3%. Table 5 further compares the
district’s student population from the 2020-2021 school year to the 2021-2022 school
year (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2021).
Table 5
Student Enrollment within the District
2020-2021
2021-2022
Difference
Total Enrollment
8,295
8,097
-2.4%
Total Special
Education Enrollment
1,421
1,560
+ 8.9%
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
62
Percent of Special
Education
17.1%
19.3%
+ 2.2%
Specific Learning
Disability Enrollment
49%
50.3%
+ 1.3%
Table 6 represents the population of special education students enrolled at the site
during the 2022-2023 school year. This data were gathered from the site’s learning
management system as of March 14, 2023. The site’s learning management system was
the most up to date information available during the data collection period. The total
enrollment provided by the site will be utilized moving forward.
Table 6
Special Education Enrollment at the Site and District Levels
Site
District
Total Enrollment
1,992
8,097
Special Education
Students
29.7%
19.3%
Students with Specific
Learning Disability
37.8%
50.3%
Note: The latest data available for the district are from the 2021-2022 school year.
Therefore, those data were used for comparison. Data from the site uses data from the
2022-2023 school year.
At the time of initial data collection, special education students accounted for
approximately 29.7% at this site. Students with specific learning disabilities accounted
for approximately 37.8% within the site’s special education population, making up nearly
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
63
half of the special education population. When comparing these numbers, a third
comparison arose when the researcher identified a possible pattern in student populations.
The researcher noticed that economically disadvantaged students made up nearly half of
site’s population with 42%, or approximately 837 students. The researcher did not seek to
identify if the number of special education students were considered to be economically
disadvantaged but understood the number of special education students could have
accounted for over half of the economically disadvantaged students with about 592
students. No data was found to substantiate these numbers, but the pattern was
recognized. Finally, students with SLDs made up nearly half of special education
students with around 224 students. Figure 4 shows the researcher’s interpretation of the
pattern.
Figure 4
Population Pattern
Total Population (1,992 students)
Economically
Disadvantaged Students
(837 students)
Special Education
Students
(592 students)
Students with SLDs (224 students)
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
64
Documents
Student documents were collected using current and archived data from the site’s
current learning management system, PowerSchool Special Programs. “PowerSchool
Special Programs is a management system designed to address the entire instructional
process including curriculum, assessment, Special Programs case management, and other
specialty areas” (Powerschool, 2022).
Student Demographics. Parents were asked to complete a demographic survey
for each selected student to determine if they met the criteria for this study. As discussed
in previous chapters, the characteristics of a household correlate with a child's
educational experiences (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2021a). The
criteria of this research required students to qualify for the free/reduced price lunch
program (FRPL). However, one student that did not qualify for free/reduced lunch was
accepted to participate in this study for two reasons: (1) the low response rate from
recruitment and (2) the data were used as a comparison to the three students who met the
criteria.
The recruitment process for students was challenging for the researcher.
Researchers should continuously reevaluate their efforts and adapt strategies to ensure
they are maximizing the number of possible participants enrolled when implementing
recruitment activities (Joseph, et al., 2016). For this study, the researcher reached out to
over ten set of parents/guardians to recruit their children for the study. However, the
researcher only received responses from five parents. One student did not qualify after at
all after the study’s criteria was reviewed against their archival documents.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
65
The researcher chose to use the data from the only student, Lily, that did not
qualify in this study as comparison information. The researcher felt that although Lily did
not qualify for the FRLP, she was still enrolled in a Title I school. The comparison data
might reveal some other aspects of the site’s reading program that were detectible in the
researcher’s initial data collection of the site.
Table 7
Student Demographic Information
Table 7 indicates that the students who qualified for FRPL, Clem, Ivy, and Rose,
not only qualified for special education earlier as a student with an SLD but also qualified
for more categories of learning disabilities than Lily, the student who did not qualify for
the FRPL. It should be acknowledged that when relating this data to Table 3, Clem came
Student
Pseudonyms
Qualified for
Free/Reduced Price
Lunch in Elementary
School?
Grade of Initial
Evaluation
SLD categorization(s)
Clem
Yes
1st grade
Basic reading, reading
comprehension, math
calculation, and written
expression
Rose
Yes
2nd grade
Basic reading skill and
mathematics problem
solving
Ivy
Yes
1st grade
Basic Reading and math
problem solving
Lily
No
3rd grade
Oral Reading Fluency
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
66
from Elementary School D, the school with the highest population of economically
disadvantaged students listed. Additionally, Clem qualified for the most categories of
SLDs in the group.
Evaluation Reports (ER). A combination of formal and informal tests is
important in determining if a child qualifies for special education and any related services
(Pacer Center, Inc., 2015). Other measures of a child’s growth and development, such as
observations from parents and teachers, can provide relevant information about the
child’s abilities in different settings (Pacer Center, Inc., 2015).
The ER provides also provides what type of SLD each student qualified for, as
well as a review each of their formal and informal assessments during the year they
qualified for special education. The data found in each of the four selected student's
evaluation report varied at times. While all the ERs contained teacher recommendations,
and results from intelligence and academic achievement testing, some went into more
detail than others. It should be noted that the initial evaluation for Ivy was not available
after transferring in from another state. Therefore, the researcher relied upon the ER
written by the district when the student entered the district.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
67
Figure 5
Student ER Data Summaries
Figure 5 illustrates a summary of the information provided in the ERs reviewed
by the researcher. The figure compares and contrasts the data available in the earliest ERs
available for each student. The first column in the figure lists the types of data present in
the ERs reviewed for all students. The remaining columns detail the additional areas of
data collected specific to that student.
According to the annotated version of an ER provided by the PATTAN website,
in order to determine if a student is eligible for special education, the multidisciplinary
evaluation team must answer a two-prong question: Does the student have a disability
and does the student need specially designed instruction?” (Pennsylvania Training and
Technical Assistance Network, 2018a).
All
students
Teacher Input
Achievement
assessments
Intelligence
assessments
Benchmark
assessments
EF Skills
Vision/Hearing
Screenings
Rose
Developmental
History
Attendance
Observation by
School
Psychologist
Ivy
Progress on
Previous IEP
goals
Lily
Developmental
History
Observation by
School
Psychologist
Broadband
Behavior Rating
Scale
Narrowband
Behavior Rating
Scale
Clem
Attendance
Behavioral
Expectations
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
68
In other words, it is the school’s responsibility to prove that the student has a
disability that requires specially designed instruction. This can be difficult to do with
impoverished students because their presenting concerns can mimic the symptoms of
SLDs. There is little guidance provided in the annotated ER about this topic. Question
number five of the determination of specific learning disability section prompts the IEP
team to consider if any evidence of the student’s economic background is negatively
impacting his/her academic achievement (Pennsylvania Training and Technical
Assistance Network, 2018a). The issue must be clarified by describing the issue, the
impact it is having on the student, and any instructional strategies that may have been
attempted to eliminate the negative impact (Pennsylvania Training and Technical
Assistance Network, 2018a). In addition to guidance provided in question five, question
ten requires the IEP team reconsider a student’s SES before determining if they qualify
for a specific learning disability.
“Situations such as homelessness, child abuse, poor nutrition, chronic stress and
other
factors can have an adverse impact a student's ability to learn. Interviews with the
family and developmental histories are useful tools to assess and document these
issues. A student may not be identified as having a specific learning disability if
their academic difficulties are a result of environmental or economic disadvantage
(Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network, 2018a, pp. 18-19).”
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
69
Figure 6
Ability Ranges of Students
Figure 6 displays the ability ranges for each student. Verbal comprehension skills
aid in a child’s ability to understand and apply word knowledge in daily communication
(Bobal, 2021). Verbal comprehension is part of a broader make up of intelligence, the
student’s acquired knowledge of a culture and the effective application of this knowledge
(Bobal, 2021). However, there are many factors that can influence a student’s
performance on a verbal comprehension test, including previous learning experiences and
learning environments (Bobal, 2021). The researcher felt it was important to recognize
this portion of the standardized tests used in ERs to understand the correlation between
student scores and the effect of SES. Since studies have found that children from low-
income families often have significantly lower preacademic skills and infrequent
interactions with learning materials, possibly impacting their scores in a negative manner
(Watts, 2022). In this case study, the students from impoverished backgrounds, Clem,
Ivy, and Rose all scored poorly in this area.
Verbal Comprehension
Lily - Average
Clem - Very
Low
Ivy - Low
Average
Rose - Very
Low Average
Working Memory
Lily - Average
Clem - Very
Low
Ivy - High
Average
Rose - Low
Average
Full Scale IQ -
Lily - Average
Clem - Very
Low
Ivy - Low
Average
Rose - Very
Low
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
70
The working memory subtest scores were also considered to demonstrate the
probable connection between each students’ SES background and their test results.
Working memory is often related to a student’s overall intelligence, ability to process
information, and executive functioning skills (Cowan, 2014). “Working memory is the
retention of a small amount of information in a readily accessible form. It facilitates
planning, comprehension, reasoning, and problem-solving (Cowan, 2014).” It is a small
amount of information that needs to be held in the mind, then used in the execution of
cognitive tasks (Cowan, 2014). Simply stated, working memory is necessary to keep and
organize information needed for daily tasks. Since low working memory can be related to
poor academic performance, it is important to note how SES can affect a student’s score
in this subtest. Hackman, et al. found that family SES effects on working memory
remained stable from childhood through late adolescence (Hackman, et al., 2014). In this
subtest, Clem and Rose, scored inadequately in the area of working memory. Lily
received an average score while Ivy scored above average.
According to the Encyclopedia of Neuropsychology, full scale IQ is a “score
derived from administration of selected subtests from the Wechsler Intelligence
Scales designed to provide a measure of an individual’s overall level of general
cognitive and intellectual functioning. It is a summary score derived from an
individual’s performance on a variety of tasks that measure acquired knowledge,
verbal reasoning, attention to verbal materials, fluid reasoning, spatial processing,
attentiveness to details, and visual-motor integration (Lange, 2011).”
A student’s full-scale IQ is generated when they are initially assessed for special
education programs/services. Previous literature has correlated SES levels to IQ levels
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
71
(Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014). Previous research has also proven that low SES
backgrounds can effect cognitive outcomes (Child Trends Data Bank: Children in
Poverty, 2016, p. 2) The results displayed above support this notion since the only
average full scale IQ score was Lily, the only student from a higher SES background.
Students from impoverished backgrounds all scored below average in the area of full-
scale IQ.
Re-evaluation Reports (RR). The RR “documents the results of the reevaluation
of a student and the team decision regarding the student’s continued eligibility for special
education” (Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network, 2018b, p. 1).
Reevaluations are conducted every three years to review student progress which may
include reviewing existing data and/or conducting updated testing. A reevaluation could
be conducted sooner if a child's performance indicates a need or is requested by parents
or the LEA before the three-year mark (Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance
Network, 2018a). Reevaluations are also conducted when a special education student
transfers to a public LEA (district) in Pennsylvania from another state or when a student
transitions from early intervention and will need school age special education services
(Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network, 2018a).
All RRs begin with a “review of records” (ROR). RORs do not require parent
consent. RORs begin with reviewing all parent and teacher input, review of report card
grades, review of formal and informal assessments, progress monitoring reports,
classroom observations, state assessment scores, benchmark scores, and a student’s latest
health and behavioral data. After the ROR, the IEP team including the parents should
determine if more data is needed. If more data is needed, parent permission must be
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
72
obtained before any other data can be collected. If no other data is requested, the IEP
team can agree to use the presented ROR information to the parent, serving as the
student’s annual RR.
Figure 7 displays the data presented in each student’s RR conducted during their
middle school years. Rose received one RR in 8th grade. Clem and Lily received two RRs
in grades 6 and 8. Ivy’s document collection was limited due to missing data in the site’s
learning management system so only one RR could be reviewed for her. Any data listed
in the RR that was originally listed in the ER is listed along with the original year the data
was provided.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
73
Figure 7
Student RR Testing Data Summaries
Rose
•Achievement Test
Scores from 2016,
2019, and 2022
•Intelligence Test
Scores from 2016
•Previous
attendance counts
•Teacher
Recommendations
•Vision/Hearing
Screenings
•Benchmark Scores
•State Testing Scores
•Grades
•Observation done
by special education
teacher
•Progress
Monitoring Scores
•Parent input
Ivy
•Achievement Test
Scores from 2016
and 2022
•Ability Test Scores
from 2019
•Auditory Processing
Evaluation from
2017
•Parent Input
•Teacher
Recommendations
•Social-emotional
rating scale from
2016
•Broad Behavior
Rating Scale from
2016
•Executive
Functioning Index
from 2022
•Vision/Hearing
Screenings
•Benchmark Scores
•State Testing Scores
•Grades
•Progress
Monitoring Scores
Lily
•Intelligence Test
Scores from 2016
•Achievement Test
Scores from 2016
•Observation by
Paraprofessionals
•Broad Behavior
Rating Scale 2016
•Narrow Behavior
Rating Scale 2016
•Benchmark Scores
•Grades
•Teacher Input
•Vision/Hearing
Screenings
•Parent Input
Clem
•Intelligence Test
Scores from 2016
•Achievement Test
Scores from 2016
•Teacher
Recommendations
•Vision/Hearing
Screenings
•Benchmark Scores
•State Testing Scores
•Grades
•Observation done
by special education
teacher
•Progress
Monitoring Scores
•Parent input
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
74
Achievement test scores were updated for students that were provided with full
RRs. Ivy and Rose received full RRs due to the need to collect more data about their
disabilities. Following the guidance provided by the state, Ivy was provided with
additional testing because of teacher concerns about her academic needs and her
classroom behaviors. Rose was provided with additional testing due to teacher concerns
for her lack of progress with her reading ability.
Lily and Clem received a review of records in both their 6th and 8th grade school
years. In their particular cases, neither Lily nor Clem’s IEP team felt that additional data
was required for their qualification for special education to continue. Despite the
guidance provided by PATTAN, neither students’ IEP documents were revised to address
their inabilities to master IEP goals assigned to them in elementary school.
Progress monitoring reports. Progress monitoring reports are provided to parents
of special education students each school year. These reports were used to determine how
special education students performed in regard to their IEP goals. Progress monitoring is
primarily used to find patterns in student needs related to their IEP goals. This
performance is then reviewed to determine if the student requires instructional
adjustments or interventions.
Progress monitoring reports from the students’ 6th and 7th grade years were
reviewed. Collecting data from grades 6 and 7 allowed the researcher to examine student
progress before transition age. Rose and Clem had eight total reports available for the
researcher to review, one report per quarter of the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school
years. Lily had four reports from the 2021-2022 school year since she was a remote
student during the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020-2021 school year. Progress
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
75
monitoring reports were not available for Ivy. Instead, the progress reported in her annual
IEPs, when viable, was collected from those documents.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
76
Table 8
Ivy’s Progress Monitoring Data for Grades 6-7
Mastery Criteria
6th Grade Average
Performance
7th Grade Average
Performance
Sight Words
100 sight words read
correctly
Mastered – goal
removed from IEP
Goal was not replaced
with another
Reading Fluency
94 words read correctly
on a 2nd grade level
51 words read
correctly per minute
Mastered with 95 words
correctly per minute –
moved to 3rd grade level
Table 9
Lily’s Progress Monitoring Data for Grades 6-7
Mastery Criteria
6th Grade Average
Performance
7th Grade
Average
(SD)
Reading Fluency
139 words read correctly
on a 4th grade level in
one minute
Goals were suspended due to
the parents’ choice for remote
learning for this student
121.8 (13.3)
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
77
Table 10
Clem’s Progress Monitoring Data for Grades 6-7
Mastery Criteria
6th Grade
Average (SD)
7th Grade
Average (SD)
Basic Reading
90% accuracy decoding
multisyllabic words
82.5% (20.6)
76.2% (8.7)
Reading
Comprehension
90% accuracy answering
direct and inferential questions
66.8% (30.8)
77.1% (18.1)
Note: Since Clem’s IEP goals were dependent upon his progress within the ELA curriculum, no grade level was proved for his
reading comprehension goal.
Table 11
Rose’s Progress Monitoring Data for Grades 6-8
Mastery Criteria
6th Grade
Average (SD)
7th Grade
Average (SD)
Basic Reading
90% accuracy decoding
15 multisyllabic words
61.3% (16.2)
71.3% (3.0)
Reading Fluency
35 words read correctly
on a 1st grade level
35.1 (9.45)
32.4 (10.6)
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
78
Averages reported from other student IEP progress monitoring reports are listed
in Tables 8-11. Tables 9-11 provide calculated descriptive statistics for students with
available progress monitoring reports. Ivy’s progress monitoring data are shown in Table
8. She was able to master her sight word goal in 6th grade, so the goal was removed. She
also mastered her reading fluency goal in both 6th and 7th grades, moving from a 2nd grade
level probe to a 3rd grade level probe. This data shows that Ivy was reading four grade
levels below her actual grade during her 7th grade school year.
Table 9 provides Lily’s progress monitoring data. Lily’s IEP mastery goal criteria
to achieve mastery was 139 words per minute. Data was unavailable for her 6th grade
school year. During her 7th grade year, Lily’s average reading fluency score was about
122 words per minute. Although Lily made progress towards her goal, she was still
reading three grade levels below her actual grade level during her 7th grade school year.
Table 10 illustrates Clem’s progress with his basic reading and reading
comprehension goals. Mastery criteria for his basic reading goal required Clem to decode
multisyllabic words with 90% accuracy. In 6th grade, Clem’s average accuracy with
decoding multisyllabic words was about 83%. During his 7th grade school year, his
average decreased to around 76%. His reading comprehension goal required to read a text
and comprehend answer direct and inferential questions with 90% accuracy. Clem’s
average accuracy with this goal was around 67% in his 6th grade year. His average
increased to 77% in his 7th grade school year. Since his goals were based on progress
within his ELA class, his actual grade levels in reading are unknown.
Table 11 shows Rose’s data from her progress monitoring reports. Her IEP goals
related to reading included basic reading and reading fluency. Rose’s basic reading goal
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
79
mastery asked for 90% accuracy in decoding multisyllabic words. Her average score for
her 6th grade year was about 61%. In 7th grade, her average increased to approximately
71%. Her reading fluency goal required Rose to read correctly per minute using a 1st
grade level probe. Her average accuracy for this goal was around 35 words per minute in
her 6th grade year. In her 7th grade year, her average went down to about 32 words per
minute. Rose continued to read well below grade level, particularly in reading fluency;
she was reading on a 1st grade level during her 7th grade school year. Her reding fluency
was 6 levels below her actual grade level.
Report Cards. According to the site’s handbook, administration makes at least
four formal contacts per year concerning progress in grades via report cards. Report cards
are issued based on the school calendar; then, mailed home nearly every 45 days. The
handbook also states that the manner in which students are evaluated in each of their
classes is dependent upon a number of factors including the course, the curriculum, the
teacher, and departmental/team requirements.
Table 12 displays the average grades for each student’s reading/ELA classes from
grades six and seven. Eight reporting periods were used to calculate the data for each
student. Averages were calculated by tallying each quarter’s final grades from their 6th
and 7th grade school years. Since all the students are considered to be reading below
grade level according to their IEP goals, it was important to gather information to see
how they perform overall with formative and summative measures in their each of their
curricula.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
80
Table 12
Averages of Student Report Card Performance in Reading/ELA in Grades 6-7
Student
Type of Reading/ELA
Class
Report Card ELA
Grade Average (SD)
Qualitative Descriptor
Ivy
Supplemental Reading
Intervention Program (B)
73.4 (7.63)
Average
Lily
Grade Level General
Education Curriculum
91.4 (6.57)
Excellent
Rose
Supplemental Reading
Intervention Program (A)
79.8 (24.6)
Average
Clem
Supplemental Reading
Intervention Program (B)
74.8 (9.6)
Average
Note: The following grade ranges are used to determine qualitative descriptors at the
site. Failure = 0-59, Below Average = 60-69, Average = 70-79, Above Average = 80-90,
Excellent = 90-100.
Formative assessments are used to monitor student learning, gathering ongoing
feedback that can be used by educators to enhance their teaching techniques. These
assessments are also used to provide students with feedback, helping them understand
and advance their learning by identifying their strengths and weaknesses as topics are
presented (What is the difference between formative and summative assessment?, 2023).
“The goal of summative assessment is to evaluate student learning at the end of an
instructional unit by comparing it against some standard or benchmark” (What is the
difference between formative and summative assessment?, 2023). Educators utilize these
types of assessments to determine what skills students have acquired after an established
number of standards have been taught.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
81
Presently, the site employs a supplemental reading intervention curriculum to
attend to the reading needs of some of their special education students (Wanzek & Kent,
2012). Students with SLDs in reading that require an intervention to enhance their basic
reading and reading comprehension skills are determined using reading benchmarks
scores, classroom grades, state assessment scores, teacher/parent input, and
achievement/intelligence results. The implementation of an effective reading intervention
is of high priority to special educators to ensure that the transition from “learning to read”
stage to the “reading to learn” stage (Wanzek & Kent, 2012).
Three out of four of the selected 8th grade students have been enrolled in a
supplemental reading intervention curriculum since their 6th grade school year. The
fourth student received grade level ELA instruction in the general education classroom.
The supplemental intervention programs differ from the general education reading/ELA
curriculum not only because they are scripted, but also in their scope and sequence. The
site utilizes two different reading intervention programs from the same company as the
main curriculum for supplemental special education students.
The first curriculum, supplemental reading intervention program (A), is a
phonics-based program. It focuses on building decoding and reading fluency using a
blend of direct instruction and adaptive technology with phonetics. Supplemental reading
intervention program (B), the second program, also utilizes adaptive technology with
direct instruction. However, that program focuses on foundational literacy skills to build
vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension skills. Neither of these supplemental
intervention reading programs follow the same scope and sequence of their grade level,
general education counterparts when comparing ELA standards in each curriculum.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
82
Report card grades were compared against progress monitoring scores to better
understand what skills students mastered, as well as which they were still working on. At
the time of this research, students were placed in different settings for their reading/ELA,
it was important to look at both sets of data to get a full look at how each curricula
compared. This information can also be found in Table 12.
In the supplemental reading intervention program, Ivy was able to master her
sight word goal. She was also able to master her reading fluency goal in 6th grade and
again in 7th grade. Her reading fluency goal was written at a 3rd grade level when she
was in 7th grade. Her classroom grades were considered “average”. Ivy functioned below
grade level in reading according to her report card and her progress monitoring report.
The numerical averages above indicate that Lily’s performed in the “excellent”
range with grade level materials. However, her reading fluency goal remained below
grade level. Lily did not receive any type of reading intervention. Lily’s report card
grades and her progress monitoring report provided conflicting data. There could be
several reasons for this conflicting data: a focus on speed not accuracy with reading
fluency goals/benchmarks, inflated grades, or more accommodations/modifications being
presented in the classroom to Lily that cannot be accounted for. As the site’s handbook
states, grades could also be affected by the course, curriculum, teacher, or
departmental/team requirements.
Clem’s progress report showed that he made more progress with his basic reading
goal in 6th grade than in 7th. According to his 7th grade averages, he actually regressed in
his basic reading skills. Clem made more progress from 6th grade to 7th with his reading
comprehension goal. Despite receiving reading/ELA instruction in the same intervention
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
83
class in both 6th and 7th grade, Clem also performed below grade level in reading
according to his report card and progress monitoring report.
Rose’s report card grades were also considered to be in the “average” range.
Although, she was also enrolled in a supplemental reading intervention, her progress with
her IEP goals did not excel. Rose was able to make more progress with her reading
fluency goal than with her basic reading goal. Comparisons of her report card and
progress monitoring reports indicate that Rose is also performing below grade level in
reading.
The researcher understood this data to show that students enrolled in the
supplemental reading intervention program were still unable to master basic reading
skills needed to perform on grade level after spending two years in the program.
According to the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network when
progress monitoring “data patterns indicate the need to make instructional adjustments,
simple instructional interventions should be used first” (Pennsylvania Training and
Technical Assitance Network, 2018c).
In addition, if instructional interventions do not yield the desired results, more
intensive interventions should be implemented to support the student’s needs
(Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assitance Network, 2018c). If any or all of the
intensive instructional interventions do not result in acceptable progress, the IEP team
may need to reconvene to reevaluate. Clem, Ivy, and Rose were provided with curricular
interventions but still did not make great gains with their reading abilities. However,
more intensive interventions were not provided. Also, the IEP teams did not meet to
reevaluate their progress with reading.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
84
IEP Accommodations and Modifications. Accommodations are changes made to
the delivery of a teacher’s instruction and/or any accompanying materials used in lessons
(The IRIS Center, 2023). Accommodations made for each student varied depending on
their needs. A student’s accommodations could range from small group instruction to
printed material being paired with an auditory file.
Modifications include adaptations to the curriculum that change what students are
learning (The IRIS Center, 2023). Modifications for students also ranged for these
students depending upon their individual needs. The most consistent modification was the
use of a supplemental reading intervention program for reading/ELA. Other
modifications ranged from reducing assignments/assessment lengths to modifying the
classroom notes. Some accommodations and modifications applied to multiple students.
Accommodations that appeared in at least two IEPs were considered to be common by
the researcher. Common accommodations and modifications are provided in figure 8.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
85
Figure 8
Common Accommodations and Modifications Provided in Grades 6 and 7
Accommodations
•Small group testing
•Extended time
•Alternate test site
•Assignments/assessments read aloud
•Increased opportunites for small group/1:1
instruction
•Increased wait time
•Pair audio insturctions with visual instructions
Modifications
•Modified curriculum
•Modified assignments & assessments
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
86
The average number of accommodations and supports found in each student’s IEP
during their middle school years was also considered. Since “the expectation that students
with disabilities will participate in the general education classroom and state testing to the
greatest extent possible” has increased, accommodations and modifications are necessary
to remove barriers impeding a student with an SLD to access and learn from the
curriculum (The IRIS Center, 2023).
Table 13 displays the average number of accommodations and modifications
received by each student in grades 6 and 7. Averages were found by the researcher by
counting accommodations related to reading independently for each student. Then, sums
were divided by the total number of completed middle school years each accommodation
was provided at the site.
Table 13
Average Number of Accommodations and Modifications Received in Grades 6-7
Students
Average Number of
Accommodations (SD)
Average Number of
Modifications (SD)
Rose
8 (0)
2 (0)
Ivy
15 (7.07)
2 (0)
Lily
10 (1.41)
0 (0)
Clem
11.5 (0.71)
2 (0)
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
87
The standard deviation for Rose was zero because her accommodations did not
change from 6th grade to 7th grade. The same is true for her modifications. Lily’s
accommodations varied from 6th grade to 7th grade. This could be due to receiving a
remote learning environment in 6th grade. Accommodations seem to have been added to
ensure she had the right levels of support while she was a remote student. Clem’s number
of accommodations did not change much from 6th grade to 7th grade. His standard
deviation for modifications was zero due to receiving the same modification in each
school year. Ivy’s number of accommodations were significantly larger than the other
students due to other disorders that may impact her ability to read independently. For
instance, Ivy was provided with the opportunity to receive highly structured, shortened
assignments (a reduction in the number of assignments in reading). She was also
provided with timed breaks, opportunities for breaks when she reached frustration, breaks
as a reward for completing assigned task, etc. In addition, she was given an
accommodation for least to most prompt procedures including nonverbal prompts when
learning new skills.
Individualized Education Program (IEP). IEPs from the students’ elementary
school years (Grades K-5) were used as historical documents to gather more information
about their background through special education, including but not limited to, EF skills
related to educational skills. Because IEPs are not produced for research purposes, they
often contained extraneous information that does not necessarily pertain to this study, and
therefore pertinent information needed to be drawn out and summarized (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
88
Rose. Rose was referred for special education services in 2nd grade due to
academic concerns. Her teachers reported that she struggled to understand materials/tasks
and could not complete work independently. Teachers reported that Rose needed one-on-
one or small group assistance to complete assignments independently. Other teachers
reported that her attention span decreased as she moved up in grades; she needed to be
redirected to start/finish assignments repeatedly. Rose also became anxious with
challenging or unfamiliar material. She also began to need almost all of her
assignments/assessments modified.
Ivy. Ivy transferred into the district with an IEP in 2nd grade. Her 2nd grade teacher
reported that Ivy could get very distracted and usually did not participate. In addition, she
struggled to stay in her own workspace. A second teacher stated that she benefited from
small group instruction, shortened number and length of directions, a combination of
verbal directions with visual cues, frequent breaks, and a breakdown of information into
smaller chunks. Her teachers reported that Ivy worked best with one-on-one instructors
and lacked the amount of attention span she needs to complete assignments. Ivy often
needed reminders to stay on task and stay in her seat.
Lily. Lily was referred to special education services in 3rd grade due to concerns
with her progress in reading. Her teacher noted that Lily was easily distracted but also
easily redirected to get back on task. Lily struggled with focusing and staying on task.
Clem. Clem began receiving special education services as a student with a speech
and language impairment during his 1st grade school year. In 2nd grade, he qualified as a
student with a specific learning disability and a speech and language impairment. Clem
did well when working one-on-one with the teacher because he needed assistance to
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
89
complete assignments independently. Other teachers reported that he did not complete
homework. It was also reported that Clem needed multiple redirections to complete class
work. Clem needed extra time to process what he was supposed to do and how to do it.
He seemed to have difficulty listening and engaging in the lesson.
Figure 9
EF weaknesses listed in Elementary School (K-5) IEPs
Clem
Poor memory
Problems paying
attention
Inability to work
independently
Trouble
understanding and
following
instructions
Problems staying
organized
Rose
Poor memory
Problems paying
attention
Inability to work
independently
Trouble
understanding and
following
instructions
Ivy
Poor memory
Problems paying
attention
Inability to work
independently
Trouble
understanding and
following
instructions
Problems staying
organized
Work avoidance
Lily
Problems paying
attention
Trouble
understanding and
following
instructions
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
90
Executive functioning skills were collected for each student via the teacher input
in the IEP. Important highlights related to EF weaknesses from the students’ elementary
school IEPs are communicated above in Figure 9. The researcher thought it was
important to display the various classroom behaviors displayed by each student. It was
also important to note that the impoverished students, Clem, Ivy, and Rose displayed
more behaviors related to a lack of executive functioning skills than their higher SES
peer, Lily. Clem, Rose, and Ivy displayed these behaviors at various levels throughout
elementary school, according to their IEP teacher inputs. Lily displayed the same two
behaviors consistently throughout elementary school based on her IEP teacher input.
Surveys
Surveys were sent out to eight general education teachers, five ELA teachers and
three Reading teachers in September of 2022 (Appendix A). Five surveys were started,
three surveys were submitted, but only two were completed to 100% due to possible
attrition. Attrition is the loss of study units from a sample, causing a researcher to lose
part, or all, of the data from a participant (Institute of Education Sciences, 2022). It can
occur for several reasons but with web-based surveys it can be hard to determine a
singular reason for the attrition; missing data is most likely due to participants skipping
questions or leaving the survey unfished (Institute of Education Sciences, 2022). The
survey was closed out in October 2022 after three encouraging reminders were sent from
the researcher to the teachers.
Special education teachers had a higher completion rate with their surveys. Four
special education teachers were recruited to complete the survey. After three gentle
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
91
reminders via email from the researcher, four out of four responses were received for a
100% completion rate. The survey was closed in November 2022.
Data from completed surveys was stored and organized via Qualtrics. All data
within Qualtrics was analyzed using Qualtrics’s data and analysis tools, but the
researcher preferred to manually review the data of all surveys to ensure an
understanding of each response.
Teacher Demographics. The following information provides demographics of
the teachers that completed the survey. Gathering demographics from teachers is vital to
this research since the most influential expectation of academic achievement from low
SES students is their teacher (Benner & Mistry, 2007). Although age ranges and
race/ethnicity options were requested in survey questions, it was not included in the final
report of data. To protect the identities of the small number of teacher participants of this
study, age ranges and race/ethnicities were removed. Table 14 represents the final
reportable demographic data for teacher participants.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
92
Table 14
Teacher Demographics
Teacher
Pseudonyms
Gender
Certification Type(s)
Certification Level
Level of Education
Professional Experience
Gen. Ed A
Female
English 7-12
Reading Specialist K-12
Level I
Master’s degree
0 – 5 years
Gen. Ed B
Female
Grades 4-8 (4-6, English
Language Arts and Reading 7-8)
Reading Specialist K-12
Level II
Master’s degree
10 – 15 years
Special. Ed 1
Female
Special Education PK-8
Special Education PK-12
Level II
Master’s degree
10 – 15 years
Special. Ed 2
Female
Reading Specialist K-12
Special Education PK-12
Elementary Education K-6
Level II
Master’s degree
10 – 15 years
Special. Ed 3
Female
Special Education PK-8
Elementary Education K-6
Level II
Master’s degree
5 – 10 years
Special. Ed 4
Female
English 7-12
Special Education PK-12
Level II
Master’s degree
15 – 20 years
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
93
Teacher Certifications. Table 14 also displays the types of teaching certifications
maintained by each group. One special education teacher holds a certification in English
7-12. Another holds a certification as a reading specialist (K-12). All special education
teachers are certified to teach special education and two are certified to teach elementary
education (K-6). One general education teacher is certified to teach grades 4-8 in ELA
and Reading. One general education teacher is certified to teach English 7-12. Both
general education teachers are certified reading specialists for K-12.
Certification Levels. Teachers were also asked to provide their certification
levels. Level one certifications expire after six years of teaching service, requiring
teachers to completed at least 24 post-baccalaureate credits and 3-6 years of satisfactory
work experience in a recognized school setting if they want to continue teaching
(Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2023b). One general education teacher reported
having a level one certification. One general education teacher reported having a level
two certification. All four special education teachers reported having a level two
certification.
Levels of Education. Despite being two separate groups for this study, the data in
this section was homogenous. Each general education teacher indicated they held a
master’s degree. Special educators recorded the same response; each held a master’s
degree.
Professional Experience. Professional experience varied for the groups. One
general education teacher has been in a professional setting for 0-5 years. While the other
has 10-15 years of experience. Special education teachers had more experience
collectively. One special educator had 5-10 years of professional teaching experience.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
94
Two claimed to have 10-15 years of experience. The last declared having 15-20 years of
experience.
General Education Teacher Responses. The following survey responses were
based on questions providing rating scale questions where teachers were asked to select
their responses based on a scale of 0 to 10. “A rating scale is used when trying to get a
rating value, to quantify intangible or abstract concepts. It is similar to a multiple-choice
question, but it constrains answers to a single, logical value set” (Toor, 2021). Because
the number of general education teacher respondents was so small, statistical analyses
could not be performed. Alternatively, the survey results are described qualitatively.
Referral Process to Special Education. General education teachers were asked
about the referral process for students to be evaluated for special education. Questions
required teachers to consider if a student’s referral is based on the perception of that
student’s functioning level or that student’s individual data. Individual data included
classroom benchmarks, classroom assessments, progress monitoring data, etc. When
considering referrals based on perceived functioning levels, both teachers rated 8 or
above on the scale. When contemplating if referrals are based on individual student data,
the teachers rated just below as they did for perceived functioning. General education
teacher responses indicated that during the special education referral process at the site,
the perception of a student’s functioning level carried more importance than the student’s
individual data. This is an issue of concern because this could contribute to the
overidentification of students for special education at the site and therefore the district.
LRE. The following questions required teachers to consider what information is
used to place a student in their learning environment. As mentioned in previous chapters,
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
95
the LRE is used as a guiding standard, making sure special education students are placed
in the same classes as their non-disabled peers as much as possible. However, when
deciding on an LRE, the IEP team must work to place the student in an appropriate
learning environment based on data from the student’s present levels of performance,
strengths, and weaknesses presented in their IEP (IRIS Least Restrictive Environment
Info Brief, 2019).
When considering placement based on perceived functioning of the student, the
general education teachers rated 6 and 8 out of 10. The same ratings were noted when
pondering LRE placement using individual student data. General educators were also
asked to what extent special education students were placed in general education
classrooms depending on the student’s ability to be successful without additional
supports with educator responses falling in the middle of the provided range. Again, these
responses suggest that general teachers prioritize perceived functioning over objective
data of student performance. Individual student data should take priority over teacher
perception of the student to avoid a special education student being misplaced in a
learning environment that is not appropriate for them. Services and supports should assist
the student in their LRE, helping them make progress toward academic or functional
goals, participate and make progress in the general education curriculum (IRIS Least
Restrictive Environment Info Brief, 2019). However, supports and services cannot be
applicable if students are misplaced.
Exiting Process. General educator responses to the special education exiting
process were also obtained. When asked to what extent the decision to exit a student from
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
96
special education is based on their perceived functioning levels, both educators chose 6
out 10, more than mid-range of the scale.
Educators were also asked to consider to what extent the decision to exit a student
from special education was based on individual student data. Each educator chose
differently for this question. One educator chose 6 out 10. The second educator selected 9
out 10. The difference in responses shows that teacher perception is considered more than
individual student data to exit a student. This circumstance could contribute to the
minimal number of students that are able to exit special education.
Educators were asked if there were any barriers to successfully exiting students
with SLDs from special education. Both general education teachers responded yes. The
follow up question required respondents to provide what they felt were the top three
factors preventing students from exiting special education. One teacher listed availability
of classes. The second teacher listed interventions, home support of education, and ability
levels.
When asked what resources and/or supports would help them as educators increase the
opportunity for students to exit from special education, both teachers listed smaller class
size. One teacher listed available aids.
Training. General education teachers were asked to use a slider numbered 0 to
100 to indicate the levels of support their school provided in resources and training. The
slider was presented in increments of 10, but respondents could select numbers in
between increments. When asked to provide the level of support they received related to
special education, one teacher chose 3 out of 100, closer to the beginner of the slider, the
other chose 74 out of 100, closer to the end of the slider. When considering the level of
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
97
support provided by the site in regard to impoverished students, one teacher chose 85 out
of 100, the second chose 74 out of 100; both teachers chose numbers closer to the end of
the slider. Lastly, in regard to the level of support the school provided for exiting students
from special education the first teacher chose 20 out of 100, the second chose 55 out of
100. The first teacher chose a number closer to the beginning of the slider, the second
chose one closer to the middle of the slider.
Each teacher’s reflection upon the special education process showed that there are
some discrepancies. Though one teacher felt supported with resources and training for
special education students, impoverished students, and exiting students, the other did not.
In addition, the responses provided by these teachers in other areas of the survey do not
align with what they stipulated about the supports their school provides.
Executive Functioning (EF) Skills. SLDs were once referred to as an
“unexplained inability to learn” (Rosenzweig, et al, 2011). Today, professionals have
recognized that SLDs can be a result of a deficit in one or more areas of what we refer to
as executive functioning (Rosenzweig, et al, 2011).
Researchers have characterized executive functioning as an exclusive set of
attention-regulation skills that are involved in cognizant goal-directed, problem solving
(Zelazo et al., 2017). As a result of changes in the brain related to stress, children from
impoverished backgrounds may experience poorer EF skills (Haft & Hoeft, 2018).
Research has also shown that there is a direct link between executive function skills and
academic functioning (Zelazo et al., 2017). EF skills have also been used to predict IQ
scores in children (Zelazo et al., 2017). In short, EF skills can impact learning in
impoverished students.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
98
General education teachers were asked to rank their students’ levels of EF skills using the
qualitative descriptors below average, average, and above average. EF skills were
organized by category using the related score sheet for the revised EF questionnaire used
in teacher surveys (Dawson & Guare, 2018).
Organizational Skills. When asked about their student’s ability to bring
appropriate materials from home, both teachers rated student skills as average. When it
came to organizing materials both teachers chose average skill sets for their students.
Both teachers rated their students as below average for time management.
Independent Work Skills. Both teachers scored their students as average when it
came to working independently. One teacher ranked their students as below average
while the other teacher ranked their students as average when it came to staying on task.
When considering if students were able to complete assignments, one teacher chose
below average ranking while the other chose average ranking. When it came to following
directions, both teachers choose average skill sets for their students. The same rankings
were applied for their students’ ability to understand directions/tasks.
Problem Solving Skills. Evaluating their own performance got split responses,
one teacher ranked students as below average. The other teacher ranked this area as
average. When thinking about if their students were able to recognize that they have a
problem both teachers consider their students skills to be average. Each teacher chose
average when considering if their students could use appropriate resources to help solve
their problems. Both teachers chose below average skill sets for their students when they
considered if their students could try to solve a problem independently before requesting
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
99
help. When pondering about if their students were able to think flexibly about the
problem one teacher chose below average skill sets while the other chose average.
Levels of Self-Control. Both teachers scored their students as above average when
it came to interrupting others. Teachers also agreed on average skill sets when it came to
their students becoming visibly upset when a task became challenging. Also, teachers
ranked their students as average when considering if they became easily upset. When it
came to throwing temper tantrums, teachers were split, one teacher chose below average
and the other chose average. Acting impulsively, difficulty waiting, and making negative
comments to self or teacher when assigned challenging tasks all received the same from
teachers, one chose average while the other chose above average. Teacher responses
indicate that their students with SLDs in the general education classroom need more
support with EF skills, particularly in the areas of time management, independent work,
and problem solving.
Special Education Teacher Responses. Special education teachers not only
fulfill different educational roles than their general education peers but also maintain
different job responsibilities. In this study, special education teachers serve as case
managers, overseeing special education paperwork and reading/ELA teachers. Since their
positions are so distinctive, their opinions and viewpoints are too. Therefore, the
researcher thought it was best to survey this group separately, gathering data to display
their stances of the topics covered in this study. Questions were based on LRE and
executive functioning skills.
LRE. These educators were asked similar questions to their general education
peers. When asked to what extent is student’s placement in a general education classroom
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
100
dependent upon the students perceived functioning level, one special educator chose 2
out of 10. One selected 5 out of 10. The last two educators chose 6 out of 10. Special
educators were split with their ratings. Two chose responses closer to the beginning of
the scale’s range but the other two chose responses closer to the middle of the range of
the scale.
Special educators were also asked to what extent students with an SLD are placed
in a general education classroom based on their individual data. Two special educators
chose 7 out of 10. The other two selected 9 out of 10. Special educators used individual
data more to place a student in an LRE. Comparisons of responses from special educators
and general educators show a big difference. Special education teachers leaned more
towards individual data, while general education teachers utilize teacher perception of
students.
Executive Functioning Skills. Special education teachers were also asked to rank
their students’ levels of EF skills using the same qualitative descriptors: below average,
average, and above average. Again, EF skills were organized by the researcher into tables
based on the related score sheet for the revised EF questionnaire used in teacher surveys
(Dawson & Guare, 2018). Teacher responses indicate that students with SLDs in the
special education classroom need more support with EF skills in all areas presented in the
survey. Below are the special educator responses when comparing the independent work
skills of their students with IEPs to their grade level peers.
Independent Work Skills. When considering how well their students understand
directions, two special educators chose below average performance and the other two
selected average performance. When thinking about if their students were able to get
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
101
started independently, three special educators chose below average, and one picked
average.
When asked about their students’ ability to stay on task, three educators chose
below average, and one chose average skill sets. These educators also considered the self-
advocacy skills of their students. Three educators chose below average, and one chose
average self-advocacy skills for their students. The responses about completing
assignments seemed to split the group; two educators chose below average while the
other two selected average. When it came to turning assignments in on time, three special
educators responded that their student skill sets were below average in this area. The last
selected an average skill set for their student.
Organizational Skills. The executive functioning questions continued with
writing down assignments, bringing appropriate materials to and from home, maintaining
classroom materials, and forgetting materials in various areas of the building. Three
special educators chose a below average skill set for their students writing down
assignments. One special educator chose an average skill set for their students.
Bringing appropriate materials to and from home split the group again. Two
educators chose below average skills in this area. The other two chose average in this
area. When it came to maintaining classroom materials three special educators chose
average. The last chose below average. Three special educators chose below average
skills when considering students forgetting materials in various areas of the building,
while the last chose average.
When thinking about how well their students maintain desk areas, backpacks, and
supplies. Two special educators chose below average for keeping desk space organized.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
102
Two others chose average skill sets for this question. The same responses were given for
keeping backpack organized. When it came to keeping track of supplies like books,
papers, pencils, etc., two special educators chose below average skills and two chose
average skills.
Problem Solving Skills. Three special educators selected below average for their
students’ ability to recognize having a problem (i.e.-not understanding the task). One
educator chose average. All four educators responded that their students have below
average skills when it came to being able to think flexibility about a problem. One special
educator chose average, and three selected below average when thinking about if their
students try to solve the problem independently before requesting help.
When considering if students used appropriate resources to help solve the
problem, three educators chose below average, and one chose average. Lastly, all four
educators chose below average skill sets for their students when it came to evaluating
their own performance to decide whether the problem was solved successfully.
Time management for project questions generated an array of responses. When
asked how well their students performed at breaking assignments into smaller chunks, all
four special educators responded with below average. When it came to developing a
timeline for completion, again all four educators agreed with below average. When
considering how well students follow the directions for the project, two special educators
chose average and the other two rated below average. All four educators responded with
below average when it came to their students proofreading or checking a project for
mistakes and proper guidelines. Finally, all four special educators selected below average
skill sets for their students when it came to finishing a project by the deadline.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
103
Levels of Self-Control. Special educators were also asked to consider their
students’ behaviors associated with self-control. When it came to students becoming
easily upset, two special educators chose below average and the other two choices
average. The same responses were given for students throwing temper tantrums. Three
special educators chose below average and one special educator chose average when it
came to their students acting impulsively. Three special educators chose below average,
and one chose above average when considering if their students interrupted others.
Two special educators chose below average and the other two chose average
when thinking about if their students had difficulty waiting. Three special educators
chose below average skill sets, and one chose average when considering if their student
becomes visibly upset when tasks become challenging. When thinking about if their
students make negative comments to themselves or the teacher when assigned a
challenging task, two special educators chose below average and two chose above
average skill sets.
Focus Groups
Initially, the researcher pursued two focus groups, one containing general
education teachers and the second with special education teachers. However, no general
education teachers volunteered for the focus group despite the researcher’s gentle
requests. Therefore, a focus group was comprised of only special education teachers.
The focus group was held via the Zoom video communications site. The focus
group was scheduled based on participant and researcher schedules to provide ease for all
parties involved. All participants were asked to give their permission verbally before the
focus group began. The focus group lasted about 30 minutes.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
104
Purposeful sampling is used when selecting participants for focus groups,
including people who know the most about the topic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This
focus allowed the researcher to gather information and perspectives from special
education teachers working with students from low SES backgrounds.
Coding
The researcher recorded the focus group using the options provided by the Zoom
platform. This allowed the researcher to record the video and audio of the focus group
discussions. It also allowed the provided the researcher with a transcript for coding. The
researcher chose to use Atlas.ti, a coding and qualitative data analysis software
(CAQDAS) to maintain the qualitative data of the focus group. Atlas.ti served as the
primary coding method of the focus group transcript.
The researcher used “Pre-coding” during the earliest review of the transcript. Pre-
coding allowed the researcher to identify significant participant words or short answers
that could become quotable moments and therefore worthy of the researcher’s attention
(Saldana, 2016). By highlighting and making comments within the paper transcript, the
researcher was able to use pre-coding to seek out possible themes found in the language
of the focus group attendees.
Pre-coding was then used to identify basic descriptive categories for a more
detailed round of coding using Atlas.ti. “By establishing basic descriptive categories
early on for coding, the researcher will have easy access to information in the analysis
and interpretation stage” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 179). Establishing a coding system
permitted the researcher to link themes found in the transcript and other relevant data
sources in this case study.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
105
Development of the themes: Second cycle coding. During a second in vivo
coding, the researcher highlighted key details from the transcript that related to the
study’s research questions in the CAQDAS. In vivo coding uses words or short phrases
directly from a participant’s own language in a data source as codes (Saldana, 2016).
By utilizing a software program, the researcher had opportunities to organize data
into potentially complex coding systems such as hierarchies, clusters, and networks
(Saldana, 2016). The first preliminary codes were associated with the research questions
presented for the case study: factors impacting, intervention, process, and behavior.
However, some codes were changed after a final reading of the transcript. The
researcher was able to identify patterns in the coding process that lead to main themes
and subthemes. Using Simultaneous Coding, the researcher was able to identify patterns
that could be categorized by sequence, similarity, causation, and correspondence
(Saldana, 2016). Therefore, final codes were based on correspondence, or things that
happen in relation to other occurrences (Saldana, 2016).
Themes. When considering the data collected for this research, three definitive
areas, or themes, of information emerged: effects of SES, special education process, and
classroom expectations. The researcher was also able to find subthemes within the main
themes. Subthemes included: gaps in knowledge, work avoidance, mindset, referral
process, exiting, balancing support, and systemic barriers. Figure 10 represents the
related themes and subthemes found in the coding process.
The effects of SES theme indicated that SES plays a role in student behavior and
learning in the classroom despite being placed in special education. The special education
process allowed the researcher to follow the process of how a student enters and exits
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
106
special education programs/services at the site, from student referral to the most current
evaluations and IEP data. The third, and final, category, classroom expectations, was
used to determine any relationship between the placement of special education students
and the effectiveness of the programs they were placed in.
Figure 10
Coding Themes
Effects of SES
Gaps in Knowledge
Work Avoidance
Mindset
Special Education Process
Referral Process
Exiting
Classroom Expectations
Balancing Support
Systemic Barriers
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
107
Effects of SES
The first overall theme found through the coding process was effects of SES.
During the focus group discussion, the participants brought up pertinent phrases that
could be used to describe the overall effects of SES on their students’ academic
achievement and behaviors. The subthemes of gaps in knowledge, work avoidance, and
mindset were included to support the overall theme. Each of these subthemes worked
together to support the notion that student backgrounds could be observed in the
classroom. The researcher prompted discussions using the focus group questions and
participants used their own verbiage and descriptors to express their responses.
Gaps in Knowledge. Previous literature has stated that a student’s SES is one of
the biggest indicators of academic achievement (American Psychological Association,
2017). Because students from low SES backgrounds often do not experience the same
learning experiences or have access to the same learning materials than their high SES
peers (American Psychological Association, 2017). This lack of opportunity can impact a
student’s learning and it can be observed in the classroom.
Special Educator 4 stated, “You notice pronunciations of certain words and
certain word choices a lot of the times. [There is] a lack of background knowledge and
use the vocabulary.”
Special Educator 1 added to this topic,
“Yes, it can be observed, especially in their background knowledge and kind of in
their education. Maybe even in the parents. A lot of kids who have a great
background usually tend to have higher vocabulary and background knowledge;
where other students may not have that background or vocabulary skills.”
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
108
Special Educator 3 stated,
“There are things they may not have had. [Things] that their parents couldn't
afford to give them. Such as early childhood nursery schools. And so, they come
into class without some of the early abilities to read or know their Alphabet. And
if someone doesn't stop to teach those things, they might have been given at an
earlier age, they will carry that challenge a very long way. As they continue to
grow you'll see it. [They] just never learned it, and because they missed it in the
early years they never managed to get it. Or maybe it was that there were kids
who had it already in kindergarten, so the teacher never stopped long enough to
go back and teach them those skills.”
Special Educator 2 also responded, “I think the gap might start out small. You
know, they're not exposed to certain prerequisite skills that others may have had access
to. But unfortunately, those gaps get larger as the years progress.”
Special Educator 3 described her thoughts,
“… that kid did not get the opportunity early on or may just have needed to get
the opportunity or someone to take the time and give them the opportunity to
learn whatever they missed in the beginning. If they don't get that opportunity,
they are then deemed to be special ed when maybe it's not their educational level.
[Maybe] there isn't something that's keeping them from learning other than
they've missed some things prior to where they are.”
Special Educator 3 added, “Kids are being pushed through. He hasn't earned
moving on, and so he loses things as he's going, because he's not forced to stop and
learn.”
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
109
Work Avoidance. The educators explained that behaviors associated with work
avoidance could be observed in the classroom. These behaviors could be quiet refusals to
work independently or the inability to work independently. Jenson (2013) suggests that
the passive "I give up" attitude from students may actually be learned helplessness,
shown in the research as a symptom of a stress disorder from living in low SES
situations (Jensen, How Poverty Affects Classroom Engagement, 2013). These
educators could have unknowingly observed direct impacts of their students’ SES on
their abilities.
Special Educator 3 spoke up saying, “I can observe it in a classroom by watching
behaviors. By watching manners, by watching attitude. Sometimes you get the attitude of
‘I'm not going to listen or yes I'll do that’. But they keep doing what they're doing, the
behavior of just doing what they want to do.”
Special Educator 3 added, “I saw it in two classes today. In math, the minute the
lesson is taught, and the teacher gives you some work to do on your own. What do they
do? They sit back. They kick back and they're ready to relax. It looks like today's kid just
isn't able to propel himself to keep learning unless somebody is talking over him to make
him do it.”
Mindset. In chapter 2 of this study, the mythical culture of poverty was examined.
Gorski explains that people from low SES backgrounds actually hold the same positive
viewpoints towards education that their high-income peers hold (Gorski, The Myth of the
"Culture of Poverty", 2008). The mythical culture of poverty is driven by larger societal
norms and can distort opinions about low SES students. In short, the negative
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
110
expectancies of low-income students can lead students down a path towards low
achievement.
Special Educator 4 added more to the conversation.
“I think it's also a mindset. What I mean by that is they learn from their
environment. They learned it from their parents. It's a mindset, you know,
whether they can change and grow academically. Some of them get stuck in a
mindset that this is all I can do. They're not taught at a young age that they can
think bigger than that I think it becomes a deterrent to them and to their
education.”
Special Educator 3 followed up with, “I call it “that attitude”. That they can't do
it.” Special Educator 4 contributed, “I think a piece to add on to that is what they're not
getting at home is the support, the follow through, the importance put upon education.
Sometimes, the challenge I think, is with kids in lower SES is that it's more important for
them to take care of their baby sister. It is more important to take care of something in the
house while the parents are at work. The kids are expected to be home by themselves
until the parent gets home. I find that in itself just widens the gap.”
Theme Summary. Using their own language, participants were able to provide
observable information about student learning in the classroom. Each of the special
educators were able to identify the importance of a student’s background in the learning
process. In addition, they were able to provide insights to possible reasons for negative
student behaviors that may impact their learning. Overall, the effects of SES could be
seen by teachers in the classroom. The effects of SES seem to be impacting student
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
111
ability in the areas of independent work skills. This could increase the gaps in knowledge
the students’ already have when compared to their higher SES peers.
Special Education Process
The second theme found in the coding was the special education process. The
special education process includes the pathway used to qualify a student for special
education programs/services. Its subtheme includes referrals, or the recommendation for
special education. The special educator membership subtheme refers to the educators’
thinking towards the lack of special education members on the site’s child study team.
RRs serves as a subtheme to demonstrate the educators’ concerns for collecting viable
data connected to their students. The exiting subthemes explores the educators’ thoughts
and concerns about to the exiting process of special education.
Referral Process. The Child Study Team (CST) is a school-based problem-
solving model in that it helps to identify the needs of students who are struggling in the
classroom due to academic difficulties, social/emotional concerns, and/or behavioral
difficulties (SASD, 2023). CST is used by schools to provide various strategies to support
students while in school. In the discussion, educators expressed their confusion with the
special education referral process via CST.
Special Educator 2 stated, “One could be parent request or isn’t it through CST
(child study team)...I would think that the teachers do it? I would think it would go to
guidance, maybe, right? The teachers go to guidance, and then the guidance is who brings
it up?” Special Educator 3 questioned the group “It’s child study?”.
After some brief confusion, the group agreed that CST was responsible for
submitting names to the school psychologist when a student needed to be tested but was
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
112
unsure of the criteria students must meet before their names are provided for testing.
Special Education Teacher 2 responded, “I don’t know; that’s a good question...”.
However, the educators felt that since the criteria for the referral process was
unknown, it also impact the process of identifying students with disabilities. Special
Educator 3 commented, “By middle school I feel like it's too late, maybe not, it's never
too late. That's not what I mean, but like they've lost a lot that makes it hard to hear.
Someone getting identified as late as middle school is concerning.”
The group discussed how parents play a role in the identification of students in the
special education process. Special Educator 3 chimed in with “…a parent’s request for a
kid to be tested is pretty powerful. [When] a parent asks for testing and the school is
almost obligated to do that testing. So, it hits the psych level pretty fast.” However, she
did not stop there. “Parents act like the [special education] teacher is supposed to fix
everything and push that kid through.
Educators did not feel that the special education department’s presence was strong
at CST meetings, possibly impacting the special education referral process. The district’s
site mentions the child study team as a group of working professionals but does not list
what professional role each member holds.
Special Educator 2 pointed out the lack of a special educator on the CST team.
She said, “It’s a given in elementary school. I don’t think so here, unless maybe our
coordinator sits in on them. But I wasn’t aware that anyone does at the middle school.”
Exiting. From there, the conversation continued with the discussion of ROR
versus a full RR. Since not all RORs (Review of Records) lead to RRs, students may not
necessarily need to continue receiving special education services. On the other side of the
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
113
discussion, some students may actually need more services from special education.
However, neither situation can occur when the necessary data is unavailable.
Special Educator 1 joined in, “this is a very crucial time. If they were evaluated in
first grade and now they are in 7th grade, they haven't done an updated reevaluation. That
data is old, and I understand what they mean by IQ doesn't change much but performance
does.”
Special educators explored the options parents have to exit their student or keep
their students in special education for the additional supports. Educators also questioned
the opportunities for their students to exit special education without updated data.
However, they explain that exiting special education is not always an expectation, and
therefore not necessarily an obligation from schools.
Special Educator 4 said, “If you think the kid is borderline and you want to keep
them in with you, just request a review of records. They'll stay in special ed”. Special
Educator 2 stated. “I have never had a student exit in my experience, so I would not know
the answer to that.”
Special Educator 1 joined in with
“I had one student exit two years ago. He was meeting all of his goals and did not
require any modifications or accommodations whatsoever. It was a team decision
and a parent decision. The school psychologist had to say that the student was
able to access the curriculum without any access to special ed the student would
continue to be successful. The school psych recommended for him to be exited
and the parents signed off on it. There was no additional testing for him. She just
said, based off of the data, and his review of records to exit him.”
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
114
Special Educator 4 stated, “It's another resource problem, right? Like you can't
have a school psych doing full reevaluations on all these kids, all the time, to see if
they're going to exit.” Special Educator 4 ended this part of the discussion with “…an
increase in the number of kids exiting is something we’re not even focused on.”
Theme Summary. From referrals to exiting, educators were able to create
subthemes that connected the conversation, building a larger picture of what the special
education process looks like from their perspectives. Special educator participants were
able to isolate their confusion with the special education process to explain how it
impacts their classrooms and students. These teachers also expressed their concerns with
the lack of importance when it came to students exiting special education.
Classroom Expectations
The final theme in the coding process was classroom expectations. Classroom
expectations include the teachers’ perspectives of their students’ abilities. It also includes
their thoughts about the supports/services put into place for students as well as the
effectiveness of the supports/services. Subthemes in this section included: balancing
support and systemic barriers. Participants in the focus group used their own signifiers
and language to provide more information about their special education program.
Balancing Support. The role of a special educator has become more specialized
and complex over the three decades; special educators are expected to design, deliver,
and determine the usefulness of an individualized education programs (Mathews &
Myers, 2022). In addition, these educators are expected to collaborate with multiple
general education peers while supporting student progress toward individualized goals
and grade-level standards (Mathews & Myers, 2022). This was a concern for teachers
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
115
because they do not feel that they can provide the right amount of support for their
students due to a lack of time. Therefore, students do not always benefit from the
programming.
Special Educator 4 explained, “It is hard as a teacher. You only have the student
for one year, you know, like, how do you see that growth? How do you see the pitfalls?
How do you do it? That stuff is hard to track.”
On the flip side of this discussion, one educator felt that keeping a student in
special education may be necessary to ensure they at least have the opportunity for
support with a disability through accommodations and modifications. Special Educator 4
said, “There are also benefits to staying in the program. If you have a child who has or is
going to have a lifelong struggle. Some learning disabilities like dyslexia are long term.
They're never going to get rid of those things. So, parents want to keep those supports in
place for the student because there are times when they seem strong and there are times
when they are not strong.” She further explained that special education is “…almost like
a balancing act because the services and support is there.”
Systematic Barriers. Economically disadvantaged families are more likely to be
undereducated due to a lack of school resources. Students from poorer areas are less
likely to receive adequate amounts of resources needed to learn.
“Funding at the local level, which is largely dictated by property taxes, tends to
allocate more toward students from families with higher incomes, but state and
federal programs attempt to correct for those inequities by filling in funding gaps
and allocating more dollars for students from families with low incomes” (Blaag
et al., 2022).
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
116
However, Blaag et al. found that impoverished Pennsylvania students have been
receiving 3% less in funding dollars for several years (Blaag et al., 2022). This lack of
educational resources can contribute to the cycle of poverty. Furthermore, by reducing
the number of learning opportunities provided to low SES students, their chances to exit
special education decrease. Since many of these students are working on skills that are
below grade level, they are continuously left behind their general education peers.
Special Educator 1 started this discussion, “there are some [resources], but I
would say it's limited.” Special Educator 3 added, “I would also say it's limited. I mean,
sometimes it's there, but it's not always handed out fairly. Take the [multi-sensory reading
intervention] program here. That program can exist. There are people that can do it.
There are kids that have been in it for years. And then there are other kids that will never
get in it.”
Educator 4 added, “the selection process of a program like that is based on
attendance too. Unfortunately, I agree that there are socioeconomically challenged kids
that we see with a lot of absences, and they are transient, which affects them getting those
kinds of programs.” Educator 3 agreed, “You're exactly right. The program doesn't let
kids that fall into that range in. And there goes your poverty, playing a role into what a
kid gets.”
Special Educator 1 responded with “Exiting special education, I think, could be a
barrier. Especially when their gap is not closing, and they're constantly not being
challenged or held to a higher expectation. The barrier is staying in the system or in their
program too long.”
Educator 2 also jumped in,
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
117
“I want to say that I think there's kids that are identified at a young age for things
like ADHD and learning coping skills to help them deal with the behaviors of
ADHD. But they never exit special education, even though they don't really need
the supports anymore. I feel like I have a couple of kids on my caseload that still
have an IEP because no one's ever taken the time to actually do another
evaluation and see if they actually need an IEP.”
Special Educator 3 explained a discussion she had with one of her college
professors in
her teacher education program. “Special education is a hard program to get out of.
Unless their parents force it, they don't leave.”
Theme Summary. Although participants brought their own language and
perceptions to this discussion, their paradigms were very similar. The educators were able
to provide the researcher with a new view of the topic by simply discussing these ideals
with one another. Subthemes like systematic barriers were identified during the coding
process. This systematic barrier could further contribute to the student’s SES background
after secondary school.
Researcher’s Notes. The researcher kept notes during the focus group to obtain
more information about of the responses of the interviewees. It was noted during the
focus group that partaker responses were passionate but professional. They complied to
all researcher requests and gave their permissions to participant.
When the recording ended, one participant needed to the leave the Zoom, but the
other three participants decided to stay on. The remaining members of the group seemed
relaxed. They began to slip easily into their own conversations about the topics presented
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
118
by the researcher. Respondents continued the conversation with their own thoughts and
links to other issues they have seen within their special education careers.
The respondents had some specific issues they thought contributed to the
concerns they saw within the special education program at the site. The first being that
they were not only special education teachers, but also case managers. Respondents felt
they were juggling two full time jobs on a daily basis.
As teachers, they needed to find time in the day to ensure students’ educational
needs were met based on the supplemental reading intervention program they were using
as a curriculum but felt that the program did not meet all of the educational needs of the
students. Especially since students were being taught below grade level skills but were
still expected to take a state, grade level standardized test at the end of the school year.
Also, respondents felt their students did not make progress in these curricula; some
students had been in the same program for three consistent years and still showed no real
reading progress. Finally, as teachers, some respondents were concerned about the
mixing of grade levels in classes. At the time of the focus group, special education
reading/ELA classes could contain more than one grade level.
As case managers, they felt it was difficult to make sure their caseload students
made progress with their IEP reading goals. They felt case management periods were
spent helping their caseload students get organized, complete/turn in missing
assignments, reteach lessons to assist students with their independent work, or progress
monitoring students. They felt there was no time to build reading skills. Furthermore, it is
not often that they have the same students in their reading classes as they had on their
caseload list, creating two separate groups of students they were responsible for. They
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
119
felt this made it even more difficult to ensure students were learning what they needed to
close any educational reading gaps. Finally, case managers could have multiple grades
levels on their caseload, adding more variables to an already challenging situation. They
felt it was harder to support multiple grade levels during their case management period
because their students were working on different assignments from different teachers.
However, case managers were expected to know exactly what each student needed
simultaneously.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to understand the reason why impoverished
students with SLDs did not exit special education by transition age. The research
gathered in chapter four was informed by multiple data sources. Data were obtained
through surveys, reviews of archival data, and the coding of a semi-structured focus
group. Data presented in this chapter supported the notion that special education
programs/services provided little impact on the reading achievement of students enrolled
in supplemental reading programs provided at the site. The data also supports the concept
that the EF skills of students are not addressed explicitly. Lastly, the data presented
reveals concerns about the special education referral and exiting processes.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
120
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
A disproportionate number of students from low SES backgrounds are enrolled in
special education programs as students with SLDs. Although these students receive
academic support via special education programs and services, few students exit these
programs before secondary school. This instrumental case study investigated the
variables impeding underprivileged, transition aged students from leaving special
education through surveys, archived documents, and the coding of a focus group
discussion. The researcher sought to use this methodology to examine the effect of
special education programs/services on the academic skills of impoverished special
education students with specific learning disabilities in reading in an attempt to
understand why low SES students identified with SLDs in reading, are unable to depart
special education programming by transition-age. The sample population included 8th
grade special education students enrolled in itinerant and supplemental classes. This
population also included general and special education teachers that taught
reading/English Language Arts classes. Surveys were provided to parents to gather
demographic backgrounds of students. Surveys were also provided to general education
teachers and special education teachers. Only special education teachers participated in
the focus group.
The following research questions were used to assist in the findings of this study.
1. Do special education programs/services address the negative effects of SES for
transition aged students with SLDs?
2. Do special education programs/services impact the reading skills of impoverished
transition aged students with SLD in reading?
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
121
3. What are teachers’ perceptions of the classroom factors that impact impoverished,
transition-aged students with SLD in reading from exiting special education
programs/services?
Conclusions
Research Question One: Do special education programs/services address the
negative effects of SES for transition aged students with SLDs?
Results. Negative effects of SES in this study not only included deficits in
reading skills but also deficits in executive functioning (EF) skills for impoverished
students. Reading skills included the progress of basic reading, reading fluency, and
reading comprehension. Reading skills are addressed by the site in each student’s Least
Restrictive Environment (LRE). EF skills included tasks related to organizational,
independent work, problem-solving, and self-control skills. Since EF skills and reading
are intertwined, it was important to explore the way students obtained their reading skill
in this case study. The researcher found that special education programs/services at the
site did not address the negative effects of SES for transition aged students with SLDs in
their LREs or with support of their EF skills.
LREs. Students could obtain reading skills in two possible LREs at the site, in the
general education classroom or in the special education classroom. LREs should be
decided by the IEP team during annual meetings to ensure the students’ needs are met,
but also to ensure their placement is allowing them to make adequate progress towards
their IEP goals. Discussions at the IEP meeting should be based on individual student
data. Despite these guidelines, student placement was not consistently based on student
data.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
122
General education teacher surveys revealed that students with SLDs are equally
placed in the general education classroom based on perceived functioning of the student
and the student’s individual data. On the contrary, special education teacher surveys
indicated that students are more likely to be placed in their LRE based on their individual
student data. Moreover, according to the data presented, general education teachers
reported that special education students could be placed in general education classrooms
based on the ability to be successful without additional supports. These divergent
opinions are concerning because they can lead students to being placed in an
inappropriate LRE.
Progress Monitoring. The misplacement of a student can delay learning. The
reading interventions used at the site as the special education curriculum were created to
increase basic reading skills (i.e. phonics, vocabulary, reading fluency, and
comprehension skills) in students. In this case study, students enrolled in these programs
did not make sufficient progress on their IEP goals. Based on the progress monitoring
data, the skills covered in the reading intervention programs did not seem to strengthen
their reading skills. Two students regressed in their basic reading skills from 6th grade
from 7th grade. Only one out of three impoverished students were able to master their
sight word and reading fluency IEP goals. Two out of the four impoverished students
regressed in their basic reading skills during their middle school years. All low SES were
working towards IEP goals that were three or more grade levels below their true grade
level. The student from the high SES background maintained consistent progress but was
still reading below grade level (see Tables 8-11).
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
123
Opportunities for other types of reading interventions were offered but the
educators stated they were “limited.” In the systematic barrier subtheme of the focus
group, special educators mentioned that not all reading intervention resources were
handed out equally. Educators felt that the programs were available; there were teachers
that were certified to teach it. There were also “kids that have been in it for years” but
others would never get to participate in that experience. Because part of the selection
process for that program was based on attendance, social economically challenged
students do not get the opportunities to enroll in such programs at the site because they
are often absent or transient due to economic factors.
EF Skills. Data collected from the teacher input recorded in student IEPs
provided insight to student EF strengths and needs. Literature has shown that
economically disadvantaged students struggle with their working memory, and therefore
struggle with EF skills. The review of the students’ elementary IEPs indicated that the EF
needs of the low SES students grew during their elementary school years (Figure 8).
However, the EF needs for the high SES student remained consistent. Furthermore,
student EF needs were addressed through IEP accommodations not goals, despite
showing a need each year.
EF needs like problems paying attention, poor memory, the inability to work
independently, and trouble understanding and following instructions were concerns for
economically disadvantaged students. At the time of this research the middle school
teachers were seeing the same signs. For instance, educators explained that behaviors
related to work avoidance could easily be observed in the classroom. One educator stated,
“it looks like today's kid just isn't able to propel himself to keep learning unless
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
124
somebody is talking over him to make him do it.” Educators expressed concerns for the
EF of their students because they were often unable to follow through with tasks. The
researcher’s notes included concerns expressed by the group about EF skills. The
concerns were that they felt it was difficult to make sure students on their caseload made
progress with IEP reading goals because they spent much of their caseload period
organizing students to bring up their grades versus intervening in their reading progress.
Question Summary. It seems that the site views LRE as a “place” versus a legal
guide for a student’s education. However, by only providing a “this” or “that” model,
opportunities for a reading program that could provide more reading growth could not be
considered for students from a low SES background. Also, LREs should be based upon
individual student need, which means the emphasis should be on individual student data,
not perception.
EF goals were not set for students nor were EF skills taught explicitly to students.
For students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, working memory loads can
exceed the capability of their working memory. Unfortunately, if a child loses the
information they need to be successful, they are most likely unable to retrieve it before
the task is complete. If a student mentally loses the information they need to be complete
a classroom task, they may be more willing to give up on the assignment. EF skills are
the biggest factor in the learning process for low SES students, but it was addressed as a
secondary factor in the special education programs/services that students received.
The lack of LRE options for reading/ELA coupled with the absence of direct
instruction for EF skills possibly delayed student learning, preventing impoverished
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
125
students from possibly gaining the skills they needed to be the afforded the opportunity to
exit special education before transition age.
Research Question Two: Do special education programs/services impact the reading
skills of impoverished, transition aged students with SLD in reading?
Results. Archival documents suggested that LREs were determined based on each
selected student’s literacy needs. However, after results showed that teacher perception
was shown to impact the placement of special education students, the researcher decided
to look closer at how classroom factors impacted the reading skills of impoverished,
transition aged students with SLDs in reading.
Classroom Factors
Teachers. In this study, the students from underprivileged backgrounds received
their literacy instruction in special education classrooms using a supplemental reading
intervention program taught by special education teachers. While the state of PA does not
require special education teachers to be certified in the core subject areas (Reading/ELA,
mathematics, science, and history) they teach, only two out of the four special educators
were certified in an area of literacy, one in ELA, and one in reading. Previous literature
has discussed that economically disadvantaged students are often provided with
uncredentialed teachers (Cook-Harvey et al., 2016). While these teachers were
knowledgeable and certified by the state to teach special education, all would not be
considered highly qualified by according to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
standards (Office of Elementary & Secondary Education, 2020).
Educator Responsibilities. As case managers, the special educators felt the case
management period allotted in each special education student schedule was not working.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
126
They felt it was difficult to ensure their caseloads students were making adequate
progress with IEP reading goals because these goals were not a priority. Instead, case
management periods were more focused on getting students organized, helping them
complete/turning missing assignments, and / or reteaching lessons to help students with
their independent work.
As case managers, teachers felt that it was difficult to juggle the various
assignments of each student. Case managers also felt that this juggling session also
required them to consider the types and lengths of each assignment because each
assigning teacher had their own style. This provided to be especially difficult for case
managers that had multiple grade levels in one room. When these things were not being
done, progress monitoring was the next priority. Since there were no interventions during
that period to build reading skills, making sure students were learning what they needed
to close educational gaps in reading was challenging.
Curriculum. Students in this study were placed in different reading/ELA
curricula. The impoverished students were enrolled in a supplemental special education
curriculum, while the student from a higher SES was enrolled in a grade level, general
education curriculum. As mentioned in Chapter 2, research has shown that schools with
large populations of low SES students are more likely to offer their students a limited
range of university preparation courses as well as a less academically rigorous curriculum
(Perry, 2010).
Based on teacher comments from the focus group, the structure of the
supplemental reading classes did not meet the academic rigor encouraged by the U.S.
Department of Education. Teachers articulated that students were in the same program
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
127
year after year, but the “gap is not closing,” potentially interfering with the opportunity
for students to exit special education. Also, since low-income families are more likely to
be undereducated (American Psychological Association, 2017) this lack of skill progress
could contribute to student poverty cycles by maintaining their stations.
Grade Level Standards. Neither of these supplemental intervention reading
programs follow the same scope and sequence of their grade level, general education
counterparts when comparing ELA standards in each curriculum. The supplemental
reading program utilized by the site teaches skills that are below grade level in an attempt
to build student’s basic reading skills. Educators felt this was problematic. Not only
because some were assigned multiple grade levels in one class but also because students
were not exposed to grade level standards for reading/ELA during their middle school
years. In the researcher’s notes, it was notable that special educators felt this added to the
overwhelming concern they had for their students and the curriculum.
This notion was further evident in systematic barrier subtheme of the focus group.
The educators expressed concerns for the lack of challenging material offered in the
supplemental reading intervention program. The special educators were also troubled
about students staying in the same program too long, without making adequate progress.
Since the students were enrolled in the same intervention program from grades 6-8, they
missed three years’ worth of grade level material in reading/ELA, possibly hindering
their learning more. The students’ academic deficits may continue without exposure to
grade level reading material.
Report cards. Accommodations and modifications can play a role in classroom
performance. However, in this case, the average number of accommodations for all
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
128
students were not too far from one another on a numeric scale. Modifications, on the
other hand, were consistent for the impoverished students. The modification of the
reading curriculum for low SES students seemed to affect the students’ overall
performance. Using the data provided, the researcher was able to perceive that students
enrolled in the reading intervention program were performing “average” on below grade
level skills. However, the student enrolled in the grade level classes performed on an
“excellent” level.
Question Summary. Special education programs/services made minimal impact
on the reading skills of impoverished, transition aged students with SLD in reading.
Several factors from the classroom were considered when answering this question. The
researcher noted that a combination of teacher knowledge, teacher responsibilities, and
curriculum all played a part in the students’ learning. Again, it seems the site’s attempt to
close the educational gaps of impoverished students was not successful, since all
impoverished students in this study continued reading below grade level.
Research Question Three: What are teachers’ perceptions of the classroom factors
that impact impoverished, transition-aged students with SLD in reading from
exiting special education programs/services?
Special Education Process. Surveys presented to the general education teachers
acknowledge that students are referred to special education based on the perception of the
student's functioning level more often than they are referred based on their individual
data (Table 16). This idea is further supported by subthemes from the focus group. The
special educators’ thoughts and concerns about the special education process at the site
included the use of the child study team (CST). Because special educators are not
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
129
included on the CST, they were unaware of how a student is referred to special education.
They were also unsure of the criteria a student must meet before their names are
submitted for testing by the school psychologist. These data are concerning because this
lack of coordination between the teachers and the CST could lead to the
overidentification of economically disadvantaged students for special education
programs/services.
When it came to exiting students from special education, the confusion continued.
Data notes that teacher perception also played an important role in the process for general
education teachers. However, other data shows a difference of opinion for special
education teachers. These teachers were more likely to utilize student individual data
when considering placement in the special education process. Teacher perception versus
the use of objective student data can also prevent students from leaving the program in a
timely manner. Participants of the focus group felt the process of exiting special
education was unattainable for some students for different reasons. The reliability on
outdated achievement and ability scores in Review of Records (RORs) for students was
the first reason. The second was because the most current student data did not show
enough progress to support the idea that students could be successful without special
education supports in place. In either case, students could not exit based on the low
scores, both old and new.
EF Skills. Within the general education LRE, general education teachers rated the
EF skills of students with SLDs stronger in all areas but predominantly in the areas of
independent work completion and self-control skills. General educators reported less
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
130
below average skills in these areas than their special educator counterparts. Special
educators rated their students having below average skills in nearly all of these areas.
The reduction of EF skills can further be supported in the work avoidance and
mindset subthemes coded in the focus group discussions. Educators were anxious about
the absence of motivation from their students to complete their assignments. They felt
that their students struggled to stay on task and therefore did not turn their work in on
time; much of their case management periods with their caseload students were spent
organizing student assignments instead of supporting their academic needs.
Supports. The viewpoints of resources and support from the site for general
education teachers got mixed ratings. One teacher reported the site provided some
resources and support for their students but the other did not. However, this was not the
case when the same teachers were asked about classroom barriers. General education
teachers thought there were classroom barriers preventing students from exiting special
education. These teachers listed the availability of classes, aids available, interventions,
and ability levels as classroom factors preventing students from exiting special education.
Likewise, teachers listed smaller class sizes as a resource to increase the opportunity for
students to exit special education. These views were conflicting since the teachers felt
some level of support from the site but were able to specify that were still obstacles for
students in the classroom.
Special education teachers were also concerned with providing and maintaining
support for their students. They felt that having students for one year at a time was not
enough time to really learn the students’ strengths and weaknesses. In the researcher’s
notes, teachers also discussed not having enough time to be case managers and classroom
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
131
teachers. As teachers, they were required to ensure student reading skills improved but
felt the intervention program was not enough. Additionally, these teachers were
responsible for teaching reading skills to students that were not on their caseloads, further
complicating the responsibilities of other case managers. Furthermore, teachers in the
focus group were concerned with the mixing of grade levels in one class. They felt it was
difficult to teach reading skills to students of various grades because each grade level
maintained its own leveled standards.
Question Summary. The site’s reliance on teacher perception versus individual
student data during the special education referral process should be contemplated.
Utilizing individual student data to identify student strengths and weaknesses is necessary
to ensure students receive the academic support they need. However, the site’s use of
outdated achievement and ability test scores from initial student evaluations is also
concerning. While individual student data should be the driving force during the special
education process, the latest data should be used.
General education teachers, and special education teachers alike, noted the EF
needs of students in their classrooms. Teachers viewed this reduction of EF skills as work
avoidance and as a negative mindset related to completing assignments independently.
Additionally, special education teachers were concerned with being able to provide
enough support for students they only worked with for one year at a time. Special
education teachers felt that students did not make as much progress in reading as they
could because they needed consistent help with EF skills like organization and
completion of tasks.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
132
Implications and Recommendations
The findings from this instrumental case study unveiled teacher perceptions,
academic growth, and the impact of special education programs/services of low SES
students. The collection of various data sources provided insights into the types of
academic supports provided in special education that contribute to the small numbers of
low SES students exiting special education before transition age. The honest responses
provided by the special education teachers during the focus group contributed important
information about the site’s special education program from their professional
perspectives. The use of multiple data methods enabled the researcher to identify
emerging concepts that provided detailed data to answer the research questions posed in
this study as well as recommendations to continue supporting transition aged students
from impoverished backgrounds.
Chapter 2 acknowledged previous literature addressing the disproportionate rate
of low SES students being placed in special education programs/services. Children in
poverty and in families that receive public assistance were also more likely to be
identified as having a learning disability (Individualized Education Programs: Indicators
of Child and Youth Well-Being, 2015).
The results of this study support that literature. In this research, three out of the four of
the student participants qualified for FRPL. Two of those students were identified as
having at least two types of an SLD. The third student (who attended the elementary
school with the highest poverty rate) was identified with the four types of an SLD. In this
case, the students that qualified for FRPL also had the most EF needs.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
133
Literature maintains that teachers in schools with large populations of low-income
students have reported having inferior teaching support and working conditions that have
a major impact on their accountability measures (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond,
2017). This was apparent in the researcher’s notes. Discussions around the topic
illuminate the levels of frustration special education teachers felt while working
simultaneously as case managers and as reading teachers. Dialogues about the topic
describe the various responsibilities that these teachers held to address the EF skill
concerns and reading achievement of multiple grade levels.
Previous literature indicated that children raised in low SES households
demonstrate worse working memory skills, including the ability to focus, follow
directions, maintain emotional control, think flexibly, plan, and use self-control (Rosen et
al., 2018). This notion was supported in this study by the teacher input found in the
student archival documents of the impoverished students. It was also evident in the
responses received from special education surveys where supplemental special education
students scored poorly compared to their itinerant learning support students. Finally, this
idea was supported in the coding of the focus group. EF skills can be found at the core of
learning for disadvantaged students. Results of this study found that these skills were not
addressed explicitly at the site, possibly slowing down the progression of disadvantaged
students.
Teacher perception was also discussed in the review of literature. A teacher's
attitude or belief about disadvantaged students can affect how they see a student (Jensen,
Teaching With Poverty in Mind, 2009). Teachers may unintentionally project their
implicit biases onto students (Jensen, Teaching With Poverty in Mind, 2009). Results
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
134
from this study revealed that teacher perception please a larger than necessary role in the
placement of special education students. A teacher’s negative expectation of an
impoverished student could unknowingly lead to provide students with fewer educational
opportunities (Rochmes, 2015). Additionally, teacher perceptions of students from low
SES backgrounds seem to have distinct effects on students (Rochmes, 2015). Results of
this case study revealed that teacher perceptions of low SES students contributed to the
placement of students. The poverty-stricken students in this case study were placed in
separate learning environments for their reading classes.
ESSA was enacted to provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair,
equitable, and high-quality education (Every Student Succeeds Act , 2015). However, the
literature continues to support the fact that disadvantaged students do not receive
equitable education opportunities, offering less academically rigorous curriculums (Perry,
2010). Findings of this study support this idea, too. The student that did not qualify for
the FRPL program received her education in the general education, grade level reading
classroom. Impoverished students in this study were not only educated in a separate
setting, with a separate reading curriculum, but were also performed “average” with
below grade level skills on their report cards. Furthermore, these students made less than
adequate progress with their IEP goals.
Prior literature stated that nearly one-third of teachers did not have an education
background in their assigned subject area. (García & Weiss, 2019). The researcher found
that data in this study reinforced the literature. Although, the state of Pennsylvania does
not require special education teachers to be certified in a content area to teach, only 2 out
4 of the special education teachers surveyed were “highly qualified” in the areas they
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
135
teach. However, all general education teachers are required to be certified in their content
areas.
This case study addressed the gap in previous research regarding students from
disadvantaged backgrounds exiting special education before transition age. The emphasis
of this study served as a starting point for districts to begin evaluating their special
education programs/services for low SES special education students. Analysis of their
special education programs would allow districts to identify the strengths and weaknesses
of their programs to promote student learning, allowing them more opportunity to exit
special education. Below are the recommendations stemming from this study.
(1) Implement a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). MTSS should be
used for all students, regardless of their enrollment in special education, gifted education,
or general education programs. MTSS is a systems initiative to provide school-wide,
multileveled instructional and behavioral systems that are based in data collection
methods, ensuring student needs are met using informed decisions from their increasingly
individualized data methods, not teacher perceptions (National Association of School
Psychologists, 2021). Research has found that a teacher’s negative expectations of low-
income students can lead to fewer educational opportunities (Rochmes, 2015). According
to the federal guidelines, schools should be using “evidence based” approaches for the
identification of students with SLDs to avoid diagnoses being based more on social or
functional perspectives of educational professionals (Shifrer, Muller, & Callahan, 2011).
Through the use of MTSS, data can be used to refer, place, and exit special education
students appropriately and objectively.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
136
Using MTSS would also provide objective data for reading interventions. Using
unbiased data in the decision-making process would help educators determine if the
interventions services being provided are effective. By focusing strictly on individual
student data the site would be able to tell which students are making progress and which
are not, allowing more directed individual interventions to be provided for students that
need it. “After evaluating a student’s rate of growth or performance level, the teacher or
team of teachers use this information to make informed instructional decisions.” (The
IRIS Center, 2023a). It is necessary for educators to need to use a standard procedure
when determining whether to begin or end additional instructional supports (The IRIS
Center, 2023a). Once a student is identified as needing a more intensive intervention,
educators can begin providing high quality reading instruction that include core
components of reading (i.e., phonemic awareness, phonics and word study, reading
comprehension, vocabulary, fluency) (The IRIS Center, 2023).
(2) Provide specific professional development for teachers. Until a fully
functioning MTSS can be put in place, the site may want to develop teacher trainings
dedicated to the steps found in the special education process. The site could create a
three-part refresher course to be taught during in-service training when teachers return for
their in-service trainings at the start of a new school year.
Starting with the referral process, administrators could teach and review the
expectations of the referral process at the site. Administrators should emphasize the use
of data-based decision making as part of the first course. Data based decisions should be
based on student scores from state testing, benchmarks, progress monitoring, formative
and summative assessments, etc.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
137
Since the site has a large population of economically disadvantaged students and
teacher perception seems to play a role in student placement, the training should also
include an essential focus on rectifying teacher beliefs about the backgrounds of
disadvantaged students (Wickman & Mullen, 2020). At that time, teachers should be
required to reflect upon their own implicit biases. As mentioned in Chapter 2, teacher
expectations are one of the most powerful predictors of student achievement. However,
many teacher expectations obscure student achievement because of implicit biases about
student SES statuses (Jensen, Why Your Secret Bias Matters in the Classroom, 2016).
Since secondary teachers were found to have lower expectations for impoverished
students, reflections on LRE placement should be covered in the second part of the
course (Jensen, Why Your Secret Bias Matters in the Classroom, 2016). Implicit biases
are highly impressionable can be unlearned through awareness and habitual reflectiveness
(Gibson & Barr, 2017). Once teachers have recognized their own biases, administrators
should provide their teachers with research-based techniques addressing the needs of
their students using effective instructional and assessment designs. These techniques
could not only help teachers become more effective but also promote the academic
achievement of students.
In the third and final installation of the course, criteria for exiting special
education should be reviewed with educators. Reports show more students enter special
education than exit. Because of this, the process for exiting students from special
education may be unfamiliar with educators. Administrators should consider instructing
educators on how to avoid using outdated data for students. Outdated data provided in
reevaluation reports contribute to the large numbers of students that remain in special
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
138
education. However, if the site is focused on utilizing databased decisions then the latest
data would provide necessary information to either support or refute a student’s
continued eligibility for special education services. This would provide more
opportunities for students to exit, or transfer out of, special education.
If used appropriately and consistently, the combination of database decisions,
reflection of implicit biases, research-based teaching techniques could promote the
academic achievement of impoverished students before they are considered for special
education services, possibly preventing the over identification of students being placed
and staying in special education.
(3) Separate the roles of special education teachers and special education case
managers. Some states use a similar model to address the needs of their special
education students. Separating the roles of special education teacher and special
education case managers would improve special education programming for both the
student and the teacher.
Special education teachers would be used to determine the differentiation of
instruction needed for students, specific achievement levels in content areas, and to
recommend specific teaching methods and strategies that may be beneficial to a student
(Flemington-Raritan Regional School District, 2023). By removing the aspect of case
management, teachers would not need to worry about managing student assignments for
students that are not in their classes and/or completing special education paperwork.
Separating the two roles would allow teachers to focus primarily on student academic
achievement without the added responsibilities of being a case manager.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
139
Case managers would be responsible for special education paperwork but would
not need to concern themselves with teaching academic content. The time gained from
not teaching a content area would provide case managers more opportunities to
coordinate, develop, monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness of the IEP, making the case
manager more knowledgeable about their students’ academic and behavioral needs
(Flemington-Raritan Regional School District, 2023). Case managers could also focus on
building EF skills during an intervention class. Instead of trying to organize multiple
students with multiple assignments simultaneously, case managers can teach special
education students EF skills, providing them with real world skills that they will always
need. Case managers and special education reading teachers could then collaborate to
address each student’s needs as a whole.
(4) Implement an intervention program to address EF skills for students.
Since much of the special educators’ time is spent trying to build the EF skills of their
students, this site could consider creating an intervention program specifically for
building EF skills. Researchers at the University of California found that improving EF
helps close the achievement gap for low SES students. Their findings support the
significance of EF intervention programs to reduce income-based disparities in academic
achievement (Deer et al., 2020). An intervention program specifically based on building
EF skills could serve as a way for all students to practice their working memory skills by
learning skills to build problem solving, organization, and independent work skills. This
class could be taught by a trained special educator or could be built into a case
management period.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
140
(5) Implement a reading intervention program that provides supplemental
special education students access to grade level standards. In order to “close the gap,”
students need access to grade level materials and standards. The site should consider
more options for reading intervention classes. LRE’s should have some type of
continuum, allowing students to fit into an LRE that is most appropriate to them. By only
allowing students two options, special education or general education, they are not
getting all the support they need. Some students may need more support in different
reading areas than others, impeding their growth by centering their LRE on what is best
for the group, not the individual student. This site may want to consider building student
schedules around their specific reading needs using data collected from MTSS.
For instance, if a student has a reading comprehension need, he/she may attend a
one period, modified, grade level reading/ELA class taught by a special educator to
ensure the curriculum is differentiated based on student need. Later in the day, that same
student may receive a one period, reading intervention class specifically built to support
the student’s reading comprehension needs.
The combination of grade level standards with a reading intervention may allow
for more students to build the skills they need to exit special education before reaching
transition age. Finally, the site should consider no longer mixing grade levels in one
class. Teaching up to three grade levels at once does not allow the reading teacher to
teach grade level specific standards that students may need for state, standardized testing
at the end of the year.
(6) Consider paying current special education teachers to become highly
qualified in reading/ELA. Though it is not a requirement from the state, providing
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
141
monetary incentive, or bonus, for teachers to become highly qualified in reading.
Additional training to become highly qualified would improve overall teacher
effectiveness in supplemental special education reading classes. More teacher
effectiveness can only raise student achievement, possibly closing the gap between
students from high and low SES backgrounds.
(7) Consider hiring more certified school psychologists. School psychologists
are a necessary component of the MTSS decision making process. But they also are
important to the academic and behavioral support provided to struggling students and
diverse learners (Pennsylvania State Education Association, 2021). School psychologists
also play a vital role in the special education referral and exiting process.
A special report published by Education Week found that many school districts
fall below the recommended staffing levels for school psychologists (Riser-Kositsky,
2022). “The National Association of School Psychologists recommends a ratio of one
psychologist to 500 students” (Riser-Kositsky, 2022). In the state of PA, 0.46% of school
districts meet this recommended ratio. Based on this recommendation, the site from this
study should have 3-4 school psychologists.
In this research study it was revealed that exiting special education can be
challenging due to the lack of school psychologists. The PSEA states that without
adequate support, school psychologists must act as testing machines, racing to complete
evaluations to maintain compliance dates, potentially overlooking inconsistencies and
emerging problems in the process (Pennsylvania State Education Association, 2021).
Providing the recommended number of school psychologists at the site, would not only
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
142
provide more support and resources for the IEP team but also alleviate the concerns
identified by the focus group in the special education referral and exiting process.
(8) Consider the use of standard based grading. Standard based grading (SBG)
is used to track the progress and achievements of students (Powerschool, 2021). Students
show they have mastered or understand various skills through various proficiency levels
rather than relying on one sole measure of achievement (Powerschool, 2021). The use of
SBG would help this site consider evidence of learning and the different types of data
that could be provided while a student seeks to achieve mastery of a skill/standard.
Additionally, the need to put multiple grade levels in one classroom would be eliminated
since only grade level specific standards would be used to evaluate student learning,
making grading and reporting more meaningful, accurate, and fair (Beachboard &
Kersey, 2022).
According to the site’s handbook, students are evaluated in each of their classes
based upon several factors including the course, the curriculum, the teacher, and
departmental/team requirements. SBG would remove some, if not all, of these variables
from the grading process, providing concrete data to support student learning and teacher
effectiveness. Currently, the site uses their own grading numerical and qualitative grading
scales. SBG can be implemented in various ways, using scales that can be converted into
traditional grades.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
While the combination of multiple data sources was beneficial for this research
study, there are limitations to this study. First, the number of general education teacher
survey responses was especially low. If more responses were available, it may have
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
143
offered more evidence to strengthen the data discovered during data analysis of that
section. Additionally, if ELA teachers volunteered to participate in a focus group, their
viewpoints could have given the researcher further evidence to explore. More data from
both groups could have been used to make a better comparison between general
education teacher and special education teacher perspectives.
Another limitation included the number of special education teachers that
participated in the study. Since special education teachers were responsible for multiple
grades during their reading classes, the number of participants available was lower than
anticipated. If more special education teachers were available, the discussion could have
provided more data, giving information to use.
Though the researcher was able to pull several themes and sub themes from the
coding process, an interview or a focus group with general education teachers may have
revealed even more themes to detect. Interviews/focus groups with general education
teachers may have also provided a different view of the special education process that the
researcher may not have considered.
Additional future research for targeted demographics could add to the findings in
this study if the district had more than one site to pull students from. Future researchers
may choose to compare two or more middle schools found within one district. For
example, they may choose to compare two low SES schools or one high SES school and
one low SES school to study the differences found when considering students exiting
special education programs/services before transition age.
Lastly, potential researchers could consider adding more qualitative and
quantitative data retrieved from surveys responses of school psychologist(s). Since school
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
144
psychologists are considered to be experts in finding ways to supports students through
MTSS, or other school wide data-based decision-making programs, their viewpoints of
the special education process may specify data that was not available in this research
(Pennsylvania State Education Association, 2021).
Summary
The purpose of this instrumental case study was to investigate the variables
deterring underprivileged, transition aged students from leaving special education. The
overidentification of students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds for special
education continues to be an issue of concern in education yet there is little literature on
the exiting of this population from special education programs/services. Previous
literature seeks to identify the causes for the disproportionate rate of low SES students in
special education. This study suggests that special education programs/services have little
impact on the reading achievement of low SES, special education students before
transition age due to classroom factors and discrepancies found in the special education
process.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
List of References
Abrams, L. S., & Gibbs, J. T. (2002). Disrupting the Logic of Home-School Relations:
Parent Involvement Strategies and Practices of Inclusion and Exclusion. Urban
Education, 37(3), pp. 384-407.
Adams, C. D., Hillman, N., & Gaydos, G. R. (1994). Behavioral Difficulties in Toddlers:
Impact of Sociocultural and Biological Risk Factors. Journal of Clinical Child
Psycology, 23, 373-381.
Alexander, N. (1996). Race, Poverty, and the Student Curriculum, 1975-1995:
Implications for Public Policy. Developments in School Finance, 69-90.
Allensworth, E., & Luppescu, S. (2018). Why Do Students Get Good Grades, or Bad
Ones? The Influence of The Teacher, Class, School, and Student. Working Paper.
Washington, DC: Office of Research, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education.
American Psychological Association. (2017). Education and Socioeconomic Status.
Retrieved from American Psychological Association:
https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education
American Psychological Association. (2017, July). Education and Socioeconomic Status .
Retrieved from American Psychological Association:
https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education
Aron, L., & Loprest, P. (2012). Disability and the Education System. The Future of
Children, 22(1), 97-112. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ968439.pdf
Barr, R. D., & Parrett, W. H. (2007). The Kids Left Behind: Catching Up the
Underachieving Children of Poverty. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Retrieved
from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/auth/lib/drexel-
ebooks/login.action?returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Febookcentral.proquest.com%
2Flib%2Fdrexel-ebooks%2Fdetail.action%3FdocID%3D3404882
Benner, A. D., & Mistry, R. S. (2007, February). Congruence of mother and teacher
educational expectations and low-income youth's academic competence. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 99(1), pp. 140-153.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
146
Benner, A., & Mistry, R. (2007). Congruence of mother and teacher educational
expectations and low-income youth's academic competence. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(1), 140-153.
Blaag, K., Gutierrez, E., & Terrones, F. (2022, April 25). Which Students Receive a
Greater Share of School Funding? Retrieved from Urban Institute:
https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-trends/
Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2016, April). Poverty, Stress, and Brain Development: New
Directions for Prevention and Intervention. Academic Pediatrics, 16(Number 3S),
pp. S30-S36.
Blair, PhD, MPH, C., & Raver, PhD, C. C. (2016, April). Poverty, Stress, and Brain
Development: New Directions for Prevention and Intervention. Academic
Pediatrics, 16(Number 3S), pp. S30-S36.
Blanchett, W. J., Mumford, V., & Beachum, F. (2005). Urban School Failure and
Disportionality in a Post-Brown Era: Benign Neglect of the Consititutional Rights
of Students with Color. Remedial and Special Education, 26(2), 70-81. Retrieved
from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Floyd_Beachum/publication/249835168_Ur
ban_School_Failure_and_Disproportionality_in_a_Post-
Brown_Era_Benign_Neglect_of_the_Constitutional_Rights_of_Students_of_Colo
r/links/550897d80cf26ff55f838ee3/Urban-School-Failure-a
Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2019). Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A
Road Map from the Beginning to the End. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Bobal, C. (2021). Behind the Behavior Psychology. Retrieved from Understanding
Psychoeducational Testing Terms: Verbal Comprehension:
https://www.btbpsychology.com/blog/understanding-psychoeducational-testing-
terms-verbal-comprehension
Brandes-Aitken, A., Braren, S., Swingler, M., Voegtline, K., & Blair, C. (2019).
Sustained Attention in Infancy: A Foundation for the Development of Multiple
Aspects of Self-Regulation for Children in Poverty. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 184, 192-209.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Markman, L. (2005). The contribution of parenting to ethnic and
racial gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children, 15, 139-168.
Buckingham, J., Whedall, K., & Beaman-Wheldall, R. (2013). Why poor children are
more likely to become poor readers: The school years. Australian Journal of
Education(57), pp. 190-213.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
147
Cakiroglu, O. (2015, July). Response to Intervention: Early Identification of Studens with
Learning Disabilities. International Journal of Early Childhood Special
Education, 7(1), pp. 170-182.
Carnes, G., & Albrecht, N. (2007). Academic and social-emotional effects of full-day
kindergarten: The benefits of time. EMPORIA STATE RESEARCH STUDIES,
43(2), 64-72. Retrieved from http://academic.emporia.edu/esrs/vol43/carnes.pdf
Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher Turnover: Why It Matters
and What We Can Do About It. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Chandler, R. (2014). Teachers' Belief about Poverty and the Impact on Learning
Disabilities Identification in a Poor, Rural School District. Rural Educator, 35(3),
pp. 1-10.
Cheadle, J. (2008). Educational investment, family context, and children's math and
reading growth from Kindergarten through third grade. Sociology of Education,
81, 1-31.
Cheng, Y., & Wu, X. (2017, April). The Relationship between SES and Reading
Comprehension in Chinese: A Mediation Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, p.
672.
Child Trends Data Bank: Children in Poverty. (2016, December). Retrieved from
Childtrends.org: https://www.childtrends.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/12/04_Poverty.pdf
ChildFund International. (2013, November 4). The Effects of Poverty on Education in the
United States. Retrieved from ChildFund International:
https://www.childfund.org/Content/NewsDetail/2147489206/
Christ, A. (2020). Pennsylvania 2020 State of Education. Pennsylvania School Boards
Association.
Coley, R. J., & Baker, B. (2013). Poverty and Education: Finding the Way Forward.
Educational Testing Service.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2009). Chapter 14 Special
Education Services and Programs State Regulations. Retrieved from Pattan.net:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/pattan-live/pattan.net-
website/images/file/2011/08/15/sidebyside021209.pdf
Conlin, M., & Jalilevand, M. (2015). Systemic Inequities in Special Education. Journal
of Education Finance, 41(1), 83-100. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6da3/96bd078974866938afaa2b06436596d684ae
.pdf
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
148
Cook-Harvey, C. M., Darling-Hammond, L., Lam, L., Mercer, C., & Roc, M. (2016).
Equity and ESSA: Leveraging Educational Opportunity Through the Every
Student Succeeds Act. Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute.
Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The State of Learning Disabilities. Facts, Trends
and Emerging Issues, pp. 1-52.
Council for Learning Disabilities. (2022). Transition. Retrieved from Council for
Learning Disabilities: https://council-for-learning-disabilities.org/transition-
planning-for-individuals-with-learning-disabilites/
Cowan, N. (2014, June 1). Working Memory Underpins Cognitive Development,
Learning, and Education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 197-223.
Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Educational Research: Planning,
Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research . Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Crosnoe, R. (2009, October 1). Low-Income Students and the Socioeconomic
Composition of Public High Schools. Am Sociology Rev., 74(5), pp. 709-730.
doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F000312240907400502
Davis, C. (2005). Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: Access to a Special
Education Infrastructure. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(1),
57-63.
Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2018). Executive Skills in CHildren and Adolescents: A
Practical Guide to Assessment and Intervention. New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., & Schutz, P. A. (2017). Developing a Mixed Methods Proposal: A
Practical Guide for Beginning Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Deer, L., Hastings, P., & Hostinar, C. (2020, December). Boosting Executive Function
May Help Close Income-Based Achievement Gap. Center for Poverty and
Inequality Research Policy Brief.
Denton, C. A., & Al Otaiba, S. (2011). Teaching Word Identification to Students with
Reading Difficulties and Disabilities. Focus Except Child, 1-25.
Derwin, J. (n.d.). Factors Impacting the Special Education Classification of Students
Comparing Urban to Rural School Districts. Education Masters. (Paper 60).
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
149
Education and Socioeconomic Status. (2017). Retrieved from American Psychological
Association: http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education.aspx
Every Student Succeeds Act . (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act: A Comprehensive
Guide. Retrieved from Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA):
https://www.everystudentsucceedsact.org/
Farkas, G., & Beron, K. (2004, September). The Detailed Age Trajectory of Oral
Vocabulary Knowledge: Differences by Class and Race. ScienceDirect, 33(3), pp.
464-497. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2003.08.001
Fierros, E. G. (2005). Race and Restrictiveness in Special Education: Addressing the
Problem We Know Too Well. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal,
3(1), 75-85.
Fierros, E. G., & Blomberg, N. A. (2005). Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education
Placements in For-Profit and Non-Profit Charter Schools in California. Learning
Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(1), 1-16.
Flemington-Raritan Regional School District. (2023). Child Study Team. Retrieved from
Flemington-Raritan Regional School District:
https://www.frsd.k12.nj.us/Page/10003
Future Ready PA. (2018). Retrieved from https://futurereadypa.org
García, E., & Weiss, E. (2019). The teacher shortage is real, large and growing, and
worse than we thought: The first report in ‘The Perfect Storm in the Teacher
Labor Market’ series. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.
Gibson, E. L., & Barr, R. D. (2017). Building a Culture of Hope: Exploring Implicit
Biases Against Poverty. National Youth Advocacy and Resilience Journal, 2(2).
Glander, M. (2016). Selected Statistics From the Public Elementary and Secondary
Universe: School Year 2014-15. U.S. Department of Education.
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic ealry literacy skills.
Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
Gorski, P. (2008, April). The Myth of the "Culture of Poverty". Educational leadership:
journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, 32-36.
Hackman, D. A., Betancourt, L. M., Gallop, R., Romer, D., Brodsky, N. L., Hurt, H., &
Farah, M. J. (2014, July). Mapping the Trajectory of Socioeconomic Disparity in
Working Memory: Parental and Neighborhood Factors. Child Development,
85(4), 1433-1445.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
150
Haft, L. S., & Hoeft, M.D., Ph.D., F. (2018, December 1). Poverty’s Impact on
Children’s Executive Functions: Global Considerations. New Directions for Child
and Adolescent Development(158), pp. 69-79.
Hair, N. L., Hanson, J. L., Wolfe, B. L., & Pollak, S. D. (2015, DEcember 22).
Association of Child Poverty, Brain Development, and Academic Achievement.
169(9), pp. 822-829.
Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Harry, B., & Kalyanpur, M. (1999). Building cultural reciprocity with families: Case
studies in special education. Baltimore: P. H. Brookes Publishing.
Hayes, A. M., Dombrowski, E., Shefcyk, A., & Bulat, J. (2018). Learning Disabilities
Screening and Evaluation Guide for Low- and Middle-Income Countries.
Retrieved from NCBI: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK545498/
Hecker, L. R. (2023). The Reading Brain: Executive Function Hard at Work. Retrieved
from Learning Disabilities Association of America:
https://ldaamerica.org/info/the-reading-brain-executive-function-hard-at-
work/#:~:text=EF%20integrates%20and%20synchronizes%20the,prior%20knowl
edge%20with%20new%20information.
Hernandez, D. J. (2011). Double Jeopardy: How Third Grade Reading Skills and Poverty
Influence High School Graduation. Baltimore: The Annie E.Casey Foundation.
Heuer, R., & Stullich, S. (2011). Comparability of State and Local Expenditures Among
Schools Within Districts: A Report From the Study of School-Level Expenditures.
U.S. Department of Education.
Hibel, J., Farkas, G., & Morgan, P. L. (2010, October 26). Who Is Placed into Special
Education? Sociology of Education, 83(4), pp. 312-332.
doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0038040710383518
Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., Cui, J., & Smith, M. (2020). The
Condition of Education 2020 (NCES 2020-144). U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Identifying Struggling Students. (2017, January 27). Retrieved April 2021, from National
Center for Learning Disabilities: https://www.ncld.org/research/state-of-learning-
disabilities/identifying-struggling-
students/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20National%20Survey,four%20times
%20the%20poverty%20level.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
151
(2015). Individualized Education Programs: Indicators of Child and Youth Well-Being.
Child Trends. Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/98_Children_With_an_IEP.pdf
Individuals with Disabilities Act. (2017). Sec. 300.305 (e) (1). Retrieved from Individuals
with Disabilities Act: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.305/e/1
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2016, 10 4). Office of Special Education
Programs. Retrieved from IDEA.ed.gov:
https://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,TopicalBrief,23,.html
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2017). Sec. 300.43 Transition services.
Retrieved from Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.43
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2019). Sec. 300.114 (a). Retrieved from
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.114/a
Institute of Education Sciences. (2022). Module 2: Attrition. Retrieved from What Works
Clearinghouse:
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/OnlineTraining/wwc_training_m2.pdf
IRIS Least Restrictive Environment Info Brief. (2019, September 25). Retrieved from
IRIS Center: https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/wp-
content/uploads/pdf_info_briefs/IRIS_Least_Restrictive_Environment_InfoBrief_
092519.pdf
Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with Poverty in Mind: What being poor does to kids' brains
and what schools can do about it. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Jensen, E. (2013, May). How Poverty Affects Classroom Engagement. Faces of Poverty,
70(8), pp. 24-30. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/may13/vol70/num08/How-Poverty-Affects-Classroom-
Engagement.aspx
Jensen, E. (2016). Why Your Secret Bias Matters in the Classroom. Retrieved from
Jensen Learning: https://www.jensenlearning.com/why-your-secret-bias-matters-
in-the-classroom/
Jiang, Y. &. (2018). Basic Facts about Low-Income Children: Children under 18 Years,
2016.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
152
Joseph, R. P., Keller, C., & Ainsworth, B. E. (2016). Recruiting Participants into Pilot
Trials: Techniques for Researchers with Shoestring Budgets. Californian journal
of health promotion, 14(2), 81-89.
Kirby, S. N., McCombs, J. S., Murray, S., Naftel, S., & Berends, M. (2002, August).
Provision of Title I Services: Recent Evidence From the National Longitudinal
Survey of Schools. U.S. Department of Education Office of the Under Secretary
Planning and Evaluation Service, pp. 1-3.
Klassen, R. M. (2010). Confidence to Manage Learning: The Self-Efficacy for Self-
Regulated Learning of Early Adolescents with Learning Disabilities. 33(Winter
2010), pp. 19-30.
Kohli, A., Sharma, S., & Padhy, S. K. (2018). Specific Learning Disabilities: Issues that
Remain Unanswered . Indian Psychiatric Society - South Zonal Branch, 40(5),
399-405.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.
Lacour, M., & Tissington, L. D. (2011, July). The effects of poverty on academic
achievement. Educational Research and Reviews, pp. 522-527.
Lange, R. T. (2011). Full Scale IQ. Retrieved from SpringlerLink:
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_1549
(2016). Learning Disabilities: Indicators of Child and Youth Well-Being. Child Trends.
Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/learning-disabilities/
Lee, V., Burkman, D. T., Ready, D. D., Honigman, J., & Meisels, S. J. (2006, February).
Full-Day versus half-day kindergarten: In which program do children learn more?
American Journal of Education, 112(2), 163-208. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/498994
Lervag, A., Dolean, D., Tincas, I., & Melby-Lerbag, M. (2018). Socioeconomic
background, nonverbal IQ and school absence affects the development of
vocabulary and reading comprehension in children living in severe poverty.
Developmental Science, 1-15.
Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2016). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success
(Third ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.
Mandlawitz, M. (2003). A Tale of 3 Cities: Urban Perspectives on Special Education.
Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy.
Martin, J. L. (2020). Legal Implications of Response to Intervention and Special
Education Identification. Retrieved April 2021, from RTI Action Network: A
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
153
Program of the National Center for Learning Disabilities:
http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/legal-implications-of-response-to-intervention-
and-special-education-identification
Martin, J. L. (2020). Legal Implications of Response to Intervention and Special
Education Identification. Retrieved April 2021, from RTI Action Network: A
Program of the National Center for Learning Disabailities:
http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/legal-implications-of-response-to-intervention-
and-special-education-identification
Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), pp.
370-396. doi:10.1037/h0054346
Mathews, H., & Myers, A. M. (2022). The Role of Teacher Self-Efficacy in Specail
Education TEachers' Candidates' Sensemaking: A Mixed-Methods Investigation.
Remedial and Special Education, 1-15.
McQuiggan, M., Megra, M., & Grady, S. (2017). Parent and Family Involvement in
Education: Results from the National Household Education Surveys Program of
2016. National Center for Education Statistics.
Mercadante, A. A., & Tadi, P. (2021, January). Neuroanatomy, Gray Matter. Retrieved
from StatPearls:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553239/?report=printable
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Moore, K. A., Redd, Z., Burkhauser, M., Mbwana, K., & Collins, A. (2009). Child
Trends Data Bank. Retrieved from Child Trends: https://www.childtrends.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/2009-11ChildreninPoverty.pdf
Morin, A. (2021). What is least restrictive environment (LRE)? Retrieved from
Understood.org: https://www.understood.org/articles/en/least-restrictive-
environment-lre-what-you-need-to-know
Morin, A. (2022). Independent Educational Evaluations (IEEs): What You Need to
Know. Retrieved from Understood.org:
https://www.understood.org/articles/en/independent-educational-evaluations-iees-
what-you-need-to-know
Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., McFarland, J., KewalRamani, A., Zhang, A., &
Wilkinson-Flicker, S. (2016). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and
Ethnic Groups 2016. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
154
National Association of School Psychologists. (2021). Multitiered Systems of Support to
Support all Students. Retrieved from ESSA and Multitiered Systems of Support
for Decision-Makers: https://www.nasponline.org/research-and-policy/policy-
priorities/relevant-law/the-every-student-succeeds-act/essa-implementation-
resources/essa-and-mtss-for-decision-makers
National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2021a). Family Characteristics.
National Center for Education Statistics . Washington, D.C.: Institute of
Education Sciences.
National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2021b). Students with Disabilities.
National Center for Education Statistics . Washington, D.C.: Institute of
Education Sciences.
National Center for Learning Disabilities [NCLD]. (2017, January 27). Identifying
Struggling Students. Retrieved April 2021, from National Center for Learning
Disabilities: https://www.ncld.org/research/state-of-learning-
disabilities/identifying-struggling-
students/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20National%20Survey,four%20times
%20the%20poverty%20level.
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2020). Significant Disproportionality in
Special Education: The Role of Income. Washington D.C.: National Center for
Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from National Center for Learning Disabilities .
National Education Association. (2021). Special Education. Retrieved from NEA:
National Education Association: https://www.nea.org/student-success/smart-just-
policies/special-education.
Neuman, S. B. (2013, May). The American Dream: Slipping Away? Faces of Poverty,
70(8), pp. 18-22. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/may13/vol70/num08/The-American-Dream@-Slipping-
Away%C2%A2.aspx
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., . . .
Schwarting, M. (2011). The Post-High School Outcomes of Young Adults With
Disabilities up to 8 Years After High School. A Report From the National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3005). Menlo Park, CA:
SRI International.
Noble, K. G., Houston, S. M., Brito, N. H., Bartsch, H., Kan, E., Kuperman, J. M., . . .
Kennedy, D. N. (2015). Family income, parental education and brain structure in
children and adolescents. Nature neuroscience, 18(5), 773-778.
OECD. (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students
and Schools. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/education/equity-and-quality-in-education_9789264130852-en
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
155
Office of Communications. (2016). What are the indicators of learning disabilities?
Retrieved from Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institue of Child Health and
HUman Development:
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/learning/conditioninfo/symptoms
Office of Elementary & Secondary Education. (2020). Improving Basic Programs
Operated by Local Educational Agencies (ESEA Title I, Part A). Retrieved from
U.S. Department of Education: https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-
grants/school-support-and-accountability/title-i-part-a-program/
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2000). Archived Information -
A Guide to the Individualized Education Program . Retrieved from www.ed.gov:
https://www2.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html
Office of State Support. (2015, October). Programs: Improving Basic Programs
Operated by Local Educational Agencies (Title I, Part A) . Retrieved from U.S.
Department of Education: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
Okado, Y., Bierman, K. L., & Welsh, J. A. (2014, June). Promoting School Readiness in
the Context of Socio-Economic Adversity: Associations with Parental
Demoralization and Support for Learning. Child Youth Care Forum, 43(3), 353-
371.
PA School Work. (2021). Basic Education. Retrieved from PA Schools Work: Invest in
Students, Secure Our Future: https://paschoolswork.org/basic-education/
Pace, A., Luo, R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Michnick Golinkoff, R. (2017). Identifying
Pathways Between Socioeconomic Status and Language Development. Annual
Review of Linguistics, 3, 285-308.
PACER Center, Inc. (2015). Evaluation: What Does It Mean for Your Child? Retrieved
from Pacer Center Champions for Children with Disabilities:
https://www.pacer.org/parent/php/php-c2.pdf
PACER Center, Inc. (2021). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and
Secondary Transition . Retrieved from Pacer's National Parent Center on
Transition and Employment: https://www.pacer.org/transition/learning-
center/laws/idea.asp
Palacios-Barrios, E. E., & Hanson, J. L. (2019, April). Poverty and self-regulation:
Connecting psychosocial processes, neurobiology, and the risk for
psychopathology. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 90, 52-64.
Parette, P. (2005). Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education. Learning Disabilities:
A Contemporary Journal, 3(1), 17-24.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
156
Parrett, W., & Budge, K. (2016, January 13). How Does Poverty Influence Learning?
Retrieved from Edutopia.com: https://www.edutopia.org/blog/how-does-poverty-
influence-learning-william-parrett-kathleen-budge
PATTAN. (2019). Special Education Question and Answer Compendium . Retrieved
from Pattan.net:
https://www.pattan.net/CMSPages/GetAmazonFile.aspx?path=~%5Cpattan%5C
media%5Cpublications%5C2019%20accessible%20pdfs%5Cspecial-education-
process-compendium-revised-5-15-
19.pdf&hash=222d745ba51f3e0d3c413df19d88145e7c1808d3a256772fb75bda56
eb095781&ext=.pdf
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2017). Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) and
Educational Placement for Students with Individualized Education Programs.
Retrieved from Pennsylvania Department of Education:
https://www.education.pa.gov/Policy-
Funding/BECS/PACode/Pages/LeastRestrictiveEnvironment.aspx
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2018). Future Ready PA Index. Retrieved from
Future Ready PA Index: https://futurereadypa.org/
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2020). Statistical Summary. Retrieved from
Pennsylvania Department of Education:
https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/Portals/66/documents/PennDataBooks/Statistical_Su
mmary_2019-2020.pdf
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2021). National School Lunch Program Reports
Building Data Yearly Reports: % Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch.
Retrieved from Pennsylvania Department of Education:
https://www.education.pa.gov/Teachers%20-%20Administrators/Food-
Nutrition/reports/Pages/National-School-Lunch-Program-Reports.aspx
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2021, June). Special Education Data Report.
Retrieved from Pennsylvania Department of Education.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2021a). Cyclical Monitoring Documents.
Retrieved from Pennsylvania Department of Education:
https://www.education.pa.gov/K-
12/Special%20Education/CompMon/Pages/Cyclical-Monitoring.aspx
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2021b). IEPs and 504 Service Agreements.
Retrieved from Pennsylvania Department of Education:
https://www.education.pa.gov/K-12/Homebound%20Instruction/Pages/IEPs-and-
504-Service-Agreements.aspx
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
157
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2021c). Special Education. Retrieved from
Pennsylvania Department of Education: https://www.education.pa.gov/K-
12/Special%20Education/Pages/default.aspx
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2021d). “Highly Qualified” Certification
Questions and Answers Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved
from Pennsylvania Department of Education:
https://www.education.pa.gov/Educators/Certification/CertFAQs/Pages/AppCertu
nderESSA.aspx#
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2022, June). Special Education Data Report.
Retrieved from Pennsylvania Department of Education: Special Education Data
Reporting.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2023). Questions and Answers Out-of-State
Transfers for Students with Disabilities . Retrieved from Pennsylvania
Department of Education: https://www.education.pa.gov/K-
12/Special%20Education/FAQContact/Pages/OutofStateFAQ.aspx
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2023a). Compare School Results. Retrieved
from Future Ready Index: https://futurereadypa.org/Compare/#
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2023b). Level I to Level II. Retrieved from
Pennsylvania Department of Education:
https://www.education.pa.gov/Educators/Certification/PAEducators/Pages/LevelIt
oLevelII.aspx
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2023c). Questions and Answers Out-of-State
Transfers for Students with Disabilities. Retrieved from Pennsylvania Department
of Education: https://www.education.pa.gov/K-
12/Special%20Education/FAQContact/Pages/OutofStateFAQ.aspx
Pennsylvania Department of Education: Bureau of Special Education. (2019, January 31).
PA-CMCI Cyclical Monitoring for Continous Improvement. Retrieved from
https://www.leaderservices.com/_pde_comp_mon/documents.aspx
Pennsylvania State Data Center. (2021). Pennsylvania Department of Education: Bureau
of Special Education. Retrieved from Special Education Data Reporting:
https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/penndata/documents/BSEReports/Data%20Preview/
2020-2021/PDF_Documents/Speced_Quick_Report_SD380_Final.pdf
Pennsylvania State Education Association. (2021). Certified School Psychologists.
Retrieved from Pennsylvania State Education Association:
https://www.psea.org/globalassets/membership-categories/pupil-services-
dps/files/dps_schoolpsychologists_infographic.pdf
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
158
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018a). Evaluation Report
(Annotated). Retrieved from Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance
Network: https://www.pattan.net/assets/PaTTAN/aa/aab2daae-1366-425a-85e3-
5dc087cae4bd.pdf
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018a, July). Evaluation
Report (ANNOTATED). Retrieved from Pennsylvania Training and Technical
Assistance Network: https://www.pattan.net/assets/PaTTAN/aa/aab2daae-1366-
425a-85e3-5dc087cae4bd.pdf
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018b, July). Reevaluation
Report (Annotated). Retrieved from Pennsylvania Training and Technical
Assistance Network: https://www.pattan.net/assets/PaTTAN/65/65ef4eec-c33e-
49ce-9f92-2cd0de1e2ef7.pdf
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assitance Network. (2018c, October). Formative
Assessment: Monitoring the Progress of Students Who Have IEPs. Retrieved from
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network:
https://www.pattan.net/assets/PaTTAN/e3/e346a351-0343-483a-9981-
e198d2fe7d40.pdf
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Network. (2018b). Formative Assessment:
Monitoring the Progress of Students Who Have IEPs.
Perkins, S. C., Finegood, E. D., & Swain, J. (2013, April). Poverty and Language
Development: Roles of Parenting and Stress. Innovations in Clinical
Neuroscience, 10(4), 10-19.
Perry, L. (2010, April). Does the SES of the school matter? Teachers College Record,
112(4), pp. 1137-1162.
Perspectives and Resources. (2018). Retrieved from The Iris Center: Vanderbuilt
Peabody College:
https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/div/cresource/q2/p06/
Potter, H. (2013, May). Boosting Achievement by Pursuing Diversity. Faces of Poverty,
70(8), pp. 38-43. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/may13/vol70/num08/Boosting-Achievement-by-Pursuing-
Diversity.aspx
Poverty, Stress, and Brain Development: New Directions for Prevention and Intervention.
(2016). Academic Pediatrics, 16(3), S30-S36.
Powerschool. (2022). PowerSchool Special Programs. Retrieved from PowerSchool SIS
Administrator: https://docs.powerschool.com/PSHSA/21.4/plugin-
management/plugins/powerschool-special-programs
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
159
Press Office. (2011, November 30). More Than 40% of Low-Income Schools Don't Get a
Fair Share of State and Local Funds, Department of Education Research Finds.
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education:
https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/more-40-low-income-schools-dont-get-
fair-share-state-and-local-funds-department-
Quagliata, T. (2008). Is There a Positive Correlation between Socioeconomic Status and
Academic Achievement? Education Masters.
Riser-Kositsky, M. (2022, March). Data: Does Your State Have Enough School
Psychologists and Counselors? Retrieved from Educatin Week:
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/data-does-your-state-have-enough-school-
psychologists-and-counselors/2022/03
Rochmes, J. (2015). Teachers’ Beliefs About Students’ Social Disadvantage and Student
Achievement. CEPA Working Paper, 15(03).
Rosen, M. L., Sheridan, M. A., Sambrook, K. A., Meltzoff, A. N., & McLaughlin, K. A.
(2018). Socioeconomic disparities in academic achievement: A multi-modal
investigation of neural mechanisms in children and adolescents. NeuroImage,
173, 298-310.
Rosen, P. (2021). What is MTSS? Retrieved June 2021, from Understood.org:
https://www.understood.org/en/learning-thinking-differences/treatments-
approaches/educational-strategies/mtss-what-you-need-to-know
Rosenzweig, C., Krawec, J., & Montague, M. (2011, October). Metacognitive Strategy
Use of Eighth-Grade Students With and Without Learning Disabilities During
Mathematical Problem Solving: A Think-Aloud Analysis. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 44(6), pp. 508-20.
Ross-Kidder, K. (2002). Who Can Diagnose LD and/or ADHD. Retrieved from LD
Online: http://www.ldonline.org/article/6027
Saldana, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (Third ed.). SAGE.
SASD. (2023). Child Study Team. Retrieved from SASD:
https://www.shipk12.org/childstudyteam
Schifter, L. A., Grindal, T., Schwartz, G., & Hehir, T. (New York). Students from Low-
Income Families and Special Education. New York: The Century Foundation.
Schmidt, K. L., Merrill, S. M., Gill, R., Miller, G. E., Gadermann, A. M., & Kobor, M. S.
(2021, September). Society to cell: How child poverty gets “Under the Skin” to
influence child development and lifelong health. Developmental Review, 61, 1-20.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
160
Sears, A. (2019). Report: More PA Kids Living in Concentrated Poverty. Public News
Service.
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as Qualitative Research (Fourth ed.). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Semega, J., Kollar, M., Shrider, E. A., & Creamer, J. F. (2020, September 15). Income
and Poverty in the United States: 2019. United States Census Bureau.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office. Retrieved April 2021,
from United States Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-
270.html#:~:text=The%20official%20poverty%20rate%20in,and%20Table%20B
%2D5).
Shifrer, D., Muller, C., & Callahan, R. (2011). Disproportionality and Learning
Disabilities: Parsing Apart Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Language. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 44(3), pp. 246-257. doi: doi:10.1177/0022219410374236
Shonkoff, MD, J. P., & Garner, MD, PhD, A. S. (2012, May). The Lifelong Effects of
Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. American Academy of Pediatrics,
129(1), e232-e246.
Simon, N. S., & Susan, J. M. (2015). Teacher Turnover in High-Poverty Schools: What
We Know and Can Do. Teachers College Record(117), 1-36.
Sirin, S. (2005). Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic
Review of Research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453.
Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibbs, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., &
Chung, C.-G. (2008). Achieving Equity in Special Education: History, Status, and
Current Challenges. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264-288. Retrieved from
http://sped461.pbworks.com/f/skiba+2008.pdf
The Annie E.Casey Foundation Kids Count Data Center. (2021). Selected KIDS COUNT
Indicators for States in Pennsylvania . Retrieved from The Annie E.Casey
Foundation Kids Count Data Center:
https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/customreports/40,1/5043,7244,43,5116,5119
,5203,6795,106,5203,5425,7243,7246,7250,43,5043,7244,5116,5119,5425,7243,1
06,5203,6795/compared,single
(2017). The Condition of Education: Children and Youth With Disabilities. Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cgg.pdf
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
161
The Effects of Poverty on Education in the United States. (2013, November 4). Retrieved
from ChildFund International:
https://www.childfund.org/Content/NewsDetail/2147489206/
The IRIS Center. (2023a). How can Tier 3 intervention be implemented? - Page 5:
Implementing Tier 3 Reading Interventions. Retrieved from The IRIS Center:
https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/rti05/cresource/q2/p05/#content
The IRIS Center. (2023b). Understanding Accommodations. Retrieved from The IRIS
Center Peabody College Vanderbilt University:
https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/micro-credential/micro-accommodations/p01/
The IRIS Center. (2023c). What is RTI for mathematics? - Page 7: Data-Based
Decisions. Retrieved from The IRIS Center:
https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/rti-math/cresource/q1/p07/
The Nation's Report Card. (2021). Achievement Gaps Dashboard. Retrieved from The
Nation's Report Card:
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/dashboards/achievement_gaps.aspx
The Understood Team. (2022). What is executive function? . Retrieved from
Understood.org: https://www.understood.org/articles/en/what-is-executive-
function
Thirty-five Years of Progress in Educating Children With Disabilities Through IDEA.
(2010, 11 22). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education:
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/idea35/history/index_pg10.html
Toor, M. (2021, January 15). How to design rating scale questions. Retrieved from
Qualtrics.com: https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/three-tips-for-effectively-using-
scale-point-questions/#:~:text=Why%20use%20a%20rating%20scale%3F
USDA Food and Nutrition Service. (2022). Applying for Free and Reduced Price School
Meals. Retrieved from USDA Food and Nutrition Service:
https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/applying-free-and-reduced-price-school-meals
Wanzek, J., & Kent, S. C. (2012). Reading Interventions for Students With Learning
Disabilities in the Upper Elementary Grades. Learning Disabilities: A
Contemporary Journal, 5-16.
Watts, C. (2022, April). The Correlation between Poverty and Reading Success in
Children's Early Years. The Reading Professor, 45(1).
Wexler, B. E., Imal, A. E., Pittamn, B., & Bell, M. D. (2020, March). Executive Function
Deficits Mediate Poverty’s Effects on Academic Achievement: Target for
Intervention in At-Risk Children. Creative Education, 11(3), 406-419.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
162
What is RTI? (2021). Retrieved April 2021, from RTI Action Network: A Program of the
National Center for Learning Disabilities: http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what
What is the difference between formative and summative assessment? (2023). Retrieved
from Carnegie Mellon University: Eberly Center Teaching Excellence &
Educational Innovation:
https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/assessment/basics/formative-
summative.html#:~:text=The%20goal%20of%20summative%20assessment,a%20
final%20project
Wickham, B., & Mullen, C. (2020, June 09). Professional Development for Teaching
Students in Poverty and Impacting Teacher Beliefs. Handbook of Social Justice
Interventions in Education, pp. 1-27.
Williams, E. R. (2007). Unnecessary and Unjustified: AfricanAmerican Parental
Perceptions of Special Education. The Educational Forum, 250-261.
Willingham, D. T. (2012). Ask the Cognitive Scientist: Why Does Family Wealth Affect
Learning? American Educator, pp. 33-39. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ971756.pdf
Wisconsin State Reading Association. (2013). Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) in
Plain Language. Retrieved from Wisconsin State Reading Association:
https://www.wsra.org/assets/Convention/Handouts_2015/a17%20sldruleareas_ha
ndout.pdf
Wright, P., & Wright, P. (2019, February 15). What You Need to Know About IDEA 2004
Specific Learning Disabilities: Discrepancy & Response to Intervention Models.
Retrieved from Wrightslaw:
https://www.wrightslaw.com/idea/art/ld.rti.discrep.htm
Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: design and methods (Fifth ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Zelazo, D. P., Blair, B. C., & Willoughby, T. M. (2017). Executive Function:
Implications for Education. Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
163
Appendix A Teacher Survey
Please review the consent form by clicking on the hyperlink below.
Research Subject Consent Form
o I consent
o I do not consent
Skip To: End of Survey If Please review the consent form by clicking on the hyperlink
below. Research Subject Consent Form = I do not consent
Skip To: Q1 If Please review the consent form by clicking on the hyperlink
below. Research Subject Consent Form = I consent
Display This Question:
If Please review the consent form by clicking on the hyperlink below. Research
Subject Consent Form = I consent
Please choose the course(s) you currently teach.
▢ Reading
▢ English Language Arts
What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Prefer not to say
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
164
What is your age?
o 18 - 24
o 25 - 34
o 35 - 44
o 45 - 54
o 55 - 64
o 65+
Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
o Yes
o No
How would you describe yourself? Please select all that apply.
▢ White
▢ Black or African American
▢ American Indian or Alaska Native
▢ Asian
▢ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
▢ Other
Your highest level of education:
o Bachelor's degree
o Master's degree
o Doctoral Degree
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
165
Please choose all the Reading/ELA teaching certifications you have obtained.
▢ Middle Level English 4–8
▢ English 7–12
▢ Reading Specialist
▢ PK–12
▢ Special Education: PK–12
▢ Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge (Special Education K-12)
Are your teaching/administration certifications Level I or Level II?
▢ Level I
▢ Level II
Please choose the amount of professional teaching experience you have.
o 0-5 years
o 5-10 years
o 10-15 years
o 15-20 years
o 20-25 years
o 25 years+
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
166
To what extent does the decision to refer a student for an evaluation for special education
depend upon the perceived functioning level of the student?
o 0 Never
o 1
o 2
o 3
o 4
o 5
o 6
o 7
o 8
o 9
o 10 Always
To what extent does the decision to refer a student for an evaluation for special education
depend upon the student's individual data (i.e.-results from evaluations, progress
monitoring data, classroom assessments, classroom benchmarks, etc.)?
o 0 Never
o 1
o 2
o 3
o 4
o 5
o 6
o 7
o 8
o 9
o 10 Always
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
167
To what extent does the decision to include students with a Specific Learning Disability
in a general education classroom depend upon the perceived functioning level of the
student?
o 0 Never
o 1
o 2
o 3
o 4
o 5
o 6
o 7
o 8
o 9
o 10 Always
To what extent does the decision to include students with a Specific Learning Disability
in a general education classroom depend upon the student's individual data (i.e.-results
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
168
from evaluations, progress monitoring data, classroom assessments, classroom
benchmarks, etc.)?
o 0 Never
o 1
o 2
o 3
o 4
o 5
o 6
o 7
o 8
o 9
o 10 Always
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
169
To what extent does the decision to include students with a Specific Learning Disability
in a general education classroom depend upon the student's ability to be successful
without additional supports?
o 0 Never
o 1
o 2
o 3
o 4
o 5
o 6
o 7
o 8
o 9
o 10 Always
To what extent does the decision to exit a student with a Specific Learning Disability
from special education depend upon the perceived functioning level of the student?
o 0 Never
o 1
o 2
o 3
o 4
o 5
o 6
o 7
o 8
o 9
o 10 Always
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
170
To what extent does the decision to exit students with a Specific Learning Disability from
special education depend upon the student's individual data (i.e.-results from evaluations,
progress monitoring data, classroom assessments, classroom benchmarks, etc.)?
o 0 Never
o 1
o 2
o 3
o 4
o 5
o 6
o 7
o 8
o 9
o 10 Always
Are there barriers to successfully exiting students with specific learning disabilities from
special education?
o No
o Yes
Skip To: Q29 If Are there barriers to successfully exiting students with specific learning
disabilities from spec... = Yes
Skip To: Q30 If Are there barriers to successfully exiting students with specific learning
disabilities from spec... = No
If you answered yes to the previous question, what are the top 3 factors preventing
students from exiting special education?
________________________________________________________________
What resources and/or supports would help you increase the opportunity for exiting
students from special education?
________________________________________________________________
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
171
When comparing the skills of your students with IEPs with their grade-level peers, what
level do you feel they can perform the following tasks?
Below average
Average
Above average
Working
independently
o
o
o
Staying on task
o
o
o
Self-Advocacy
o
o
o
Completing
assignments
o
o
o
Time Management
o
o
o
Organizing Materials
(on desk and in
backpack)
o
o
o
Bringing appropriate
materials to and from
home
o
o
o
Following directions
o
o
o
Understanding
directions/tasks
o
o
o
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
172
When comparing the skills of your students with IEPs with their grade-level peers, what
level do you feel they can perform the following tasks?
Below average
Average
Above average
Ability to recognize
they have a problem
(i.e.-not understanding
the task)
o
o
o
Being able to think
flexibility about the
problem
o
o
o
Trying to solve the
problem
independently before
requesting help
o
o
o
Using appropriate
resources to help
o
o
o
Evaluating their own
performance to decide
whether the problem
was solved
successfully
o
o
o
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
173
When comparing the skills of your students with IEPs with their grade-level peers, what
level do you feel they can perform the following tasks?
Below average
Average
Above average
Becomes easily upset
o
o
o
Throws temper
tantrums
o
o
o
Acts impulsively
o
o
o
Interrupts others
o
o
o
Difficulty waiting
o
o
o
Becomes visibly
upset when tasks
become challenging
o
o
o
Makes negative
comments to self or
teacher when
assigned challenging
tasks
o
o
o
Use the slider below to indicate the levels of support your school provides for each.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Resources and training to support special
education students
Resources and trainings to support
impoverished students
Resources and trainings to refer students to
and exit students from special education
Are you interested in participating in a semi-structured focus group?
o Yes
o No
Skip To: Q21 If Are you interested in participating in a semi-structured focus group? =
Yes
Skip To: End of Survey If Are you interested in participating in a semi-structured focus
group? = No
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
174
Thank you for volunteering for the focus group! Please complete the form below so that
the researcher may contact you when the group meeting is scheduled.
o Name ________________________________________________
o Email Address ________________________________________________
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
175
Appendix B Semi-Structured Interview Protocol
Investigating the Interrelationships Preventing Impoverished Students from Exiting
Special Education: A Case Study
Time of Focus Group/Interview:
Date: October 2022
Place: Zoom Conferencing Call
Interviewer: Denisha Bolden
Focus Group Participants: Reading and ELA Teachers
Script:
We expect that the review of student documents in this research will last up to six
months. Interviewees participating in semi-structured interviews will be expected to
attend one, 1hour, Zoom video conference without the video, only audio recording,
during the month of October 2022.
The research will focus on student reading achievement before and after receiving
special education services and its relationship with SES to determine what special
education programs/services have the most impact on students exiting special education
before transition age. Results from this research will provide details needed for
preparation programs aimed at teachers, school leaders, and child development
professionals.
You were selected as an interviewee because you were identified as a person who
can contribute information about the special education processes and procedures at your
school. My study does not aim to evaluate the special education processes and procedures
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
176
at your school but rather to gain more information to determine the correlation of the
socioeconomic status of students and their opportunities to exit special education.
To assist in my notetaking, I would like to audio record our conversation today.
Before I begin asking questions, please provide a recorded verbal permission with your
first name and today’s date. By providing verbal consent, you are acknowledging that:
a) all information from this interview will be confidential; only myself and my
professor, Amanda Lannie, will have access to this interview recordings.
b) you may decline to answer any questions, your participation is voluntary, and you
may stop at any time, for any reason
c) I do not intend to inflict any harm nor provide any benefit from this interview
d) I have allotted 60 minutes for this interview. If time begins to run out, I may need
to interrupt your discussions to complete all of the questioning.
Semi-Structured Focus Group Questions
1. What are your school’s guidelines for the referral of students to special education?
2. What are your school’s guidelines for the exiting of students from special
education?
3. Do you believe that a child’s socioeconomic status can be observed in the
classroom?
4. Do you think there is a direct correlation between socioeconomic status and
special education?
5. What educational barriers or challenges do you think impact the special education
students you work with, both inside and outside of the classroom?
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
177
6. Do you feel there are adequate resources at your school to meet the learning needs
of impoverished students?
7. Do you feel that there are adequate resources at your school to meet the learning
needs of special education students?
8. Do you believe that a student’s socioeconomic status plays a major factor in a
student’s educational placement?
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
178
Appendix C Family Demographics Survey
Please review the consent form by clicking on the hyperlink below.
Research Subject Consent Form
o I consent
o I do not consent
Skip To: Gender If Please review the consent form by clicking on the hyperlink
below. Research Subject Consent Form = I consent
Skip To: End of Survey If We thank you for your time spent taking this survey. Your
response has been recorded. Is Displayed
Display This Question:
If Please review the consent form by clicking on the hyperlink below. Research
Subject Consent Form = I do not consent
Display This Question:
If Text Response Is Displayed
We thank you for your time spent taking this survey. Your response has been recorded.
What is your relationship to the student?
________________________________________________________________
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
179
What is your age?
o Under 18
o 18 - 24
o 25 - 34
o 35 - 44
o 45 - 54
o 55 - 64
o 65 - 74
o 75 - 84
o 85 or older
Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
o Yes
o No
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
180
How would you describe yourself? Please select all that apply.
▢ White
▢ Black or African American
▢ American Indian or Alaska Native
▢ Asian
▢ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
▢ Other
What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?
o Less than a high school diploma
o High school degree or equivalent (e.g. GED)
o Some college, no degree
o Associate degree (e.g. AA, AS)
o Bachelor's degree (e.g. BA, BS)
o Master's degree (e.g. MA, MS, MEd)
o Doctorate or professional degree (e.g. MD, DDS, PhD)
What is your marital status?
o Single (never married)
o Married, or in a domestic partnership
o Widowed
o Divorced
o Separated
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
181
What is your current employment status?
o Employed full time (40 or more hours per week)
o Employed part time (up to 39 hours per week)
o Unemployed and currently looking for work
o Unemployed not currently looking for work
o Student
o Retired
o Homemaker
o Self-employed
o Unable to work
Did your child qualify for Free and /or reduced lunch in elementary school?
o Yes
o No
o Unsure
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
182
Appendix D Research Subject Consent Form
RESEARCH CONSENT SUMMARY
You are being asked for your consent to take part in a research study. This document
provides a concise summary of this research. It describes the key information that we
believe most people need to decide whether to take part in this research. Later sections of
this document will provide all relevant details.
What should I know about this research?
• Someone will explain this research to you.
• Taking part in this research is voluntary. Whether you take part is up to you.
• If you don’t take part, it won’t be held against you.
• You can take part now and later drop out, and it won’t be held against you
• If you don’t understand, ask questions.
• Ask all the questions you want before you decide.
How long will I be in this research?
We expect that the review of student documents in this research will last up to six
months. Interviewees participating in semi-structured interviews will be expected to
attend one, 1hour, Zoom video conference without the video, only audio recording,
during the month of October 2022.
Why is this research being done?
The purpose of this case study research is to explore the impact of special education
programming on the academic skills of impoverished special education students,
particularly those students identified with specific learning disabilities in reading who
have not exited special education by transition age.
What happens to me if I agree to take part in this research?
Research Subject Consent Form
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
183
If you decide to take part in this research study, the general procedures include:
• Parents/guardians will complete a short survey about demographic characteristics
of their student.
• Teachers will complete a survey about the educational environment and
expectations of their classroom.
• Teachers will participate in one time, semi structured interview with researcher
that may last up to one hour.
• Interviews will the audio recorded only; no video will be utilized. Interviews will
be transcribed and coded to help the researcher find key information.
• Any identifying information they can be found in the transcription of the
interview will be removed. Audio recordings of the interviews will be destroyed
to protect your identity.
Could being in this research hurt me?
There are no known physical or mental risks related to participating in this study. There is
a very slim chance the information collected may be disclosed to others. Any information
that may identify you will be removed. The researcher will make every attempt to keep
your information confidential.
Will being in this research benefit me?
There are no benefits to you for taking part in this study.
What other choices do I have besides taking part in this research?
It is your choice to partake in this research. If you choose not to, it will not be held
against you.
What else should I know about this research?
Not applicable.
Will it cost me money to take part in this research?
There is no cost to participate in this research study.
Will being in this research benefit me?
There are no benefits to you for taking part in this study.
What other choices do I have besides taking part in this research?
It is your choice to partake in this research. If you choose not to, it will not be held
against you.
What happens to the information collected for this research?
Your private information will only be shared with the researcher and Drexel University
staff that
conduct or watch over this research, including:
• The research sponsor(s): Dr. Amanda Lannie, Principal Investigator
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
184
• People who work with the research sponsor(s): Denisha Bolden (myself)
• The Institutional Review Board (IRB) that reviewed this research
• Drexel University and its affiliates
We may publish the results of this research. However, we will keep your name and other
identifying information confidential (or emphasize the anonymous nature of
participation).
We protect your information from disclosure to others to the extent required by law. We
cannot
promise complete secrecy.
Data or specimens collected in this research might be de-identified and used for future
research
or distributed to another investigator for future research without your consent.
Who can answer my questions about this research?
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints, or think this research has hurt you or
made you
sick, talk to the research team at the phone number listed above on the first page.
This research is being overseen by an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”). An IRB is a
group of
people who perform independent review of research studies. You may talk to them at
(267) 359-
2471 or HRPP@drexel.edu if:
• You have questions, concerns, or complaints that are not being answered by the
research team.
• You are not getting answers from the research team.
• You cannot reach the research team.
• You want to talk to someone else about the research.
• You have questions about your rights as a research subject.
Can I be removed from this research without my approval?
The person in charge of this research can remove you from this research without your
approval.
Possible reasons for removal include:
• It is in your best interest
• Students or teachers transfer or leave the school district
• You are unable to keep your scheduled appointments
We will tell you about any new information that may affect your health, welfare, or
choice to stay in this research.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
185
What happens if I agree to be in this research, but I change my mind later?
You may decide not to participate in this study; it will not be held against you. Should
you
choose to leave this study, please contact the researcher so that a new participant may be
recruited.
Will I be paid for taking part in this research?
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
186
Appendix E Parent Email
October 2022
Dear Parents/Guardians:
As a doctoral candidate in the educational administration program at Drexel University, I
am conducting research as part of the requirements for my degree. The title of my
research project is Investigating the Interrelationships Preventing Impoverished Students
from Exiting Special Education: A Case Study. The purpose of my study is to explore the
reasons why impoverished students do not always exit special education before transition
age.
I am writing to request your permission to use and evaluate data from your child
educational records as a participant in my research study. I will NOT have direct contact
with your child in any manner, only their educational records.
Participants will be asked to give their consent via a link sent by the researcher to their
email. The link will provide parents and guardians with a consent form for participation
and a brief demographic survey. Taking part in this study is completely voluntary, and
participants are welcome to discontinue participation at any time.
Thank you for your time and considering my request.
Sincerely,
Denisha Bolden
Doctoral Candidate
VARIABLES PREVENTING EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION
187
Appendix F Teacher Email
September 2022
Dear Site Faculty Member:
As a doctoral candidate in the educational administration program at Drexel University, I
am conducting research as part of the requirements for my degree. The purpose of my
study is to explore the reasons why impoverished students do not always exit special
education before transition age. The title of my research project is Investigating the
Interrelationships Preventing Impoverished Students from Exiting Special Education: A
Case Study.
I am writing to invite you to participate in my study. As a faculty member at SITE, you
are being asked to complete an online survey to help me collect data for my study. It
should take approximately 10 minutes for you to complete the survey. Your participation
will be kept private; no personal, identifying information will be shared with anyone
except the researcher and her supervising professor.
To participate, click on the link below:
LINK
A consent document is attached to this email. The consent document contains additional
information about my research, but you do not need to sign and return it. Your consent to
participate will be collected at the start of the survey. Taking part in this study is
completely voluntary, and participants are welcome to discontinue participation at any
time.
Thank you for your time and considering my request.
Sincerely,
Denisha Bolden
Doctoral Candidate
