K martin - Assignment 2 Hot Topic - Article review
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•87 views
This case study examined one highly effective, inclusive elementary school in Florida called Creekside Elementary School. The researchers conducted interviews, observed classrooms, and analyzed testing scores. They found two key factors contributing to the school's success: (1) strong student support and high-quality instruction through practices like Universal Design for Learning and (2) supportive administrative policies and organizational structures. For example, all students' grades improved with inclusive practices and the school's diversity was representative of the community. The researchers concluded inclusive education can benefit all students when schools implement the right supports.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to K martin - Assignment 2 Hot Topic - Article review
Similar to K martin - Assignment 2 Hot Topic - Article review (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
K martin - Assignment 2 Hot Topic - Article review
- 1. A case study of one highly effective, inclusive elementary school Presentation by Kim Martin. Unit - Contemporary Issues in Special Education. Assignment Two - Article Review. Article Authors: James McLeskey, Nancy L. Waldron and Lacy Redd. Article is from The Journal of Special Education 2014, Volume 48, Number 1, Pages 59 –70. Please use presenter notes for easy english transcript.
- 2. Research Question What are factors contributing to the success of a highly effective, inclusive elementary school?
- 3. A case study of one highly effective, inclusive elementary school 1. Quick facts 2. Research Process 3. Points of interest 4. Reflection
- 4. Quick Facts 1. Research took place in 2011. 2. 1 elementary school in a small country town in Florida, USA. 3. The school is called Creekside Elementary School.
- 5. United States of America map
- 6. Quick Facts 4. The school had 480 students in Grades K-4. 5. 82 students have a disability. 6. 42 teachers and 12 support staff.
- 7. Quick Facts 7. Families came from different backgrounds. Students with disabilities Caucasian students Students from other Ethnic groups High Poverty Backgrounds Creekside Elementary 17% 68% 32% 52% District 17% 48% 52% 49% State (Florida) 14% 44% 56% 53%
- 8. Quick Facts 8. The school was chosen because they were doing a great job at helping every student be successful including children with disabilities.
- 9. Research Process 1. Look for similar research. 2. Comparison of testing scores for and inclusive student placement data. 3. Interviews with teachers and principal. 4. Observation visits to classrooms during English and Mathematics lessons. 5. Collate and review data and share findings
- 10. Research Process # 1 Look for similar research.
- 11. FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT(FCAT) READING AND MATH SCORE COMPARISON Research Process # 2 Evidence of impact and change CREEKSIDE DISTRICT STATE PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS MEETING LEVEL 3 OR HIGHER IN 2008-2009 GROUP READING MATH READING MATH READING MATH All Students 85 86 70 70 71 74 students with disabilities 69 58 32 36 33 38 High Poverty Background s 73 70 45 47 51 56
- 12. LEAST RESTRICTIVE PLACEMENT DATA CREEKSIDE DISTRICT STATE YEARS AND PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS PLACEMENT 05/06 % 09-10 % 05/06 % 09-10 % 05/06 % 09-10 % General Education 66 100 64 68 55 63 Resource 21 0 18 15 19 15 Special Class 13 0 14 13 23 17 General education = 80% or more of day in classroom; Resource= 40% to 79% of the day in classroom; Separate class = 39% of day in a classroom. Some percentages don’t add to 100 because some students are educated in Research Process # 2 Evidence of impact and change
- 13. Interviews with teachers and principal. QUALITATIVE CASE STUDY METHODS Research Process # 3
- 14. 1. How was the inclusive program planned and implemented? 2. How do you monitor student progress to ensure that students are making adequate progress and that interventions are working? Research Process # 3 Sample Interview 1 Questions
- 15. Sample Interview 2 Questions Research Process # 3 1.What are key factors that support inclusion and improved academic achievement outcomes in your school - why does it work? 2.What are the issues, barriers or key factors that make inclusion and improved academic outcomes difficult to achieve?
- 16. Observation visits to classrooms during English and Mathematics lessons. QUALITATIVE CASE STUDY METHODS Research Process # 4
- 17. Summary & Results ‘This investigation examined the key qualities that supported high student achievement in an inclusive elementary school. The major themes that emerged are organised into two overarching areas: (a) Student Support and Instructional Quality (b) Administrative and Organisational Features.’ (Page 62 )
- 18. Summary & Results (a) Student Support and Instructional Quality.
- 19. Summary & Results (b) Administrative and Organisational Features.
- 20. USA has Inclusive Education laws that mean schools are expected to equitably meet the needs of all students including those with disabilities. The Acts are 1. Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) 2. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; 2004) 3. No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2001) This was replaced in 2015 4. Every Student Succeeds (2015) Points of Interest # 1
- 21. Points of Interest # 2 All students’ grades improved with inclusive practice.
- 22. Difference in diversity of student family backgrounds Points of Interest # 3
- 23. Nothing about us without us Points of Interest # 4
- 24. Reflection # 1 This paper confirms my personal belief that teaching using UDL principles during planning, resource selection and teaching time can benefit all learnings in the classroom, including those with additional needs.
- 25. Reflection # 2 Recommended changes seem feasible to implement with whole communities support. I am wondering why the researchers couldn’t find more learning communities who have tried to improve the ability to offer flexible timetabling and staffing. My hope is that if they looked again now they would hopefully find more examples of UDL practices in schools world wide.
- 26. Thank you
Editor's Notes
- SLIDE 1 This is a presentation by Kim Martin for a university unit of study called ‘Contemporary Issues is Special Education’. The aim of this presentation is to review one research paper and provide a reflection that can be shared in an accessible format. This presentation is supported by a YouTube clip with closed captions and an easy English word document. The presentation is also available on the website Slide Share by clicking on the following link LINK All images have Alternative Text Descriptions. The You Tube version of this presentation can be viewed by clicking the following link The easy English version can be accessed by accessing the following link that takes you to a Drop Box file. https://goo.gl/r9WfMH The name of the article reviewed is ‘A case study of one highly effective, inclusive elementary school.’ The authors of the article are James McLeskey, Nancy L. Waldron and Lacy Redd. The article is from The Journal of Special Education 2014, Volume 48, Number 1, Pages 59 –70. The Article is a summary of facts and occurrences about one case study investigation. The study examined the key qualities that supported high student achievement in one highly effective, inclusive elementary school in the United States of America.
- SLIDE 2 The Research Question that guided this research is What are factors contributing to the success of a highly effective, inclusive elementary school? The researchers were trying to find out what this school had done differently compared to what happens at most other schools in the same district and state that was enabling students to stay in class longer and achieve better results in the states English and Mathematics academic assessments. As current federal legislation in the United States holds schools accountable for ensuring that all students, including those with disabilities, make adequate yearly progress on academic achievement measures, while also including students with disabilities in general education settings whenever possible. The researchers hoped to identify key practices that are contributing factors to success in meeting the competing demands of excellence and equity for all students that other schools may consider implementing. Quote ‘Evidence from previous research suggests that the number of elementary schools that are inclusive and highly effective is very limited (Farrell et al., 2007; McLeskey & Waldron, 2011). This critical case would thus have the potential to provide information and insight regarding what an elementary school does to support students and teachers in a setting that is inclusive and highly effective.’ (McLeskey, Waldron and Redd, 2014 pp 60)
- List of what this presentation will cover. There are 4 main points. 1. Quick facts (summary of the reading) 2. Research Process 3. Points of interest (references to further reading) 4. Reflection
- SLIDE 4 Quick Facts about this article and the school the case study was carried out in to provide a brief summary of the reading. 1. Research happened in 2011. The school made initial changes to how the school timetable runs and supports students in 2006. 2. It is the only elementary school in the area so most children from the community and surrounding areas attend this school.
- SLIDE 5 This slide has a map of most of the United States of America. It has 2 red markers to show you where Creekside Elementary School is located. It is on the east coast of America in Florida, above Orlando.
- SLIDE 6 Quick Facts 4. The school had 480 students in Grades K-4 at the time of the case study. 5. 82 of the students (17%) identified as having a disability. This is similar to other schools in the same district. Students with disabilities at Creekside Elementary School (CES) include those with learning disabilities, speech and language impairments, orthopaedic impairments, deaf/hearing impaired, autism spectrum disorders, emotional/behaviour disabilities, intellectual disability, developmental delays, and other health impairments. 6. There were 42 teachers includes 2 special education educators working at the school at the time of the case study. All teachers were highly qualified for their positions and 53% had advanced degrees in education. The teaching experience of the staff was varied, 45% had 5 years or less experience, whereas 33% of teachers had 15 or more years of experience.
- SLIDE 7 Quick Facts # 7 Families came from many different backgrounds including poor and non-English speaking backgrounds. 68% of students were Caucasian. 32% were from African American, Hispanic, multiracial or other ethnic groups. 52% of students were from poverty backgrounds (eligible for free or reduced lunch). Diversity at CES was less than the district and state. See table on current slide for comparisons.
- SLIDE 8 Quick Facts # 8 The school was recommended to the researchers by several people and was already known for doing a great job at including children with additional needs and improving all children’s achievements in the state English and Mathematics tests. The selection method for choosing one school is called critical case sampling (Patton, 2002).
- Research Process Overview 5 Main elements of the qualitative case study method used by researchers investigating the practices and results at CES. 1. Look for similar research. 2. Comparison of testing scores for and inclusive student placement data. 3. Interviews with teachers and principal. 4. Observation visits to classrooms during English and Mathematics lessons. 5. Collate and review data and share findings Following slides go into more depth about each stage, process, data collected and findings.
- SLIDE 10 Research Process # 1 Look for Similar research in US and UK (Page 59 of the reading) The researchers were able to find evidence that there has been progress toward including students with disabilities in general education settings for much of the school day in many schools (McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2011; McLeskey & Waldron, 2011). One example given was the percentage of students with disabilities who are educated for most of the school day (i.e., 80% or more) in the general education classroom in the United Stated has increased from 34% in 1990- 1991 to 58% in 2007-2008 (McLeskey et al., 2011). They also found evidence that indicated that some schools have achieved excellent outcomes for most students, including those with disabilities (Farrell, Dyson, Polat, Hutcheson, & Gallannaugh, 2007; Ushomirsky & Hall, 2010). However, the authors found little evidence indicating that schools have been successful in doing both, that is, achieving excellent outcomes for students in highly inclusive settings within the United States. Due to the lack of research regarding inclusion and academic progress within the United States researchers referred to the work of Farrell et al. (2007) who conducting case studies of highly effective, inclusive schools in England. The English study used national data to locate schools based on two criteria. 1. Schools identified as inclusive if a large number of students with special educational needs relative to other characteristics of the school population were enrolled. 2. They used student achievement levels on a national assessment instrument to determine that schools were highly effective. Farrell and colleagues found 12 schools across grade levels that were inclusive and highly effective, and conducted case studies in these settings. Even though there was a glaring short coming with this research namely that Farrell and colleagues assumed that the identified schools educated students in inclusive classrooms, but had no direct data to prove or discount this assumption. The findings of these case studies revealed that these schools shared several common characteristics, including these seven: · schools were welcoming and supportive of all students, · educating students with disabilities was accepted by teachers as part of their typical activities, · schools emphasized raising the achievement levels of all students, · tracking systems were used to monitor individual student progress, · instructional practices were recognisably good across classrooms, · appropriate levels of resources were used efficiently and effectively, and · resources were used flexibly to support student needs. The McLeskey and the co-authors of this article determined that Farrell and colleague’s investigations could not be generalised for the United States, as they believe United States special education practices differ substantially from those described in England and determined that there was a need for further research regarding the qualities of effective, inclusive schools in the United States. 4. Comparing Test scores Before starting the inclusion program in 2006, Creekside Elementary school data was similar to data for the school’s district and state. The following 2 slides go into further details about the test scores and inclusive placement data.
- SLIDE 11 Research Process # 2 - Evidence of impact and change Table 1. The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) - percentage of students meeting proficiency level 3 or higher in reading and math for 2009. Please note: No test data shown for periods before 2006 when changes were implemented at Creekside Elementary School (CES). This data shows that all students at CES performed between 12 and 16% better than their peers in other schools within the same state. Level 3 or higher on this test is a Florida specific benchmark. 32-38% of students with disabilities(SWD) achieved level 3 or higher academic achievement across the state and school district. Compared to 58-69 % of SWD at CES. If we just compare student results within the district CES SWD score 22% better in the math assessment and 37% better in the reading element of the assessment. Information about how many of these students met more than one criteria e.g. poverty and disability is not given. What interventions and inclusive practices were allowed when taking this assessment were not disclosed. This is an indication only that the changes at CES have made a positive difference in both inclusion and academic achievement. We would need to have accumulative data over time to confirm whether the improvement has been sustained.
- SLIDE 12 Research Process # 2 - Evidence of impact and change Table 2. Least restrictive placement data Before starting the inclusion program in 2006, Creekside Elementary school data was similar to the school’s district and state. Over time, between 2005 and 2010 the state improved the percentage of time students with disabilities were included in their general classroom by 4%. The state improved 8% and CES improved over 34 % in the same time period. At the same time CES reduced the number of students supported outside of the general classroom for all or periods of the day from 21 and 13% to 0%. The state and district data shows only a 1- 5% improvement in this area.
- SLIDE 13 Research Process # 3 Interviews Qualitative Case Study Methods. Definition of Qualitative Case Study Methods by Baxter, P (2008). Qualitative case study methodology provides tools for researchers to study complex phenomena within their contexts. When the approach is applied correctly, it becomes a valuable method for health science research to develop theory, evaluate programs, and develop interventions. Teachers and principal were interviewed once and then some teachers were chosen for a second interview. 13 individual interviews with open ended questions with team members directly involved in the implantation of the inclusive program.
- SLIDE 14 Research Process # 3 First Round of Interviews Data Collection 13 individual interviews with open ended questions with teachers and leadership team members that were directly involved in the implantation of the inclusive program. The first interviews were open ended discussions regarding factors that contributed to the success of the highly effective, inclusive program at CES. Interviews median length was approximately 35 minutes. 24 -92 minutes was the time range. Sample Interview 1 Questions 1.How was the inclusive program planned and implemented? 2.What type of professional learning and resources have teachers received to support inclusive practices in your classroom? 3.Describe how services are delivered to students with disabilities and others who struggle to learn academic skills? 4. How do you monitor student progress to ensure that students are making adequate progress and that interventions are working?
- SLIDE 15 Research Process # 3 Second Round of Interviews Data Collection 9 Follow up interviews with the school principal and eight teachers including both special education teachers. The second interviews had specific questions to gain more detailed information using themes that emerged from this first set of interviews and from classroom observations that formulated guiding questions. Interviews median length was approximately 35 minutes. 24 -92 minutes was the time range. Sample Interview 2 Questions What are key factors that support inclusion and improved academic achievement outcomes in your school - why does it work? What are the issues, barriers or key factors that make inclusion and improved academic outcomes difficult to achieve? How do you balance resources and providing sufficient student support? How would you describe the sense of community that exists in your school? How is the principal involved in supporting the inclusive program and improved student achievement?
- SLIDE 16 Research Process # 4 Classroom Observations Observation visits to classrooms were carried out during English and Mathematics lessons (reading, writing and mathematics instruction). The purpose of the observations was to document instructional approaches and practices that were used at CES and also to provide information that would be used to formulate questions for subsequent interviews. Observations visits were completed prior to the second interviews. Observations were completed in each of the 10 co-taught, inclusive classrooms. All students spend 80% or more of the school day in general education (their regular classroom) which is a substantially greater proportion of time than average figures for the district or state. During observations, the class teacher and special education teachers were engaged predominantly in station teaching (Friend & Cook, 2010) using centres. Also observed was teachers working as a team (sharing responsibility for the lesson) and during times when one teacher was teaching and the other was assisting. Observations lasted between 60 to 90 minutes. Documentation method used was field notes.
- SLIDE 17 Summary and Results Data analysis. Interview transcripts and field notes from observations were reviewed to identify emergent themes using a four-step process. 1. First, one of the investigators pulled apart the data from interview and observation data, to identify essential elements that could be used to define possible emergent themes (Patton, 2002) and discussed these themes with a second investigator. 2. Second, after all of the interviews and observations, two of the investigators reviewed the data to provide different perspectives and to develop “imaginative variation” (Patton, 2002, p. 486) on the themes. 3. Third, the investigators developed a set of themes that were presented to a group of 10 teachers and the school principal from CES for feedback. 4. Finally, two investigators worked collaboratively to use this feedback to develop the final set of themes that emerged from this investigation. The major themes that emerged are organised into two overarching areas: · Student Support and Instructional Quality. · Administrative and Organisational Features.
- Summary and Results - Student Support and Instructional Quality. Definitely some overlap with the 13 themes identified by the UK research article McLeskey and colleagues reference in their article. 1. Meeting the needs of all students. • Teachers and administrators have high expectations for academic achievement and behaviour of all students. • School staff take the stance of warm demanders as they support all students. • Students with disabilities are supported as a “natural” or ordinary part of support that is provided for all students. 2. Providing high-quality instruction for all students • High-quality instruction provided in general classrooms • Providing high-quality instruction for students with disabilities in all settings Characteristics of high-quality instruction * Immersing teachers in professional development opportunities • Take every opportunity to improve teacher practice • Collective participation of teachers • Learning from one another by creating your own experts.
- SLIDE 19 Summary and Results - Administrative and Organisational Features. Very efficient, but flexible use of resources • CES is organised like a well-oiled machine. • School days are rigidly scheduled. • The rigid schedule allows for flexible use of resources when unexpected needs arise. Shared decision making Teachers make classroom level decisions. The principal does not micromanage classroom practices, but holds teachers accountable for student outcome. Shared decision making has helped to build a sense of community among teachers. Data drive everything Teachers and administrators are “flooded” with data. School staff developed their own data system tied to curriculum/expectations. Data are used to inform all decisions.
- SLIDE 20 Points of Interest # 1 – USA Laws The United States has Inclusive Education laws (called Acts) that mandate students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment. Schools are expected to be both excellent and equitable in addressing the needs of all students including those with additional needs. The Acts are 1. Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) 2. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; 2004) 3. No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2001) This was replaced in 2015 by number 4. 4. Every Student Succeeds (2015) What would the equivalent laws be for Australia or South Australia? Here are a few suggestions: Inclusive education for students with disabilities (ARACY 2011) https://www.aracy.org.au/publications-resources/command/download_file/id/246/filename/Inclusive_education_for_students_with_disability_-_A_review_of_the_best_evidence_in_relation_to_theory_and_practice.pdf UNESCO(2009) Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education in not references in this paper even though it would’ve been newly released at the time the research was conducted. I am sure that UNESCO’s 13 areas of policy concern or 51 suggested inclusive actions could have been of positive influence in the recommendations and insights of this paper. Retrieved from : www.inclusive-education-in-action.org/iea/ Disability Standards for Education (2005) which describes how the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) (1992) applies to education. The standards explicitly mention equal access to education but to my knowledge don’t also include expectations of academic progress. Disabilities Standards for Education Fact sheet can be accessed here https://resource.dse.theeducationinstitute.edu.au/sites/default/files/dse_fact_sheet2-dse2005.pdf
- SLIDE 21 Point of Interest # 2 - All students’ grades improved with inclusive practice. Creekside Elementary School Statistics 1. Received an “A” grade from Florida’s Department of Education for the last 3 years before this study was undertaken. 2. Met 97-100 percent of No Child Left Behind’s adequate yearly progress criteria from 2008 to 2011. 3. All students spend 80% or more of the school day in general education (their regular classroom) which is a substantially greater proportion of time than average figures for the district or state. Whilst teaching practices and underlying beliefs at CES have not been specifically labelled I am of the opinion, this positive data is a direct result from Inclusive pedagogy and the designing of learning opportunities and resources with UDL in mind from the start. Burgstahler (2001) Universal Design in Education: Principles and Applications Describes UDL as considering people with a broad range of characteristics in the design of all educational products and environments. It means going beyond accessible design for people with disabilities to make all aspects of the educational experience more inclusive for students with a great variety of characteristics. These characteristics include those related to gender, race and ethnicity, age, stature, disability, and learning style. Query - 480 students / 10 Inclusive classrooms would equal 48 kids per class. Florida Ed Department web site states that beginning with the 2010-2011 school year, the maximum number of students in each core class would be: 18 students in prekindergarten through grade 3; 22 students in grades 4 through 8; and 25 students in grades 9 through 12. This is smaller class size ratios then South Australia so is their information omitted about how and where other classes or groups of students were being taught? K - 3 (18) and 4 (22) so if we average 20 per class = Creekside Elementary School should have 24 classes. Therefore why are there only 10 classes identified as inclusive? Is this not a whole school initiative? This should have been disclosed. Maybe CES is using a big exception made possible by a rule that lawmakers approved several years ago: Schools declared “schools of choice” and charter schools (public schools run by private groups) can skirt those tough rules and calculate class size by using an easier-to-meet, school-wide average. https://bit.ly/2J3chPh
- SLIDE 22 Point of Interest # 3 - Difference in diversity of student family backgrounds and potential link between disability and poverty not addressed Creekside Elementary (CES) has more students from Caucasian backgrounds and less African American and other ethnic group backgrounds but similar number of students from poverty and disabilities The article does not mention or seemingly investigate the probability that a percentage of the students with disabilities attending CES may also fit into one of the other categories singled out in the student population groupings. The data and test scores omit identifying how many students meet more than one of the categories identified. For example, from a background of poverty and a student with a disability or potentially all three. A student with a disability from a background of poverty and of African American descent. I believe this is a glaring omission on the researcher’s behalf considering there is research to suggest that students with a disability and their families often have compounding issues such as poverty which adversely affect access and inclusion in education. Access to Quality Education for Students with Disability MCauley, Deepler and Agbenyeger (2016) identified that the economic capital of a student with disabilities family has a direct relationship to a student’s ability to access quality education. Therefore, a student’s social and economic opportunity impacts their education and future prosperity. Demonstrating a clear link between disability and lower socio- economic stance. Also within this article Vick (2013) claims that “in most countries, disability is found to be significantly associated with higher multidimensional poverty as well as lower educational attainment [and] lower employment rates” (p. 1). Therefore, information about students with disabilities whom also could be included in one or more of the identified groups in this article would have provided an increase in the depth to the data.
- SLIDE 23 Point of Interest # 4 – Nothing about us without us I agree with the ‘Nothing about us without us’ movement that communicates a very clear message that no policy or decision should be made by a representative without direct participation of member of the group affected by that policy. Therefore, this belief could have easily been incorporated in this case study by including and involving students with and without disabilities in the interview process considering the results directly relate to inclusive practices for all students. Shouldn’t the students’ opinions and experiences therefore have been a critical element to this research about what makes a classroom, school and education both inclusive and equitable?
- SLIDE 24 Reflection Number 1. This article further confirmed my belief that teaching using Universally Designed Learning (UDL) principles during planning, resource selection and teaching can benefit all the learners in the room not just those identified with a label categorising them as different.
- SLIDE 25 Reflection Number 2. The recommended changes outlined in this paper seemed very feasible and easy to implement with the whole community’s support. Therefore, why haven’t more leaders, more schools, more communities, more countries given this a try. Making a school timetable more flexible to allow for learners to dive deeper and get support when needed rather than chunking learning into 45 mins of isolated content seems so obvious. I’ve suggested this before but specialist lessons and ensuring non-instructional time allocation for teachers was always the reason why timetabling was so complex and couldn’t change even though they wish it could.
- SLIDE 26 Thank you. This is the end of the presentation. If you would like to access a copy of the full article please follow the link below. https://goo.gl/HC4bkc If you would like to access the easy English version follow the link below. https://goo.gl/r9WfMH If you would like to view the You Tube clip version of this presentation please follow the link below.