kshields1.weebly.com€¦ · Web viewTo what extent are the needs of exceptional learners, in interventions, being met at . Plainsville Elementary. Amanda Lyons, Emily Collier,

RUNNING HEAD: MEETING THE NEEDS OF EXCEPTIONAL LEARNERS

To what extent are the needs of exceptional learners, in interventions, being met at

Plainsville Elementary

Amanda Lyons, Emily Collier, Genet Haise, Kristan Shields

Oakland University

Lindson Feun, PhD

Meeting The Needs of Exceptional Learners 1

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………..

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………..

Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………….

Chapter 3: Method of Study……………………………………………………………………..

Chapter 4: Results of the Study………………………………………………………………...

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………………………...

References………………………………………………………………………………………...

Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………...


Acknowledgements

We would like to thank many of our district leaders, including, Debi Fragomeni, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, Michael Behrmann, Executive Director of Education, Anne Evans, Executive Director of Special Education, Seth Berg, Principal of Meadow Brook Elementary, Sandy Turner, Assistant Director of Special Education, Teresa Simonetti, Principal of Brooklands Elementary, Kelly Dessy, Principal of Long Meadow Elementary. Further, we thank the students, staff, and administration of the school who participated in our study and made our research possible. We wish to thank our colleagues in our cohort as wells as Dr. Lindson Feun, the overseer of our research, and Dr. Christine Abbott, coordinator of our Education Specialist cohort. We also would like to thank our families for their love, support, and encouragement through two years of rigor. We have high regard and admiration for all of you who helped make our research experience deep and meaningful.


Abstract

Four Oakland University students, who are part of the Education Specialist in Educational Leadership program, conducted this study to examine the extent in which students in interventions needs were being met in a school within a larger school district. The researchers uses one overarching question and four sub questions to drive the study of student, staff, and parent perceptions with regard to the learners needs being met in the school setting. Several articles related to exceptional students were reviewed. The study was conducted using surveys of the stakeholders and interviews of the staff. Research data was collected in the spring of the 2015-16 school year. This study found that meeting the needs of exceptional learners continues to be an educational challenge, students perceived that their needs were met inside and outside of the general education setting, over fifty percent of the staff indicated that students in interventions make minimal academic progress when they are in the general education setting versus pulled out for interventions, staff members also indicated a need to collaborate with staff members in their expertise field to meet students needs, and finally surveyed participants felt that students were included and successful in the general education classroom setting.


Chapter 1

Introduction

Background

Four Oakland University students, who are part of the Ed. Specialist in Educational

Leadership program conducted this study. All researchers teach, in some capacity, at the

elementary level. Two teachers instruct in the resource room (RR), servicing students with

Individual Education Plans (IEP) that receive special education services according to their

individual plans, one teacher instructs in an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) basic classroom,

and one teacher is the general education learning consultant (LC) working directly with students

who are in the multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS). The research group chose to study

Plainsville Elementary (fictional name was used to maintain a level of privacy for the school),

where all three levels of programming for students in interventions were implemented.

Plainsville Elementary is a school within the boundaries of Oakland County, in a suburb

north of Detroit. The district was made up of thirteen elementary schools, four middle schools,

three high schools, one alternative high school, and one adult education school. According to

the PCS (Plainsville Community Schools, 2015) fast facts page, located on the school district

website, approximately 15,000 students attended the district. In the thirteen elementary

schools, which housed students in grades K-5, there are approximately 6,380 students. The

ethnic categories the district recognized in their demographics include, Multi-Racial (4%),

Hispanic (3%), African-American (5%), Asian American (11%), and White (77%). The district

employed 1,794 people and 1,021 of these employees were certified staff. The school district

had 193 special education staff, including administration, teacher consultants, resource

teachers, categorical classroom teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists,

psychologists, speech and language pathologists, and social workers, worked in the district.

Additionally, there were a total of 1,748 students with special education services from age 3-26.


The district boasted, 91% of the parents rated the school district a grade equivalent of an A or B

and the student achievement scores were ranked in the top 5% across the state-wide

assessments that were given. Students and employees claimed a graduation rate of 96% or

higher across all three high schools in the district.

Plainsville Elementary, with approximately 410 students, was in a middle class

neighborhood with demographic diversity. The school was also home to three Autism Spectrum

Disorder (ASD) classrooms, one and a half resource rooms, and the general education multi-

tiered system of support that was provided by the learning consultant program. Plainsville

Elementary School also serviced school age children from a nearby university’s student and

faculty housing area. There was an increase in multiple families, from the neighboring city,

using relatives’ addresses for the purposes of educating their children in the school district.

There were a variety of exceptional learners (see definition) in the building. They each

added diversity and individual needs to the general education classrooms. Exceptional learners

were also represented as group with diverse instructional needs. According to Rodriguez and

Tompkins (1994), “In order to implement full inclusion, leaders needed to create an atmosphere

and culture for change” (p. 2). All students in general education classrooms, that included

exceptional needs ’ learners, exhibited positive outcomes (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1994;

Salend & Duhaney 1999; Stainback & Stainback 1996; Staub & Peck 1994; Waldron, 1997; ).

Plainsville Elementary general education teaching staff expressed concerns related to meeting

the needs of the exceptional learners in their classroom environment. Staff members indicated

that exceptional learners had additional needs beyond those of their same age classroom

peers.

Assumptions & Limitations

Although this action research used several surveys to examine stakeholders’

perceptions of meeting the needs of exceptional learners at Plainsville Elementary, there are a

variety of assumptions and limitations to the research. To begin, this research relies on staff


surveys, student surveys, parent surveys and staff interviews. This means, we assumed that all

participants of the surveys answered the questions honestly and objectively. This study was

conducted in one elementary school, which was specifically chosen based on the programs

housed within the building and the number of researchers staffed in the building, resulting in a

limitation related to the external validity. Plainsville Elementary’s school culture presents with its

own unique characteristics. Therefore, the results of this study cannot be generalized to other

schools within the district or anywhere else. Although the surveys were offered to all parents

and staff, only 41.2% of parents participated in the study and 43.1% of the staff participated in

the study. Additionally, eleven staff members were targeted to represent the various staff

stakeholders and only nine of them were interviewed due to availability and scheduling conflicts.

This made the interviews limited by one grade level, kindergarten, and one specialty area, social

work, not represented in the study’s interviews. The schools student data system, provided

through the district, placed students within the basic classroom settings on a separate rosters

and were not included with their general education classroom rosters nor on the general

education classroom’s assessment scores; therefore data collection for this group of students

required staff to manually access district assessment information and manually add them into

their grade level in order to have them compared to their general education peers.

Evaluation/Research Questions

I. To what extent are the overall needs of exceptional learners being met at Plainsville

Elementary?

A. To what extent are the behavioral needs being met in the general education

setting at Plainsville Elementary?

B. To what extent are the academic needs being met in the general education


C. To what extent are the social/emotional needs being met in the general

education setting at Plainsville Elementary?


D. To what extent are exceptional learners being included in the general education


Definitions

● 504 Plan: The 504 was a plan developed to ensure that a child who had a disability

identified under the law and was attending an elementary or secondary educational

institution received accommodations that ensured their academic success and equal

access to the education and services of the learning environment. 504 Plans were

updated on a yearly basis. (Michigan.gov)

● Autism Spectrum Disorder Basic Classroom (ASD Basic)

● Exceptional Learners: In this paper exceptional learners were defined as children who

differed from the norm to such an extent that they required an individual intervention plan

to target lagging skills in a variety of areas such as academic, behavioral, social and

emotional. These students included special education, MTSS supported, and 504’s).

● Inclusion: Inclusion at Plainsville Elementary meant any time exceptional learners were

in the general education setting. This included academic, social/emotional, or

participatory activities.

● Individualized Education Plan (IEP): The Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is a plan or

program developed to ensure that a child with a disability identified under the law, that

attended an elementary or secondary educational institution, received specialized

instruction and related services to meet their educational needs. IEPs are updated on

an annual basis. (Michigan.gov)

● Intervention Plans: Intervention plans are individual plans. They include: the Learning

Consultant intervention service or multi tiered systems of support, 504 accommodation

intervention plans, and Individualized Education Plans (IEP) that target lagging skills in a

pullout setting.


● Intervention Services: Speech and Language Therapy, Social Work, Academic support,

Learning Consultant, Resource Room and ASD Basic Classrooms.

● Learning Consultant Intervention Program (LC): Provides push-in and pull-out academic

support services in Reading, English Language Arts, and Math instruction with students

identified in the Multi Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS).

● Multi Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS): An integrated, multi-tiered system of

instruction, assessment, and intervention designed to meet the achievement and

behavioral health needs of ALL learners.

● Pull - Out Services: Anytime a student is pulled out of the General Education setting for

any intervention services.


Chapter 2

Literature Review

Overivew

For research and review of this study, eight articles (see references) were viewed to

compare the exceptional learners at Plainsville Elementary to similar students. Academic,

behavior and social/emotional needs of students were the focus of the literature. Additionally,

was there a connection to how these students perceive themselves in relation to their general

education classroom, intervention services, or their personal well-being.

Literature Review

Meeting the needs of students with learning differences has been an age-old

conversation in education. According to Lynn Newman (2006), working to include students with

learning differences into the general education setting, “means more than simply being present

in a general education classroom” (p. 1). Educators have been challenged to include a variety

of learners while also individualizing instruction with increased rigor at each student’s level.

Newman (2006) states, “General education academic teachers often modify the curriculum of

their courses to accommodate the individual learning needs of the student with disabilities in

their classes” (p. 2-3). There are several educators who have been proficient in modifying or

changing the curriculum to accommodate learning needs. However, Achilles and Finn (2000)

stated, “Considerable research suggests that low student-teacher ratios help teachers meet

student needs by facilitating effective instruction, communication, and individualization.” In

many cases, these smaller student-teacher ratios occurred outside of the general education

classroom with another teacher who specialized in research-based interventions (p. 3).

Newman (2006) found, “the amount of individual instruction received from an adult other than

the teacher to students with learning disabilities differ from their class peers. They are twice as

likely as the class as a whole to receive instruction often from an adult other than the general


education teacher” (p. 4). This was consistent with how educators implemented strategies to

meet the needs of struggling learners in recent years. Newman (2006) stated, “Instructional

strategies, such as using small-group or individual instruction, can be used to help reduce the

student-teacher ratio for some classroom instruction.” Students with learning difficulties would

receive intervention services, but not in place of the rich exposure to the general education

instruction. When it comes to participating in class, Newman (2006) found, “with the exception

of working with a peer partner or group, teachers report that students with learning disabilities

participate less actively than other students in their general education classes.” Students less

frequent participation may have been related to a variety factors including confidence,

understanding the question, processing and other contributing factors. The teachers

perceptions and expectations were surveyed, “though not all students with learning disabilities

are perceived to be appropriately placed, virtually all students with learning disabilities in

general education academic classes are expected to keep up with others in their class;

however, only approximately three-fourths are reported by their teachers to do so” (Newman

2006). Students with learning disabilities could rise to the challenges and rigor of general

education with the tools, practice, and strategies to achieve the high expectations set for them.

History has demonstrated a negative instructional experience for students with learning

disabilities in general education classrooms (Vaughn & Klingner, 1998). Students that were

kept in the general education after being identified with exceptional needs made minimal

progress even after teachers were supported through professional development (Vaughn &

Klinger, 1998). Additionally, students perception of receiving supports within the general

education classroom versus outside the general education classroom varies. According to

Vaughn and Klingner (1998), there are a very limited number of studies examining student

perception of their instructional services, yet there were some commonalities in their findings.

One commonality was found in regard to pull-out services versus inclusion within the general

education classroom. Interestingly, general education students also preferred that their


exceptional learning peers received pull-out services instead of receiving services in the general

education classroom. The students with exceptional needs also preferred to receive services in

a pull-out instructional model versus in the general education classroom (Vaughn & Klingner,

1998).

Students were also asked to identify the benefits and challenges with the inclusion and

pull-out models for instruction. Exceptional learners who preferred the pull-out model cited that

they learned more in this type of instructional environment. According to the data, the older the

students in their grade level, the stronger their preference for the pull-out model. Older students

provided a variety of evidence for preferring this model to include: extra help, fun activities,

easier work, and quiet. Students who had negative feelings about being pulled out from the

general education classroom thought it made them miss academic and social activities.

Students who preferred to receive instruction within the general education classroom cited

social reasons as a benefit. Positive outcomes such as making friends and not being labeled as

having a disability were also mentioned. Other students felt that their general education teacher

understood their learning needs the best and their general education teacher favored them in

the classroom (Vaughn & Klingner, 1998).

In a co-taught model, the role of the teacher, for exceptional learners, within the general

education setting, was explained to students as a teacher who was there to provide assistance

to students who needed extra help. It was also communicated that the special education

teacher helped all students in the classroom and not just the exceptional learners. Most

students were not aware that this extra teacher was a special education teacher. General

education teachers also valued this extra teaching resource in the classroom (Vaughn &

Klingner, 1998).

There are many factors to have considered in teaching exceptional learners. Placement

and age of students were factors considered when examining the learning environment of

exceptional learners. Students felt that placement of students was a decision made by parents


and teachers as the primary decision makers, followed by input from the principal as the sole

decision maker. Studies also found that younger, primary grade students tended to like

inclusion within the general education classroom more than intermediate students who preferred

the pull-out model.

Including students who desired to be with their general education peers was difficult.

This was also true of students with more significant disabilities at the high school level. The

barriers associated with including students with disabilities in high school general education

classes was seen differently through a multitude of lenses. Administrators, classroom teachers,

paraeducators, and the students themselves were both united and divided in their assessment

of general education participation. Increasing the amount of time students with severe

disabilities spend in the general education setting has been the main focus of many school

districts, and state mandated legislation. Although, the majority of stakeholders know the

importance of our exceptional learners attendance in the general education setting, opinions

varied greatly regarding how they overcame barriers and hurdles that needed to be addressed

in order for this level of inclusion to be successfully implemented.

Even though the adoption of the inclusive classroom setting has been the norm across

school districts nationwide, the actual time that exceptional learners with significant disabilities

spent outside the general education classroom setting is still above 50% of their school day.

Findings from the Department of Education in 2003 indicated that exceptional learners with

Autism spent more than 60% of their day not being included in the general education setting

(Carter, 2006). Many factors needed to be considered to understand why this trend was not

changed, significantly, in the last decade. Staff perception of the exceptional learners, the

special education label, and preconceived notions of the student’s abilities, associated with that

label, played a major role in students being accepted and given a participation level in the

general education classroom setting. Carter and Hughes also found that general education staff

felt they did not have adequate time to collaborate with special education teachers, and they


found that special education teachers judged that general education teachers had negative

attitudes about the students being included in the general education classroom setting.

Additionally, the lack of knowledge about specific learning disabilities and of exceptional

learners, in general, was low (Carter, 2006).

In addition, as mentioned by Erik Carter and Carolyn Hughes (2006), switching to an

inclusive school learning environment was not just classroom specific but a school wide effort of

all stakeholders, “if these key players are expected to actually implement those recommended

practices that characterized quality and inclusive schooling, it was critical that the perspectives

of a broad range of major stakeholders be sampled”(p. 3). The school culture and leadership

played a significant role in how exceptional learners are received as equals among their peers

in the general education setting regardless of their disability. The consistency of quality inclusive

experiences, for exceptional learners, by dedicated teaching staff, is directly related to the

values and commitments of the administration and leadership within a building (Carter, 2006).

When all stakeholders are held accountable for the learning of all students, it would make a shift

in the learning outcomes for exceptional learners. Therefore, all learners could reach a place of

high regard and high productivity.


Chapter 3

Method of Study

Overview

This study, probed stakeholders’ perceptions of meeting the needs of exceptional

learners at Plainsville Elementary School, specifically focused on how the needs were met

within the general education setting. In the end, we considered how effective exceptional

learners needs were being fulfilled in the general education setting. This study was conducted

by examining the perceptions of parents, staff and students through surveys and interviews.

Consent forms were distributed and collected from all participants (see Appendix A).

Selection of Subjects

Subjects for this study were chosen based on a sample of convenience. All individuals

who participated in the study were asked to complete a survey, and parents were asked to sign

a permission slip for their students who participated. Furthermore, individual interviews were

conducted with randomly selected stakeholders. There were a total of 181 participants in the

surveys and nine participants in the interviews. The parent survey was sent to all 328 families

enrolled at the time of the survey, with 135 responses returned. The student survey permission

slips were sent to fifty-nine students’ parents, with forty-one returned, and twenty-four students

took the survey. The teacher survey was sent to fifty-one staff members. They were: teachers,

administrators, support staff and para-educators, and twenty-two staff members who

participated.

Research Design

Stakeholders surveys were conducted in the spring of 2016, and data was analyzed

following the collection of the survey information. Three surveys were conducted using likert

scales for students, staff and parents. Individual interviews were conducted in December of

2016 with nine staff members. They were each interviewed using six questions based on the


guiding research questions presented in Chapter 1. Finally, data related to the interviews was

compiled after the information was collected.

Description of Instruments

The initial method of data used to understand the impact of interventions to meet the

needs of exceptional learners, was a survey to all stakeholders at Plainsville Elementary. The

surveys were developed and the information was collected through Google forms. The student

survey included a clear purpose statement, three demographic questions, and eleven Likert

Scale questions that were focused on perceptions related to the research Questions. The staff

survey explained the focus of the research, asked two demographic questions and twelve

perception questions related to the research questions. The parent survey explained the

purpose of the survey, three demographic questions, and seven questions related to the

research (Appendix B). All staff members were offered an opportunity to take the survey via

email over the course of two weeks and were given several reminders, utilizing email through

Plainsville Elementary, as a method of convenience for the staff. Parents were offered the

survey through email as a method of convenience and the survey was sent out three times to

elicit responses.

The next data method used, in this evaluation, were individual interviews with staff

members. The questions and staff responses were recorded and summarized in the study

(Appendix C). Staff members were specifically chosen from grade level teams, specials,

interventionists, and administration. The interview questions were created in Google docs and

distributed to the participants two weeks in advance of the interviews being conducted. Each

participant was asked the same five questions, which focused on a numerous issues, related to

the research questions, including: behavior, social emotional needs, academic, and intervention

needs. All participants were interviewed by the two action researchers, that do not work at

Plainsville Elementary School.


Data Analysis

Data was analyzed to uncover how the needs of students in interventions were being

met at Plainsville Elementary. Researchers also analyzed the more specific subcategories of

the overall questions to determine how the behavioral, academic, and social/emotional needs of

exceptional learners were being met. Additionally, the perceptions of staff were compared to

the students perceptions and the administrator’s perceptions.

Summary

The focus of this study, intended to survey stakeholders’ perceptions of how the needs

of exceptional learners were being met at Plainsville Elementary School. The study specifically

focused on how the needs, of students in interventions, are met within the general education

setting. Using surveys and interviews, the perceptions of parents, staff and students were

examined.


Chapter 4

Results of Study

Triangulation of Data:

The total number of participants involved in the study totaled 190. There were nine

interview participants. There were 181 survey participants. There were selected groups of

participants in the study which included 59 students within intervention services in third through

fifth grade, 51 staff members that included instructional and non-instructional staff members,

and 328 families who had children enrolled during the 2015/2016 school year. The triangulation

of data collected encompassed three different perspectives and examined how students, staff,

and parents perceived intervention services, were met, academically, behaviorally, emotionally.

The table below shoed the overall participation for those surveyed.

Overall Percentage of Participation

Group Students Parent Staff

Grade 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

% participation of stakeholders for each survey

20.8% 29.2% 33.3% 16.7% 41.2% 43.1%

Data Source 1 (Student Surveys):

Students who participated in interventions were surveyed. The results of the student

survey showed twelve boys and twelve girls represented a range of grades from second grade

to fifth grade. Additionally, according to the ethnicity question, seventeen students were

Caucasian, one student was Hispanic, four students were African American, one student was

Native American, and one student was Asian/Pacific Islander.


Students were then asked questions about their perceptions about intervention services

they received. When asked if they felt included with their peers in general education, 66.7% or


sixteen students felt they were always included, 29.2 % or seven students felt they were

sometimes included, and 4.2% or one student felt they were rarely included.

When asked if they felt different from their peers when they were pulled out of the

general education classroom, 33.3% or 8 students said they always felt different, 33.3% or 8

students felt different sometimes, and 33.3% or 8 students felt different rarely or never.

When asked if they felt comfortable asking for help in the general education classroom,

50% or twelve students always felt comfortable, 37.5% or nine students sometimes felt

comfortable, and 12.5% or three students rarely or never felt comfortable.


When asked if they felt their academic needs were being met in their general education

classroom, 54.2% or thirteen students felt their needs were always met, 33.3% or eight students

felt their needs were sometimes met, and 12.5% or three students felt their needs were rarely or

never met.

When asked if they felt that their social/emotional needs were being met in their general

education classroom, 45.8% or eleven students felt their needs were always met, 45.8% or

eleven students felt their needs were sometimes met, and 8.3% or two students felt their needs

were rarely or never met.


When asked if they felt that their behavioral needs were being met in their general

education classroom, 89.6% or sixteen students felt their needs were always met, 26.1% or six

students felt their needs were sometimes met, and 4.3% or one student felt their needs were

rarely or never met.

When asked if they felt that their academic needs were being met when pulled out of

their general education classroom, 50% or twelve students felt their needs were always met,

45.8% or eleven students felt their needs were sometimes met, and 4.2% or one student felt

their needs were rarely or never met.


When asked if they felt that their social/emotional needs were being met when pulled out

of their general education classroom, 54.2% or thirteen students felt their needs were always

met, 45.8% or eleven students felt their needs were sometimes met, and 0% or no students felt

their needs were rarely or never met.

When asked if they felt that their behavioral needs were being met when pulled out of

their general education classroom, 54.2% or thirteen students felt their needs were always met,

41.7% or ten students felt their needs were sometimes met, and 4.1% or one student felt their

needs were rarely or never met.


When asked if they felt more focused when they are in their general education

classroom, 50% or twelve students felt their needs were always met, 45.8% or eleven students

felt their needs were sometimes met, and 4.2% or one student felt their needs were rarely or

never met.

When asked if they felt more focused when they are pulled out of their general education

classroom, 41.7% or ten students felt their needs were always met, 54.2% or thirteen students

felt their needs were sometimes met, and 4.2% or one student felt their needs were rarely or

never met.


Data Source 2 (Staff Surveys):

The staff at Plainsville Elementary was surveyed. A total of twenty-two staff members

responded to the survey. The staff responses were surveyed from the multitude of grade levels,

specialty services, and building administration.

When asked how long have you been in education, 9.1% or two staff members were in

education for one to five years, 40.9% or nine staff members were in education for six to ten

years, 31.8% or seven staff members were in education for eleven to fifteen years, 4.5% or one

staff member was in education for 16-20 years, and 13.6% or three staff members were in

education for over twenty years.


When asked if they have a special education certification or other specialty certification

on their teaching certificate, 81.8% or 18 people did not have one and 18.2% or four people did

have one.

When asked if exceptional learners are successful in their classroom, 9.1% or two

people strongly agree (5), 54.5% or twelve people agree (4), and 36.4% or eight people are

neutral (3).

For this question on the survey, staff could choose more that one answer, therefore, the

numbers look inflated in some cases. When asked to what degree they felt exceptional learners

are successful in their classroom, 36.4% or eight people felt successful, 50% or eleven people


felt partially successful, 77.3% or seventeen people and 31.8% or seven people felt they were

somewhat successful. None of the staff felt that exceptional learners were not successful at all.

When asked if they felt confident/qualified in meeting the needs of exceptional learners

in their classroom, 18.2% or four staff members strongly agree, 45.4% or ten staff members

agree, 31.8% or seven staff members were neutral, and 4.5% or one staff member disagreed.

When asked what the greatest challenges were to meeting the social/emotional needs of

exceptional learners, staff members could choose multiple answers that were challenging.

Therefore, 63.6% or fourteen staff members indicated that other things take priority, 86.4% or

nineteen staff members indicated that students have so many different needs, 18.2% or four

staff members indicated that parents and students just aren’t interested, 22.7% or five staff


members indicated that they lack the training, 22.7% or five staff members indicated that the

school climate is negative, and 22.7% or five staff members indicated that the school lacks

adequate resources and support.

6. Overall, what are the greatest challenges you face in meeting the social/emotional needs of your exceptional learners?

When asked if staff received continuous professional development to meet the academic

needs of their exceptional learners, 9.1% or two staff members felt they received more than

adequate professional development, 13.6% or three staff members felt they received adequate

professional development, 31.8% or seven staff members felt they received a neutral amount

professional development, 22.7% or five staff members felt they received less than adequate

professional development, and 22.7% or five staff members felt they received no adequate

professional development.


When asked if they understood Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and how those

supports impacted student learning outcomes, 13.6% or three staff members strongly agreed

that they understood, 36.4% or eight staff members agreed that they understood, 45.5% or ten

staff members were neutral on whether or not they understood, 4.5% or one staff member did

not understand.

When asked if all efforts should be made to promote an inclusive environment for all

learners in the general education classroom, 68.2% or fifteen staff members strongly agreed,

22.7% or five staff members agreed, and 9.1% or two staff members were neutral.


When asked if they felt confident in how to respond to the behavioral needs of students

outside of Tier 1 interventions, 18.2% or four staff members strongly agreed, 36.4% or eight

staff members agreed, 31.8% or seven staff members were neutral, 13.6% or three staff

members disagreed.

When asked if they felt the behavioral needs of students in interventions were being met

in the general education setting, 0% or zero staff members strongly agreed, 18.2% or four staff

members agreed, 36.4% or eight staff members were neutral, 40.9% or nine staff members

disagreed and 0% or zero staff members strongly disagreed.


When asked if they felt the academic needs of students in interventions were being met

in the general education setting, 0% or zero staff members strongly agreed, 27.3% or six staff

members agreed, 40.9% or nine staff members were neutral, 31.8% or seven staff members

disagreed and 0% or zero staff members strongly disagreed.

When asked if they felt the emotional needs of students in interventions were being met

in the general education setting, 0% or zero staff members strongly agreed, 9.1% or two staff

members agreed, 54.5% or twelve staff members were neutral, 27.3% or six staff members

disagreed and 9.1% or two staff members strongly disagreed.


When asked if they felt the social needs of students in interventions were being met in

the general education setting, 9.1% or two staff members strongly agreed, 13.6% or three staff

members agreed, 59.1% or thirteen staff members were neutral, 13.6% or three staff members

disagreed and 4.5% or one staff member strongly disagreed.

Data Source 3 (Parent Surveys):

The parents at Plainsville Elementary were surveyed. A total of one hundred fifty-three

parents responded to the survey. The survey was emailed to all the parents through the school

communication email system. This means that parents with and without students receiving

interventions were able to answer the survey.


When asked what interventions their student received, 58.2% or 78 participants did not

have students in interventions, 9% or twelve participants had students with 504 accommodation

plans, 8.2% or eleven of the participants had students in the autism spectrum disorder basic

program, 12.7% or seventeen of the participants had students in the resource special education

program, and 24.6% or thirty three of the participants had students in the learning consultant

program.

When asked if their child’s academic needs were being met, 34.3% or forty-six strongly

agreed, 44% or fifty-nine agreed, 13.4% or eighteen were neutral, 3% or four disagreed, and

5.2% or seven strongly disagreed.


When asked if their child’s social needs were being met, 37.3% or fifty strongly agreed,

43.3% or fifty-eight agreed, 15.7% or twenty-one were neutral, 3% or four disagreed, and 0.7%

or one strongly disagreed.

When asked if their child’s emotional needs were being met, 35.8% or forty-eight

strongly agreed, 41.8% or fifty-six agreed, 16.4% or twenty-two were neutral, 4.5% or six

disagreed, and 1.5% or two strongly disagreed.

When asked if their child’s behavioral needs were being met, 44.8% or sixty strongly

agreed, 39.6% or fifty-three agreed, 12.7% or seventeen were neutral, 3% or four disagreed,

and 0% or zero strongly disagreed.


When asked if they felt their child is fully included with their general education peers,

41% or fifty-five strongly agreed, 38.1% or fifty-one agreed, 12.7% or seventeen were neutral,

6.7% or nine disagreed, and 1.5% or two strongly disagreed.

When asked if they felt that they were an active participant in the planning process to

meet their child’s needs, 41.8% or fifty-six strongly agreed, 32.8% or forty-four agreed, 15.7% or

twenty-one were neutral, 8.2% or eleven disagreed, and 1.5% or two strongly disagreed.


When asked if they felt that their child’s learning environment promotes a nurturing and

safe environment to reach their maximum potential, 41.8% or fifty-six strongly agreed, 39.6% or

fifty-three agreed, 11.2% or fifteen were neutral, 4.5% or six disagreed, and 3% or four strongly

disagreed.

When asked their ethnicity, 85.1% or one hundred fourteen people were White or

Caucasian, 3% or four people were Hispanic or Latino, 3.7% or five people were Black or

African American, 0% or zero people were Native American or American Indian, 6.7% or nine

people were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 2.2% or three people were Other.


When asked their gender, 59.2% or seventy-seven people were female and 40.8% or

fifty-three people were male.

Data Source 4 (Staff Interviews):

Nine staff members were interviewed. Interviewees included administration, ancillary staff, and

classroom teachers. All interviewees were asked five questions related to the research project.

All interviewees were interviewed by the two researchers who do not work in the building in

which the research project was conducted. All grade levels were represented in the interviews

except for kindergarten because of a conflict of availability.

Question one asked how the behavioral needs of the students in the classroom or

school were met. The answers ranged from a whole school point of view with building wide

positive behavior supports all the way to individualized behavior plans administered within the


classroom. Generally, the staff indicated that the building used techniques from the ZONES of

Regulation program, parent involvement, the building problem solving team, checklists, color

coded card flipping, and technology incentives as ways they intervened with behavioral needs.

Administrators and ancillary staff viewed the behavior interventions from a whole school

perspective. Classroom teachers viewed the behavior interventions from their classroom

perspective. It was noted by one participant that restorative practices were used 90% of the

time instead of punitive practices.

Question two asked how the academic needs of students are met in the school or

classroom. Responses indicated that using grouping, the workshop model, differentiating

instruction, and assessments to drive instructional needs were practiced used to meet academic

needs. Staff members mentioned following the student’s Individualized Education Plan,

academic interventions, and a variety of assessments to help guide them as they met the

academic needs of their students. It was also noted that teachers called on the building

problem solving team for support in academic areas. One participant noted the importance of

relationship building with students to support the student’s academic growth and success.

Question three focused on meeting the social and emotional needs of students. Six out

of the nine participants made a connection between behavioral needs and social/emotional

needs. In the classroom, teachers used community building activities such as class meetings,

incentives such as a kindness jar or other celebrations, as well as behavior plans to address

social and emotional needs of their students. Three out of the nine of the participants

mentioned specific intervention programs such as the ZONES of regulation, break areas, and

worked with the school social worker to address needs as they come up.

Question four asked about the inclusion model and the extent of the model’s

effectiveness to have met the needs of students in interventions. Nine out of the ten

participants indicated that meeting the needs of students in all levels of intervention is a group

effort. Nine out of the ten participants recognized that collaborating with each other and leaning


on the expertise of the group is helpful in meeting the student’s needs. Participants said that

the students in interventions are not always seen as general education students who received

interventions, instead, they were seen as students who are on another teacher’s caseload and

are in the general education classroom as well. Additionally, the interviewees indicated that the

staff is beginning to shift in their thinking to take ownership of all students as general education

students. In all, participants realize the value of collaboration with experts in the various areas

of support as a vital role in meeting student’s needs in the inclusion model.

Finally, question five asked if there was any other information that the staff member

wanted to share regarding meeting intervention students needs. A common thread was the

need for collaboration by working together and the need for interventions to be targeted and

reviewed often. All participants interviewed talked about the success they could see when

professionals worked with each other to meet student’s needs. Three out of the ten participants

stated exclusively that more adult support was needed for students in interventions.

Discussion of the Results:

The data supported the research findings that educators continued to experience

challenges to meet the various needs of students that receive intervention supports in the

general education classrooms. In relationship to Achilles and Finn’s (2000) research, the data

supported that students who receive academic supports outside of the general education setting

continued to see improved academic scores. However, Newman’s (2006) research claims that

students with exceptional needs could rise to the challenges and rigor within a general

education setting with the tools, practice and strategies to achieve the high expectations set for

them was not validated or invalidated in this study. The data from the student surveys indicated

that exceptional learners perceive their academic needs were being met equally when 50% of

the students agreed that being included in their general education setting or pulled-out for

intervention services and supports both met their needs. Additionally, the data collected from

source two, the staff survey, indicated a 54.6% overall student success perception coincided


with Vaughn and Klinger’s (1998) research that although staff are supported with professional

development, training, and knowledge, students with exceptional needs continued to make

minimal progress in the general education setting. The parent survey, data source three

indicated that 41.8% and 32.8% of the parents who responded felt that they were a part of their

child’s academic, social, emotional, and behavior planning process. Data source four also

indicated that teachers want more training to support the needs of exceptional learners in their

classrooms.

Vaughn and Klinger’s (1998) research stated the general education setting is more

effective in meeting exceptional learners social/emotional needs. Student perception data from

source one agreed with the research that their social/emotional needs are also better met in the

general education setting when 54.2% of the students agreed. Interestingly, 47.2% of the

students reported their needs were also met in the intervention pull-out setting. Data from the

student survey, source one, also indicated that the behavioral needs of exceptional learners are

also better met in the general education setting. The staff indicated a majority of neutral

responses with regard to social and emotional needs being met in the general education setting.

The parent survey, data source three, indicated a high degree of agreement that their child’s

social/emotional needs were being met. Data source four, the interviews, indicated that the

social/emotional needs were often met through collaboration with the school social worker or the

school wide behavior support structures.

In conclusion, Carter and Hughes (2006) reported that school culture and leadership

play a significant role in how exceptional learners are received as equals among their peers in

the general education setting regardless of their disability. All four data sources report high

perceptions of inclusion with data points at 95.8% from students, 100% from staff and 98.1%

from parents and several comments from the interviews about staff collaboration. However,

data reported from staff claims, although they thought students should be included, there are


various challenges in meeting those needed for exceptional students. Those concerns, for the

staff, continued to be at the forefront of meeting students’ needs in a general education setting.


Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

Overview:

The conclusion of this study found five major areas of focus for Plainsville Elementary.

After the course of this study, there was discrepancy with the effectiveness of the inclusion

model and the perception of students needs being met. The recommendations focus on the

gap between perceptions of students needs being met by and the perceptions of the inclusion

model effectiveness. Finally, there are three implications for further research that could be

conducted in the future.

Conclusions:

In general, this study has shown that staff, student, and parent perceptions all play a key

role in meeting the needs of students in interventions. All stakeholders have different

viewpoints or perceptions on the extent in which academic, social/emotional, and behavioral

needs are being met at Plainsville Elementary. Generally, those who where surveyed, had a

high degree of agreement that learners needs were being met at Plainsville Elementary.

However, the following findings could help the school focus in on some areas of further study.

The first finding was, through this study and the current research in the field of

education, meeting the behavior, social/emotional, academic, and inclusion needs of students

continues to be an educational challenge. The next finding in the study was, 50% of students

surveyed felt that their academic needs were being met when services outside of the general

education classroom or within the general education classroom were conducted. This means,

the other 50% of the students had did not feel their needs were met and the school could

explore these perceptions further with individual interviews or observations. Interestingly, the

student survey did not show a major difference for the student with regard to where they

received support. This means, the student would receive the support within or outside of

general education and they didn’t have a strong preference where the support was given. The


third finding was that 54.6% of staff surveyed, feel that the students in academic interventions

make minimal academic progress in the general education setting. Additionally, the staff

interviews indicated a separation in ownership of the academic needs for students in

interventions. This may mean there is a disconnect in staff perceptions related to all students

being general education students and then receiving interventions as a support layer to meeting

that student’s needs. It could also mean that staff members believe that inclusion should be a

part of the process, but, that struggling learners learn best in other settings to close the learning

gap. Further inquiry may uncover these perceptions. Additionally, staff members indicated a

need to collaborate with staff in their areas of expertise as a way to meet student needs. This

could mean that staff feel that more collaboration might help them meet the needs of

intervention students in their classrooms in the future. The fourth major finding was in the areas

of behavioral and social/emotional needs. The student’s perceptions were that their behavioral

(69.6% of students surveyed) and social/emotional (54.2% of students surveyed) needs were

best met in the general education classroom. This means that the students who did not feel this

way should be interviewed or observed to further understand how they perceive this area of

need being met and furthermore to be sure they are given the optimal environment to achieve

in. The fifth major finding was that all surveyed participants felt that students were fully included

in the general education classroom, however, staff surveys indicated that there remained

challenges related to meeting the needs of exceptional learners in the classroom setting.

The following chart displays the percent of participants who perceived the needs of

exceptional learners are being met in the school setting. Overall, 32.2% of surveyed

participants felt that the needs of exceptional students were met in the school setting. In the

area of academic needs, 33.4% of participants perceived the needs of exceptional learners

were being met. In the area of behavioral needs, 32.6% of participants perceived the needs of

exceptional learners were being met. In the area of social/emotional needs, 30.6% of

participants perceived the needs of exceptional learners were being met. In the area of inclusion


into the general education classroom, 86.1% of participants perceived the needs of exceptional

learners were being met.

The participants perceptions of exceptional learners needs being met in the school setting

Overall Academic Behavioral Social/Emotional Inclusion32.2 33.4 32.6 30.6 86.1

Recommendations:

The results of this study indicated the following participant perceptions: 32.2% of

participants perceive needs of exceptional learners are being met, this means that 77.8% of

participants perceive that needs of exceptional learners are not being met. Additionally, 86.1%

of participants perceive that the inclusion model is effective in meeting the needs of exceptional

learners. There is a difference in perception of overall needs of exceptional learners being met

and the effectiveness of the inclusion model. The overall model is effective but the practice of

inclusion is not meeting individual needs. Unless the school researches and implements best

practices to target individual needs of these exceptional learners, the perceptions of the

stakeholders responsible for meeting the needs of these exceptional learners may not be

altered. The building staff at Plainsville Elementary needs to review all the individual student

data to review the progress each student is making. This should be a priority area for this

school based on the findings in the perception study. After concluding this study, the perception

of overall student needs and the effectiveness of the inclusion model is an area of priority for the

school. The school stakeholders would analyze the ways that they would research best

practices to target individual student needs and apply the appropriate strategies within an

inclusion model.

Implications for Future Research:

This research has generated additional questions that need further investigation. A

further study could assess if the whole district has similar perception related to students in

interventions. A further study could assess how students in interventions are assigned to


classrooms. A further study could look at multiple districts to study the effectiveness of their

inclusion practices.


References

Achilles, CM., and Finn, J.D. (2000). The varieties of small classes and their outcomes.

Paper presented at Combined National/International Conference of the U. S.

Department of Education and Temple University’s Laboratory for Student Success,

Washington, DC.

Baker, E.T., Wang, M.C., and Walbert, H.J, (1994). The effects of Inclusions on learning.

Educational Leadership, 52(4): 33-35.

Newman, Lynn (2006). General education participation and academic performance of

students with learning disabilities. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department

of Education.

Rochester Community Schools. (2015). Parent and Community Page. Retrieved from:

http://www.rochester.k12.mi.us/

Salend, S.J. and Duhaney, L.G. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and

without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20(2):

114-127.

Stainback, S., and Stainback, W. (1996). Rationale for inclusive schools. In S. Stainback

and W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion: A Guide for Educators. Baltimore: Paul H.

Brookes Publishing.

Staub, D. and Peck, C.A. (1994). What are the outcomes for nondisabled sudents?

Educational Leadership, 52(4): 36-40.

Vaughn, S. and Klingner, J. (1998). Students’ perception of inclusion and resource room

settings.

The Journal of Special Education, 32, 79-88.

Waldron, N.L. (1997). Inclusion. In G.G. Bear, K.M. Minke, and A. Thomas (Eds.), Children’s

Needs II: Development, problems and alternatives. Bethesda, MD: National

Association of School Psychologists.


Appendix A

March 2016

Dear Parent,

We are part of an Educational Specialist cohort from Oakland University. We are proposing an action research project that will focus on to what extent are the needs of exceptional learners in interventions, being met at Meadow Brook Elementary. We have defined exceptional learners as any student who receives supports through Multi Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and ASD Basic Classroom programing. We have also defined “needs” to pertain to academic, behavior, social, and emotional. Our goal is to gather the perceptions of staff members, all parents, and students in interventions around the topic of inclusion.

Your child’s feedback is very valuable to us. We will be asking all parents, students, and staff to complete a survey. The participation of all stakeholders is completely voluntary and all information provided is confidential. No names will be requested on the survey. There is no risk to your student. It will not impact anyone’s grades. All stakeholders can withdraw the consent to participate at any time. We would like to request parent permission for your child to participate in our survey. In order for your student to participate in this survey, please fill out and sign the permission slip at the bottom of this letter and returned no later than March 4, 2016. The survey will be given the week of March 14th.

When the research is complete, the findings will be used for our action research project only. No staff, parent or student information will be identifiable as the survey is being completed anonymously. The information from our research will be disseminated within our action research report and made available to our cohort professors at Oakland University. We would appreciate your permission for your student to participate in this survey. Please send signed permission slip back to school with your student, to Mandy Lyons at Meadow Brook Elementary by March 4th. If you have specific question regarding this research project please contact Mandy Lyons at ext.4139 or Dr. Lindson Feun , Ph.D., Faculty Sponsor, Oakland University, 248-623-9233.

Sincerely,

Emily Collier Genet Haise Mandy Lyons Kristan Shields

____Yes, my child (ren) may participate in the action research survey

____No, my child (ren) may not participate in the action research survey

Parent/Guardian Signature ________________________________________Date: __________________

**Please return consent signed to Mrs. Mandy Lyons, Learning Consultant, Meadow Brook Elementary.March 2016


Dear Colleague,

We are part of an Educational Specialist cohort from Oakland University. We are proposing an action research project that will focus on to what extent are the needs of exceptional learners in interventions, being met at Meadow Brook Elementary. We have defined exceptional learners as any student who receives supports through Multi Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and ASD Basic Classroom programing. We have also defined “needs” to pertain to academic, behavior, social, and emotional. Our goal is to gather the perceptions of staff members, all parents, and students in interventions around the topic of inclusion.

Your feedback is very valuable to us. We will be asking all stakeholders at Meadowbrook Elementary to complete a survey. There is no risk to you in taking this survey. Your participation is completely voluntary and all information provided is confidential. No names will be requested on the survey. We will be conducting the survey during Meadow Brook’s March staff meeting. We would like to request your the time and participation in our short survey.

When the research is complete, the findings will be used for our action research project only. No staff, parent or student information will be identifiable as the survey is being completed anonymously. The information from our research will be disseminated within our action research report and made available to our cohort professors at Oakland University. Please contact Mandy Lyons with questions regarding the research or consent at ext. 4139 or Dr. Lindson Feun, Ph.D., Faculty Sponsor, Oakland University, (248) 623-9233. For questions regarding the rights of human subjects in research you may contact Dr. Christine Hansen, Chair, Oakland University Institutional Review Board, (248) 370-2552.

Sincerely,

Emily CollierGenet HaiseMandy LyonsKristan Shields


Appendix B










Appendix C

Interview Questions for Staff Members

1. How do you meet the behavioral needs of students in your classroom or school?

2. How do you meet the academic needs of students in your classroom or school?

3. How do you meet the social emotional needs of students in your classroom or school?

4. To what extent is the inclusion model effective in meeting the needs of students in Interventions?

5. Do you have any other information you would like to share in regards to the needs ofstudents in interventions in your classroom or school?

Staff Responses to Interview Questions

1. How do you meet the behavioral needs of students in your classroom or school?


Learning Consultant: I use my classroom management. Example are Redirection, voice scales, discussions and modeling. We discuss proper behavior especially with little ones.

ASD Basic Classroom: Behavior Intervention Plans, Positive Behavior Support Systems, Individualized behavior plans for each student, use of data to drive the needs of the students, parent input, daily communication sheets for behavior

Principal of the Elementary School: I think they are being met well with room for growth. Our MTSS approach and our problem solving team process has improved over the past four years. Our team 4 step process has become good at Restorative practices for discipline especially utilizing the ZONES of regulation and help students identify their zone and day to day we use that language for both mild behavior adjustments to the major behavior adjustments. Changing the shift from punishment to building the tools and strategies for students to make a change themselves. The children who have extreme behavior reactions, we are trying to think of that in a long term. Replacing punitive (suspensions, timeouts, stern talking, and punishment) with identifying the ZONES and using the strategies within the ZONES to teach students other ways to respond when a setback occurs. There can be negative pushback from staff when restorative is used vs. punishment. This is the first year that the staff buy in is at 90% or above with restorative practices in the classroom. Author in the building who wrote a book call forcefield for good.

Resource Room Teacher: Usually if they have social work, the social worker takes care of that. We use formal behavior plans and informal behavior plans. We try to think of things that can be used in the general education classroom. A binder can be used as a reflection piece for the student to use after an impacting behavior occurs. We also use the ZONES, but most of the students who need to use the ZONES need social work or have a binder. When they leave my room they have a check out and they get to circle the ZONE they are in. Last year I was called out a lot for behavior of students and I would need to leave and help support by giving breaks and intervening. But, this year, I haven’t been called out at all to help. We had a change in which three students left the building and they had high behavior intervention occurrences.

School Psychologist: Behavioral needs are met in a variety of ways, and include:1. Consultation with parents and teachers2. Use of the team process for problem solving


3. Direct support as needed to process upsets and provide re-direction and assistance with self-regulation and self-reflection4. Assessment that helps guide recommendations of support via a 504 plan or IEP5. Opportunities for a quiet “break space” as needed for some students6. Development of behavior plans 1st Grade Teacher: I use manipulative and fidgets. Thera band of chairs for students who need movement. Three different fidgets. ADHD parent approve. Communication between myself and the parents are very open. Bumpy seats. So any manipulatives that help them. Daily behavior plans call it a learning plan. Stamina charts. Setting goals with students to make them a part of their behavior plan. Good behavior = a positive reinforcement. The general ed population I follow love and logic, conscious discipline.

2nd Grade Teacher: I would say individualized behavior plans based on the students needs. I used to use Love and Logic. This year I am using the alternative seating and class dojo, positive reinforcement of good behaviors.

3rd Grade Teacher: I want to promote self advocacy routines and systems in place to try and solve their problems first. Solving conflicts peer to peer first then coming to the teacher for assistance. I have a behavior system in my classroom which consists of flipping a card on their desk when they are not following directions or are acting in a way that is not consistent with our classroom rules. The card colors flip from green (good), yellow (1 warning), orange (2nd warning and a reflection form home). I go over a checklist and go over the reflection form with the student before it is sent home so parents are aware. Last year there were more needs than this year. I check in with specific students that need extra attention after lunch and at the end of the day to keep track of specific behaviors (big things, calling) I initiate parent meetings as soon as possible if I see a student that needs extra attention before conferences is November so that we can come up with a plan immediately. We can then assess the situaiton and show growth or regression based on our plan. I meet with those parent once a month to touch base and discuss any changes that need to be made. The Social Worker is a huge piece to success for the kids at our school. The students have a role and responsibility in their behavior. We have a program called “Classroom Circles” that the Social Worker has helped implement. We try and reach the students using connections to children’s literature.

4th & 5th Grade Teacher in a split level Classroom: I make an effort to learn about their individualism. When they know I care they will try harder both academically and behaviorally. I learn about their interests and really get to know them on a personal level. The toughest kids I try to keep the closest to me by engaging them on a consistent basis. Giving them special responsibilities and highlighting their


strengths. I comment on the positive aspects of their behavior in front of their peers in an effort to build their self-esteem.

2. How do you meet the academic needs of students in your classroom or school?

Learning consultant: Providing direct instruction, research based program.

ASD Basic: Formative and Summative Assessment, Curriculum based assessment, using data to determine instructional goals, use of visual supports,


individual supports based on the needs documented on the IEP, we use the MI common core and the essential elements to guide instruction, parent input, some students in the basic classroom for academic instruction, some are integrated into the resource program for academic instruction, and some are integrated into GE for academic instruction.

Principal of the Elementary School: Starts off with best practices and classroom instruction. The staff is utilizing workshop model and cultures of thinking. Focus on environment, language. Some classrooms are trying varieties of student seating related We are better at servicing intervention than we are enrichment. So, we are focusing on providing challenge opportunities. Our building team focuses on both students who struggle and students who need enrichment. By planning things like: Kid ed camps, genius hour, and enrichment packets these needs can be supported. Our LC program is working to shift the programming from mainly reading to math interventions as well. Our grade level teams and buddy systems are working together to try and support meeting those needs as well. Working as a shared leadership paradigm and collaborative with multiple leaders in the building to build on the growth mindset muscle to lean on and help each other.

Resource Room Teacher: The students who are programmed for the parallel resource curriculum in Math or ELA come to the resource room for support. 17 students: 2 get ELA only intervention in the resource room, 8 students receive pull out CMC parallel curriculum. 6 of these students are in GE curriculum and the Para’s push in and work on skills with the students in the classroom and are pulled out to work with the para in the resource to work on reading and math support. 1 student is just a organization goal and he gets checked out at the end of the day by the resource teacher. I communicate with the GE teacher through email and the paras usually let me know how the student is doing with the various skills. I pull the students to do the progress monitoring through CBM’s.

School Psychologist: Academic needs are met in a variety of ways, and include:1. Consultation with parents and teachers2. Use of the team process for problem solving3. Assessment that helps guide recommendations of support via a 504 plan or IEP

1st grade teacher: Guided Reading, Strategy Grouping. Math workshop model breaking them into groups based on their ability. The parents will take groups with a very scripted word recognition lesson.

2nd grade teacher: Differentiated instruction, the workshop model for reading, writing and math instruction and following IEPs.


3rd grade teacher: Assessing informal and formative to have a working model of what the learner’s needs in any area are. Whole group may not meet their needs. Conduct small group model for students who need more. Individual conferencing with student and the workshop model. Constantly trying to find literature pieces that are the right fit for them. What kind of book or writing piece will motivate them. For mathematics it might be a specific manipulative or learning game that will motivate. I try to motivate as much as teach. Consult with LC and use TEAM as a last resort.

4th & 5th grade teacher in a split level Classroom: Small groups, centers for every subject reading, writing, math. I assign projects with partners to encourage positive social relationships. If a student is struggling I make sure I provide extra sessions for academic help and assistance . Parent communication is key to supporting the academic needs of my students.

3. How do you meet the social emotional needs of students in your classroom or school?

Learning consultant: Discussions with students as needed. It is limited because I have limited time with These students. Especially older kids if their is a perseveration and that I need toaddress before I teach because learning will not take place if they cannot move on.


ASD basic: We use data to drive how we intervene with Soc./Em needs, work closely with the SW and SLP, individualize social emotional support, use of visual support, look for ways to have peer interactions to increase social interaction, utilize MI START training to help meet the social needs of students, use of ZONES of regulation, integration of planned breaks throughout the day, and visual supports for social emotional needs.

Principal of the elementary school: We have top notch school Psy and SW that have worked so hard to help support the ZONES. The critical incident team meets biweekly to support and offer training to staff. We’ve integrated the social emotional piece into our critical incident team and we are learning and changing and adapting as different situations come up. The cultures of thinking routines are starting to help display and reveal social emotional needs. We are seeing shifts and a more attentive culture.

Resource room teacher: Socially, if they have needs, they most likely have social work which supports those needs. I also try to guide their social interactions and practice some of the things the social worker is working on. Emotionally, it’s basically the same way but I work with the social worker to put interventions in place to reduce the workload or give them breaks.

School psychologist: Social-emotional needs are met in a variety of ways, and include:1. Consultation with parents and teachers2. Use of the team process for problem solving3. Direct support as needed to process upsets and provide re-direction and assistance with self-regulation and self-reflection4. Assessment that helps guide recommendations of support via a 504 plan or IEP5. Opportunities for a quiet “break space” as needed for some students

1st grade teacher: Individual behavior plans for students who need. Try to make connections to the students lives at their age. Get to know their families, their interests. When peers have issues I address it right away by discussing it together with the students. Discussing about integrity and teaching them that concept. Focusing on the positive and catching the students being good. The warm and fuzzy jar in the classroom to earn a classroom party. Class meetings as needed to address any issues that may arise.

2nd grade teacher: Class meetings, kindness jar, behavior plans. Starting to work with the social worker and beginning a community circle. A class meeting where we discuss issues and focus on celebrations.


3rd grade teacher: Social Emotional needs affect behavior in such a huge way. Classroom Circle meetings help understand that their behavior has an affect on others feelings. Having a common language in the classroom about feelings, and behavior. Again having the students use the peer to peer regulation slips to try and resolve conflict and work out feelings.

4th & 5th grade teacher in a split level Classroom: Every morning I greet them. Making that positive connection to start the day. Being interested in how they are doing shows them that I care and will carry over in all aspects of their day.

4. To what extent is the inclusion model effective in meeting the needs of students in Interventions?

Learning consultant: It is effective kids move up levels and out of the intervention program.

ASD basic: From the ASD perspective, it is very difficult. It is very much individually based. Sometimes the labels of ASD students limits them in the GE setting because perceptions might set lower expectations of the student when they could be able to perform at a higher level academically but might have


social/emotional or behavioral limits that look very different then their peers. Inclusion is individualized based on their academic, social, and behavioral participation capabilities. We really don’t have a full inclusion model where the students are perceived as general education students first.

Principal of the elementary school: It’s working out better and better every day. We are big on naming things at Meadowbrook. We are trying to get better at shifting our thinking to all kids are general ed first with varying levels of support. There is still a separate feeling and kind of a stigma related to the students who receive more supports. We are working and talking about how our interventionists become more like coaches to the teachers vs the traditional pull out model. Looking at co-teaching opportunities while also having those pull out methods as they need it. Shifting to a co-teaching, collaborative, working together model vs. here take this kid and go work with them. Our LC works with math and reading and she can still support teachers in a coaching type way with struggling learners.

Resource room teacher: It works ok. Unfortunately for some of the students the scheduling is a difficult piece to work on. They are not always pulled out during the classroom instruction so they are in the GE room when they don’t understand what is going on. The student’s self esteem is affected because they can’t keep up with their peers. The inclusion can be difficult and we have a lot of supplementary aids and services in place to help them feel included and keep up but sometimes it’s tough. Some GE teachers really try to help the students feel a part of the classroom and other refer to the students as “your kids” which means they are the student of the Resource Teacher. These teachers don’t always go above and beyond to make the student feel included.

School Psychologist: Inclusion affords students with the best opportunity for learning with typically developing peers. This can provide appropriate modeling with respect to academics, executive functions, as well as social, emotional, and behavioral functioning in the classroom. For some students, the benefit of education with peers is superseded by their need for explicit small group support to remediate/address social, emotional or academic concerns. For these cases, pull out support may be more effective in trying to address the priority concerns identified by a teacher.

1st grade teacher: I think it is imperative and necessary for our students in intervention. Regardless of whether it is push in or pull out. It has to be in conjunction with what I am doing in the general education classroom.

2nd grade teacher: It depends on the individual need of the students. Students just can’t be pushed in just to say that they are in GE to meet the hours on an IEP.


There needs to be evidence and purpose that it works and it is effective for the benefit of that student.

3rd grade teacher: Meet the student where they are. Especially students with significant disabilities. For the social emotional well being of both general education students and students in intervention programs, inclusion is very important. Meeting the needs of students with learning disabilities, is a challenge I enjoy. I feel that it is extremely difficult for the students with significant behavioral challenges. I rely on the professionals that work with those students to help support me in the classroom as they are the experts with working with that student.

4th & 5th grade teacher in a split level Classroom: Having the students being around their peers is the most important. Being able to see what their peers are motivated by. Being around students their own age is extremely helpful. Interacting solely with adults (para-educators) is a detriment to their social growth. The zone of regulations are very helpful. Support from ASD teachers and paras is imperative to the success of the students in interventions.

5. Do you have any other information you would like to share in regards to the needs of students in interventions in your classroom or school?

Learning Consultant: Scheduling for interventions is a challenge. General Ed. Teacher attitude towards students receiving service. Teachers using interventions as a putative penalty. (Taking the rest of class out for recess while a group of students going to reading interventions).

ASD Basic: I think that our district has a wealth of knowledge through action research data collected over time that we could use to help change the culture of


how our intervention services are currently running, how they could be run, and how we could promote inclusion for all students.

Principal of the Elementary School: The thing that really makes me joyful about our path is that we are a kid centered school. This staff wants to be evermore inclusive of each other and they are open to ideas with a growth mindset and working through challenges optimistically. We have become a place that we can have conflict and differences but we with continues to support each other though it all. We believe every child can learn at high levels. We are going to give students the tools and strategies to learn at high levels. The cultural piece is exciting. Everybody is in it for the kids. We are a positive and progressive place.

Resource Room Teacher: In the past it seems like there hasn’t been a lot of maxing out interventions in the classroom before bringing them to the resource program. So now the teachers are going through the problem solving process before the resource program is being pulled in. Scheduling is a challenge to meet the needs of students in interventions, especially being the only resource teacher in a building.

School Psychologist: In order to meet student needs, a Multi-Tiered System of Support is utilized in the district as well as this building to ensure maximum learning opportunities with peers. A systematic approach is applied in problem solving with respect to making recommendations and utilizing increasing supports for students. Student response to academic or behavioral supports are monitored to aid in recommending if interventions should be discontinued, or if further support is needed based on data of RtI.

1st grade teacher: I wish we had more adult support for our students in interventions.

2nd grade teacher: I think intervention wise the support needs to be there for the students in intervention. The interventions need to be there to support and provide it when necessary. I think that this a big piece that needs to be improve on.

3rd grade teacher: Collaboration between professionals is key to meeting the needs of all students. I cannot do it alone. I need to gain ideas and have strategies to support my students.

4th & 5th Grade Teacher in a split level Classroom: Being flexible with schedules to help the students in interventions. Example: 5th grade student is currently coming for 4th grade math support because that is where they are at currently. Also for students who are not paper and pencil learners, restructuring questions


and their ability to answer in a way that fits the student’s learning needs to make the content and tests accessible to them.

Appendix D

Survey Information and Summaries

Data Source 1 (student survey):

24 total student participants and the percentage for each category

Gender Grade Ethnicity

Male: 50%Female: 50%

2nd = 20.8%3rd = 29.2%4th = 33.3%5th = 16.7%

Caucasian = 70.8%Hispanic = 4.2%African American = 16.7%Native American = 4.2%Asian = 4.2%


Student perceptions of needs being met, in general education setting according to a likert scale

GE Setting Academic Behavioral Social/Emotional

Always or Often 50.0% 69.6% 54.2%

Sometimes 41.6% 26.1% 37.5%

Rarely/Never 8.35% 4.3% 8.3%

Student perceptions of needs being met, in intervention setting according to a likert scale

Intervention Setting Academic Behavioral Social/Emotional

Always or Often 50% 54.2% 47.2%

Sometimes 45.8% 41.7% 40.3%

Rarely/Never 4.2% 4.1% 12.5%

Data Source 2 (staff survey):

Years of service in Education and the percentage of survey participants in each range of years

Percentage of Staff with Special Ed. Certification

1 -5 years = 9.1%6 - 10 years = 40.9%11 - 15 years = 31.8%16 - 20 years = 4.6%20+ years = 13.6%

Yes = 18.2%No = 81.8%

Staff perceptions of meeting needs of exceptional learners according to a likert scale

Educational Setting Academic Behavioral Social/Emotional

Training to Meet Needs(Likert Scale in Percentages)

5 = 13.6%4 = 29.6%3 = 31.8%2 = 13.6%1 = 11.4%

5 = 18.2%4 = 36.4%3 = 31.8%2 = 13.6%

1 = 0%


Intervention Knowledge(Likert Scale in Percentages)

5 = 13.6%4 = 36.4%3 = 45.5%2 = 4.5%1 = 0%,

Inclusion for All(Likert Scale in Percentages)

5 = 68.2%4 = 22.7%3 = 9.1%2 = 0%1 = 0%

Perception of Success (Needs being met)(Likert Scale in Percentages)

5 = 4.5%4 = 40.9%3 = 38.7%2 = 15.9%

1 = 0%

5 =4.5%4 = 15.9%3 = 47.8%2 = 27.3%1 = 4.5%

5 = 0%4 = 9.1%

3 = 54.5%2 = 27.3%1 = 9.1%

Overall Success(Likert Scale in Percentages)

5 = 36.4%4 = 50%

3 = 77.3%2 = 31.8%

1 = 0%

Data Source 3 (parent survey):

Percentage of parent participants divided into the following categories.

Gender Ethnicity Types of Interventions

Male = 40.8%Female = 59.2%

Caucasian = 85.1%Hispanic = 3%African American = 3.7%Native American = 0%Asian = 6.7%Other = 2.2%

Learning Consultant = 24.6%Resource Program = 12.7%ASD Basic = 8.2%504 = 9.0%None = 58.2%

Parent perceptions of meeting needs of learners according to a likert scale

GE Setting Academic Behavioral Social/Emotional

Student Needs Being Met(Likert Scale in Percentages)

5 = 34.3%4 = 44%

3 = 13.4%2 = 3.1%

5 = 44.8%4 = 39.6%3 = 12.7%

2 = 3%

5 = 36.6%4 = 42.6%3 = 16.1%2 = 3.8%


1 = 5.2% 1 = 0% 1 =1.1%

Participant in Planning Process(Likert Scale in Percentages)

5 = 41.8%4 = 32.8%3 = 15.7%2 = 8.2%1 = 1.5%

Nurturing & Safe Environment for Student to Reach Maximum Potential(Likert Scale in Percentages)

5 = 41.8%4 = 39.6%3 = 11.2%2 = 4.5%1 = 3%

Feeling Included with GE Peers(Likert Scale in Percentages)

5 = 41%4 = 38.1%3 = 12.7%2 = 6.7%1 = 1.5%


Documents

kshields1.weebly.com€¦ · Web viewTo what extent are the needs of exceptional learners, in interventions, being met at . Plainsville Elementary. Amanda Lyons, Emily Collier,