. I! 2.. ... . .3: n, 3 ‘- V“ L 1 I} .0!- . .3. K . Qnufinwrmrufiw . : .n,.:.),....&.2...nr9.. ... .Jfivfi . k man» 5. .. . 3 .. . E! 3 .4‘ fig.“ . la ‘ ‘ .. a «5 flwfimwu. i ‘37.. , x .. a» 11. ‘ x “‘1 , it a 1 pt :4... .....i a"! ‘25.». 5.....u... .mmmmaa r ; Jena 3:. 34.3.4. I I I 5.35:. L :J‘. .\ .% .5 2 .- “3.....4». DafilqusSnfl. .fluf #4 £11! .5... G: r‘ 0‘0 LIBRARY Michigan State University V This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE HIDDEN PICTURE: ADMINISTRATORS’ PERSPECTIVES ON LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT presented by GINA MARLENE GARNER has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph. D. degree in Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy rbawq'K%%“F Major Professor’s Signature Illa/Oi Date MSU Is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5108 KIProj/Achres/CIRC/DateDue.indd THE HIDDEN Pi-I LEe CUIrIcuIL THE HIDDEN PICTURE: ADMINISTRATORS’ PERSPECTIVES ON LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT By Gina Marlene Garner A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy 2009 ABSTRACT THE HIDDEN PICTURE: ADMINISTRATORS’ PERSPECTIVES ON LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT By Gina Marlene Garner This study looks to better understand how administrators make a decision about a least restrictive environment placement recommendation. What decision processes do they engage in when merging information of individual and environment to create a working plan of access that will benefit all involved? It also seeks the factors that are primary in recommending placement in the general education environment. How do administrators balance the needs of the individual along with the needs of the whole school, and how has this changed in the current atmosphere of accountability? Three theoretical frameworks applied to a qualitative narrative study illuminate how education administrators, as street-level bureaucrats, utilize limited rationality decision-making processes to make least restrictive environment placement recommendations. COPYRIGHT BY GINA MARLENE GARNER 2009 Dedicated to my grandmother Regina Pn'ce iv The Author WOL ease-mic and ; With 937301.13 5‘53!” Peters, [ Tm 8‘71 DI Rar Sandra 3mm“: 7"" ‘36st and ‘3: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Author would like to acknowledge the following people for their support, both academic and personal. This dissertation would not exist without your help. I would particularly like to thank Dr. Gary Sykes, who made all of this possible. Dr Susan Peters, Dr Susan Printy, Dr. Rebecca Jacobsen, Dr Cheryl Rosaen, Dr. Tom Bird, Dr Randi Stanilus, Dr Merrilee Tanner, Paula Hunt, Kathleen Kosobud, Sandra Schmidt, Jon and Judy Garner, Carla and James Brandt, Regina Price, my friends and family, and Robert Winthrop, Cerberus, and Momus, who made my life bearable while this work proceeded. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ....................................................................... viii List of Figures ...................................................................... ix Key to Abbreviations ............................................................ x Chapter 1: The Magic Eye of Least Restrictive Environment .......... 1 Primary Questions Surrounding LRE Decisions ................. 4 Study Design .............................................................. 7 Chapter 2: The Construction of Least Restrictive Environment ...... 13 Least Restrictive Environment ....................................... 13 LRE and the Courts ..................................................... 24 Chapter 3: Conversations about LRE, Street-Level Bureaucrats, and Decision-Making Models ......................................... 32 The Problem of Least Restrictive Environment ............. .....32 Administrators ............................................................ 39 Chapter 4: Hasazi et al.’s Factor Analysis ................................. 48 The Hasazi et al. Factors .............................................. 50 Study Site Locations in the Framework ............................ 51 Six Factors Influencing LRE Implementation ..................... 58 Current Primary Factors in LRE Determination .................. 84 Changes in Special Education Accountability .................... 88 Examining LRE: The Definition ....................................... 89 How Does the Hasazi et al. Framework Answer This Study’s Research Questions? ................................................ 92 Chapter 5: Decision—Making and Least Restrictive Environment.....99 Decision-Making ........................................................ 102 March Codes ............................................................ 112 Clarity and Consistency, or Ambiguity and lnoonsistency?..118 How Does the March Decision-Making Framework Answer This Study’s Research Questions? ............................ 92 Chapter 6: Street-Level Bureaucrats ........................................ 132 Street-Level Bureaucrats: The Dominant Disoourse............134 Study Administrators: System Administrators .................... 140 Study Administrators: Street-Level Bureaucrats ................. 142 How Does Lipsky’s Street-Level Bureaucrat Framework Answer This Study’s Research Questions? ............................. 92 Chapter 7: The Three Dimensions of Least Restrictive Environment Determrnatrons167 The Contextual Surroundings: The Hasazi et al. Factors ....... 170 The Least Restrictive Environment Decision Process ............ 183 The Least Restrictive Environment Decision Maker, a Street-Level Bureaucrat .................................................. 190 Painting a Portrait with the Three Framework Dimensions ...... 202 Chapter 8: The Next Step in Understanding Least Restrictive Environment ................................................................. 214 Section One: National Survey Research ............................ 214 Section Two: Advice and Tools for the SL3 ........................ 219 Administrator Toolkit ............................................. 225 Federal Law and Court Decisions ............................ 227 Tools for Policymakers .......................................... 229 Tools for State and Regional Administrators .............. 230 Tools for District and Building Administrators ............. 232 Electronic Resources ............................................ 233 Appendix: Expanded Methodology.............................................234 Sampling ..................................................................... 234 Recruitment .................................................................. 243 Study Subjects .............................................................. 246 Data Analysis ............................................................... 248 StatelREA/District Protocol .............................................. 255 Principal Protocol .......................................................... 257 References ............................................................................ 259 vii 'at'e 1. Study Tatie 2. H3532 ’a:‘e 3 Respcr‘ Tablet March Tatie 5. Court I}. Tattle 5. Placer“ 'atle 7; RESpor : ’act- a. Full COL; LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Study Site Special Education Placement Data ........................ 58 Table 2: Hasazi et al. Factor Analysis ............................................... 97 Table 3: Responses to the “Responsibility Question” .......................... 109 Table 4: March Decision-Making Codes ........................................... 113 Table 5: Court Decisions 8. LRE ..................................................... 228 Table 6: Placement Data ............................................................... 242 Table 7: Respondent Demographic Information ................................. 247 Table 8: Full Count & Distribution of Codes ....................................... 252 viii iguaigCortr ’93: 2 Farm Figs'e 3. Tie Tr hmmn Figt'e 4. Code r $th 5: Starter Fire 5; it of A" :GJ'E 7: it of S:_ @mikmg {ii-'8 9. 0:531;er LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Continuum of Placements ................................ 23 Figure 2: Factors in LRE Placement ............................... 85 Figure 3: The Three Dimensions of Least Restrictive Environment Decisions ...................................... 168 Figure 4: Code Distribution of All Coded Statements... .......191 Figure 5: Student Totals within Study Sample ................. 236 Figure 6: % of African American Students ....................... 237 Figure 7: % of Students Not Receiving FRL ..................... 239 Figure 8: % of Students Diagnosed with a Disability .......... 241 Figure 9: Distribution of Coded Statements by Code ......... 251 LRE IDEA NCLB s» ,. tie Inc Ern LRE IDEA NCLB SLB. REA IEP El KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS Least Restrictive Environment Individuals with Disabilities Education Act No Child Left Behind Education Act Street-Level Bureaucrat Regional (county-wide) Education Agencies Individual Education Program Emotional lmpainnent Chapter 1 Ir. me 19 seeming? rand. sari Z’Te mien-Se 35 ff randomne 318-371 efiort we 131 to See the l 355 the glass fr Chapter 1: The Magic Eye of Least Restrictive Environment In the 19803, shopping mall patrons gathered around framed pictures of seemingly random repeated patterns, squinting and staring. Some eventually saw the intended three—dimensional images of sailboats and palm trees pop out of the randomness with vibrancy and realism. While others, even with the most ardent effort, were unable to see anything but random, repeating patterns; my trick, to see the images, was not only to focus my eyes on the pattern, but also to use the glass from the frame to diverge my focus by taking in both the patterns and the context behind me in the reflection. When I brought all the elements of both picture and context together, they blurred for a moment before focusing on a new image created from the old; the hidden picture. Students with special educational needs present a similar puzzle for administrators and teachers to" ponder. The patterns represent the documented needs and abilities of a student that supposedly create a picture, but often only provide the basis for seeing the whole image. School level administrators (those who are responsible for administrative decisions and have to power to allocate resources at the school level) face these puzzles and must attend not only to the pattern presented by the student, but also take into consideration the background and context of the pattern to see the hidden image emerge. They must ' comprehend the puzzle of the child, as well as how that child fits within the complex three-dimensional puzzle of the school and district District-level administrators as well as principals, are charged with responsibilities concerning students with special edumtional needs and the access they have tothe general education environment. However, principals must balance the needs of individual students with disabilities, with the capacity and needs of a school building and those who work within it, and the textual policy regulations handed down from both state and district policy makers when making recommendations for placement in special or general education environments. These street-level bureaucrats (Weatherly 8 Lipskey, 1977) perform a sort of magic eye performance every day to see the three dimensional hidden picture of need balanced with capacity in order to make the best possible decisions for students with special educational needs. The question of how they go about making these decisions is rarely asked in current research. This research sought a clearer understanding how administrators discern and interpret that hidden image. How do they utilize it to make a decision about a placement recommendation? What decision processes do they engage in when merging information of individual and environment to create a working plan of access that will benefit all involved? What are the factors that are primary in recommending placement in the general educationenvironment and how do administrators balance the needs of the individual along with the needs of the school or district? Additionally, what effect do school districts and state special education administrations have when disseminating policy to those enacting it? Understanding the answers to these questions could provide new inSight as to how students with disabilities are accessing the general educational environment and how administrative perception and interaction affect the placement process. Understanding, too, how these decisions fit into larger decision making processes and follow procedures of limited rationality, may allow for prediction on the part of policymakers as to how administrators in the field are examining policy decisions and acting on them. This study examined administrators’ process of decision-making on multiple levels in a state school system by analyzing policy texts and direct interviews with education administrators for evidence of rational decision making by street-level bureaucrats and indications of factors that influence decisions in placement recommendations. It provided a complex framework to discern and analyze the intricacies of daily administrative decision-making. Although many of the complexities uncovered were congruent with the overall theoretical framework of administrative decision-making, some factors, identified through Grounded Theory analysis, proved to be more influential than anticipated. These newer factors, paired with a better understanding of how administrators are approaching LRE recommendations, may be the key to moving forward in educating all students in their least restrictive environment. This research exploration begins with key questions of what matters in LRE decisions, and whether some things matter more than others. Do these differences persist from district to district or is "what matters” a localized phenomenon? How do administrators balance “what matters” between what matters for the school or district, with what matters for the individual? Finally, what are the conflicts these administrators experience over least restrictive environment and how do they negotiate these conflicts? These questions are asked to administrators representing policy, state government, regional, local, and building entities to better understand how what is important might differ depending on where one operates in the system. This research indicates that direct contact with clients does matter and may represent a level of accountability not accounted for in the three carefully chosen frameworks of this analysis. Through these frameworks and additional grounded analysis, a complex picture appears, but is not static. It changes with the individual, and alters with the circumstances. Primary Questions Surrounding Least Restrictive Environment Decisions What are fire factors administrators consider when determining a Least Restrictive Environment placement recommendation? Are some factors more important to administrators than others? Much of the research examining administrator interaction with students with special education needs allows a glimpse of both the importance of administrators who understand special education (Fuchs 8 Fuchs, 1996; Hipp 8 Huffman, 2000; Lasky 8 Karge, 2006; Yell, Katsiyannis 8 Bradley, 2003), and the attitudes of administrators towards students with special education needs (Evans, Bird, Ford, Green, 8 Bischoff, 1992; Goodlad 8 Lovitt, 1993; Hipp 8 Huffman, 2000; Obiakor 8 Wilder, 2003). However, administrators make decisions daily that affect how a student with an IEP interacts with and accesses the general education environment. What are the factors that are deemed most safefll DY w II'II are We Do We] is a 54 firm a role ' cram co. fimailm- or ‘F mtg-I'm poiiCy State to adileve estate 599031 e; administrator. M 333E admit-ism ‘ourbuiiding leve caseoompanson final administrate salient by administrators in an access or placement decision-making process? Why are those factors the critical deciding factors? Do these factors differ from district to district? As a sub-question to the above question, district differences may or may not play a role in administrator confidence in placement decisions. These differences could involve how districts disseminate special education policy information, or how they provide administrative training concerning special education policy. This research queried administrators on multiple levels within a state to achieve a core response from a full line of administration. This included a state special education administrator, a regional special education administrator, two district special education administrators from within that region (or the administrator primarily charged with overseeing special education), and. four building level administrators from the two districts sampled allowing a cross- case comparison between district policies that are Under one regional entity. A final administrator participant is a charter school special education director from a comparison region within Everystate. How do administrators balance procedural expectations and other requirements set forth in various educational regulations with the 1 individual needs of the student when making these recommendations? This question keys in on how street-level bureaucrats manage multiple contexts and a mountain of district, state, and federal policies that mediate what and how decisions are made within the school environment. Administrators do not work in isolation or with a free rein, but must navigate rapids of federal, state, and district paperwork and policy. For each placement decision, administrators must take into consideration not only the individual student case presented, but also the federal special education guidelines of IDEA, the state guidelines in terms of procedural safeguards, and the district special education policies in place that determine special education eligibility and placement. This complex work of decision-making cannot forget the needs and capacity of the school and its community. What are the conflicts administrators experience, and how do they mediate these in their recommendations? Special education by its nature often involves conflicting preferences among parents, teachers, administrators, and the district. Although conflicts are common within schools and districts, special education conflicts have the potential to create a costly legal situation for a district and so are often avoided at great lengths. The IDEA includes due process procedural safeguards that allow parents and students access to mediation and even the courts if a student’s rights under the law are violated. Conflicts with parents of students with disabilities can have costly consequences for a school if not delicately and appropriately addressed. Recent studies of due process procedures discovered placement conflicts (related to least restrictive environment) were the most prevalent when coming to court over an educational decision (Rickey 2003). Understanding least restrictive environment decisions may be the key to decreasing due process cases. Study design A study of schools and particularly how the phenomenon of Least Restrictive Environment is understood and actualized requires a research methodology that is heuristic in nature. We can begin to examine the experience of administrators with a framework, but there must be an open nature to the research in order for all options of action to be considered. Qualitative research allows for that open and learning nature, as, “qualitative research is a systematic approach to understanding qualities, or the essential nature, of a phenomenon within a particular context” (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach 8 Richardson, 2005 p. 195). Qualitative research does not explain everything for everyone and is not easily generalized across populations and contexts, but Harry, Sturges, and Klinger (2004) note qualitative policy studies can provide evidence of a phenomenon through exploring the experiences of the individuals involved in it as well as the context in which it occurs. Shavelson 8 Towne (2002) wrote that qualitative work is essentially “answering questions about ‘what is happening?’ and ‘why or how it is happening?” (p.99). In terms of examining special education policy through qualitative research, Hasazi, Johnston, Schattman, 8 Liggett (1994) posed that the qualitative approach allows policy researchers to be informed from the direct, first-hand accounts of those who experience the policy directly. Accessing first-hand accounts of a phenomenon is only the beginning of fully examining and understanding that phenomenon. A theoretical approach to the research methodology utilized should allow for an initial conceptual framework as well as an adaptive, heuristic analysis framework. The conceptual framework allows the researchers to “bound the territory“ (Miles 8 Huberrnan, 1994 p.25) of the data in order to limit what data is examined. However, once that data has been collected, the analysis framework should be open enough to learn from the data or “ground” the data in the data and contextual factors of the phenomenon studied. When research utilizes a Grounded Theory analysis, a theory develops while the researcher is studying the elements the data provide and allows her to “understand the nature and meaning of an experience for a particular group of people in a particular setting” (Moustakas, 1994, p.4). This research seeks to understand the phenomenon of least restrictive environment decisions made by administrators acting within an institution, which regulates policy through textual interactions. Although administrators are independent actors who make decisions based on their understanding of their individual contexts (Lipskey, 1980), their actions are mediated by textual policies that filter down from federal, state, and local education agencies (F ulcher 1999). In order to understand better the actions and factors that influence administrator decision making in LRE placement situations, both the actors and the texts that mediate them must be examined. This study not only examines administrators who are Street Level Bureaucrats (SLBs) (or those who have the responsibility of implementing special education policy at the school level) but also examines special education administrators on multiple levels within the state education policy system. The SLB administrators are often building principals who interact with students with seconflnwd . lard special 9- d‘s‘art comet defamation as IEP ifthere keg-9W9 them It with disi'id lave anndpals are ex educational Fleet Two ad“ UH dfenslonal app. fixation lakes R515 are surpris mmmg l‘Erder R iii." . N prOVIde tra and - sill/Ice de ’ IIv 5% ery pmVIdert 4- . I at are l 9f; the Stale level special educational needs on a regular basis and therefore are responsible for the continued success of special education programs within the school. District- level special education administrators also demonstrate SLB leanings through a distant connection to their clients (students) by participating in some LRE determination meetings. Unfortunately, district level administrators only attend an lEP if there are problems, but they still have that face-to-face interaction, keeping them in the street-level bureaucrat category for this research. Interviews with district level administrators provide a dimension where expectations of principals are explored, especially concerning placement of students with special educational needs. Two additional layers of administrative governance allow for a more multi- dimensional approach to the question. One is at a regional level where special education takes on a new role as a Regional Education Agency (REA). These REAs are surprisingly powerful entities in the state and are responsible for distributing federal and state special education money to the districts it serves. REAs provide training and technical assistance to special education teachers and service delivery providers‘. Sometimes they even provide the service delivery providers as well as center—based special education programs for districts that are unable to run their own intensive programs. Finally, an interview on the state level with a state special education administrator provides a policy landscape perspective from which all other administrators take their cues. 1 Service delivery providers include speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, special educators, and any other specialist who interacts with a student with special educational needs in an official capacity. Through these interviews, and an examination of the nature of least restrictive environment, this research seeks to enlighten and inform those who make the big decisions about the educational lives of students with disabilities from the policy writers in Washington DC. to the school building street-level bureaucrat. This pilot research unveils a small glimmer of hope for students with disabilities in the general education world. These administrators describe their own struggles with deciding what is the right thing to do, and for whom. However, all nine subjects also speak of students with disabilities belonging in the general education environment, to a person. To visitors outside of the special education realm, this may not seem like a strong indicator. To those who have spent years integrating students with disabilities into the general education environment, it is a sea change. This exploration begins with the concept of least restrictive environment. What is it, and how has it become such a contentious issue in American education? Surprisingly, legal proceedings have dominated the conversation of how to define LRE, but have not gone as far as to place a particular definition on it. The literature becomes a next step in further understanding what LRE means to education and educational administrators and how this study’s frameworks are well suited to explore the topic. Frameworks provide the scaffolding for the remainder of this dissertation. The data from this study is analyzed in three chapters utilizing three frameworks. The first framework in Chapter 3 utilizes findings from Hasazi et al. (1994) to examine influential factors in an LRE decision. Chapter 4 examines the actual 10 rsm-makng F‘ at he ‘fih charts :.:2cat (Lips'r‘, Compiexl'te mess mph—cat» use mated to cc scares. Inspira r TIE data. situati: $23025 from the 95.2mm The study c. t’sdimnsimal Egon 00mlimit iii! makers, stat 331883 Ior Student; trierstahding Wha decision-making process through a framework inspired by James March (1994), and the fifth chapter focuses on the actual decision-maker or street-level bureaucrat (Lipsky 1980; Maynard-Moody 8 Musheno 2000). Complexities in the theoretical frameworks and the LRE decision-making process complicate the conversations in these chapters. Hypothetical vignettes were created to connect these complexities and theories to possible real-world ' scenarios. Inspiration for the vignettes comes from situational stories contained in the data, situations drawn from court cases and the LRE literature, and situations from the primary researchers ten year background in special education. The study concludes with a synthesis of all three frameworks creating a three-dimensional picture of the complexity surrounding each administrator decision concerning least restrictive environment. A final chapter speaks to policy makers, state administrators, and not least, street-level administrators on access for students with disabilities and what this research has to offer in understanding what is working for students and schools. 11 Chapter 2: The Construction of Least Restrictive Environment Carla is a seven year old student halfway through her second grade year in a public elementary school. Her school file indicates a history of teacher concerns about her academic progress from kindergarten to the present classroom, but no evidence of special ‘ educatlon testing. Carla can write her name but does not have written mastery over the full alphabet She has some sight word skills and is beginning to sound out simple C-V-C (consonant-vowel- consonant) words that begin with known phonemes. Her phonemic ‘ awareness skills are commensurate with a kindergarten level. Carla has been described as “distractible” or “hyperactive” by her teachers and has a large section of her file dedicated to disciplinary measures taken by both classroom teachers and school administrators. Her parents are familiar with school personnel and have a consistent communication with teachers and the principal. In the last few months, Carla’s parents have, after much discussion with teachers and administrators, agreed to academic evaluation, which resulted in Carla being diagnosed with specific learning disabilities in reading, written language, and math. She was also found to have a receptive language disability, most likely I contributing to her difficulties in paying attention and following directions in class. At Carla’s evaluation IEP, the special education and general education staff recommended Carla receive intensified special education services from a special educator and a speech- 12 language pathologist Because of her extensive delays, the team recommends services that place Carla in a special education classroom over 60% of her school day and limit her time spent with general education peers and the curriculum presented in her current classroom. Although the teachers and specialists argue that Carla is not successfully accessing the general education curriculum at this time, her parent resist removing her from the regular school environment Least Restrictive Environment On any given school day somewhere in the United States, a troubled student like Carla is diagnosed with an educational disability, and her school landscape changes. Depending upon her educational needs, a team of teachers, administrators, and eventually her parents (who all comprise the Individualized Education Program team or IEP team) examine the evidence (tests, anecdotal evidence, classroom performance) and determine what academic environment would best meet those needs. This process, mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, requires the Individualized Education Program (IEP) Team to consider the supplemental aids and supports a student requires to meaningfully participate in the general education environment. They then determine whether any of those supports require time outside of the general education environment, keeping in mind that the preferred placement (according to the IDEA) is for a student to remain with her peers as much as possible. 13 Before the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) and its predecessors the IDEA 1997, 1990, and PL 94-142 or the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 opened opportunities for students with disabilities, access to the general education classroom was limited for those who needed academic or supplemental support. Although there are some indications of educational programs practicing inclusion as early as 1913 (Kirk 1993), students with special educational needs spent the first half of the twentieth century in segregation. This included asylums, residential facilities, and specialized schools for individuals with specific disabilities such as blindness or deafness. Many severely disabled individuals had no access to educational opportunities because they were considered too impaired to be successfully educated (Reynolds 1991). In 1972, there were approximately eight million children in the United States diagnosed with special educational needs, but less than half of them were receiving educational services (Douvanis 8 Hulsey, 2002). As the civil rights movement in the 19608 took shape, the rights of all oppressed individuals gained attention and individuals with disabilities acquired a piece of the legal and legislative action in the early seventies through several venues. The first was a regional ruling in the Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) decision. The Pennsylvania state courts ruled that children with disabilities have the right to a public education, and indicated a strong preference for that education to take place in the general education classroom. This ruling was later adopted when Congress drafted PL 94-142 (Douvanis 8 Hulsey, 2002). I4 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provided the first civil rights legislation for individuals with disabilities on the federal level. Section 504 of this legislation states that “[njo otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States...shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance...” (29 U.S.C.A. § 794(a)). Once this legislation was in place, states could not legally exclude students with disabilities from public education, but there were no provisions for the quality or extent of that public education. There needed to be an act that would directly address the needs of students who require special educative services in order to find academic success. Two years after the Rehabilitation Act was enacted, Congress passed Public Law (P.L.) 94—142 or the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975), which subsequently became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (lDElA) in 2004. For the sake of simplicity, these acts will be referred to as the IDEA for the remainder of this dissertation. The IDEA provided federal funds to states for the provision of educational services to students with disabilities. In order for students to qualify for these services, they must fit three requirements. - Be between the ages of 3-21 ' Qualify for a specifically identified disability (mental retardation, hearing impairments, speech or language impairments, visual impairments, serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this 15 dissertation as emotional impairment or El), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities.) (20 U.S.CA § 1401(9)) - Must be in need of specialized supports and services in order to access a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) (20 U.S.C.A. § 1401(9)), in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (20 U.S.C.A. 1412 (5)), under the direction of an individualized . education program (IEP) (20 U.S.C.A. 1401 (14), 1414 (d)). (Osborne 8 Russo 2006) This legislation gave voice to students who were often denied access to public schooling or were hidden away in self-contained environments if they were provided access. Before 1975, districts in the United States provided special education, but issues of cost, access to curriculum and specialists, and the rights of students with disabilities were left to the discretion of local administration (Douvanis 8 Hulsey, 2002). At a federal level, the IDEA, defined the rights of students with disabilities and their parents, as well as the responsibilities of the educational system accepting federal funding for education. One of these rights ensured students was access to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). FAPE requires all states to offer a public education to all students by stating: “(9) Free appropriate public education-The term ‘free appropriate public education' means special education and related services that—- 16 “(A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; “(8) meet the standards of the State educational agency; “(0) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and “(D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 614(d). (20 U.S.CA § 1401 (9)) FAPE provides the backdrop for least restrictive environment by requiring schools to provide an education to all students that is appropriate and in conformity with the IEP. This is to be provided at no charge to the parents or student What is interesting to note about this entitlement is that the word appropriate allows for vast discretion as to what that could mean for a particular student. In due process hearings concerning placement or curriculum, defining appropriate becomes a vital key to resolution (Rickey 2003). There is nothing in FAPE’s definition that provides parameters to what is meant by appropriate. The definition of FAPE, taken literally, notes that any service or supplemental aid recommended in the IEP is to be provided to the student at the expense of the district. Often it is in this gray area of interpretation that special educators must practice fiscal caution by refraining from recommending services that could be helpful, but are not vital, to a student’s academic access. Once something is recommended officially in the IEP, schools are obligated to provide it. I7 As for Carla, her access to FAPE is determined by the definition of the term appropriate. Given her academic needs, is it appropriate to continue to place Carla in an academic environment that is operating beyond her current capabilities? Is it appropriate to remove her from that environment in order to bring her skills up to speed even if that removal results in her missing more of the second grade curriculum? The answers to these questions must be determined by her IEP team when they decide what special education services will best address her educational needs. The level of these services and the environments in which they are provided will allow the team to determine Carla’s least restrictive environment placement. This will ultimately define what is appropriate for Carla. Although FAPE creates quite a stir, least restrictive environment (LRE) is the most controversial and litigious right provided for in the IDEA (Rickey, 2003, Rock 8 Bateman, 2009). What is an individual’s least restrictive environment? How is that determined? Does it mean that a student should never be removed from the general education setting or does it mean the student should simply have access to his or her general education peers? The law itself provides a definition of the concept. “(5) Least restrictive environment.- (A) In general—To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or 18 other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily” (20 U.S.C.A. §1412(a)(5)(A)) Here lawmakers attempted to instill a preference for placement in the general education environment However, phrases such as, “to the maximum extent appropriate,” and “achieved satisfactorily” allow for local discretion by using terminology that is ambiguous in nature. How can one define what is maximally appropriate for an individual student? How can one prove that a student is or is not in an appropriate environment? Additionally, what does it mean to achieve education “satisfactorily?” Does it mean a student is able to access and be successful with the curriculum of her peers or does she simply access the curriculum without a commensurate degree of success in the same classroom? The ambiguous terminology comprising the LRE mandate has created a frustrating paradox for those who work to carry it out. Are a particular student’s academic and functional needs met by spending the day in a socially appropriate environment? A child with disabilities educated with peers is a desirable situation according to policy. However, will the child learn what is necessary to succeed I9 and be independent in the world in that socially appropriate classroom? Likewise, a student who can function academically in a classroom, but cannot maintain appropriate social behavior is not academically being served in a separate environment However, the classmates of that student are not being served if instruction is constantly disrupted due to disciplinary issues. The undefined terms of satisfactorily and appropriate are seen as obstructions by administrators and educators who wish to have a clearly delineated road to follow. As this study will illuminate, those undefined terms bestow great discretion upon administrators and IEP implementers to respond directly to the needs of an individual student within a particular school context. Appropriate in one environment may not be in another. Schools also must offer a continuum of alternative placements for students with disabilities to access the educational environment These placements should run from the least restrictive which indicates no special education services and 100% time in the general education environment to full special education services and 100% time in a segregated educational environment. The placements in-between allow for a variety of access ' opportunities for students with special educational needs. Looking at the continuum pyramid in Figure 1, one can visualize the level of restriction increasing as the amount of time in the general education environment decreases. The more specialized services and time with specialists a student requires, the less time that student spends with her same-age peers in the general education curriculum. 20 Consider that once a student passes beyond 60% of her time in the special education environment, the remaining 40% of her time with her peers will involve lunch, recess, bus time, physical education, music, and art. Academic integration is attempted at these levels, but most curricular instruction must be modified to the point where academic achievement is often best served in the special education environment. Within a general education building, students who receive services in the top two tiers (representing a majority of the special education students) are considered general education kids receiving services. When a student breaches that middle >60% tier, they are often considered a special education student rather than a general education student. Returning to Carla, her teachers and the school administrator believe that her delays are so profound, she requires intensified, specialized instruction from a special educator for most of her day. She is reading and writing at an early kindergarten level while the majority of her peers are reading and writing independently at grade level. Additionally, her language Impairment makes it necessary for someone to constantly reinforce, rephrase, and repeat directions and instructions in the classroom. Her current teacher has 29 students and insists she ls unable to spend the day providing this repetitionlrephrasing for every classroom direction. Carla’s parents have requested that the school provide a 1:1 assistant for their daughter to address her language comprehension needs and to provide additional academic support during curricular activities. They understand the need for some pull-out services (provided in a separate classroom such as a resource room) but would like the majority of 21 educaf genera Carla is fiscally educat .. —— — _—_ - a situat her support to be provided as push-in (services provided within the general education classroom usually taking the form of co-teaching between the general and special educator.) The district does not believe maintaining Carla in the general education environment will be academically (or fiscally) appropriate. Her parents maintain the self-contained special education environment is not academically or socially appropriate. This is a situation that may head to mediation. 22 ; Central 5: . Education £1qu Cc General Education Classroom Instruction: <21% of day in Special Education -Speech impairments, mild learning disabilities, other health impaired Services provided as 'push-in' in regular classroom or minimal 'pull-out' to a therapeutic setting Education week May include some 'push-in' and “pull out“ -Student homeroom is general education classroom Resource Room Instruction: >21% but <60% of day spent in Special Students receiving resource assistance in the resource room 3-5 days a Separate Class: >60% of day spent in Special Education -Student receives intensive special education in a self- contained classroom within a general education building -Student integrates socially with peers for non-academic activates as well as carefully chosen academic subjects when appropriate Separate School Facility: >50% of day spent in separate facility from general education peers. -Schools that specifically address a particular disability such as vision or hearing impairment -Schools for students with profound impairments Residential: >50% of day spent in separate residential facility. More Restrictive Homebound, Hospitalized incarcerated: 100% of day in separate facility Less Restrictive Figgre 1: Continuum of Placements for Students with Disabilities 23 LRE and the Courts As parents and school districts began to interact over the definitions of least restrictive environment and appropriate placements, another phenomenon created by the IDEA began to surface, due process. Due process safeguards put into place make sure students with special educational needs are appropriately evaluated and placed in the educational environment according to IDEA (20 U.S.C.A. § 1415). These safeguards provide parents and students unique legal rights, and the opportunity to take districts to court if mediation is required to settle a dispute. An unanticipated outcome of this right to due process is the role the courts have played over the last three decades in further defining the ambiguities of the law through legal proceedings. in a small study of Idaho due process cases, over half of the cases involved least restrictive environment issues, including placement decisions. Half of those cases concerned the level of special education service offered a student by the district in question (Rickey 2003). When examining the literature on LRE, it is impossible to divorce the concept from legal proceedings that have been instrumental in defining it since the passage of PL 94-142. There are several seminal cases concerning LRE that offer precedent for current court cases as well as local education agencies. Examining these rulings may shed light on why this concept is so controversial. Defined by the Gavel. One of the first decisions to affect how LRE would be interpreted occurred in Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley 24 (1392). Row whose parer‘ ordered the s acd'essed fl"? from grade to segment 90’ 1.: Wide assist; the student w:- Reso 2006, c The low. 45515 that my: e’i’iionmem or Sm Chem Co (1982). Rowley was a girl with a hearing impairment attending kindergarten whose parents requested a sign language interpreter. Although the lower courts ordered the school board to provide the interpreter, the Supreme Court addressed the fact that Rowley was achieving success in school and moving from grade to grade without the interpreter and thus was already receiving a sufficient educational benefit. The Court noted that schools were only required to provide assistance to “confer some educational benefit” but not to the extent that the student would perform at their maximum potential (Palley 2006, Osborne & Russo 2006, Douvanis & Hulsey 2002). The lower courts took on further challenges and some decisions became tests that would determine for later cases whether a child’s least restrictive environment or FAPE rights had been violated. in Roncker v. Walter(1983), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals developed the “Roncker Portability Test” to assist courts in determining whether a placement was appropriate for a given individual (Palley 2006). The test presumed that the DEA was designed with a preference for students with special educational needs to be educated in the general education environment. From there a party must determine if. 1. Segregated special education services that are superior in addressing the needs of the student, can be feasibly located in the general education environment. 2. The student is mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate. In this fashion, courts could examine a placement from the perspective of meeting the individual needs of a particular student in a particular setting. 25 Ror - CmttCOi t 3.29er! - noted that m-Jsi have Compared and eddies 1. Has indu. suffic . 2. ”as“ “the. Much ; 03%" RF term the b Deals in 19: \ 3i Roncker provided one way to test placement validity. Over in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals another test was developed to also address placement appropriateness. In Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education (1989), the court noted that the vagueness Congress adopted for least restrictive environment must have been intentional to provide discretionary options for local agencies. Compared to the Roncker Portability Test, the Fifth Circuit test was two-pronged and addressed multiple perspectives in the LRE decision. 1. Has the educational agency provided supplemental services and supports including modifying the general education curriculum? Are those efforts sufficient? a. Can the child receive educational benefits from receiving instruction in the general education environment? b. What type of overall educational experience does the child have in the general education environment? c. What effect does the child with special educational needs have on other students in the educational environment? 2. If a successful, satisfactory education for the student cannot be achieved in the general education environment, is the student mainstreamed as much as it is appropriate (Crockett & Kauffman 1999)? Daniel RR. has been utilized by many courts as precedence since 1989 but became the base of another standard developed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1994 during the Sacramento City Unified School District Board of 26 Education tacourtd I— 1.01?“ envir: 4- Deter '. snide Education v. Rachel Holland (1994). Given the questions of the Daniel R. R. test, the court determined districts considering LRE placement decisions should: 1. Commre the benefits. of an education in a general education setting with supplements and services to the benefits of one in a segregated setting 2. Identify the benefits of nonacademic interactions with peers in the general education environment 3. Determine whether maintaining the student in the general education environment interferes with the teacher's ability to instruct 4. Determine whether the cost of supports and services needed by the student with special educational needs is sufficient enough to affect services other children might access In the Holland decision, the Court of Appeals made an attempt to balance the rights of students with special educational needs with their peers who were not identified as having a disability. After Holland, other cases were brought before courts that challenged the “right” of least restrictive environment for all students regardless of their academic capability. In Hartmann v. Loudoun County Board of Education (1997), an eleven-year-old student with autism was becoming disruptive in his general education classroom as his disability progressed and the curriculum became more abstract. The school district wanted to place the student into a more self-contained classroom designed specifically for the needs of students with autism. His parents disagreed. After the lower courts initially found in favor of the parents, the Fourth Circuit Court admonished them for second 27 guessing another it belDEA' guessing the educational experts within the school district. The court created another test of circumstances where mainstreaming was not required under the IDEA statute (Palley 2006): 1. If a student with special educational needs is receiving no educational benefit from the general education environment 2. If the benefits to being in the mainstream setting are outweighed by the benefits provided by the segregated setting 3. if the student is disruptive to the regular education setting 4. If the social benefits are outweighed by the educational benefits of the segregated setting. The Hartrnann case was one of the first to outline a set of procedures to determine whether a general education setting was inappropriate for a particular individual. What is important to note in this case for this dissertation study is the insertion of behavioral terminology as determining appropriateness. Addressing disruptive behavior in the classroom is a theme that arises in the data from this study and several court cases have weighed in on the matter. In Light v. Parkway (1994), Lauren Light was a student with severe autism attending a general education elementary school. Because of her low level of functioning, the primary goal of the integration was social and as the curriculum became more complex and difficult to interact with, Lauren began to act out in frustration. These incidents were often violent and disruptive and over a particular school year over thirty incidents of violence were recorded pan 0f the s COflSldenng How do a r abl Ens that resulted in her classmates going to the nurse. The district decided for the safety of her classmates and for her own educational success, Lauren needed to move to a more self-contained environment that would provide a functional curriculum. Her parents insisted she remain at the elementary school and sued for due process. The case eventually ended up at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals where the court noted that if a student is violent and disruptive in the classroom, the placement is improper. This decision marked a turn in judicial rulings that reinforced inclusion as a right Other cases have upheld this ruling, sometimes utilizing the Holland test to determine whether a student is appropriately placed in order to receive some meaningful educational benefit including Clyde v. Puyallup (1997), Hudson v. Bloomfield Hills (1997), and Doe v. Arlington County (1999) (Douvanis & Hulsey, 2002; Osborne & DiMattia,1994; Osborne 8: Russo, 2006; Yell, Osborne 8. DiMattia, 1995). These cases upheld a segregated setting, particularly ifthere was disruptive or violent behavior involved on the part of the student with disabilities. This becomes a pertinent point when considering the future of LRE. How do these court decisions relate to Carla? Going back to Carla. She was falling behind her peers in the second grade because of her specific learning disabilities as well as a receptive language disorder. Her teachers are also concerned about her tendency to “act out” in class, particularly when they are engaging In work that is frustrating for Carla or beyond her capability. Her parents maintain that if there were an assistant who 29 Ul‘. Uh Ca 8hr bet aVa worked with Carla one on one full time in the classroom, she would be able to both maintain her behavior and catch up to her peers. Her academic success would depend upon the “push-in” services of both a special educator and a speech-language pathologist. Carla’s parents acknowledge that some of these recommended services will have to occur outside of the classroom. The court will need to examine Carla’s educational needs and compare the available service delivery environments to see which would be most appropriate. Here is where one might feel the situation has become tortured. How can a court determine what is the best course of action for a small child in a school far from the halls of justice where the case is heard? If the court chooses to use the Daniel RR Two- Pronged Test, the answers might help that determination. Carla’s school has provided some supports but she has not yet received services from a special education professional, so it is undetermined whether those supports would be successful in helping Carla access the second grade curriculum. Given this unknown, it is difficult to determine further whether Carla’s educational experience would improve with those services in place. Carla does have a somewhat disruptive nature in the classroom, but she is not violent or abusive of her classmates. Since she has not been given a chance to determine whether the new services would be helpful, the court may not continue the case unfil more data were available. 30 Uni “emu he pubic 5 cases cum Tie foliowi made i am! LRE. Understanding the nature and provenance of least restrictive environment is key to understanding why it presents such a conundrum to administrators in the public schools. Carla’s case is just one example of the multitude of complex cases currently engaging the decision—making skills of school administrators. The following chapter explores some of those complexities in terms of least restrictive environment in the schools, administrator roles in making decisions about LRE, and the role of decision-making in this process. 31 l ‘ chapter 1 8399 The Pmbler Why S does this 00" W935? DUE “as arisen tt' $983301 {3 " Crxtet‘. & KT sates. district neaisforani :ieterminations' rates in their c Even fewer me Meme rates Impleml Studies Like many fom We through hf " LRE was vac We been instr r: . ‘99. Douvanis Ziis), TheSe n Chapter 3: Conversations about Least Restrictive Environment, Street-Level Bureaucrats, and Decision-making Models. The Problem of Least Restrictive Environment Why study least restrictive environment (LRE) at all? What difference does this concept make in the daily lives of students with special educational needs? Due to the ambiguous nature of the LRE mandate, a clearer definition . has arisen through litigation (another right provided to parents by special education law) and most policies are reflective of the results of these cases (Crockett & Kaufman, 1999; Howard, 2004; Yell, 2006). Even so, as individual states, districts, and parents of students with disabilities struggle over what LRE means for an individual child; no further official guidelines outside of court determinations and State Performance Plan measurement goals exist to assist states in their own interpretation of the mandate. Before IDEA 04, there were even fewer measurements in place to help states understand how their LRE incidence rates compare to those of other states. Implementing least restrictive environment. Studies concerning the implementation of LRE requirements in schools take many forms. Much of the literature focuses on how the mandate takes shape through due process hearings and court decisions. Because the concept of LRE was vaguely defined in PL 94-142 and IDEA 1994, a series of court cases have been instrumental in determining specific state policy (Crockett & Kaufman, 1999; Douvanis & Hulsey, 2002; Howard, 2004; Thomas & Rapport, 1998; Yell, 2006). These multiple and varied court cases concerning LRE access indicate 32 the complexity of issues surrounding the concept (Crockett & Kaufman, 1999; Howard, 2004; Yell, 2006;). However, it is clear both scholars and administrators utilize these cases to track how LRE has been tested and determined through court intervention (Crockett & Kaufman, 1999, Howard, 2004; Osborne 8. Russo, 2006). Howard (2004) examines the use of court cases as “tests” of whether a child’s placement is appropriate and in the LRE. He concludes that although the court cases are utilized as a precedent to settle more contentious disagreements between parents and districts, they are not in accord with each other nor do they address students with disabilities as a group. Howard proposes a two-pronged framework for administrators who are determining LRE based on his review of the major court cases. His advice includes keeping abreast of the changes in law and an eye on court procedures concerning placement and LRE cases. His most ardent advice is for Congress to both clarify how LRE is determined, and to include factors that should be prioritized for that determination. Crocket and Kaufrnann (1999) also examine the origins of LRE and the legal cases that have provided the piecemeal interpretation of the concept since its inception in 1975. Their final advice after examining how courts have interpreted individual LRE cases involves guiding elements for educational leaders in determining LRE placement These elements help administrators navigate the often-confusing array of cases, but cannot guarantee an individual placement will be effective. Crocket and Kaufmann offer a glimpse into the complexities that surround each LRE determination and provide some insight into 33 how placement of students with special educational needs into the general education environment varies so widely between districts or states. It is important to keep in mind, in terms of specifically determining LRE at the school level, there are appropriate general education environments for students with any diagnosis, but whether a particular student will function well in a particular environment must be determined on an individual basis from a continuum‘ of service delivery options available. (Crockett & Kaufman, 1999; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1996; Howard, 2004; Nolet & McLaughlin, 2005; Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 2006). Additional research on LRE indicates fliere are questions as how best to serve students with special educational needs in the general education environment (McLeskey & Pacchiano, 1994). Theoretical questions arise to what “placement in the least-restrictive environment“ truly means to teachers and administrators who are dealing with the physical aspects and consequences of this theoretical construct (Cook, Semmel & Gerber, 1999). A better examination of whether LRE is a place or a context comes from Rueda, Gallego, and Moll (2000) where they question how the American education system addresses LRE from a socio-cultural perspective. The researchers note a placement should not solely focus on a particular classroom but examine an individual’s access to and interaction with a particular “activity setting.” This research exemplifies an important disconnect for educators and administrators when it comes to LRE. A 1 A continuum of services offers educational opportunities in multiple environments including push-in (special educators coming into the general education environment), pull-out (students with disabilities going to a resource room for assistance), and self-contained (students with disabilities spending most of the academic day in a special education classroom and integrating with peers during targeted time periods.) 34 we definite state of flux d‘a‘ienghg sc training it floor in sdwoc 33ng (Ba. Meet 20" Early S m to the how they tr; $893 Dame. “35V and Witt creamed to e"3“~iC-‘a‘éit)naj pure definition of the concept exists only through the courts and is in a constant state of flux depending on the next ruling; keeping abreast of these changes is challenging. Additionally, LRE directly affects the general education classroom, so training for and the attitudes of teachers and administrators on the ground floor in school buildings are vital to the sustained success of an inclusion program (Barnett & Monda-Amaya, 1998; Cline, 1981; Davis, 1980; McLaughlin & Nolet, 2004; Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Nevin, 1996) Early studies into how students with special educational needs were given access to the general education environment found that states varied widely in how they implemented the least-restrictive environment mandate (Blackman, 1989; Danielson & Bellamy, 1989). These studies provided an early look into how and where states were providing special education services. Questions continued to emerge about whether placement of students with special educational needs into the general education environment depends more upon where a student lives rather than the student’s educational support. Other examinations of LRE involve whether placement in the general education environment is critical in the effectiveness of a special education program (Hocutt, 1996). This study, reviewing research from 1980 through 1996 relevant to special education inclusion, found that effective interventions for students with disabilities involve individualized instruction and frequent monitoring of progress. However, there was no compelling evidence found linking academic or social success to placement in the general education environment. Although this may indicate it is the instruction and individualization, 35 not the plea: quest-00$ 3 A se" Liggett and . mruericed ‘6 mid expiain we. The 9 data was ar‘a faxes eme'; kmiedgeh'a hiusive refs; Vei‘iple orgar mCSl likely to O’QBT‘iiZationa acministrators F":finCifial or loi not the placement policy that engenders success, there are many unanswered questions that prevent ruling out placement as a success indicator altogether. A seminal study for LRE research was done in 1994 by Hasazi, Johnston, Liggett, and Schattrnan. This qualitative study sought to identify factors that influenced least restrictive environment decisions and examined whether they could explain the variance between states and districts in implementing LRE policy. The participants came from over eighteen sites in six states. Interview data was analyzed for primary factors that influence placement decisions. Six factors emerged including: finance, organization, advocacy, implementers, knowledge/values, and state/local. Respondents noted that implementing inclusive reform requires substantial financial resources and a negotiation among multiple organizational layers (p.497). Those involved in IEP Teams who are most likely to have influence over and access to financial resources and organizational layers are also most likely to be the street-level bureaucrats or administrators on the team (Nanus, 1992), exemplifying the influential factor a principal or local administrator has on the placement process. Creating accountability for IDEA. Over the last six years, the US Department of Education has been involved in an expansive educational reform effort known as No Child Left Behind (2001). After the initial legislature went into effect, governmental lenses focused on groups of students that represented those who were traditionally underserved in the US educational system. One of those groups included students with disabilities. States were required to include these students in accountability 36 examinations and were held accountable for their academic improvement. It became clear that the legislature governing special education or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act would also need to be reformed to work more fluidly with NCLB. In this new era of educational reform, one of the focus points for the department of education is access to the general education environment. As a result, states now report the amount of time students spend in the general education environment and describe how they (as a state) can improve these percentages towards maximum possible time for all students in the general education classroom. The intensified mood of accountability in the United States has refocused policy concerning how states are educating students with disabilities. In 2001, NCLB established regulations requiring states to monitor students with disabilities” academic progress including their participation in statewide assessments. These regulations set off a cascade of reactions from states due to incongruities between NCLB and the IDEA (1994). In response, The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) re-authorized IDEA in 2004 to better reflect the new NCLB requirements. The newly revised IDEA ‘04 requires states to submit to an accountability structure similar to NCLB’s Adequate Yearly Progress goals through State Performance Plans (SPP). State Performance Plans report states’ compliance with IDEA mandates. States collect data on 20 indicators measuring, among other things, what percentages of students with disabilities are educated in the general education environment and to what extent. The choice of the federal government to track 37 peoerrient a eisr! on the space? edu: 'eg.’ates Sp-l Decement is t: at? is stuc- tas m An exa masstency b DEA IDEA 5 Education adn L1lo‘ti‘E‘iler' an Variation berm Mara! educa- resear-Ch‘ 200',- placement and access to the general education environment indicates a renewed effort on the part of policymakers to provide avenues of access for students with special educational needs. It also indicates that the federal government (which regulates special education through IDEA) is serious about access and placement issues and intends to hold districts accountable for providing access to all its students. Due to this increased attention, least restrictive environment has become a focus point for policy makers and educators alike. An examination of state guidelines demonstrates high levels of consistency between the wording of state LRE policy and federal policy within IDEA. lDEA is mandatory for public schools and state and district special education administrators are responsible for carrying out the federal policy. However, an examination of placement rates across states highlights noticeable variation between states in how much access students with lEPs gain to the general education environment (Danielson & Bellamy, 1989; Garner preliminary research, 2007) providing some support to the contention that special education placement may depend as much on where a student lives as on what a student needs (Blackman, 1989.) This is contrary to the federal laws requiring all student placements considered individually and with respect to lDEA’s mandates. Additional research on the implementation of the Least Restrictive Environment mandate noted that financial circumstances and the many organizational layers of special education implementation were highly influential in whether a state was a “high user” or “low user” of separate special education environments (Hasazi, et al 1994). These studies provide evidence that LRE implementation varies not 38 city betwer‘ and that W decisions. 7 I. hmgh exa' LRE decisiC' Administratr NmOU be general e all 3530mm! tile IEP team reco'm‘ulencia-t +5056 With the maid anticipa‘ Gimme”! by hOWEl/Er' the” only between states but also across local education agencies in the same state, and that variance may indicate a high level of contextual influence on placement decisions. This research attempts to understand that local contextual influence through examining administrator perspectives on the important factors at play in LRE decisions. Administrators Although there are many variables that could potentially affect access to the general education environment, one variable can be applied consistently to all placement decisions, an administrator recommendation. The administrator on the IEP team does not diagnose nor administer services. She collects the recommendations of specialists, therapists, and general educators and balances those with the capacity of the school and its resources. These are the factors we could anticipate come into play when the vital decision of access is determined, eventually, by the IEP team. When we look to the literature for an answer, however, there are few informative examinations as to how administrators process the task of making a placement recommendation. There are few formal research conversations examining the decision-making process of administrators when working with special education. Examinations of attitudes of administrators towards students with special educational needs provide some perspective (Barnett & Monda-Amaya, 1998; Cline, 1981; Cook, Semmel, & Gerber, 1999; Davis, 1980; Praisner, 2003; Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Nevin, 1996; Y.Center, Wars, Parrnentor, & Nash, 1985). 39 Additionally, there are volumes of research on organizational decision- making and how individuals apply decision-making processes (Argyris, 1976; Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972; Lindblom, 1959, 1968; Moynihan, 1972; Pressman 8. Wildavsky, 1973.) For this research a simple organizational framework based on James March’s 1994 primer of decision-making allows for a better breakdown of decisions and access to the factors affecting those decisions. In order to discover what factors decision makers consider, understanding how they will go about making that decision is imperative. Decision makers utilizing limited rationality processes will consider specific conditions in making a decision including the alternative possible outcomes, the expectations of consequences for each alternative outcome, the decision maker’s preferences, and the decision role of the decision maker (March, 1994). Decision makers utilizing rule-following processes will derive their identity from how they implement the rules. Results of this study surprisingly indicate that administrators incorporate both limited rationality and rule-following processes during administrative LRE decision—making. Preparing to study least—restrictive environment from a principal’s perspective uncovers a crossroads where special education policy concerning least-restrictive environment, the importance of effective administrators, administrator training, and principals” attitudes towards special education and students with disabilities intersect. To this end, multiple avenues of prior research must be examined to better ground the current study. Weaving in and out of the traffic is also a layer of research representing research. Why use 40 qualitative methodology, and more specifically use a framework of decision- making street-level bureaucrats to study administrator perceptions and decision— based processes? What does not appear in this study is equally as important to understand. This study does not attempt to evaluate the quality or effectiveness of inclusive practices or take a stand on inclusion. It will not provide parents or teachers with a clear understanding of whether inclusion is right for a particular child nor does it delve into the specifics of how inclusion works within individual classrooms or for individual students. Instead, this study will attempt to make sense of one hidden picture among many in the increasingly complex story of least restrictive environment. It steps outside of the individual meetings for a moment and focuses a lens on a specific and ubiquitous decision-making process in the life of an administrator that can have far-reaching consequences. According to the regulations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a school representative (administrator) is a required participant in each Individual Education Program (IEP) Team. This is a person with knowledge of and access to educational resources in the school building or district An IEP team is a group of individuals directly charged with the creation of a plan that will guide the special education services a child with disabilities receives. This team also determines how much time a student will spend receiving special education services (both within and outside of the general education environment.) As a participant on the IEP team, a school administrator provides administrative support to the decisions of the team in terms of meeting resource and placement 41 needs. Although the administrator does not make the placement decision, her recommendation to the placement team reflects the capacity of the school and plays a powerful role in what is available for each student. School-level administrators are charged with enacting district/stateffederal policy and play a street-level bureaucrat (SLB) role regarding special education (Weatherly & Lipsky 1977). The conceptualization of street-level bureaucracy (Lipsky, 1980) describes an administrator who is responsible for carrying out policy but must also consider and respond to local capacity and contextual needs for effective implementation. Street-level bureaucrats such as school level principals routinely make recommendations to the IEP team concerning the placement of students with special educational needs into the general education environment. Individual Education Program teams ultimately base that placement decision upon the specific needs of students on case-by-case bases with consideration towards federal, state, and district placement guidelines. As noted previously, administrators are key players in any placement decision made for a student with special educational needs. Research has shown ovenrvhelmingly that administrators and specifically principals are key to schools running effectively. There are key studies describing the changing nature of school leadership, particularly in managing a school (Falvey, 1995; Sage & Burrello, 1994) We also know that for school-wide special education reform to be successful and sustained, administrators need to be on board and present throughout the reform as well as its maintenance over time (Evans, Birt, Ford, 42 Green“. Howey. 8 = _ l education 3 information placement : ’ I 600! Schv. Give" Wildcat at: SLBS may a‘ environmem Gerber. 1999 i”Est Plalsr mm} illflLlen I'ESearcherS fC Mush/e Mon 2300; ObiakOr “1 Dimes u we“ they 32 we ”area a . tit disabilities M KatSllann mdes toWart aw Studim atti Green & Bischoff, 1992; Hipp & Huffman, 2000; Sindelar, Shearer, Yendol- Hoppey, & Liebert, 2006; Villa & Thousand, 1990). Administrators make special education decisions all the time but may not necessarily have all of the information they need (whether about the student or about special education placement overall) to make the best recommendation for the situation presented (Goor, Schwenn, & Boyer, 1997). Given the importance of principal influence, researchers examining principal attitudes and perceptions gained a better understanding of how these SLBs may affect students with disabilities’ access to the general education environment (Barnett 8. Monda-Amaya, 1998; Cline, 1981; Cook, Semmel, & Gerber, 1999; Davis, 1980; Praisner, 2003; Villa et. al., 1996; YCenter et al., 1985). Praisner (2003) noted the perceptions and behavior of a principal has a . strong influence on an IEP team’s decision about placement. Additional researchers found principal attitude imperative to the success of inclusion and inclusive reform (Evans, et. al., 1992; Goodlad & Lovitt, 1993; Hipp & Huffman, 2000; Obiakor & Wilder, 2003) targeting ways leaders demonstrate their beliefs and priorities through actions such as how they make and honor commitments, or what they say in formal and informal settings. Others discovered leadership style played a vital role in how both teachers and students accepted students with disabilities (Lasky & Karge, 2006; McLaughlin 8. Nolet, 2004; Taylor, 2005; Yell, Katsiyannis, & Bradley, 2003). Taylor (2005) in particular noted principals’ attitudes towards students with special educational needs carried over to staff and student attitudes in a private school setting. 43 In he the {£19 5 ‘pgncjpals receive a a" manageme sat-M (P seams fC' behavior 3”? denslcnsf r. resiearcli ans- nfiiences the tnndpals‘ at: intends to furt.‘ as Evans wou In his call for the role of principal to be recognized as an important player in the life of a student with special educational needs, Yell (2003) notes: “Principals are responsible for ensuring that students in Special Education receive a meaninng program and provide leadership in resource and budget management to ensure that Special Education programs receive necessary support” (p.22). Likewise, Evans et al. (1992) notes, “Although placement decisions for students with disabilities are made by each student’s IEP team, the behavior and perceptions of the principal strongly influence placement decisions.” (p.137). Evans et al. also push forward the call this particular research answers. “T here is even less research that attempts to identify the influences that develop attitudes toward inclusion or determine the impact principals’ attitudes have on placement perceptions” (p. 136.) This research intends to further identify and understand these influences, but does not go as far as Evans would recommend. Understanding how principal attitudes influences placement requires much broader and more comprehensive research. It is hoped that this study will serve to inform and provide scaffolding for that future research. How do these SLBs make decisions about special education policy? This chapter has outlined three theoretical frameworks that have potential to provide insight to this examination of LRE decision-making. The first is using the factors uncovered by Hasazi et al. (1994) to create the contextual background of the decision-making. The second involves March (1994) and his theoretical frames of how the decision-making actually occurs, and finally its better . the lens at t: 6:969) men My frame it'ee lenses anafl'SlS. NE W When vi W Could be Minot examine 3 Di "Miteaupo atemaie per Lipsky’s (1980) street-level bureaucrats provides the human perspective as to how a person who happens to be an administrator, takes those factors and implements a decision-making process. A primary goal in approaching the data from three framework perspectives is to better understand that the story and the picture are highly dependent upon the lens of the viewer or of the disseminator. This process, utilized by Allison (1969) when he examined the Cuban Missile Crisis event from three alternate policy frameworks, allowed the researcher to examine the same event through three lenses that were dominant in policy analysis at the time. Through this analysis, Allison provided a three-dimensional picture of a decision event and how, when viewed through a different lens, an alternative perspective of how and why could be discerned. Although this study does not directly examine one single event, It does examine a phenomenon that has many expressions and interpretations (Merleau-Ponty, 1945). It attempts to understand that phenomenon from three alternate perspectives focused on one player in the event. Eventually, these perspectives provide not just a set of angles from which to view LRE, but they fill out the picture and give it depth and dimension. Instead of a group of alternate explanations, these three perspectives fit like puzzle pieces to provide a clearer picture of how a complex decision is approached by school administrators. 45 Ad The tie date 2938; Sm: meet from times the describe the of contact a' educafiona: manages c if general e WW9 j 199%). adrr do reseemhe makes or the We”! avana LRE phenom metaphor be I listening to a c em Open" at empt i0 Und‘ l . alChs deClSic a, harm the lie" Administrator’s perspective on LRE. There are many scholarly conversations surrounding LRE placements and the challenges that accompany them (Harry 8. Klinger, 2007; Palley, 2006; Smith, 2006; Smith & Wild, 2006; Taylor, 1988). However, one is hard pressed to find much from an administrative perspective on LRE and the decision-making process that goes into each determination. Many of the available lenses describe the LRE dilemma from the student perspective, often citing the benefits of contact and interaction with same-age peers for any student with special educational needs. Some lenses are from a teacher perspective and the challenges of differentiation or keeping a student functioning and progressing in the general education classroom. These studies often take an advocacy perspective and in some (Barton & Slee, 1999; Beratan, 2006; Slee, 1999—a, 1999-b), administration is seen as the opposing force to be challenged. Rarely do researchers focus the lens on the administrator and the choices that she makes or the precipitating forces that lead up to those choices. Therefore, our current available perspectives are limited at best. Attempting to understand this LRE phenomenon through one lens would, in returning to the Magic Eye metaphor, be like examining a two dimensional painting of the Magic Eye while listening to a curator explain its meaning in the free audio tour. There are no obvious openings or invitations for alternate interpretations. This research, in an attempt to understand LRE, chose three frameworks (Hasazi et al.’s factors, March’s decision-making, and Lipsky's street-level bureaucrats) with which to analyze the data. Although there are many alternatives to choose from, the three 46 afs Factors | least rest-1 adainrstrat Wore prov analysis C en‘riron'nen' chosen reflect differing, but interactive perspectives on understanding the complex decision making process of least restrictive environment. The following chapters explore these frameworks beginning with Hasazi et al’s factors in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 explains the decision-making aspect of the least restrictive environment determination and Chapter 6 examines the administrators as street-level bureaucrats. Finally Chapter 7 synthesizes the picture provided by the three dimensional perspectives and applies the color of analysis. Chapter 8 then addresses the stakeholders involved in least restrictive environment decisions and offers advice for administrators and policymakers. 47 activlt. (which he Wo these (CST) father, daily nc reWard I day at s bahEli/lo trick."L Chapter 4: Hasazi et al.’s Factor Analysis Stephen is a six-year old student in the first grade. He arrived at his current school mid-way through kindergarten year with no prior school records. His father told school officials that Stephen’s mother was abusive and neglected Stephen’s education. Teachers and school officials expected a certain level of “acting out" from Stephen because of his circumstances, and because it would take time for him to adjust to his new surroundings and family unit (new home, stepmother and stepbrother). After three weeks in kindergarten, he began distracting his teacher and classmates with loud noises and inappropriate language. He was often not cooperative in the classroom and would refuse to follow teacher directions for tasks he had demonstrated mastery of during previous activities. At times he would pretend he could not write or spell his name (which he would then carve into the time out chair later in the afternoon), or he would refuse to come over to the circle carpet for story time. Because these behaviors were resistive, but not destructive, a Child Study Team (CST) was convened during the kindergarten year. Stephen’s teacher, father, and school counselor met and created a behavior plan that included daily notebook communication between home and school, and an incentive reward program at home that was contingent on his behavior during the day at school. By the and year, Stephen was responding well to the behavior plan and beginning to successfully access the curriculum. In first grade, Stephen’s resistance increased and became more violent. He was verbally belligerent to the classroom teacher and the 48 principal and recognized no authority figure outside of his father. The behavior plans that worked well last year were completely ineffective this year. Stephen did not care about gaining a reward at home and was not motivated to follow directions and “do well” in school. Stephen spent much of his day In the principal’s office because he realized that many things In the classroom could be ignored, except for violence against another classmate. He then escalated his resistance to assaulting students In his classroom immediately upon his arrival at school. After the third assault, the principal suspended him for two days. Stephen’s father felt this would only feed Into his behavior and encourage a continuation. Worried that Stephen would be pushed out of school altogether, he called the district and demanded a special education evaluation for his son. After an evaluation process, the IEP team, including the assessment team, met with Stephen’s father to diagnose Stephen and decide what educational supports he would need to best access the curriculum. A district psychologist noted that Stephen’s IQ was 105, well within the normal range. His academic and language comprehension skills were at age-level when he cooperated with testing. However, his expressive language skills, In terms of pragmatics or social language scored two deviations below his vocabulary and receptive language skills. This would account for the difficulties he has in communicating with adults and peers. A private psychologist presented test Information that diagnosed Stephen with severe depression and anxiety disorder. He was also noted to be aggressive when frustrated and was more likely to make a poor personal behavior choice (such as harming another). Doctors placed him on and- depressants and a medication that should address his compulsive 49 beh.‘ mon expe Emc- that med. be in SChOi. Ihera. behavior. The IEP team was warned that the medication would take up to a month to fully take effect. Both psychologists recommend a clear behavior expectation plan with meaningful consequences and rewards. The IEP team and Stephen’s father agree that Stephen has an Emotional impairment (El), but there is a disagreement with how to address that educational disability. The father insists that because Stephen is on medication, he will no longer be violent in the classroom and deserves to be in the general education classroom given his average test scores. The school insists that Stephen requires a period of intensive special education therapy before he could function appropriately and successfully in the general education environment full time. They recommend he attend a self- contained El classroom that integrates out into the general education environment for art, music, and physical education as starting points. One sticking point to this recommendation is that the only El classroom for Stephen’s age level in the district is on the other side of town and will require a long bus ride to and from school every day. Stephen’s father is not satisfied with this offer and holds out on signing the lEP. He is considering contacting a lawyer if he cannot find some middle ground with the district on Stephen’s educational opportunities. In the interim, he is keeping Stephen home and hiring a private tutorltherapist to work with him during the day. The Hasazi et al. Factors The first theoretical perspective used to examine the least restrictive environment decision making process is the previously mentioned Hazasi, 50 Johnston, Liggett & Schattrnan (1994) study, which specifically examined LRE' from the perspective of the many stakeholders involved in the process. This expansive study classified research sites as either high users of separate special education environments (meaning the district places a large percentage of students with disabilities in segregated classrooms) or low users of separate special education environments (meaning the district placed a large percentage of students with disabilities in the general edumtion classroom). The findings revealed six factors found to be influential to the implementation of LRE: Finance, Organization, Advocacy, lmplementers, Knowledge & Values, and State & Local. These factors provide a practical lens to begin analysis of this study’s data. They allow us to lay a framework for describing the contextual background of the LRE phenomenon and the dilemmas that ensue from it. This chapter begins with an examination of the Hasazi findings and what they tell us about the LRE process. Because the Hasazi research was completed in the late 1980’s, it is important to examine whether the factors influencing LRE are static or in flux with changes in the policy environment over time. This analysis provides a comparison of the original Hasazi et al (1994) findings with findings from the current data and a description of changes in the policy environment between the studies that may affect the relevance of Hasazi et al's factors. Following that discussion, an examination is conducted of the definition of Least Restrictive Environment in both the Hasazi et al study and this research. The chapter culminates in an examination of how the Hasazi et al framework applies to this study’s research questions. 51 The Hasazi Framework In the late 1980’s, Hazasi, Johnston, Liggett & Schattman (1994) conducted a multi-year, multi-state study of six states and twelve school districts to discern the factors involved in the implementation of least-restrictive environment. Interview subjects were drawn from a multitude of fields that interacted, either directly or indirectly, with least restrictive environment decisions, including service providers, administrators, teachers, policy makers, and building secretaries in order to achieve a fully dimensional understanding of what was involved in LRE implementation. Subjects were chosen from sites that were labeled high or low users of separate special education environments and asked questions concerning students with disabilities and the access they have to the general education environment. Responses were coded and quantitatively analyzed, producing a list of factors that were indicated as being most influential in the least restrictive environment decision. These factors were examined for patterns between the aforementioned high and low user sites. Low users versus high users. Within the study, eight of the research sites were noted to be high users of separate education facilities for students with special educational needs, and ten sites were low users of such facilities. The label of “high user” site does not indicate a site is breaking laws or mistreating students. It indicates that the policy 52 ofhatsch environme' of that school, district. or state leans towards the use of special education environments to serve students with special edumtional needs. - High User sites: are more likely to place students with disabilities in a self-contained, separate special education classroom for large portions of the school day. These sites use the separate environment more. - Low User sites: are more likely to place students with disabilities in the general education classroom and use the separate environment less. Hasazi et al.’s analysis examined the range of interpretations of LRE across these sites and the patterns that emerge between high and low user sites. Some sites (often low-users of separate environments) interpreted the concept of least restrictive environment as representing a series of placements along a continuum of services provided either within or outside of the general education building. Other sites (particularly high-users of separate environments) indicated that the needs of the child and the capacity of the system should be considered individually and cannot be predetermined (thus no specific policy towards placement in general education). intriguing patterns emerged between high and low user sites. Low user (not separate) sites tended to deliver special education services in neighborhood schools with same-age peers, and students with special educational needs were 53 they class his rr be a Educ the g Dfod distr his n gene in general education with supports as much as possible. Low user sites demonstrated a ”systemic commitment to directing significant resources" to providing special education services in the general education environment. High user (separate) sites often characterized the LRE decision process as considering one child and one decision at a time. These sites tended to move slowly in change processes and focused resources on maintaining status quo. In terms of Stephen, if the district he attends were a low user site, they might initially discuss options for keeping him in a special education classroom and providing general education access for limited periods until his medication stabilizes and behavior plans activate. Then, there would be a plan with a reasonable timeframe for his full-time return to the general education classroom. The special educator would begin team-teaching in the general education classroom and a specific behavior plan would be produced to allow Stephen access and gradual success. A low user district would look at local educational options before taking Stephen from his neighborhood school. . Stephen’s district, however, is a high user site. They value the general education environment, but also value the focused intervention a special education classroom can provide for students who present needs as serious as Stephen does. His inability to maintain appropriate and safe behavior in the classroom makes it difficult for the district to support his return until there is a moderate guarantee of safety for all students involved. The district has a highly recommended and successful program ‘ p. 495 54 research T 533’: the al SGUmn rte-pr. for students with Emotional Disorders but the nature of the program requires an initial period of self-containment. The student is then re- integrated into the general education environment gradually and with scaffolded goals towards successful academic progress. Study Site Locations in the Framework Considering these parameters, the sites in this study classify as either low users or high users moving towards a low user framework. In Table 4.1 below describes special education placement data for the study sites involved in this research. These are compared to the United States Average. The columns reflect the amount of time spent in the general education environment. The first column represents the percentage of students with disabilities out of the entire student population. “>80%" indicates percentage of students with disabilities who spend more than 80% of their day in the general education environment. “40- 79%” measures those students who spend that amount of time in the general education environment, and “<40%" represents the percentage of students who spend most of their day in the special education environment with less than 40% in classrooms with their general education peers. These students most likely integrate into the general education class for art, music, physical education, lunch, and recess. The final category indicates the percentage of students who spend their entire day in a segregated setting. ' Using the United States Average as a benchmark, Everystate presents placement data that closely mirrors the average. The REA in this study exhibits data that shows a higher incidence rate (16% compared to 14% in the state), and 55 a higher percentage than the state of students spending most of their day in general education (57% compared to 52%). The REA and state percentages are closer, the higher the restriction level. Utilizing this comparison data, the three district sites (the charter school counting as a district) can be classified as high or low users of special education environments. The Charter School and Riverdale boast incidence rates lower than the state average and closer to approaching the very low reported US average making them low users of special education environments. Sunnydale, on the other hand, has the largest incidence rate at almost one-fifth the population of the district at 19%. Where Riverdale integrates 50% of students with disabilities 80% of the time and the Charter School integrates an impressive 65% of its students with disabilities for most of the day, only 34% of Sunnydale’s students with disabilities are eligible for that option. The final piece of data used to determine whether a district was a high or low user of special education environments is to look at the <40% column. Riverdale stays close to the REA and state averages with 17% of students with disabilities attending self-contained classrooms and in the Charter School, less than 5% of these students are separate. Sunnydale educates a full one-third of its students with disabilities in self-contained classrooms for more than 60% of the day. Based on this information, both Riverdale and the Charter School demonstrate numerical characteristics of low user sites because they maintain a high number of students with disabilities in the general education environment. Sunnydale, on the other hand, is a high user site because of the extensive 56 placement of students with disabilities in self-contained environments. Although the original classification was based purely on numerical values, analysis revealed these districts shared characteristics with high and low user sites in the Hasazi et al. research. Riverdale has undergone a special education leadership change that has affected the overall district philosophy. Because Riverdale’s Special Education Director was upfront with this change, the district classifies as a high user moving towards a low user profile. The Charter School, by physical necessity, must be a low user site. It provides special education services, but is only one building with limited options for dedicated special education rooms. Making that physical arrangement work requires a district philosophy of maintaining students with disabilities in the same environments as their peers and focusing efforts on support. 57 23 33' m m—m-—_ Site %SPED >80% 40- <40% Separate 79% US Average 8.9 57 22 15 3.5 Everystate 14.3 52.7 24.5 16.6 4.3 Study REA 16 57.1 20.9 17.7 3.1 Sunnydale-Sub 19.2 34.9 27.74 33 4.22 Riverdale- 12.64 50.14 30.03 17.36 0 Urban Charter-Sub 12 65 <30 <5 0 Table 1: Study Site Special Education Placement Data Six Factors Influencing LRE implementation Finance. The Hasazi et al. (1994) research team analysis pinpointed six factors that were found to be most influential in the implementation of LRE in the late 1980’s through the early 1990’s, and utilized them to demonstrate the differences between high and low user sites. These factors are: Finance, Organization, Advocacy, lmplementers, Knowledge & Values, and State & Local. Finance emerged as the most influential factor in Hasazi et al’s 1994 study. All 18 sites in the study identified “finance as essential to determining how LRE was being implemented’." Hasazi et al. noted that funding formulas in many states made it more lucrative to have a student with severe impairments than one with learning disabilities. These formulas are considered a possible detriment to 2P496 58 the deter moh'ated sham hasm he educate Mg? 8 wwas mats EVEFysta fierenoe b diSSefla{(On “951316 ad the determination of LRE because of the potential for districts to be more motivated by additional funding than by doing what is best academically for the student in question. The charter school administrator hinted at this practice was when she was describing working in other states. There is this, uh, again the misperception that there is a lot of money in special education, and that the more severe the student is the more money you get kind of thing? So, yeah, I mean if you can get'a kid that's in a vegetative state and you can have a self-contained classroom of one, you're gonna make a boatload of money. That's the idea. (Interview-Charter School Administrator, May 26, 2009) Everystate does not follow such a funding formula. This is a significant difference between the sites Hasazi et al studied and those studied in this dissertation due to a change in the LRE law with lDEA 2004. This change is why the state administrator reacted to the funding question as she did. There is no - we don't,um, reimburse districts or schools or anybody based on placement. in other words, it’s not like, some states you've got a certain amount of money for certain programs, it's not done that way in (Everystate). (lnterview- State Administrator, February 25, 2009) Everystate distributes special education funding to the regional centers, which then create their own formulae for distributing the funds to districts and agencies underneath. 59 W35 mont (lnte Here agency in th 30395598 iv responses fl hiding betv general edw schools not}: administratm and receives operate btlcksth Each lSD can figure out their own funding kind of formula. For special ed there's a tax - there's a millage, county-wide property tax millage, where Proposal A got rid of that for the local districts, we still have that. There’s also IDEA flow-through dollars from the feds. Well, some districts getting lDEA money hurts them because they get less other money. So we looked - they figured out who was in formula/out of formula for stuff, people who were out of formula get IDEA money 'cause it doesn't hurt them and it maximizes everyone's revenue, and then we split that up... and we have - we make really no budgetary decisions in special ed without input from our local. It's not our money, it's their money. (Interview-Regional Administrator, March 3, 2009) Here the regional administrator addresses the complexity each regional agency in the state faces when deciding how each district within that region accesses funding for students with special educational needs. Examining the responses from interviewees, however, suggests there are some differences in funding between students in self-contained environments and those in the general education environment, but that they are so small, only the smallest schools notice. This was clearest when discussing finance with a charter-school administrator where the charter school is its own Local Education Agency (LEA) and receives funding from the region as if it were a full district. That's the difference between our school and other schools, is that we operate in the red - constantly in the red - losing $500 bucks here, losing $500 bucks there, it's not going to kill us. We‘d rather have a kid on consult than have 60 hhsd FBSZ'icth'e e hermem ifiange m8 $351151 3d,. misideratii FOi'i'OV/ing ”6“ Cheat a kid in the resource room miserable, inappropriately placed, to make $500 bucks a year. it's just not worth it.... The amount of money we get in lDEA flow through, which is the amount of money that is allowed to special education students, is so small in comparison with the amount of money that we spend, that it makes no difference to us if we have 100 kids or if we have 150 kids. (interview-Charter School Administrator, May 26, 2009) in this dissertation study, finance does not play as strong a role in the least restrictive environment process as it did in Hasazi’s study twenty years ago. Ovenlvhelmingly, administrators on the state, regional, and district level all said finance makes no difference in the LRE determination process. Riverdale’s district administrator noted, “From a legal standpoint, having the money is never a consideration. Um, the law doesn't care.” This reaction is reflective of Rule Following (RF) decision-making, which will be discussed in more depth in the next chapter. Essentially, RF decision-makers base their choices upon a set of rules and the identity they derive from following those rules. Special education is enshrined in rules that must be followed but sometimes can also be skirted or adjusted. According to lDEA regulations, states may not determine funding based on the educational placement of a student. Districts cannot receive more money for students because they are in a self-contained environment. The needs of the student are to be considered and met through supports and adaptations provided by the education agency. In terms of LRE, if a student needs a small class environment or a center—based classroom, the district is obligated to provide that 61 he separa maintainin somerset, We finan fina tow alsc dec the: Ste Plat mu 9rd Org Orc Diwgsion l in some form, regardless of financial capacity. Legally, districts cannot make LRE decisions based on finances. This is part of why the responses were all so similar when asked about financial factors in the LRE decision-making process. Hasazi et al (1994) interestingly noted a difference in financial philosophy between high and low users of special education environments. High users saw the separate funding for special education as an asset and focused on maintaining that level of funding for the special education program. Low users, conversely, saw a change in funding as an opportunity to make changes that are more financially efficient In Stephen’s case, finance comes into play if his district is financially rewarded for placing him in the separate classroom across town. This is how finance does not affect placement. However, finance also affects the quality of services provided once that placement is decided. Finance affects the number of teachers that a district can hire and therefore the caseload numbers of the teachers who will be working with Stephen. Finance does have an effect, but not specifically on the placement decision. If Stephen’s team recommends a service, the district must find a way to make that happen, even ‘if the service occurs in a small group of 5-10 students rather than as an individual intervention. Organization. Organization in the Hasazi et at work refers to the structure of service provision within a state special education system. How do states and 62 municipa' WMEPS' statewide consults nt municipalities address capacity concerns when meeting the needs of students with lEPs. lDEA mandates that a continuum of services be available for all students and the placement of an individual student will depend on the particular case as presented. How local education agencies meet the needs of their students who present the most complex challenges to the system as well as those who require minimal special education support depends upon the statewide system of support available. Are there regional entities that serve as consultant service providers for districts? Do local districts pull together in a cooperative organization to meet the special education needs of the schools within it? Some larger districts are able to address special education in-house while other areas are serviced by independent special school districts. District and state officials have a multitude of configurations as to how organizational connections allow a higher capacity level for meeting student needs. When examining organizational configurations, Hasazi et al (1994) noted that the initial PL 94-142 (1975) law provided regulation but no direct incentive to follow through with the law to the letter. in addition, as described in Chapter 2, from the mid 19703 through the 1990s LRE as a concept was being defined in piecemeal court decisions that exposed the LRE exterior one small crack at a time. States made good in trying to develop capacity for addressing the complex requirements of teaching students with special educational needs. Some states developed regional centers to provide support for local education agencies while _ others developed their own state school system for students with multiple and complex needs and left the rest for local districts to serve. in some of these 63 3838. a school dis additona? ln' athih'stta tel/elem meted to responsibi devetoomt 9”? a iev. paperwon admin ism added a , Each Spe and the s over Wha it - areas, a local capacity was developed through cooperation between several school districts. In all of these instances, the additional capacity also required an additional level of administrative involvement. in discussing organizational capacity for special education, separation and administrative redundancy are important considerations. When districts developed this capacity to educate their students with special needs, they also needed to include an additional layer of administration to address the extensive responsibility that came with this capacity. Paperwork, legal representation, development of eligibility requirements as well as IEP manuals and training are only a few of the administrative tasks that are in addition to the already paperwork-intensive administration requirements facing district officials. Adding administrators that were specialists in special education was a logical move but it added a redundant layer of oversight to the implementation of special education. Each special education teacher has two supervisors, the building administrator and the special education administrator, but which supervisor has the most say over what happens in the classroom will depend upon the relationship the building administrator has with the special education department or agency. Creating a more complex feedback loop, the dual supervision, dual funding of special education (some money comes from general education and some from special education budgets) creates an interesting organizational separation for special education that strangely reflects the social situations of special education students. Students diagnosed with a special educational disability are suddenly the primary responsibility of a special educator or special education consultant Even if the child is only going into a resource room, a level of responsibility falls upon the special educator, and a separation occurs. Special educators often occupy the worst classrooms of the school, operate with the least amount of supply funds, and must take the initiative on being included in school functions. In the Hasazi study, high users of separate special education facilities relied more on regional service systems that provide administrative structure and a professional teaching staff in a separate location than the local education agencies. These regional programs have the expertise and the trained staff to provide services local districts may not have the funding to provide. Primarily, these programs house students who present the most complex needs and who require specialized facilities that are not often built in to school districts that were constructed in the mid 1900s. Regional funding programs evolved with these service systems creating a larger organizational structure reinforcing separateness. Low users of separate special education facilities in the Hasazi study also utilized regional service centers, but mostly for related services such as Physical Therapy (PT), Occupational Therapy (OT), and Speech-Language Pathology (SLP), technical assistance, and administrative and teacher training. Regional education providers hire train, and manage these professionals for school districts allowing districts to shave off one level of administrative redundancy while maintaining service delivery in the local schools. Low users did not utilize regional programs for direct instructional services or separate facility placement. 65 systems a agencies. $093185; he funding for fegionaf 3dfiinlstra: me LEA: We | COLiit Additionally, low user sites were developing plans to educate “all” students as much as possible in the general education environment. High users, on the other hand, again focused on maintaining the status quo organizationally. Everystate currently uses a merged version of the two systems described above. The organization of education agencies relies heavily on regional systems as an administrative buffer between state and district or local education agencies. As noted earlier in the finance discussion, regional agencies receive all of the special education funding for the districts in that region and then create the funding formula for distributing that money. The degree of power this creates for regional agencies could be oppressive. However, when talking to the regional administrator in this study, it seemed that particular region saw the power resting in the LEAs. We have all these people because they contract with us for the service. They could purchase the service from anyone - they don't have to get it from us, and what we're seeing right now is some of our academies are saying, we can do this cheaper. They probably can - will it be the same quality, i don't know. (interview-Regional Administrator, March 3, 2009) Although Everystate’s regions do run state schools, they also provide support services and training to the districts within their jurisdictions. Some districts, such as Sunnydale, provide their own self-contained programs (also called center-based and Basic Classrooms), whereas others depend entirely upon the region to help their students with the most complex needs. Mixed 66 int fights pare 142(1975 stir-jens w compiaint fights are e. 950130 Educ; “WmMLI Students arl | before an IE Even Some , State or dist: understand OVErwhelma sin coping WI thmmas“ Barents Often mey Obtain the LRE deCi: results such as these may indicate a change from high to low user philosophy for regions and districts. it is more likely that the mixed results occur because the distribution of money and educational resources varies from region to region. Advocacy. in terms of advocacy, it is important to first understand the extraordinary rights parents of students with special education needs were given with PL 94— 142 (1975) on up to the current lDEA 2004. As noted in Chapter 2, parents of students with lEPs have the right of due process or the right to file a legal complaint concerning the creation or implementation of an lEP. Due Process rights are extended to parents through lDEA making them the only consumers of public education with the explicit right to take a school district to court. An important piece of IDEA, these rights spell out protections for parents and students and it is expected that these protections will be explained to parents before an lEP process proceeds. However, the law is still written in legalese and even some procedures and safeguards flyers produced for parents (by either state or district entities) are complex and may be difficult for parents to understand. Many parents of students with special educational needs are overwhelmed with the process of determining service and placement. Some are still coping with the initial diagnosis of a disability or are struggling with their child J at home as well and are looking for help from the professionals at school. These parents often go through many meetings without understanding their rights even if they obtain a pamphlet explaining them. This is where advocates play a role in the LRE decision-making process. 67 Advocates began playing a role in the late 19703 when parents of students with special educational needs created grassroots networks to help each other navigate the burgeoning waters of special education". Parents who knew their rights became advocates for parents who were still learning theirs, and these advocates represented parent and student interests at IEP meetings. Eventually the advocacy system expanded and currently there are several national advocacy groups that will put a parent in touch with a local advocate who can be available for anything from answering questions to being a support at the meetings at school. When Hasazi et al (1994) approached their research on LRE; parents were among the stakeholders interviewed. The research team acknowledged the strong influence parents could have on the LRE decision making process and examined how that influence played out. instead of finding that parents were primary forces for their children staying in the general education environment, researchers realized that parents ran the gambit of opinions on LRE. Some parents were fierce advocates for their child being in the general education classroom, fighting for that placement. Others welcomed the aforementioned “protection” the special education classroom provided and were hesitant to move a child into the unknown of a new and larger classroom. Hasazi et al. found that parents and advocates are historically influential in the state legislature, but are divergent in their beliefs as to what is right for special needs students. Where 3 http:/Mww.pacer.orglaboutlhistory.asp 68 parents had the most influence, was at local sites and with local district policy makers. In high user states, Hasazi saw slow changes made to LRE policy in order to attend to the multiple perspectives coming from organized parent groups. High users also had vocal parent groups that supported maintaining existing programs and even increasing services. Low user sites, however, approached parents differently, soliciting fliem to become involved in a collaborative process to change policy. Vocal parents in these areas were seen as resources and “partners” in educating other parents“. Low user sites also utilized parents for committees and offered workshops designed to promote integration. Legal intervention is considered a move of last resort for low users. In the end, if parents were in disagreement with a school’s placement recommendation, they were usually accommodated. in this dissertation research, the advocate factor is not clearly defined. All of the administrators interviewed acknowledged the power that parents had in the lEP process. Soto me, the most powerful person in that group would be the parents - the most influential person in terms of whether it's going to be a yes or no would be the parents. (interview-Riverdale principal #2, June 17, 2009) They're very important. They're — it's their child, hello! We're only here and holding a child for a certain amount of time. That's their child forever, and so, 4P502 69 LP“ 5's: 931' dish: whe relat. relat. feiat deCiS: "3899 Coun Dismc mimic 913%; ‘. really they're a big part of making decisions. (Interview-Sunnydale principal #2, February 26, 2009) Interestingly, the view that parents are powerful factors in an lEP LRE decision process was only voiced by two out of the nine interview subjects. These two were building level administrators who interact with parents on a daily basis. They are not the only administrators who discussed the power of parents, but other mentions of parents only arose when prompted by interviewer follow-up questions. i think the person who can make or break those kinds of decisions or those negotiations or whatever you want to call them, is the person who's got the best relationship with the parent. For me, everything always boils down to relationships. We've got our rigor and relevance, and those are important, but relationship is key, you know. If i as a special education teacher have that good relationship with the parent, i can probably have more influence on that LRE decision than anyone else because the parents - and there's a trust and a respect that gets developed in that kind of situation. (interview-Jefferson County Regional Administrator) There's only two voices - really, two voices in an IEP. You have the District and the parent. I know people try to stack ...and i know all about the intimidation and all, you know, all the complaints we hear from parents' side, and from, you know, more from teachers when the principal comes in and kind of glares at you not to make that decision. But, um, in reality, no one should have 70 UnwemalE educationa; 3% Mon %mm‘mde Stay the me pafem With a ‘ 8‘9th more influence than the other. That's the way, according to law. (interview- State Administrator) It was clear advocates and parent involvement were part of the conversation, but beyond statements that parents were important players in the lEP process, they did not seem to be a pressing concern. There are no indications in these interviews of parents on committees to implement special education reform, or that districts reach out to parents beyond making sure they understand the IEP process. Parents came up either when a specific case was described as an example or when given a prompt about parent voice in the LRE decision-making process. It is important to note that although it was not mentioned in the interviews, Everystate does include parents on many statewide policy committees and there is a vocal parent group in the state advocating for a “Universal Education Policy' that would place all students with special educational needs into the general education classroom with supports all of the time. Although this measure has not gone far beyond the committee recommendations, the state is careful to approach and listen to parents who also play the role of advocate. Stephen’s father has the right to file due process if he is unhappy with the arrangements the district is offering. He is referred to a local parent advocate who takes him through his rights as a parent of a student with a disability. The advocate will also attend the next lEP meeting with Stephen’s father to assure Stephen’s rights, as well as his father's are not 71 hc se.’ Imp Imp: mast on L 355.05% a Wading ${ Whistle-3 Itfluence if e'3'~*C?3‘.ion f hm IO'Cal L Warm 0| praCfiCES ir which, in it Hag we, e mm” ."m i‘ unity. R8 '5‘ ,_ :‘Eglated l 31‘ g - “inlsua, violated. At that meeting, the advocate questions the school on why the services must be provided at the school across town. The school district will have an opportunity to explain the decision, and negotiate some I compromise with the parent and advocate. If an acceptable compromise cannot be reached, the advocate will then assist the parent in filing for due process. lmplementers. lmplementers, in the Hasazi et al study, are people who have the most impact on LRE policy and decision-making. interestingly, in the Hasazi study, although a vast array of people involved in the decision process participated, including school secretaries, the individuals targeted as most vital were administrators. Hasazi indicated regional and local administrators have more influence than state officials do. However, the study also indicated that higher education faculty can play a strong role in LRE policymaking. Research faculty from local universities pair up with districts for student teaching sites and research opportunities. When this occurs, researchers often introduce innovative practices into the public setting or provide a level of in-service training for staff, which, in turn, reinforces the university faculty philosophy. Hasazi found in high user sites, regional directors had great influence and were committed to maintaining the status quo in special education placement policy. Regional directors of low user sites were more committed to promoting integrated education approaches. However, in all sites, researchers realized that administrator philosophy determined the overall district approach and at the 72 school level, principals were essential to the implementation of LRE policy. “Principals either facilitated or constrained"5 LRE implementation depending upon their enthusiasm for integrative policies. Principals not enthusiastic about integration were concerned with teacher pressures, class size, and the time a student with special educational needs takes away from the class as a whole. Principals who were enthusiastic about integration supported staff training, looked at scheduling changes and curriculum revisions, and found ways to redirect resources to make LRE happen. This study is founded on the theory that Hasazi’s fourth factor is the primary one in LRE decision-making. lmplementers, particularly building level administrators, are vital to the success of a LRE placement. Teachers were found to have little influence in high user sites and inconclusive influence in low user sites. Teachers may have perspective to offer but in the end, they have very little decision making power. Moving up from the classroom level, building administration take their policy cues from the district special education director. Building administrators (principals or special education consultants) are usually the district representative at an IEP and have the capability of promising (or not) resources from the district. They also have the capacity to encourage or discourage successful integration. There is evidence that building administrators are highly influenced by the philosophy of the district level special education director. The following quotes outline a few ways this influence plays out. First, the charter school administrator 5P503 73 notes he- irai' deci with tea . This emei'iencr aClear Ch; Lind adv: notes how her previous experience saw the principal and district director as the final decision-makers for LRE placements. it is interesting to note that this quote outlines the prior experience of this researcher as well. Principals sometimes wielded placement power despite the input of the educators and experts on site. My prior experience was that the administrator made the decision, and it was either a - there have been very, very clear cut positions... And so it's the school principal that says this kid is going in this classroom with these persons, or it's the special education director that, more often than not, has nothing to do with the school... Very seldom have i seen an LRE decision being made in a team format. (interview-Charter School Administrator) This phenomenon seems to be fading, however, since the current experience of the charter school administrator is markedly different, and all other administrators spoke of teamwork and team decisions. Other evidence points to a clear chain of command from district director to building implementation. i would say that we are now very fortunate to have a director who really understands special education and the needs of students, and she is a child advocate. So, even though I don't know what i should know about least restrictive environment, based on what I know about our new director, I would say she is really to the letter. She wants to make sure that students are receiving what they need in the least restrictive environment area. (interview-Riverdale Building Administrator #1) 74 The above quote indicates building administrators take their special education policy cues from the district administration’s lead. Some principals need encouragement from district administration to make changes when new policy or curricula are being adopted. interestingly, Sunnydale has moved principals almost completely out of the picture. Instead, there are teacher consultants (five elementary, five secondary) who travel the district providing lEP administrative assistance to buildings. This appears to limit the necessity of gaining buy-in from building administrators. However, does it mean that the administrative consultants have free reign over placement in a building? This was unclear. Well, the - in our district, principals don't play as much of a role as in other school districts, because we have - our teacher consultants act more like administrators in special education, so they are‘the ones who pretty much run lEPs, especially the initial ones and the re-evaluation ones. If a student is in a program and it's working, then the teacher often will run the IEP meeting because it's just a pro forma type of thing. But in the ones where there's act-a true consideration, in other words, the least restrictive environment is being considered for a change or initially considered, they run those and the principal is really not too involved - they go to meetings and these folks act as the district - the true district representative. (interview-Sunnydale district administrator, February 13, 2009) 75 have! phase? The Riverdale district special education director relayed one of her first challenges as a new director in getting principals on board for a change in LRE philosophy. She also notes how important the principal is to a student’s success. So when I walked in to the District i saw the principals not really having a solid understanding of the supports that we're obligated to have in place for kids to make them successful. Anumber of them thought in black and white. They're either successful or they're not, and if l'm disciplining them, they don't belong here, they need to go somewhere else, and they're not seeing it as a continuing of support, um, and l'mseeing, you know, in working with them there’s been sort of an evolution that l'm glad to have happen because they're calling me now and saying, this is what's going on, what should we be doing. Um, but they do cany a lot of weight and they can - and l'm not picking out any principal in particular -but in general, could really sabotage a kid's success if they're not willing to work with them... if a principal has made up their mind that this kid needs - needs to be out of there, I think that taints the general ed teacher's perspective and so on down the line. (Interview-Riverdale district administrator, February 13, 2009) Where do district administrators and directors find their policy cues? A logical step would be the regional director, and in the case of Everystate, this is true. Regions in this state are highly powerful because they have an unusual * amount of financial control over district special education budgets. As discussed earlier, regions receive the special education funding from the state and create a distribution fonnuia that best reflects the needs of the districts within that region. The state hands off money, sends out some form of policy guidance (although 76 not in printed form), and colbcts data for federal reporting requirements. The state also provides monitoring and assistance when regions or districts are not passing their IDEA indicators. District officials indicate the state monitors are a good resource for better understanding the federal reporting requirements and problem solving areas that are currently not up to expectations. They’re (state monitors) trying to, you know, make districts understand, what the federal government is looking for and then they need to look at their - they need to go and look at their policies and procedures, and come up - because if you’re not meeting the target, you get a determination, you know, you might be rated low and then we come in and do some work with you. And so from the state point of view, what you ~ the hard part is to not say to people, it‘s your fault...principal or some administrator says, oh the kid'll be fully included. It’ll solve our problem. And it’s not looking individually. So how do you move people toward a target and still have that individual decision-making? (lnterview- State Administrator, February 25, 2009) It appears that, like in the Hasazi study, the regional entities hold the most influence in special education policy dissemination in Everystate. When discussing LRE decisions and local districts with the regional administrator, a tone of supervisory status becomes clear. Although he notes that the districts under his care do not have to contract out services with the region, they still receive their funding from regional formulas and are under regional supervision for special education performance indicators. However, districts still operate as 77 Militia r '9 mix» 0C int IVE €81 individual entities, providing a complex conglomeration - of delivery systems for the region to supervise. My primary concern is that we're making the right decisions, you know? I don't really care how we get there, um, but I do, I've got - we've got 12 districts and I think seven public school academies, currently. Um, and they're all - you know, they're all autonomous. So, they're all making their own, kind of, way. i mean, you talked to (Riverdale Director) i mean, ...l would say our thinking is probably fairly close, I mean, she was my colleague here, so I know her pretty well. Um, but that's not the case everywhere... in some districts, (Riverdale), each building is pretty much autonomous, so you've got - you have a variety - there's not a standardization of practice, even within a local, you know. If you can get it within a local, then how do we as (a region) get everyone to kind of come to that same kind of thing? (Interview-Regional Administrator, March 3, 2009) A final note about implementers goes back to the previous discussion concerning faculty from higher education facilities. Everystate has a large number of teacher preparation institutions, many of which are also research facilities. The only interviewee who mentioned working with university faculty was the state administrator, indicating faculty implementers are mostly influential at the top layers of educational policy and not as involved in the ground level implementation of LRE. lmplementers in this dissertation study demonstrated both high and low user processes in discussing LRE decision-making. Regional administrators are 78 mwm special E educatic' amdd sham, powerful and the one in this study was clear in his advocacy for students with special educational needs to spend as much time as possible in the general education environment District administrators in this particular region also have a level of power since County Regional offices allow for district adaptation of how special education placement decisions are made. Riverdale implementers have been given a clear message that education in the general education classroom is preferred. Sunnydale implementers, on the other hand, are one step outside of the building administrator’s realm and, like high user sites from Hasazi, demonstrate their intentions to maintain the status quo in the district of using separate environments when deemed beneficial. Knowledge and Values. Hasazi et al utilized the terms knowledge and values to describe how districts determine what is important for special education and how to distribute and communicate that importance. Knowledge refers to implementation efforts linked to learning from research and theory of practice. How do sites garner specific skills sets utilized for implementation and how do individuals learn more to improve implementation? Values describes what a district sees as being “ethically right” for children. Values reflects a core belief system within a district and knowledge reflects the tools a district uses to activate and maintain that core belief system. Hasazi et ai found that high users of separate special education environments valued maintaining the status quo in terms of funding, support, and 79 parenta tree-ting WWW: i Gambit System if parental issues. High user sites valued the uniqueness of each individual meeting and stressed meeting individual needs. These sites utilized their knowledge capacity to enhance teacher instructional skills and classroom capabilities. Low user sites, on the other hand, demonstrated a top-down value system that made clear the importance of accommodating all children in the general education setting as much as possible. These sites utilize their values to guide change processes and focus their knowledge capacity to team about processes that will facilitate integration. it is clear from the data that all of the sites examined in this dissertation study profess child-centered values. Every interview holds at least one instance of an administrator being concerned that they (school, district, region, state) are doing the best thing possible for the child in question. That's where you start. Where's the kid at, and then you need to go from there. Because before you know where the kid has, you know, what the kid’s good at, what the kid has difficulty with, whatever, you need to have that discussion and then you go into placement decisions. (lnterview- State Administrator, February 25, 2009) There are more distinct value differences at the district and building level as to how these students are constructed and how adminish‘ators achieve a better understanding of their needs. The Riverdale administrator below noted how she looks at the plans in place when thinking about what a student might need. She considers what she can learn from the situation and how she can use 80 that knowledge to facilitate integration. This is reflective of a low-user site from Hasazi et al’s study. i usually come in to help with, are the behavior plans appropriate? How do we need to adjust behavior plans so that they're - you know, so that the kids can be successful? Do we have the right accommodations in place to really help foster that conversation amongst the service providers and then try to foster that relationship with parents and the building principals. (interview-Riverdale district administrator, February 13, 2009) The value of addressing the needs of the individual children with disabilities in the state is clearly a shared value across all levels of administration. The knowledge of how to make decisions that reflect that value is another story. in this study, overall values of educating students with special educational needs is clear throughout the vertical administrative chain. When that chain reaches the district level, slight changes in approach make a difference between high and low users of separate educational environments. The high user district, Sunnydale, reflects a philosophy of addressing the needs of one child at a time and maintaining some status quo for the time being. Riverdale and the Charter School both reflect a philosophy of keeping students in their general education environment as much as possible by investigating many potential options for accommodation. Gaining knowledge that can help with integration implementation is valued as well as processes that help students stay in their general education classrooms. 81 avaiatie gf’r'le m; it itterié rafiiig ' matte ism-dis a he quest C 3213 ‘(i rtspec V. Sill Par l big/7 mat Poss A final note about values and knowledge comes from programs made available by Everystate for regions and districts. These programs include some of the most recent research concerning behavior, reading instruction, Response to intervention (RTI), and educating students with autism. The programs provide training, implementation assistance, and curriculum. Districts need only to complete a grant application indicating their desire to participate. At the moment, districts are competing for spots in the training and implementation process, but the question remains unanswered as to whether the state will eventually require districts to adopt programs such as RTI that demonstrate benefits to students with special educational needs. Stephen’s district demonstrates a high user perspective in that it values the specialization provided in self-contained classrooms. These agencies convince parent groups that the specialization provided is far above the education their child would get in the crowded general education environment. They create an atmosphere of “protection” around the student with disabilities (or around the students without disabilities) that shields them from the complexities of interacting with their same-age. Parents rally around this call and can be convinced by the district that a high user philosophy is what is best for students with disabilities, thereby maintaining the status quo. In low user districts, values translate to keeping students in the general education classroom with their neighborhood peers as much as possible. 82 attire thesu mil)” Fevgio Ever) Elli/in State and Local. Hasazi et al.'s final factor, State and Local, intertwines with several factors above and emerges as an interesting player in Everystate. This factor examines the subtleties of a state’s policy culture and how influence is parlayed to the locals. States that were low users of self-contained education environments had influence but did not directly intervene in local policy formation, allowing the LEAs to set policy that best reflected the local context. States that were high users had political systems with direct, top-down involvement. In this limited analysis of Everystate, there are elements of both high and low user sites. The state overall does not have a direct involvement with local agencies but has, in some forms, distributed a general policy value of placing students in the general education environment for as much time as possible. Power and influence is handed down to the regions, which then set more specific top-down policies for special education implementation. This is a step removed from allowing each local agency to create a local policy environment. in the case of Jefferson County Regional Education Agency, the districts, and agencies it supervises do have leeway to create their own LRE implementation policy, but through monitoring, it is expected that the goals reflect those expressed by the region. Throughout this analysis using the Hasazi et al framework, elements of both high and low user sites have emerged. The data would indicate that Everystate is in a transition period from being a high user of self-contained environments to a medium to low user. Sunnydale does not overtly emphasize a 83 :r‘cfi . Curr ”731v- “t fDi in mfg”- high user profile as presented by the Hasazi study, but there are small indicators that the transition in that district is slow going. Mentions of “protecting” students were higher in Sunnydale interviews and the unusual distribution of administrative power in lEPs may play a role in the slower turnaround of district implementation philosophy. Riverdale does demonstrate characteristics of the low-user sites found in the Hasazi et al study and its leadership provides clear values of educating students with special educational needs in the general education environment. Additionally, Riverdale has applied for (and received) the aforementioned grants to pilot Response to Intervention models in a few schools. The success of these pilot programs has led the district to apply for the grant district-wide. Although Sunnydale also receives grant money for instituting RTI, there was little discussion about making that a district-wide philosophy. Current Primary Factors in LRE Decisions For this dissertation study, primary factors were identified in two ways. One was to directly address Hasazi et al.’s factors in the data by coding for the factors. This analysis was included in the above discussion of those factors. A second method involved asking a direct question about the factors that are most influential in LRE decisions. Wniie the first analysis combs the entire interview for information, this second approach provides a direct answer from the source of information. For data on this discussion, please refer to Figure 2 below. 84 Eig factor in dr described ' W? \S\.' Balding Ad it general ajifillllSiiam Writs wi, Waive t Factors in LRE Placement Parents Academic Access 6% Student Needs 14% 23% Teacher Ability 17% Student behavior 20% Program Options 20% Figure 2: Factors in LRE Placement Eight out of nine respondents mentioned “student need” as a primary factor in determining a least restrictive environment placement. Administrators described “student need” using multiple variables such as “social/emotional needs" (Sunnydale Building Administrator 1), “educational needs” (Riverdale Building Administrator 2), or needs for supplementary support to be successful in the general education curriculum (Sunnydale District Administrator). All of the administrators interviewed expressed a concern for the needs and the success of students with disabilities. They saw understanding and meeting these needs as imperative to appropriately placing the student in the educational environment. 85 r? (i) Seven out of nine respondents mention “student social behavior” as a primary factor in general education placement. This can manifest itself as social interaction needs, social skills, functional behavior, or atypical behavior, (meaning student actions that are contrary to the functioning of the classroom). Each of the administrators interviewed had their own way of describing this issue, and all had concerns about how students with disabilities were functioning in the general education environment and whether their behavioral actions were appropriate for that environment. From the discussion in Chapter 2, behavioral concerns are also at the forefront of LRE litigation (Rickey 2003). Students have the right to be educated with their general education peers as long as they are not a danger to those peers. Courts have determined that the rights of the rest of the students in the classroom must also be considered. Behavioral concerns were not the only issues at the forefront when administrators discuss factors. Seven out of nine also noted that the program options available in a particular school or district were highly influential in the LRE decision process. Six out of nine cited the ability of the general education teacher to teach the curriculum in a way that will address the needs of the student with disabilities as a key factor in where students spend their time. Here the capacity of the district to meet student needs is at the forefront of administrative thinking. What are the options available to meet needs? Which teachers are most competent in curricular instruction and differentiation? In contrast to Hasazi et al.’s research, only two of the nine respondents mentioned parents as a contributing factor. Some would add parents to the 86 ‘3‘ . Vt factor list when prompted, but as an initial response, parents did not make the cut. Likewise, none of the respondents mentioned financing as a factor in placement decisions. Financing was only discussed when the interviewer prompted the discussion. From this pilot work, the Hasazi et al. factors are still prevalent, but not as influential as they were twenty years ago. Has the system and law changed so drastically to alter the focus of influence in LRE decisions? Based on the above analysis, Stephen’s district ls considering his needs as a student However, the lEP team is also conceer about the other students in Stephen’s classroom. His performance scores indicate he could be successful in the general education classroom if he could rein in his behavioral choices. In particular, the team is concerned about Stephen’s aggressive outbursts towards other students. Even though the district is recommending a very restrictive environment initially, it also indicates a desire that Stephen eventually get back on track academically in the general education environment. His needs now are primarily focused on getting back into school successfully and his most pressing need is to be able to function in a public environment without being destructive or harmful to others. His father still believes removing him from his friends and placing him on a bus for long periods will not be appropriate or successful. The school argues the neighborhood school is not set up to provide Stephen with the intensive educational environment he needs to address IEP concerns. 87 Changes in Special Education Accountability Today’s educational system has changed dramatically since Hasazi et al (1994) conducted their research between 1989 and 1992, not the least of which was the sea change of accountability. IDEA undenrvent a revision in 1994 and then again in 2004 each time adding emphasis on accountability and regulation monitoring. States have followed suit and increased their own accountability systems including assuring students with disabilities are included in statewide assessment measures. This change, beginning in the late 19903, rode a wave of accountability measures that were beginning to take shape with the Goals 2000 Clinton educational initiative. States created standards for teaming and connected statewide assessments to those standards. Along the way, the common practice of exempting students with special educational needs from standardized exams was questioned. if students with lEPs were automatically exempt from these exams, how can schools be sure they are Ieaming the curriculum? This new expectation that all students take the state exams brought more pressure on school systems to assure access to the curriculum for all students. IDEA 2004 Additional monitoring. In 2004, the newly designed lDEA instituted a focused monitoring system requiring states to submit baseline data on indicators that measured compliance to lDEA regulations. States were to collect this data and submit a State Performance Plan that examined the baseline data and provided a plan and targets to improve on the baseline. This research focuses on indicator number 88 .i’9' Ill five measuring the percentage of special education students who spend x amount of time in the general education environment. Time frames are broken down into four main categories: 1. Students who spend more than 80% of their school day in general education settings, 2. Students who spend between 40-79% of their day in general education settings, 3. Students who spend less than 40% of their day in general education settings 4. Students who spend their day in a separate educational environment. States collect this data and send it in to the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) for evaluation and feedback. Through a series of negotiations and re-submissions, the state and federal regulators reach an agreement on target goals for each indicator and states submit a yearly progress report on how well they are achieving their goals: The process requires states to require districts to submit information for review and has placed a much more focused lens on the LRE practices of states and local education agencies. Because of this, the policy environment of this study does not reflect the policy environment of the Hasazi study. Examining Least Restrictive Environment: The Definition Another prominent difference between the Hasazi et al. (1994) study and this study occurs in the definition of Least Restrictive Environment. Hasazi et al. 89 2d hlU Ar 6 u n‘V team emphasized differences between high and low users of separate environments, showing low users relying more upon service delivery models within neighborhood schools and education with same-age peers. Low users also mention systematic resource commitments towards more thorough integration of students with special educational needs. High users indicated LRE decisions are made one child at a time considering the needs of the individual along with the capacity of the educational system in question. The IEP team considers a continuum of available services to appropriately determine placement and service delivery. High users do not discuss plans for system-wide changes in how LRE is determined and are more interested in maintaining the status quo of their current system. Subjects discussed the definition of Least Restrictive Environment in several ways. Some came out with a simple definition. I think of it as general ed. That's what it is. It's the regular classroom, the regular curriculum, that's the goal where we should be trying to get everyone to. (Interview-Regional Administrator, March 3, 2009) in my own words - um, I see it as students participating in the environment with typically developing peers, um, receiving the general curriculum from highly qualified content experts, um, and it’s a rich - language rich environment, with the combination so that they can progress (Interview- Riverdale district administrator, February 13, 2009) 90 Some discussed it as a potential scenario reflecting a student or a parent conversation. It's not necessarily - it's not a place. And as a result, sometimes kids who are fully included in a general education classroom could be considered to not be in a least restrictive environment. For example, if it's an unstable kid goes into a general ed, say, high school classroom, no one interacts with them, they sit in the back with a one-on—one aide, maybe a nurse, whatever, that kid is not in a least restrictive, because they're sitting there with an adult. That is not least restrictive. (lnterview- State Administrator, February 25, 2009) How these definitions played out in analysis subtly revealed one issue playing out at all levels of the state system; the lack of a cohesive state definition leads to a multitude of interpretations that are similar but also very different in form and philosophy. At the state level, the definition was brief but not entirely clear; “it’s not a place,” the state administrator noted. Her definition implicated a range of options focused on the needs of the child. These options are not simply placements in classrooms, because that does not reflect the true “integration” of a student within that physical location of the classroom. The regional administrator was more direct, “It's the regular classroom, the regular curriculum, that’s the goal we should be trying to get everyone to.” This administrator had a clear vision of how LRE should be considered. His definition, in contrast to the state administrator’s definition, identifies the general education environment as the goal of LRE. In discussing this definition, the respondent 91 at} 32* Hot QUE diffr does not delve into the continuum of services but pushes directly for the audience to ponder the interaction in the general education classroom. Moving to district administrators, both Sunnydale and Riverdale focused on students with special educational needs receiving their education in the general education classroom as much as possible with the minimal amount of special education intervention as possible. Building administrators, such as the Sunnydale administrator below, were more likely to discuss particular scenarios and interactions with parents when discussing the definition of LRE. For me, one of the things I usually talk to parents about is finding the balance between finding - providing the support and individualized specialized piece that they need and keeping them in the general ed setting and curriculum as much as possible and finding that balance. 80 least restrictive sometimes could be full time special ed, for a very disabled child or, you know, very—yeah, involved in a variety of disabilities, to minimal to no service with just modifications and accommodations made in general ed. And we have that whole gamut from full to just modifications and everything in between. (Interview-Sunnydale princlpal #2, February 26, 2009) How does the Hasazi et al. framework answer this study’s research questions? What are the factors that influence LRE decisions? Are there differences between districts? 92 713 The defining characteristics of the Hasazi et al study answer the first research question in this study. What are the factors that influence least restrictive environment decisions? Are there differences between districts? The Hasazi study initially identified six factors of influence. This study suggests some of those factors may not play as large a role in the current educational context, and other factors may now be more prevalent. One of the factors playing a more prominent role in Hasazi et al's study than this one is finance. All of the administrators in the study discussed regulations that insist funding should not play a role in the placement of a student, but building administrators noted that limited or cut funding reduces the service options and might make a difference in the quality of special education services available. The bi-polar nature of this funding factor is a perfect example of the contradictions in special education implementation. Funding, by law, mnnot make a difference in placement, but funding, by practice, does make a big difference in the resources available to students once placed in the special education system. This dissertation research identified two additional factors that appear to influence a least restrictive environment placement decision. The first, student needs would seem like a given element. However, the factors identified by the earlier Hasazi et al. study focused more on structures surrounding the student, where the current focus of factors appears to be student oriented. Current administrators attend to what students with disabilities need to be successful in the general education environment on a case—by-case basis. They examine the curriculum available and the skills and dispositions of the teachers involved. The 93 a Si. ,._.;. ...l). 3C2}: he“ wt 5 goal is to meet those student needs in any reasonable manner. All nine subjects shared this philosophical perspective, marking a possible larger change in school administrator attitudes towards students with disabilities. This change plays out further in later analysis frameworks. The second factor that appears to play an ever-increasing role in whether a student can function in the general education environment is behavior. For the purposes of this dissertation study, behavior refers to an individual student’s ability to socially function in the school environment. It more often will refer to an action or set of choices a student makes that are adverse to the social rules of the classroom or school. The term is also invoked when students with Emotional lmpainnents are mentioned since inappropriate behavior is a key action of that disability diagnosis. Every administrator in this study at some point mentions inappropriate behavior as being a challenging factor in keeping students with disabilities in the general education classroom. They all tell a specific personal story illustrating the challenges of students with behavior issues and express frustration and the increase in students displaying inappropriate behaviors or needing social skill intervention. This factor emerges later in the dissertation as a primary determination for whether a student can remain in the general education environment and is predicted to be the number one reason a student is denied access to that environment. See the concluding chapters Seven and Eight for further discussion of the behavior factor. 94 metim linerslc Taxing, whimsy defifiltjon filtered 5 Student i! sin-calm, tin-calm Wm; also "”90 0{faCiOrs him the Willem How do administrators balance meeting the needs of the individual with the procedural expectations of special education? Here is where the client-centered nature of these educators shines through. There are many discussions throughout this study of meeting individual needs with limited resources and no real immediate hope for more funds. The Hasazi et al factors, along with the new factors of student need and behavior, are not exclusive, and rarely appear individually. They are simultaneous factors that sometimes all play a role in a particular decision. These factors provide the dimension needed to fully view the three—dimensional process of LRE decision- making. Taking the case example of Stephen presented in this chapter, district officials may seem heartless from a parent’s perspective, but from an administrative perspective, their logic is sound. The subtle differences of the definition of least restrictive environment plays out in the myriad of options offered by a local education agency. For one district, this may mean keeping a student in his neighborhood. For another it might mean keeping him in a general education school instead of sending him to a completely self-contained special education building. Each agency will favor factors that reflect the particular contextual challenges that arise in that particular state, region, or district. It is also important to bear in mind that each student presents a unique combination of factors that must be considered when making a placement decision. The factors themselves create a unique landscape that frames a specific educational context. 95 media: ”Egatiat "360mm WSClol ,, . as ‘5 F first r 353Si0n WSW-deg d‘3‘3‘Sson What are the conflicts of LRE decision-making and how are they mediated? The Hasazi et al framework not only pinpoints important factors in the LRE decision-making process, but through that, also identifies where the conflicts can be located. Factors become important when they appear at the center of conflicts arising from placement decisions. They are often the impetus behind conflicts and the way administrators address placement decisions. How educational agencies define least restrictive environment as well as the factors that are important to LRE decisions provides insight into their philosophical perspectives. Conflicts arising from LRE decisions will inevitably come to negotiation concerning one of these identified factors influencing placement recommendations. The Hasazi et al. framework allows stakeholders to consciously consider these factors and how they are addressed in the current district philosophy towards placing students with disabilities. This framework describes a landscape of factors influential to LRE decision-making when administrators are wrestling with a placement recommendation. In the next chapter, a decision-making framework analysis provides a glimpse of how administrators might use these factors to make decisions concerning students with special educational needs. 96 Im; Ci Tabm1 Hasazi et al. (1994) Garner (2009) Finance H-focus on maintaining status quo, no Riverdale- evidence of loss of funding moving into an L profile -Sees separate funding as an asset Sunnydale- evidence L-fiscal uncertainty brings change of some movement into -Efficient use of current resources an LU profile maintains -Moving away from residential status quo programs Organization H states- Regional programs providing Regional programs instructional services, support staff, Poweer entities in administrative structure, expertise terms of finances and L states- Regional programs provide resources related services, technical support and Intensive special administrative support, but no direct education services, run instructional services. ‘ some “basic” programs, support services Advocacy H- Changes to policy and procedures Parents are noted as are slow coming. District attempts to powerful entities in this attend to multiple perspectives from study. Parents were not parent groups. mentioned as partners L- Parent groups are solicited to in the process. Referred collaborate in changing policy. Parents to as players that are partners in educating other parents. needed to be convinced of a plan, lmplementers H- regional directors have great Regional directors have influence. Committed to maintaining great influence. status quo. Teachers have little Riverdale promotes influence in LRE process. integrated approaches L- Local sites and local directors with brining building admin more influence. Commitment to on board. Sunnydale promoting integrated ed approaches, director supports integrated approaches, but maintains some — status quo. Knowledge H-emphasize enhancing teacher Data indicates state and instruction skills. Values emphasize region overall are in And meeting individual needs, maintaining process of a change of status quo. Choice issue for parents. values towards Values L- knowledge emphasis on learning integration. Some processes that facilitate integration, protection of status quo Belief that knowledge must follow is noted. Values stated willingness. Values are clear from top by all participants laid a down. Importance of accommodating clear chain of shared all children. Values guide change value that students process should be in the gen ed environment as much as possible. State H- states utilize direct, top-down The state has placed a management of special education large amount of Local policy and values discretion in the hands L- state has influence but does not of the regional centers, Context direct policy allowing local contexts to which then determine set their own policy distribution Table 2: Hasazi at al. Factor Analysis 97 Ju 9X lhr Chapter 5: Decision-making and LRE Justin is a 9-year old student attending the 4‘" grade in his local elementary school. Justin was diagnosed with an Early Childhood Developmental Delay at 30 months, and then Autism Spectrum Disorder shortly after he entered kindergarten. Most of Justin’s life has included therapy and special assistance and the school has been accommodating from the beginning. Justin has always attended a general education classroom and received Speech, Occupational, and Physical therapy as both pullout and push-in services. His Speech-Language Pathologist also served as his inclusion specialist, adapting and modifying the curriculum for Justin’s needs. Those needs are numerous. Justin has only a few verbal words and communicates using a combination of sign language, single spoken words (rarely two put together independently), and a recently acquired electronic communication system. Before this system, Justin canted a book of picture symbols he would use to communlcate his choices and basic needs. Justin’s scores on the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI) indicate his IQ ranges from 65—75, which places him right at the horizon of what is considered cognitively impaired. Normal intelligence ranges from 90-110. Justin’s receptive language scores closely mirror his TONI scores, but expressive communication scores indicate a delay in expressive development. It is likely Justin will utilize his communication system throughout his life. 98 YE VE CU hir all ind. blln Socially, Justin is gregarious for a child with autism. He enjoys recess time but has difficulty following game rules and sometimes frustrates his classmates. Justin’s classmates have known him since kindergarten and are not simply tolerant, but consider him, and all of his quirks, to be part of their community. They defend him to other students in the school and bring him into their games where other children shun him. Up to the 4‘“ grade year, Justin and his classmates were a model of an inclusive community. The summer before 4‘“ grade, Justin received an electronic communication system and was extremely frustrated with the new learning curve. He was comfortable with the old system and resisted a new method, even though the system spoke with a young boy’s voice. When the school year began, he was adapting, but still clumsy with the system and became very easily frustrated when he was unable to use it appropriately. 4" grade also marked a change for Justin’s special education staff. His prior Speech Pathologist worked with students from Kindergarten through 3"I grade. This year, he transferred to the secondary Speech Pathologist, who was less comfortable adapting general education curriculum, and after examining Justin’s file decided it might be time for him to move to a functional skills classroom. Her reasoning included a concern that he was not learning everyday skills he would need to become an independent adult in the future. Because he would not fully access the general education curriculum, his focus should be on job skills and independent living. Justin’s parents were horrified at the suggestion, and blindsided by the sudden change of attitude from the school. They call an tact he desist Sludel’l' IEP meeting (a parent’s right) to discuss the new perception of Justin’s options. It would be negligent to examine the LRE process without attending to the fact that it is a large and complex decision-making process. There are layers of decisions upon which rest further decisions that lay the groundwork for a young students academic career. Beginning with the individual decision of a teacher or caregiver to raise a flag of concern about a child, the decision process moves to a child study team making a group decision whether or not to refer a child for evaluation. Individually, the evaluators will assess the student and then present their findings to another group, the IEP team, which makes additional group decisions, derived from individual assessment evaluations, as to whether a child qualifies for special education services and which diagnosis would be appropriate. If is at this point that the group also considers what the student will need in terms of special educationto be academically successful, and makes a decision as to what the least restrictive environment for that student should be. Embedded within that group decision are several individual decisions, not the least of which is the building administrator’s decision. Understanding the IEP team’s process of LRE determination and how administrators’ decisions play a vital role in the final call requires a look at how those decisions are made. In the previous chapter, we examined how LRE attitudes and policy have changed over the last ten to twenty years (the 100 Tarp. Wron- w,” it he '17.“:de TIC! gm experience range of the subjects in this study.) Opening the process to a decision-making lens uncovers the intricate layers of complexity that entwine each decision for the decision-maker. This chapter begins by identifying the decision-making models that could appear in an LRE process and understanding how those models play a role in the outcome of the process. it examines how the subjects in this study describe their own decision-making, and what affect that process has on students with disabilities’ access to the least restrictive environment. Finally, it ponders how decision-making models further illuminate the research questions of this study as well as the plight of Justin. Decision-making Decision-making as a field of inquiry developed along several lines in the mid-Twentieth Century. Lindblom (1959, 1968) acquired a level of notoriety with his theory of “muddling through”, which describes a process of assessing a limited number of alternatives for decision-making and building policy incrementally based on the results of each subsequent decision (Lindblom 1959). Other researchers (Moynihan 1972, Pressman 8. erdasvsky, 1973) offered a model of decision-making flrat assumed analysis of a decision situation is drastically limited and effective action needs a comparison between the decision action, and the consequences of that decision in a form of feedback, which then informs the subsequent decision. Argyris (1976) built further on that feedback process by examining the importance of Ieaming in decision-making. His findings indicate learning must come from a repeated decision that occurs often 101 enough that decision-makers learn1 from the decision in the form of a feedback loop2. in the midst of the decision-making field, James G March offered a progression of research on both decision-making and organizational choice making. His research progressed and interacted with scholars in the field beginning with his work on Garbage Can Models of decision-making with Cohen (1972). March then moved into examining how ambiguity and choice work in organizational Ieaming (1976), eventually working towards a better understanding of organizational decisions (1988,1993). In 1994 March gathered decades of decision-making research, his own and others in the field and formulated them into a framework that raises four major questions about any decision-making process. The first two are particularly pertinent to this research (March 1994): 1. Is a particular decision choice-based, or rule-based? Does it “pursue a logic of consequences” and examine choices among alternatives evaluating consequences in terms of prior preferences? Alternatively, . does it pursue a logic of apprOpriateness using the process to fulfill an identity or role, following rules that match appropriate behavior to the situation? 2. is the decision-making process typified more by clarity and consistency or by ambiguity and inconsistency? Are the decision opportunities available 1 Learning is defined here as a detection and correction of errors 2 Agyris (1976) actually advocated a theory involving a double feedback loop that supported the organizational learning process 102 for individuals and organizations to find coherence? Are they occasions that are ambiguous and inconsistent, exploited? These questions provide a framework for examining the administrative decision-making process in this study. Is a particular decision choice-based, or rule-based? Examining the decision process begins with determining the form of decision-making activated by the decision-maker. Decision-making can take several possible forms depending on the number of participants in the process and the method of deliberation utilized to achieve the decision. For a single decision-maker, two wide-ranging forms emerge as primary: 1. Limited Rationality (LR) examines actions as rational choices made by individuals based on preferences alter evaluating the alternatives and anticipating the potential consequences of each alternative. 2. Rule Following (RF) utilizes logic of appropriateness where actions are matched to situations by means of a set of rules. Following these rules is embedded into the identities of those who are responsible for implementation, and decision-making is seen as a form of role-fulfillment. The identity of the decision-maker is wrapped up in the rules of the decision, and consequences and alternatives “outside” of the rules and established role of the decision-maker are not considered. There are multiple actors involved in considering IEP LRE decisions. This ebment of the decision will be examined later in this chapter. Since the 103 I 5 N 39191 vw 353:?“- name the real are cor! has ’i intent, lites ‘ Mail individual actors that make up the IEP team also make their own individual decisions either from a Limited Rationality or a Rule Following model, these forms are considered first when examining their influence on LRE determinations. Limited Rafionality (LR) can be called a logic of consequences. Actors who make decisions using LR assume decisions have consequences and base their final call on which anticipated consequence best meets their preferences. This description evolved from an initial framework of Rational Choice that assumed all actors approaching a decision would act in a rational and predictable manner. March (1976, 1978) noted that this notion had to evolve to better reflect the reality of decision-makers. “Although decision-makers try to be rational, they are constrained by limited cognitive capabilities and incomplete infonnation...and thus their actions may be less than completely rational in spite of their best intentions.”3 A decision made within the Limited Rationality frame is based on four questions of: 0 Alternatives: What actions are possible or are being explored? - Expectations: What future consequences might result when an alterative is chosen? - Preferences How valuable are those consequences in terms of each alternative? 3 March 1994 p.9 104 ate-re} timid. en‘lllor 385535 We ‘tvll “feds, ' Decision-Rule: How is the decision to beachieved? Is there a rule structure for this decision“? Decision-makers who use LR in the decision process are also affected by a variety of variables that may or may not interact with the four questions of the LR model. These include (not exhaustively) the knowledge of the decision-maker (as well as how that knowledge is systematically acquired), the use of simplification in making decisions, how the decision process and subsequent consequences are monitored, and the way decisions are framed, which involves how the analysis of the decision situation is focused and defined. The Limited Rafionality decision-making process questions (outlined above) mirror closely the types of questions asked and answered at an individualized Education Program (lEP) meeting where least restrictive environment is determined. The IEP Team examines evaluation and assessment information as well as teacher and therapist recommendations, and determines the educational needs of the student in question. Based on those needs, the alternatives for addressing those needs are considered as well as the potential consequences of those alternatives. For example, a student may need the functional skills that a self-contained classroom provides, but a consequence of that classroom is less daily interaction with peers in the general education environment. After these alternatives are considered, the team considers the preferences of the decision makers. Does the special education teacher believe the student can access the curriculum academically with supports? Can the " March 1994 p.7 105 d'JES ism: means Q'OCBS .l‘ e {VHCWE Min 33891 my'Oiw teen 5 Elien general education teacher differentiate for this student? Finally, the decision- rule, either IDEA or local special education policy influences the decision. Rule-Following (RF) decision-makers make determinations based on a set of rules tied to the identity of being a decision-maker. They apply a logic of appropriateness that matches a particular situation to a presubscribed action by means of a set of rules created specifically for that particular decision-making process March (1994). The identity of the decision-maker will often flow from the rules or decision-making process and could be either an individual identity or an organizational identity. The most relevant example of a rule—following decision- making organization would be the military. Decisions are made according to the regulations and a person’s identity as a service member. This is especially true for an officer or administrator, when identity is highly associated with following the hierarchical rules. Organizational learning and change processes in rule following organizations are often slow but rules do change as a result of experience when outcomes are interpreted as feedback, which leads the way to new rules in place. Elements of both LR and RF in LRE determination. Least Restrictive Environment decisions are, on a national level, rule- based decisions with lDEA 2004 providing the rules and identities of the players involved. Policy adaptation to how LRE decisions are enacted in the field has been slow and the rules have been even slower to adapt and change. EXperience has shaped the LRE determination process, but most often through 106 lasts: on all l. cf mg) “33.0% LRE de team a: to have SMargh the court system, which operates on a glacial time scale in comparison to an individual child’s educational career. March notes that individuals and institutions that utilize Rule-Following decision-making processes will focus on “history-dependent adaptations,"5 or Ieaming from and changing rules based on experiential learning cycles. initially these Ieaming moments are meaningful but there are pitfalls surrounding Ieaming from experiences as feedback relies on information recalled by the original learners. Self-report can often be adjusted unconsciously based on what the reporter predicts is the expected report. Are actors reporting what they know they should report, where what really happens is contrary to that report? This type of action was noted several times in this study where a participant says one thing that relates to the law, but later recalls an example that contradicts the earlier statement. Conversations about the importance of finance particularly followed this pattern. In this study, evidence of rule-following behavior occurring during least restrictive environment decisions in reference to IDEA was clear. Administrators on all levels (with one exception.) understood their legal responsibilities in terms of IDEA and the IEP process. Table 3 below demonstrates the rule-following responses of all subjects when asked about responsibility in terms of making an LRE decision. According to IDEA, the LRE decision is to be made by the IEP team as a group. There are no allowances for any one member of the IEP team to have more influence over the decision. ’ March, 1994 P. so 107 Who is responsible for making the least restrictive environment determination? lEP That would be the IEP team. You know, and that’s assuming interview- State administrator, February 25, that we have the right people at 2009 the table. interview-Regional administrator, March 3, 2009 The lEP team. Um, it would be, well, it would Be all the evaluators that are involved, but the general Interview-Sunnydale district administrator, education teachers and February 13. 2009 providers who have worked - . with the child...our building counselors and any of the special ed team the parents and the building principal. interview-Riverdale district administrator, February 13, 2009 That’s the lEP team. That’s the entire Actually, there is team of team. people that make that decision interview-Sunnydale building administrator interview-Riverdale principal #1, #1, February 26, 2009 February 28, 2009 Including the parent. interview-Sunnydale Well, i consider that to be an building administrator #2, February 26, 2009 MET/IEP decision interview-Riverdale principal #2, June 17, 2009 At my school? It's a team decision. Well, really it depends. Um, I think that it depends a lot on the school where you work. i mean, I worked in special ed 15 years, six different states - a gazillion of different schools and different environments, and this school that I am at, it's the first time in which l've actually seen the decision to be made in a team as they should be. Interview-Charter School administrator, May 26, 2009 Table 3: Responses to the “Responsibility Question” These similar responses from subjects from different levels of administration attest to the rule-following nature of special education. The threat of lawsuits creates an atmosphere where some questions have only one spoken ans\rver referring to the legal conditions of lDEA. Because of the nature of special education, parents can bring an IEP to due process if any procedure prMbed in the regulations is neglected. This results in some aspects of lDEA 108 its it vag h -'. ..ave of at implementation that, in the field, become more improvised, but, when discussed officially are “by the book.” Because of the law, there are specific questions that have prescribed responses in any official capacity. Who makes the LRE decision is one of them. All the subjects in this study understood the rule-following nature of their position and the delicate way some subjects must be addressed. A portion of their identity as administrators who work with special education students depends on understanding and following lDEA rules in order to stay out of due process situations. By nature, the LRE regulations in the individuals with Disabilities Education Act (lDEA 2004) reflect Rule Following forms. The individual and team decisions made about a student with special educational needs follows an established set of rules and parameters. However, the rules and parameters set out by the federal government are not well defined and have allowed for a wide range of interpretations by states and localities. Over the last thirty years, these interpretations have sometimes led to due process court cases resulting in decisions that offer further interpretation of the vaguely stated regulations, but not enough to eliminate ambiguity in the process. Court challenges to the rights- based approach to providing education to all only occurs on an individual basis and the results of those challenges may only apply to a small set of situations instead of benefiting all students with disabilities (Palley 2006). Essentially, the vagueness of the rules in question left room for the conditions of the context to have some influence on the placement decision. Umited rationality’s questions of alternatives and expectations offer contextual understandings and options to 109 that decision process. it appears as though the decision in question requires both rule following procedures as well as an exploration of options using a form of limited rationality and the data from this study’s code analysis support this supposition. Returning to our student, Justin, his parents have called an IEP meeting to discuss the suggestion made by his new speech-pathologist (SLP) that he might be better served in a functional skills classroom. The school administrator finds herself in a particularly tricky situation. She agrees with the SLP that Justin’s situation needs to be re-evaiuated considering the upcoming challenges in 4‘" and 5‘" grade. She was preparing to discuss the possible alternatives available for Justin with his teacher sometime this semester. However, by making the suggestion on her own that Justin be moved, the SLP made a mistake that could be costly. That suggestion should never have come from one person, but from the IEP team as a whole. Unless the principal plays this situation correctly, she could be facing a due process suit and the parents would have the legal right to file it. She must do an amount of rule-following “damage control” by making sure the meeting called is done by the book and is very responsive to Justin’s parents’ concerns. She must also enact a level of limited rationality decision making for the group by making sure all options and alternatives available for Justin are laid out on the table in that meeting for the team to consider. Any misstep at this point could lead to a long and costly lawsuit that must be avoided. 110 3105c March Codes Turning to the data as an initial point of analysis, Appendix 1 provides an overview of how many counts each code received, the mean, standard deviation, and percentage of overall codes for each code. Surprisingly, even though the March codes only accounted for 21% of overall coded statements (see Figure 1), it boasts the code with the highest number of overall incidences. Not surprisingly, this code represents Expectations. Additionally Alternatives also came in as the fifth most frequent code overall. Both expectations and altematives are essential elements involved in a choice made within a Limited Rationality framework because they require the application of contextual information and will change as the context changes. They do not often come into play when a decision is made utilizing a Rule-Following framework, because within that flame, the context is irrelevant and should not alter the outcome of the choice. 111 Code Count Mean SD Limited Rationality-Expectations 1 13 11.3 7.484 Lide Rationality-Altematives 87 8.7 6.395 Rule Following-Role Fulfillment 41 4.1 3.479 Limited Rationality-Preferences 38 3.8 2.741 Limited Rationality-Exploration- 33 3.3 3.653 Exploitation Rule FollowingcAmbiguity 19 1.9 2.558 Rule Following-Rule Following 17 1.7 1.252 Limited Rationality-Adaptation 16 1.6 1.897 Limited Rationality-Decision Rule 12 1.2 2.15 Rule Following-Rule Following 11 1.1 1.37 Example Rule Following-Identity F ulfillment 9 0.9 0.876 Limited Rationality-lnfonnation 8 0.8 1.619 Redundancy Table 4: March Decision-making codes. Statistics created by HyperRESESARCl-i. Table 4 above displays only March codes, which were divided into two groups representing Limited Rationality (M01) and Rule Following (MD2). Limited rationality demonstrates a higher concentration of codes than rule following with the exception of role fulfillment and ambiguity. Role fulfillment is a part of the rule following nature of lEPs and demonstrates that the process cannot divorce itself completely from the rules. All participants were highly aware of their role as an educational representative and what the legal ramifications of that role were. Here the Riverdale building administrator #2 describes her perspective on the responsibilities that are inherent in the lEP. She goes on to discuss how she 112 worked to further her own understanding of special education regulations and could not understand those who were dismissive of the process. So i became familiar through attending um, like day long or two-day long seminars on Special Education and the Administrator or Special Education and the Schools, or Reauthorization of IDEA 2001 or 2006 now, and just became not just an advocate, but well-versed in what all this meant when we were signing our name. For example, other administrators just say oh I just - I don't go to lEPs, and l'm like, you're kidding, right? No, no - l'm like, but you have to sign and you're signing that you were there and that you heard everything that was said and this ultimately is your signature that means you are the responsible party. Oh well, you know - and l'm just blown away by that attitude. Um, I will not miss an IEP unless it is absolutely necessary. (interview-Riverdale principal #2, June 17, 2009) There is a conflict highlighted here between what the rules say and what administrators practice commonly. Those who agreed to be in this research were highly aware of the law and were concerned with the rules that bound them when they signed the IEP. Signing that legal document identifies one as a responsible party to fulfilling the obligations of that document and opens one to potential lawsuits if those obligations are not fulfilled. This branding of responsibility defines the identities of those who participate in the IEP process. The special education teacher is responsible for tracking progress on the educational goals. The occupational therapist is only responsible for tracking the 113 OT: E?“ n) —-s (I) " (T, (L I 1“ ’85: car: iam. deIEr OT specific goals. However, what does it mean to be an administrator on the lEP? They do not track data, nor do they provide direct services, yet the responsibility remains heavy on the head of the person signing under “District Representative.” That very lack of direct and explicit responsibility may explain why some building administrators are intensely involved in the process and some are able to divorce themselves from special education altogether. Following that thought further, much of an administrator's responsibility regarding special education is highly ambiguous. There is an implied responsibility resting upon the building administrator's plate. Anything that happens in her building is her responsibility. She cannot necessarily carry out the IEP, but is she responsible for making sure it is implemented appropriately? Those in this study would most likely answer yes to that question. However, it is also likely that there are many administrators who would make an argument for the opposite. Ambiguity is mislabeied as a rule-following code, as it plays an important part of the feedback and learning process for both LR and RF frameworks. Its . frequency is an indicator of the complexity that surrounds each LRE decision- making process and the way each student presents a new configuration of needs. There are few straightforward, clear-cut situations in special education. Alternatives. Another point to make here is that although lDEA lays out a RF framework, its ambiguous wording encourages the use of LR questions to determine placement. This is particularly clear considering the expectation that a continuum of placements will be considered to best address a student’s needs. 114 Participants review the students needs and consider the alternatives available. As these alternatives are considered, the consequences of each are brought to mind. The Charter School Administrator vividly describes this process of considering the needs of the student. Well, I worry a lot about, uh, so depending on the kid, but - but what would go through my mind are things like are they emotionally stable. Um, are they physically and maturely prepared to be at grade level - to be with their peers of the same age. And are they socially, urn, they don't have to be socially appropriate, but they have to be socially, um, capable of surviving in a classroom... So that is kind of the process that we go through - we make a hierarchy of - of needs, and then how do we serve those needs in the fastest, most effective way. (Interview-Charter School administrator, May 26, 2009) Other alternatives are mentioned when administrators indicate concerns over whether the right questions are asked at a meeting, or whether all the options have been exhausted to explain behavior or school failure. At every level, administrators discussed alternatives clearly, providing evidence that considering alternatives is a frequent move in an administrative strategy. Below, the Riverdale Building Administrator #2 laments about the options she feels are not considered when considering special education options. 115 A lot of times I bei like we have not looked at or exhausted every other avenue before getting to the point where - students or a child may have some ADHD tendencies, for an example. 80 l'm - a lot of times in those meetings before we can get to the point of me signing, have we looked at students' diet? Have we looked at students' home experiences? Have we looked at, um, the instruction, and the way it's given? Have we looked at the student's cultural background and how that might have influenced other decisions? (Interview- Rlverdale principal #1, February 28, 2009) Expectations. Additionally, expectations are often raised that range from expecting that a student will be successful given the appropriate support structures, to expecting that faculty involved in making placement recommendations will be supportive of the decisions made. Just because there '5 a piece of paper that says that a kid needs to be in a self-contained classroom 20 hours a week, it doesn't mean that that's right. It means that it was right for that school, and for those set of people - it doesn't mean that it's right when the kid comes to me. Sometimes just a change in school will make all the difference, you know? We‘ve had kids that have gone from 10 hours of research room to consult in three months. Not because we wanted to get rid of them, but because they did not need us. (Interview-Charter School administrator, May 26, 2009) 116 are. ‘- it may I 3.121% The consistent presence of alternatives and expectations in the data point to a high level of limited rationality thinking occurring within these decisions. The fact that alternatives are built in to the IEP process bolster the theory that the process is set up to encourage limited rationality. The rule-following framework may exist to provide guidelines and boundaries that allow for contextual application and interpretation within the individual process. However, the LRE determination process is not just one person’s decision. How does the decision- making process allow for multiple actors contributing to a single decision? Multiple Actor Decisions March (1994) goes on to create two categories for decisions that require multiple actors: 1. Multiple Actors: Teams and Partners decisions treat the individuals in a team as a single unit with consistent preferences and identities. The gain to one is a gain to all and actions are mandated by an identity that is consistent with the other participating identities. 2. Multiple Actors: Conflicts and Politics decisions assume decision-makers have inconsistent identities and are less inclined to eliminate conflict. Coalitions form within these groups and politics become the mode of ’ operation as decisions are debated and eventually made with the power going to the majority. 117 tea-’1‘ on: 3516 p A‘ a- * 'rr 1,}, it..! inn 3,, DCWE The IEP process, as noted by the rule-following administrators above, is a team process. Even though each individual member will undergo his/her own decision-making process, the group of individuals will also need to address the issue of Least Restrictive Environment for the individual student. Considering the definitions listed above, the IEP team process most reflects the Multiple Actors: Conflicts and Politics decision frame. Actors within the team form coalitions and often it emerged that the most powerful player on the IEP team was either the parent or that person closest to the parent. This reflects levels of coalitions within the IEP team. The first quote demonstrates a common initial reaction when asked about power structures within the IEP team. The second quote represents comments that emerged later in conversation about who is more powerful within the lEP team. The contradiction between what should be said and what actually occurs is commonly encountered in die data. And then it’s everybody comes together to say this is who the child is and this is what the child needs. I think it's a group thing. I don’t think there’s any one person more powerful than anybody else. (Interview-Sunnydale building administrator #1, February 26, 2009) but people are bringing - or coming with different lenses to the table so they’re bringing different information, so I don’t think that I can say that somebody carries more weight, but, um, they’re bringing different sorts of information. (Interview-Riverdale district administrator, February 13, 2009) 118 Other quotes from the data also indicate that the most powerful individual is that person in whom the parents trust. However, principals have the ability to influence decisions outside of the IEP meeting determination. Earlier quotes from the Riverdale district administrator indicate a principal can “make or break” a child’s academic success. The previously mentioned intimidation towards a special educator holding an IEP meeting connects to the charter school administrator’s claim that her prior experience involved principals or special education administrators making the LRE decisions beforehand and leaving it to the IEP team to make it seem like a team decision. These indications of coalitions, primarily involving either the principal or the parent further underscore the inconsistencies between what administrators know they are supposed to say, and what actually happens. In terms of the change process, these inconsistencies may also indicate actors who are changing their intellectual consideration but still dealing with the realities of the former status quo. in answering our first question whether the LRE decision process is RF or LR based, evidence points to a mixture of both with a heavier emphasis on the limited rationality process. Justin’s parents are sitting in a small meeting room with an advocate they brought to the meeting. They are upset and afraid of being railroaded by the district into sending their son to a special education building. As the meeting begins, Justin’s speech pathologist from the prior years takes the facilitator role and apologizes to the parents for the way this situation was handled. She explains that the new teacher was 119 pondering options aloud, and did not mean to present them as steps they would take immediately. In doing this, the school separates itself from the actions of the individual involved and supports a more appropriate course of action involving the entire team. Justin’s parents accept the apology but their concerns remain. Why would the new teacher mention a separate room if she did not believe it was appropriate? What has changed and why must Justin move? The team begins a process of explaining the current academic situation in Justin’s classroom. The curriculum is becoming more abstract and more challenging for Justin to comprehend. His assignments require more extensive modification with each semester and Justin is becoming more frustrated in the classroom during academic periods, especially those requiring intense individual work such as writing development and independent reading. in the meanwhile, Justin is beginning to show some indications of adolescence and at times, his behavior becomes more erratic. He requires a 1:1 aide to be with him at all times or he tends to poke or pinch those sitting around him. Justin’s special education providers are concerned about his future. They believe he could function in the back of a general education classroom, but wonder what he could achieve if he were in a classroom - designed to meet his needs. The principal has already mulled much of this information before the meeting. She has individually met with most of the players (with the exception of the parents) and has carefully considered the consequences of the alternatives available. If Justin moves to a functional classroom, he will be moving into a more restrictive environment. However, if he remains in his current classroom, he will not receive the 120 intensive functional skills training that could result in a more Independent adult life. The law, the state, and Justin’s parents lean towards general education, but the rest of the lEP team recommends a more intensive educational environment. Due process looms on the horizon if a compromise cannot be reached with the parents. Clarity and Consistency or Ambiguity and Inconsistency? in March’s next question, he targets the decision-making process itself for analysis. How smoothly does the process run? Are there inconsistencies in how the process occurs from one instance to the next? The most obvious answer for an lEP/LRE determination is that it is surrounded by ambiguity and inconsistency. Ambiguity rises from the amorphous structure of the original LRE regulation. It then is exacerbated by the various further definitions from court decisions. One participant noted, I think that's the one piece where we're not exercising all that our LRE could be providing. I don‘t think LRE is as restrictive, and this is why I hate the term - I don't believe it's as restrictive as the name implies. It really has to do with the best, most appropriate placement. But we hear that restrictive, so everybody's like, okay we got this one shot. And l'm thinking, no we don't. This is like a basketball game. You don't just make one shot. You keep trying to make shots and then when you've made the best shot you win. (interview- Riverdale principal #2, June 17, 2009) 121 Inconsistency is naturally found in LRE decision-making situations because of the individual nature of the IEP, not to mention the lack of clear federal or sometimes even state guidelines as to how the LRE determination should be considered. Well, probably some policy guidance from the state would be wonderful. I think a well thought out policy guidance document would always be nice instead of cryptic little pieces and lawyers interpreting court cases and you know, so i think that would help. (Interview-Regional administrator, March 3, 2009) The state administrator also noted a lack of clarity on the part of the federal government to pin down a targeted goal for LRE determination. Yeah, percentages. And people have quoted to me, and I have looked and looked and looked...they have seen the PowerPoint, from (federal), he used to be the director of OSA, that they want to see 80% of the kids in general ed 80% of the time. I will tell you - and if you find it, i want you to send me the site - because except for his PowerPoint, l was in the audience and I’ve seen it -l don’t know where they ever got that from. (lnterview- State administrator, February 25, 2009) Even with the level of accountability in place, the goals that administrators are responsible for reporting are sometimes hearsay, and the guidelines, murky. Yet, states, regions, and districts will report data on the 20 part B indicators and receive feedback, including new murky guidelines for improving performance. 122 This is all without clear and stated targets for any of the indicators. The entire policy context surrounding these measurements and the monitoring of IDEA practically defines ambiguity and administrators are expected to sort it out, see that hidden picture, and do what is best for their. students, school, district, region, or state. This ambiguous and inconsistent process of carrying out the regulations of IDEA and especially determining LRE includes ways of meeting needs and responding to outcomes. March used the term ”satisficing” to indicate a choice that exceeds criterion but is not necessarily ‘the best” alternative. Locating the best alternatives require extensive searching and resources. Locating the first alternative that exceeds the criterion meets the goal with fewer resources allowing the search to move to the next goal. The alternatives sought in educational environments can be expensive depending on how extensive the students needs are and how far outside of the general education environment the student operates. Meeting the needs of many students within a building or district requires savvy budgeting and the ability to maneuver resources to meet more needs on the same or fewer funds. Satisficing is an ideal description of what must occur at IEP meetings on a daily basis as administrators and teachers struggle to do what is right for a student without additional funding. The charter scth administrator felt these situations acutely'managing a school and district budget under one roof. See, that's the difference between our school and other schools, is that we operate in the red - constantly in the red - losing $500 bucks here, losing 123 isle and i 1‘ F!- ' l Uh. reg. $500 bucks there, it's not going to kill us. We'd rather have a kid on consult than have a kid in the resource room miserable, inappropriately placed, to make $500 bucks a year. it's just not worth it. It's not worth it. (Interview-Charter School administrator, May 26, 2009) Based on this data, it appears that the LRE decision-making process is by its very nature ambiguous and inconsistent. Each decision brings new concerns and alternatives to the table, but there are no real guarantees that a consistent application of the rules will occur. The ambiguity that is built-in to the IDEA regulation requires a local interpretation and application that will be inconsistent depending upon the implementers of each individual IEP. This inconsistency is a natural state for the field of human services because failible humans provide the services. These humans are the focus of the next analysis as they are the decision-makers enacting these decisions. In the case of Justin, the principal suggested a compromise that would fulflll both the rules and the concerns of all parties involved. The current IEP would continue to be followed within the general education environment. Team members would spend the next quarter collecting data on Justin’s academic access and modification needs keeping the upcoming transfer to middle school in mind. In the meanwhile, Justin’s parents can Investigate district options, visit classrooms, and speak with a counselor about Justin’s transition into adult life. The IEP can be reconvened in two months to review this data and consider the options available for Justin’s future. With this action, the rule-following process 124 attends to team process and team input, while the limited rationality process explores the alternatives available and the consequences of those alternatives. Both processes play vital roles In how the team determines Justin’s next educational environment. How does the March Decision-Making framework answer this study’s research questions? What are the factors that influence LRE decisions? Are there differences between districts? Rules are a highly influential factor when using this framework to examine the LRE decision-making process. Although the decisions themselves use a limited rationality framework, the imposing structure of IDEA is ever present. The rules are so completely ingrained that certain questions will trigger a nearly identical response from nine different people. However, the results and outcomes of the decisions are so diverse and variable, that some level of independent rationality must be at work. Unlike general education, although much of this is also changing due to NCLB, rules define special education. There are rules for referral and rules for diagnosis. Each state sets their own rules for eligibility, or the requirements necessary to be diagnosed with an educational disability, and they determine what services accompany which diagnosis. There are rules for progress and participation in statewide standardized testing. All provide a rule-bound cage large enough to freely make choices within, but tight enough that stepping outside of certain rules is legally dangerous. 125 Evidence also points to some administrators connecting their professional identity to understanding and following the rules. The element of stepping outside of the rules is unthinkable to them, not because they are afraid of consequences, but because they believe the rules are there for the best interest of the children. The building leader, you are responsible for - you're an instructional leader and that instruction is not specific to general ed, it's for all students. And if you don't understand things like this (LRE), how are you making the best decisions for kids every day? You are not - you are in some way short-changing them. (Interview-Riverdale principal #1, February 28, 2009) The above administrator notes how understanding the LRE process (essentially the IDEA regulations) is important to the overall performance of her job. Not because they are rules, but because in understanding those rules, she can make the best decisions for her. students. The identity here is a leader responsible for the instructional effectiveness of the school and desiring to know more in order to do her job better. Along those lines, the more experienced building administrator in Riverdale also is concerned about her students’ well being, but she adds a note of a frustration with rule following. She acknowledges that the safeguards are in place for a reason but the rules have dragged out the process and time to help the student is being lost in the waiting game. This occurs when a parent or other interested party (sometimes the classroom teacher) delays meetings, asks for 126 more testing, and essentially keeps the process in process so that no real decision is made. From the data in this study, these instances often happen when parents are resisting a special education diagnosis. So as an administrator, you are balancing all those balls, and you are juggling that, and yet, here's your focus on this child and you're thinking, I've got to help get this child into the right placement. But the wheels of the IEP process turn so slowly. Yes, as a safeguard to making sure we get the best placement, but by the same token, I watched a little guy that I knew at the end of kindergarten needed a different placement, and we put in another 40 weeks... (Interview-Riverdale principal #2, June 17, 2009) This administrator acknowledges the rules, but her frustration led her to look for alternatives while she was waiting on the rules. Sometimes the identification process is so slow that a child loses valuable time in a situation that obviously was a concern for someone. Riverdale building administrator #2 knew the diagnosis process would take too long and was seeking ways to work through everyone’s frustration. Although the rules are omnipresent in special education, a focus on alternatives and expectations signify an active limited rationality framework also in existence. Special education is all about the alternative. How can curriculum access occur to best suit the needs of a particular child? These alternatives feed into the concept at the very core of IDEA; meeting the needs of the individual. Rules, strictly followed, do not allow for discretion, nor do they care about 127 individual preferences. They are rules that must be obeyed. The soul of special education lies in the individualistic nature of the instruction and expectations. There must be some form of limited rationality present for these individual accommodations to occur. The frequency of codes identifying expectations and alternatives demonstrate how strong limited rationality influences the way administrators follow the rules. How do administrators balance meeting the needs of the individual with the procedural expectations of special education? This question relates intrinsically to the following question of conflict mediation. Administrators do feel the responsibility of IDEA as well as a responsibility to their young charges. Add to that the responsibility of supervising teachers or other administrators and there are suddenly layers of responsibility bianketing the administrator’s desk. How do administrators balance needs with procedural expectations? March’s decision-making framework is ideal for understanding this conundrum. A portion of the answer to this question lies in the rule-following factor outlined in the previous section. Administrators note they believe the rules are there for the protection and best interest of students with special educational needs. The rules are protection from educational neglect (by other administrators of course) and although they are frustrating, they are worth the aggravation. 128 At a higher level on the administrative chain, the balance comes, ideally, when students with special educational needs make improvements that allow the general education teachers to see students being successful. The thought being, the more students make progress, the more general education teachers will see these students in their classrooms as a normal mode of operation, and not the conflicting situation it can be today. In a way, I think it may become easier if — if we see that including these kids because of highly qualified, or the new alternative assessment, if it gets up and running, um, and we see results for kids, in other words, if kids who stay in the general ed classroom with support are making good progress, and Ieaming, I think it will be an easier decision because it will be more the norm... (Interview- State administrator, February 25, 2009) What are the conflicts of LRE decision-making and how are they mediated? Mat is becoming clear in this research is that balancing administrative rules with the needs of the individual child is one of the major conflicts of LRE decision-making. ...and parents will frequently say, I know my kid is no angel. They understand that, but you know, our job is to make them successful, you know. So, how do we do that? And so factored into that is, we give an hour for an IEP team meeting, if that, sometimes, and then we try to make these huge, life- altering decisions that can’t really - you really can’t have that open, honest 129 dialogue and understanding of positions and information in that time period. It can’t be done. So I think all that kind of mirrored, muddled, mixed together, creates for a mess, really. (Interview-Regional administrator, March 3, 2009) Here the administrator laments the time factors when conducting an IEP meeting. He acknowledges that the education team has a goal, but is still deciding how to address it. In the meanwhile, the IEP (where these life-altering decisions occur) is procedurally given an hour for completion, which does not give anyone (especially parents) time to absorb the information and make an informed decision. The meeting, that is supposed to protect a child and her parents rights, is a quick review of complex information and then an offer of special education that seems to have no actual alternative. The push to get everything done in this one meeting has the potential to overwhelm some of the decision-makers, particularly those who are not empowered by reports and data such as parents, the student, and possibly the general education teacher. Understanding the types of decisiOns that are being made in the LRE process and the approaches the DMs in this study have taken to determine them provides a scaffolding for the skin of the street-level bureaucrats (SLBs). Decision-making describes the conundrums of the decision itself, but street-level bureaucrats are the ones making the decisions. The final framework to be applied to this study allows a glimpse into the actual decision-makers and how they take contextual factors into consideration while following the rules and using limited rationality to make decisions about students with disabilities. 130 Chapter 6: Street-Level Bureaucrats I don't want any child's rights violated, and I don't want anybody jumping the gun and making a bad placement, but I really believe If you've got a classroom teacher day to day to day with this child, who's doing anecdotal, and just writing down exactly what they're seeing and coming to you with the fact that I've got to have so-and-so out of my room, I can't - I mean, they're throwing furniture, they're hurting other children, went up and stabbed somebody here in the shoulder with a sharpened pencil, you know, that's when the foot-dragging that LRE involves becomes a huge frustration as an administrator. Because, I'm also then battling, and I mean battling, a parent group who is gaining steam, because you know you've got your few pot-stirrers who are willing to go to every parent in that classroom, make phone calls, do you know what blah-blah did today... and you're trying to protect this child and his or her parents are fighting you because all they see is the fact that this child is coming to the office, which is disciplinary. So as an administrator, you are balancing all those balls, and you are juggling that, and yet, here's your focus on this child and you're thinking, I've got to help get this child into the right placement. But the wheels of the IEP process turn so slowly. Yes, as a safeguard to making sure we get the best placement, but by the same token, I watched a little guy that I knew at the end of kindergarten needed a different placement, and we put In another 40 weeks, all the way through first grade, again with the anecdotal, again with the daily observation, again with probably - oh my gosh, I dare say 15 CSTs (Child Study Teams), so like 131 every other week. What it does is it puts the administrator down that discipline road, because if you really want to get things cooking over here, what you have to do, unfortunately, is go after the behavior because it's a gen. ed kid. (Interview-Riverdale principal #2, June 17, 2009) The dilemmas of school administrators mirror those of other public resource administrators who distribute a public good. Limitations in resources require discretionary decisions concerning which client receives what services. Lipsky (1980) studied these administrators and coined the term street-level bureaucrats (SLB) to describe them. Street-level bureaucrats apply the larger rules and policies of public offices and agencies to the individual client, often in a face-to-face context. Initial conversations about street-level bureaucrats came from research done by Weatherly and Lipsky (1977) and were further refined by both researchers in subsequent examinations, (Lipsky, 1980; Weatherly, 1980). These initial descriptions laid the groundwork for what became the dominant discourse about SLBs. However, later explorations of SLBs in additional contexts found alternate discourses coming not from the researchers describing SLBs but from the bureaucrats themselves (Maynard-Moody 8. Leland, 1999; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2000, 2003). . Additional scholarly conversations erupted concerning SLBs and accountability (Bovins, 1998; Day & Klein, 1987), while others approached the concept from a governance perspective (Hupe & Hill, 2007). 132 What has become clear in the most recent spate of SLB research is that Lipsky's original blueprint for SLBs has required much adjustment to the evolving conditions of street-level bureaucracy and the myriad of settings in which that bureaucracy unfolds. Recent research has just begun to tease out the differences between bureaucratic contexts, but it is clear that the discretionary choices of a rehabilitation counselor will differ from those considered by an elementary school principal. This chapter explores how administrators directly involved in LRE decision-making are street-level bureaucrats utilizing discretion to ration available resources. It then examines how this study’s subjects represent an alternate contextual environment from many other SLB decision makers, providing first hand narratives to illustrate the SLB decision-making process. Finally, it applies the framework to the three research questions at the heart of this study. Street-level Bureaucrats: The Dominant Discourse Because the original phrase “street-level bureaucrats” came from Weatherly and Lipsky's (1977) research, their initial framework of identifying these administrators became the foundation of the “dominant discourse.” SLBs are public administrators who hold discretionary power over resources that people (clients) need but cannot access on their own. Often in SLB situations, the client is dependent on the resources and therefore is subject to the whims of those who distribute them. There are rules and regulations for the distribution of resources, but there is a level of discretionary freedom allowed in following those 133 rules. Ultimately, there is often little supervision over the final distribution of these resources. SLBs work for a larger organization, often the government, but interact with clients at face level, gaining first hand knowledge of how the organization meets the needs of these individuals. SLBs will use discretion in individual situations and sometimes that discretion leads to a decision that is counterintuitive to state or local policy, but is right for the client and the context involved. This use of discretionary freedom can be both the champion and the bane of the LRE decision-making process (Lipsky, 1980). Street-level bureaucrats’ work involves a relative amount of autonomy from the organizational hierarchical authority, resulting in the application of individual discretiOn to decisions on a daily basis. Additionally, the structure of an SLB’s job inherently includes expectations and objectives that are impossible to achieve with the level of resources provided (Lipsky, 1980). The autonomy from the organizational leadership structure allows SLBs to use discretion and knowledge of the context to determine client worth and allocate resources accordingly. The lack of resources and increase of demands pushes the administrator to create routines that make decision making easier. Lipsky’s original theory posed that these routines and processes are successful, and spread; eventually creating new policy implementation practices. The original SLB theory paints these administrators not only as implementers, but also as designers of public policy. To Lipsky, discretion was inevitable, and along with it came a natural inclination to attend to self-interest. Not to say that administrators made 134 decisions that would benefit their own needs directly, but the method in which the decisions are made can be altered to make the process, and therefore the work, less complex. Some will use discretion to make the work easier, by establishing routines and shortcuts, while others will look for ways to make it more rewarding. Eventually, how these practices play out in decision-making at the client-level, inform and influence larger policy practices and these routines revise the practice from the bottom-up to the policy level. Special education administration and street-level bureaucrats. Special education administrators share many attributes with street-level bureaucrats, especially building-level and district-level administrators. They are responsible for administering a public good where they have very little choice of who their clientele is. They have some discretionary power over resources (more at the district level than the building level) and are able to give approval to items that will draw from the immediate budget (either building or district). They also are acutely aware of the political aspects of a least restrictive environment decision because it is often the beginning of a legal baffle for the placement of a student in general or special education. They are responsible for implementing district policy at the building level and held accountable by the myriad of accountability measures in place through both IDEA and NCLB. For fliese reasons, administrators became the subject of this study, and not special education teachers. Although some of the SLB literature notes teachers as SLB implementers (Hupe a. Hill, 2007; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2000; Weatherly a. Lipsky, 1977), the data in this study show teachers, especially special 135 educators, are often powerless in LRE decisions and have no control over any discretionary resources, nor do they have the power to allocate resources. From the data analysis, administrators closest to the client level (building level and district level) represent street-level bureaucrats and the higher-level administrators (regional, state, federal) represent the organizational administration or “the system.” Street-level Bureaucrats: The Alternate Discourses. Additional discourses have emerged since 1980 to expand upon and address some of the inconsistencies found in the original SLB framework. Maynard-Moody and Musheno (2000) offered a narrative based view of street- ievel bureaucrats, who they alternately named “street-level workers.” Street-level workers did not see themselves as agents of the state but as “citizen agents” (p.330) who are responding to individuals and circumstances. These workers do not see themselves either contributing to or implementing policy and describe their decisions not based on the correctness of the rules or the appropriateness of the policy, but on what they deem to be the worthiness of the client Although client construction is a part of the Lipsky framework, it is as prominent as in the citizen agent perspective. Determination of client worth as an activity may not directly affect student clients as much as it might affect adult clients of social services, simply because there are many more procedural safeguards surrounding the implementation of special education. These safeguards attempt to give each student a fair and equitable team approach to both diagnosis and LRE determination. However, data from this research also indicate this factor 136 may have some teeth when it comes to determining the worth of a student who presents a behavior issue. Additional perspective on street-level bureaucrats come from researchers intent on understanding how assessing the effectiveness of instructional leadership and policy implementation will lead to better decision making on the part of the bureaucrat (Day 8. Klein, 1987; Hupe & Hill, 2007). Lipsky worried about accountability and the challenges of governing various independent bureaucratic decision-makers. These concerns focused mainly on vertical administrative control over SLB decisions. Day and Klein (1987) proposed that street-level bureaucrats are not only accountable in a vertical form but also horizontally, thereby adding to the overall accountability in place. They further addressed the differences and the connections between public or administrative accountability, professional accountability, and participatory accountability. Participatory accountability in particular reflects decisions made from the lens of an identity within the decision-making context, whereas professional accountability reflects how others within the profession hold a person accountable for their actions. Hasazi et al.’s values come into play in this type of accountability. They are reflected through the professional expectations of peers. Public or administrative accountability refers to the rules and regulations SLBs must understand and for which, be responsible. These rules (noted as the rule following portion of the March framework) are implemented at the client level with administrative discretion reflecting the needs of the client and the capacities of the context. 137 Hupe and Hill (2007) expand upon the notion of multi—dimensional accountability and add in a notion of governance. Vlfith the continued expansion of accountability measures in education, policymakers worry about the lack of control they have over the implementation of policy at the clierrt-Ievel. Creating a measure to better gauge how well policy is being implemented presents challenges, not the least of which is how to account for local variance. Riccucci (2005) describes this type of variance and the effect it can have on meeting client needs. Without a general rule of accountability, the type of services one receives depends highly upon where one lives (Blackman, 1989; Danielson & Bellamy, 1989), resonating with the least-restrictive environment phenomenon. Hupe and Hill (2007) suggest that the differences between SLBs reflect the particular variance the context of that educational setting provides. This variance and the discretion required to navigate it, were both considered in the original creation of the least restrictive environment regulations. Vagueness of the regulations’ wording allows for more local interpretation and control of the concept. Given that discretion is inevitable, as is contextual application, SLBs are subject to methods of accountability that shape how they make decisions. Primary to that accountability is the lens of professionalism. SLBs see themselves as professionals and adopt an occupational ideology about the decisions they make. This ideology reflects the values Hasazi et al. (1994) described as well as the ethical codes for a particular profession. Hupe and Hill (2007) refer to this phenomenon of self-accountability as a multi- dimensional, multiple accountability. Rather than simply relying on a vertical 138 range of accountability (reflecting the top-down structure of most organizations), street-level bureaucrats are accountable in both a vertical structure to their superiors, and a horizontal structure to their peers and counterparts. Peer pressure and professional expectations play roles in how peer interaction can affect how an administrator considers and eventually makes a least restrictive environment determination. Additionally, SLBs are accountable to their clients. In the case of this study, those clients are children, and in some form, their parents. Although this is not mentioned as a motivational level of accountability in fire research, education SLBs are motivated to do right by their clients. This appears later in this discussion as additional dimension of horizontal accountability. Study Administrators: System Administrators As noted previously, some of the administrators in this study represent street-level bureaucrats. The building-level administrators are key SLBs with constant contact with the clients on a daily basis. On a lesser level, district administrators also fit the description since they have greater discretionary control over resources and still meet clients face to face in a limited fashion. At first glance, the regional administrator may also present a convincing case for SLB status because he, or his office, controls the distribution of resources for the area. His limited contacts with clients, unless there is a problem, and lack of individual client decision-making capacity, keep him in the upper administrative range. For this discussion, this level of administration will be referred to as the system. Our state administrator also fits within the system. Although these 139 administrators play an important role in the LRE process, they also represent an area in the organization that, according to SLB theory, is more oriented towards organizational goals than client—centered goals. The county level administrator earlier noted his observation about the discretionary nature of the system. His concern is to make sure the right actions are taken, but there is also a concern to keep the district and county operating smoothly. We could end up in focus monitoring for LRE in the district, so that takes - that takes time that I have to go and sit with the district and the state and try to figure out why they have an LRE problem. You know - and - you know, we let folks know the targets, it's LRE 5, it's SPP 5, so, um, but maybe we're not - we're not proactive enough, you know. (Interview-Regional administrator, March 3, 2009) l’m responsible for coordinating the work when it deals with regulations, statues, laws, whatever, in making sure that, not only do we understand, but getting this information around the state so pe0ple are compliant. (Interview- State administrator, February 25, 2009) The state administrator above provides evidence that her position is not at the street-level. She also describes the challenges of governing administrators who have much discretion over how they operate their districts. The funding system allows for local control and supports loosely coupled state mandates. Both of these administrators who represent “the system” are aware of the 140 challenges faced on the local level, but are also acutely aware of the requirements federal monitoring have placed on local administrators. The state system interacts with the federal administration and receives feedback on problems meeting aggregate percentage targets. it is up to the state to decide how to address those problems, which involve bringing local agency numbers up to target range. These representatives of the system are still in-tuned to the fact that the LRE decision is an individual one that requires attention to student needs. However, these decisions are largely out of their hands, so resources are focused on monitoring, goal setting, and culture change to get the district or agency on track. From our study state administrator, changing the cultural norms for schools is the true target for LRE. If we get supports in the classroom and teach them more easy, more universal design, for all the kids on the materials and things, and as we get more technology, kids can access textbooks and things much more interactively, not just reading, I think that will make it easier because it won’t - it won’t be the exception, it’ll be automatically look at the general ed class and it’s only rare that you take, you know, a kid out of it. But right now, we’re not there. (interview- State administrator, February 25, 2009) Study Administrators: Street-Level Bureaucrats The following discussion intends to define the administrators in this study as street-level bureaucrats through three dimensions of the theory that vary in form from one SLB discourse to the next. These dimensions: discretion, 141 innovation, and accountability all highlight theorists and governing organizations concerns about street-level bureaucrats and the autonomy that naturally defines their positions. Will SLBs use their discretionary power in a way that maximizes self-interest? That may depend on how one defines self-interest. How does this self-interest affect how a particular client (or student) is constructed and deemed worthy of services (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2000)? If SLBs are cutting corners and creating routines to attend to bureaucratic rules, then how can innovation occur? How do the governing bodies know the SLBs are doing their jobs? By examining these dimensions through the narratives of the street-level bureaucrats themselves, a more authentic picture of how these individuals address these concerns in real time emerges. Discretion. The first dimension is discretion or how much personal reasoning an administrator uses in making a decision. Discretion determines what needs are most pressing, what alternatives are available, and whether a client (or a student in this study) is worthy of the extra time and work it might take to help them. Discretion also comes into play when administrators schedule training, place students in classrooms, and distribute resources. It describes an operation where the power of allocation is up to the preferences of the one who allocates. in a professional education setting, preferences might indicate some combination of client interest and self-interest. All of the administrators in this study expressed a deep concern for the rights of all students and were worried that 142 their decisions would do right by these students. The charter school administrator provided this assessment. I really - I don't believe that adults that are involved in special education decision making make bad decisions purposefully. I don't think that adults that make those decisions are purposefully putting kids in resource rooms or putting kids in self-contained classrooms just because they feel like it. I mean, they didn't wake up this morning and say l'm gonna be mean today. I would bet money that most administrators that make decisions of putting kids in self- contained classrooms and resource room rooms for large portions of the day, their decisions are 50/50 money and behavior. They are afraid for — everybody's worried about being taken to court. (Interview-Charter School administrator, May 26, 2009) Street-level bureaucrats use their discretion to make decisions not only about the student in front of them but also about the school community at large. They need to take in the capacity and needs of the context as well as consider the direct needs of a student in crisis (which also often means a teacher and a classroom in crisis). The narrative used to open this chapter exemplifies this situation, as does the following story. We have a student in kindergarten who is severely emotionally impaired, and to me, it's not a thing that the child was born with. It is all environmental. But it's so severe that the child needs constant supervision, so not only do (they) have a teacher, but they have a para-sub, and um, for a while, the child was only in the 143 classroom, but was not getting any work done because of all of the emotional outbursts and meltdowns, and physical violence type of responses to other students, and that's why we're asking all that kind of stuff. The general ed teacher and myself knew that this child needed some support but was too young to put fully in El, so what we felt like what was best for the student in kindergarten would be to have some El support, or full para support, and strategies in the classroom with the teacher. (Interview-Riverdale principal #1, February 28, 2009) Here a building level administrator laments the limited options available for a child so young. She mentions the use of a “para” or a paraprofessional, sometimes also known as teacher’s assistants, to help the student maintain in the general education environment, but that the strategy is not yet working. There are discretionary choices available for this administrator to help the student in need. However, her hunch is that he will need some “El support”, or support for students with emotional impairments. This hunch is stifled by the rules of the state that limit the age a student can be labeled El, so she is seeking strategies to make due. To bring a term from March’s limited rationality decision- making framework, she is looking to satisfice in the situation or discover the quickest solution that will meet the minimal needs of the situation. How much of SLB decision-making utilizes limited rationality and examines the available options, predicting the potential outcomes of each? Limited rationality decisions fundamentally utilize some form of discretion when the decision maker predicts the consequences of each alternative and the 144 preferences that will greet those consequences in the future. Whereas decisions made using a rule-following framework would involve a limited amount of discretion considering the identity-driven context and strict guidelines surrounding each decision. Administrators who interact with special education focus on potential outcomes and alternatives. Goals and objectives in an lEP are simply projections of what the team wants and eXpects a student to be able to achieve in a year. The entire IEP and special education transition processes are very fonrvard thinking and are constantly asking educators and specialists, what can this child achieve? Predicting the answers to this and other questions involves a level of discretion as does presenting alternatives that are feasible to the IEP team. Another point to address about discretion concerns self-interest Although street-level bureaucrats rarely pursue the occupation for the monetary compensation, there remains room for the pursuit of self-interest within policy implementation. Self-interest can emerge in the form of power and the desire to wield it. It can also emerge in what the literature termed client worthiness (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2000) where an SLB allocating resources must determine whether the client is worthy of the resources and the work it will require to distribute them. Although this worthiness is not an overt denial of services, access to the general education environment can be perceived as a privilege and students may have to prove their worthiness to achieve it The following two quotes demonstrate how a principal or teacher’s self- interest can interfere with the student’s ability to succeed in a placement. 145 Acknowledging that some education professionals will act in a manner that is not in the best interest of students (but more in the best interest of the decision- maker), is a difficult thing to do. All educators want to believe that everyone is out there for the kids. However, ask any educator if they know someone who is not there for the kids and odds are good they will. Here perceptions from the state and building level describe the power a teacher disposition can wield. i think it's people's perspective, perception on why they want, you know, why they're making the decision. Um, you know, is it - you know, because you have to make decisions - You know, academic decisions, um, social decisions, behavioral - you know, sometimes it's based on personalities of the teachers, you know, picking and choosing certain general ed teachers over others, because of their willingness some of these decisions really have nothing to do with the kid per se, but you want - what you always want is a good experience with the child. But you have to keep all that in mind so the kid doesn't have a bad experience, and the teacher is not welcoming, or the students in the classroom, you know, sometimes need to be taught how to be welcoming. (Interview- State administrator, February 25, 2009) But, I think gen ed teachers need to be equipped to understand what the process is, because unfortunately, and I know this from my personal experience...and as an administrator, when you have a gen ed teacher in an IEP, you're at a point where they have one thing in mind - get this kid out of here. Now we're not talking about a speech child, and we're not talking about a 146 resource child. We're talking about a significant need for a different environment. (Interview-Riverdale principal #2, June 17, 2009) Consider the narrative opening this chapter. The principal is immediately insistent she does not wish to violate a child’s rights, but she also quickly describes a very challenging situation. In this situation, students in a classroom are at risk of harm by another student and the principal feels restricted by the guidelines established to address a situation like this. IDEA requires extensive documentation before a student can be diagnosed with an Emotional impairment (El). Once a diagnosis is in place, the student and teacher are provided special education support and management assistance. Before the diagnosis is official, teachers and administrators struggle to maintain the student and the classroom while the evaluation wheels turn. The principal quoted in the opening narrative struggles with the worthiness of the student and the worthiness of the rest of his classmates to access a safe educational environment. Add to this the judgments of the parents of his classmates who may have deemed him unworthy of being in the classroom with their children. Because, l'm also then battling, and I mean battling, a parent group who is gaining steam, because you know you've got your few pot-stirrers who are willing to go to every parent in that classroom, make phone calls, do you know what blah-blah did today... and you're trying to protect this child and his or her parents are fighting you because all they see is the fact that this child is coming 147 to the office, which is disciplinary. (Interview-Riverdale principal #2, June 17, 2009) In the meanwhile, the parents of the child in question are questioning why the administrator deems their child worthy of being in the office all the time. She sees her actions as protecting the child with disabilities and his parents from the exclusionary wishes of other parents. She sees this child as worthy of her time and energy even though it is a challenging road to choose. What it does is it puts the administrator down that discipline road, because if you really want to get things cooking over here, what you have to do, unfortunately, is go after the behavior because it's a gen. ed kid. (Interview- Riverdale principal #2, June 17, 2009) Although this administrator makes the choice of worthiness for this particular student, we do not hear the story of the child deemed unworthy. These are the stories parents tell in courtrooms after students are denied access to the general education environment. Clearty some issues of access are dependent on how willing the educational team is to go to bat for a student. What if that student’s behavior is so challenging, that some of the team deems him unworthy? How does that affect access to the least restrictive environment? These concepts of worthiness and behavior are examined further in Chapter 7. Beyond determining worthiness, self-interest an also emerge in different forms that address the work of the street-level bureaucrat. Decisions are 148 routinized in ways that make the work easier, safer, or more rewarding (Maynard- Moody & Musheno, 2000). Although the latter is often achieved through the success of students, the former two instigate innovation and streamline the decision making process. Innovation. Innovation occurs when discretion suggests an alternate course than previously charted. Maynard-Moody and Musheno (2000) noted that when agents (SLBs) described their own work, they emphasized self-interest was pursued through using discretion to make their own work easier, safer, and more rewarding. These SLBs did not see themselves as either policy creators or implementers but simply as doing their jobs. However, the discretionary instances where routines are created to serve self-interest by making work easier or safer often work so well they are adopted from the bottom-up and eventually become policy. This on the ground policymaking is not simply for the benefit of the decision-maker. Presumably, the SLB can better serve clients when innovation streamlines a process and therefore also benefit the client. Mistakes that are not beneficial to the client become Ieaming processes for SLBs and adaptations are made to minimize the chances of a particular mistake occurring again. Similarly, processes that are long and drawn out delay help for a student in need. Although innovation may make things easier for the SLB, it may also expedite services for the student in question. Many decisions made by SLBs in public education at the building level directly affect students. ' 149 A primary example of such a challenge can be noted in the opening principal narrative. This administrator expresses frustration at the extended process of identifying a student as a student with disabilities. Although she understands the process is in place to protect children from being misdiagnosed, she feels it is cumbersome for those students who truly need help. She understands the longer a student waits for intervention, the more difficult it is to help that student. If the administrator had the chance (if this particular process were not governed by IDEA), she would streamline that diagnosis process for students who clearly demonstrate need. This would make her job easier, because she would not have the daily interventions with a student, but it would also benefit the student who is finally receiving proper educational services. Two particular instances of innovation were intriguing in this study. One comes from the regional administrator. Although it has been established that he does not necessarily represent an SLB, he reflects on the face-to—face client interaction of an IEP and how his staff have created a metaphor to better explain the process of creating and maintaining the legal document. We’ve done so many trainings on trying to get people to understand the IEP and the present level academic (14.44) functional performance, and so one of, what we thought was our greater ideas, was the analogy between an IEP and a Thanksgiving dinner, meal. Because, it's a process, it‘s not an event. It's - you know, you can't wake up if you wake up Thanksgiving morning and decide you're going to have 24 people over for turkey dinner and everything that we typically go with that, and you haven't bought the turkey, or you've bought it but 150 you haven't even taken it out of the freezer... there's preparation and there's planning and there's...all this that needs to go in, and it's the same thing with an IEP. Really, your new IEP starts the day after you finish the last one. Because now you're collecting data, and you know, what do you need to do six months out, three months out, two months out, a month, and that's how we try to get people to look at that. People thought it was a good concept, but I don't know that there's anybody doing it. (Interview-Regional administrator, March 3, 2009) Here the administrator displays not only an innovative way to describe the IEP process for the staff creating it, but also acknowledges that the idea could be useful if it caught on as policy. This may demonstrate how close this administrator is to the policymaking level of administration and his perception of influence there. The Riverdale building administrator #2 describes a second innovation. And then we just typically start in with a recap of, all right, we've had CSTts up to this point, and during that time we determined that it was a good idea for us to go ahead with evaluation, and I like that part - and I typically have the - who’s ever the case manager do this - but I like that part to kind of bring everybody up to speed. Well, we've, you know, this is our twelfth meeting, we had, um, nine CSTs and then we decided to go ahead and sign paperwork and start the process, so today we're coming together, and just kind of lay out the purpose. And then start with the reports... We typically don't start with the gen ' Child study teams 151 ed teacher, because that person has done most of the talking at the CSTs. We start with - depending on how many people are involved - typically, the school psych, then the TC, then the OT, it just depends, I mean sometimes it's a cast of thousands... and go through their reports and then the ged ed teacher, and then we begin talking about um, if we are placing a child into a category, what the categories might be, and we've gone so far - we've made big posters of each of the categories, which is so helpful, although now with document cameras, we won't necessarily have to tote those around, but just the idea that we can look at, especially if we're not sure, because some kids, you know, is it OHI? Is it LD? Is it, you know - whatever - so using those, it really helps us look at, all right, well here's the characteristics that we've heard today, so this is a possibility. (Interview-Riverdale principal #2, June 17, 2009) Here the administrator discusses the use of rubrics to help the team make an educational diagnosis decision. Poster rubrics described each of the educational diagnoses that are possible in the state using characteristics and possible adaptations. The descriptions were placed next to each other, allowing the team a comparative insight into the diagnosis options for a more informed decision. Later this administrator suggests this process of using a visual rubric would also work for LRE determinations. Set out a range of posters describing what a student could receive in each environment and allow the team to evaluate the potential of each setting and service delivery model. Both of these innovations helped IEP teams and administrators wade through the complex and often contradictory lEP process, including determining 152 least-restrictive environment At other times, administrators mentioned routines established to make the process of evaluation or observation more streamlined. So, um, if it's a student that comes to us from another school already with an IEP the first thing I do is that I request their records and I go through the records and we sign a 30-day placement, so we do that with every kid. We have the parents sign a 30-day placement so to give us time to observe the kid in classroom and we usually tend to give them a very short amount of hours in the resource room, um, unless we see from the IEP that it's a child with a severe impairment. And it also depends on their, um, current placement within RTI, I mean, this is the first year that we implemented RTI in our case, so it gets a little complicated. (Interview-Charter School administrator, May 26, 2009) Note that although the routine of how the student is placed and observed is established, there is a caveat at the end noting things could be different depending upon the circumstances presented by the student. These routines must include a level of adaptability that is activated by administrator discretion. Accountability. The final dimension of street-level bureaucrats reflects not only the concerns of policy makers but also the overall climate of public education in the United States. Although the age of accountability has been building for the last three decades, the current decade has seen an exponential increase of attention on measures of accountability, particularly for educators and administrators. Where special education is concerned, this began in the 1990’s with a movement 153 towards including students with special educational needs in statewide performance testing (T hurlow, House, Boys, Scott, &Ysseldyke, 2000; Ysseldyke & Thurlow, 1993). When No Child Left Behind upped the stakes for students in _ general education, it also focused attention on increasing the performance scores of students with special educational needs (Lazarus, Thurlow, Lail, & Christensen, 2009). Finally in 2004, a revised version of IDEA was passed that included mandates to include students with disabilities in performance testing and accountability measures to determine whether states are complying with the regulations regarding special education. Vlfithin these realms of accountability, building and district level administrators wrestle with multiple legal requirements as they apply them to their particular contextual setting. This discretion concerns policy makers who are less familiar with the daily challenges of running a school or classroom. Between NCLB, NAPE, and IDEA indicator monitoring, very little goes on in the school that is not reported to the federal government. The increase in accountability measures speaks to policy makers’ need to oversee and force compliance on schools. There lies an element of protection here within arms of accountability. Special education has a long history of getting the short shrift in resource allocation and respect in the general education environment. Many of the monitoring policies implemented through NCLB and IDEA 2004 are intended to assure students rights are not being violated or to at least encourage better compliance with the laws for the sake of the students. 154 Recent LRE research (Hupe & Hill, 2007) suggests governance of street- level bureaucrats has been complicated by the understanding that SLB autonomy rests in “micro-networks of relations in varying contexts.” Further, “governance overlaps to cerate a multi-dimensional character of a policy system as a nested sequence of decisions” (p 280). Essentially, governance exists in many forms at the building level of an educational organization. There are vertical governance structures that include district administration evaluations and special edumtion implementation reporting requirements. The state uses test scores to assess the success of a district program and the federal government utilizes lDEA indicator data to determine whether state administrators are following directions. Hupe and Hill (2007) characterized the above governance dimension as public-administrative accountability. Scores are made public and requirements are clear and non-negotiable in public view. The authors note that these forms of accountability are not quite enough to keep all administrators in line and fulfilling the requirements of me policy, and test scores do not belie the real educational treatment a child is receiving within the walls of a school. Other forms of accountability have risen over the last two decades. The first involves professionalism and the kind of accountability that comes from one’s peers. Professional accountability directly reflects Hasazi et al.’s conceptualization of values in the professional context. For example, when an administration is described as a good old boys network, there are indications that professional values protect the status quo of policy implementation. 155 However, a progressive administration may send signals that a change of policy is required and positive interaction among principals reinforces that change. Here is where the value system of the organization comes into play. An organization that encourages maintenance of status quo, will support a good-old boys network of administrators. An organization that values students with disabilities and is committed to providing the best possible education for them, will reflect that in how administrators approach challenges and solve problems. Both of these organizational value systems are reinforced by vertical professional accountability between administrators. Professional accountability relies on the assumption that administrators value their peers’ perceptions of them and a positive change happening among some will eventually spread through most as it is reinforced by those who have already changed. Rather than provide a vertical accountability measure, professional accountability provides a horizontal measure creating a two dimensional picture of an administrator’s policy decisions. Like-minded peers who hold similar values concerning students with special educational needs encourage horizontal accountability. Indications of positive interactions with peers over special education questions came when subjects discussed where they learned what they know about LRE determination decisions. Where did I learn? Um, on the streets. Um, I guess I learn a little bit every year, every day. I learn at - through discussions with people like (Riverdale district administrator), and some other folks here at the (Region) who I hold in pretty high regard. Other monitors around the state... You know, I'll call a local 156 director, um, and I've got, you know, a few that I - i would bounce stuff off of...it's just, you know, contacts you develop and people you think of as, they'll know the answer. (Interview-Regional Administrator, March 3, 2009) Professional accountability also comes from administrators who view themselves as professionals and hold themselves to a level of professional standards that are favored by the edumtional organization. Some feel a form of professional accountability to the students and parents with whom they work. These are times when the administrator might take on an advocacy role to assist the parents and assure their voice is heard. The Riverdale Building Administrator #2 noted, "i think there's a responsibility there for administrators as instructional leaders and as caretakers of children to be making sure that sornebody's not getting left out or left behind.” Where the regional administrator noted a responsibility towards the parents in understanding what is happening in an lEP meeting. And even if I understand but it's the parent that's looking confused, i need to ask that question on behalf of them. And we don't - we don't do it. We - we just don't. I will talk to people and they'll say, well I heard that, but, you know, I was getting ready to leave so I didn't want to start anything, or I didn't want to upset the parent, and it's like, but we need to do that and that professionally, it's okay. (Interview-Regional Administrator, March 3, 2009) 157 These professional accountabilities are not measurable in terms of standardized test scores, but only emerge when an administrator is reflecting on policy and what values influence how to implement that policy. A final form of accountability involves the concepts of rights and responsibilities. Participatory accountability refers to the citizenship of an administrator and how participation in a government, culture, or ideology carries accountability to that organization. Although Hupe and Hill (2007) were envisioning a larger citizenship when considering SLBs such as rehabilitation counselors or social workers, school administrators also have a culture of education to Which they are responsible. School buildings reflect the cultural values of those inhabiting it as well as the overarching values of the district, region, and state superimposed. Administrators could legitimately complete their responsibilities without attending to this participatory accountability, but most do not. The culture of a school is vital to its successful functioning. The culture of a special education community, or of administrators advocating for a change in how we look at integration and least-restrictive environment determinations may have a profound effect on how an administrator within that community and how they use their discretion to meet the needs of students under their care. Street-level Contexts. Hill and Hupe (2002) note that compliance to policy takes different forms within different contexts. What is appropriate in managing one group could be highly inappropriate for another under a similar umbrella but within a different context. Even in education, each context presents its own challenges in 158 determining least-restrictive environment. High school special educators are more concerned with accessing transition and job-training resources than elementary resource teachers are. This in mind, there are also differences in how education street-level bureaucrats approach their work from other public service administrators. initially the client population is a key difference. Although most SLBs have a client population that is involuntary, they also deal with adult clients for the most part. Working exclusively with clients who are minors comes with the added bonus of parent clients. Each client has the potential to become two or more clients in a meeting and addressing the needs of all (including the teachers who are employees but also need to be appeased) becomes the dance of the school-level SLB. Although educational clients are often long-standing, they do eventually move on to another school or program and the education administrator passes the responsibility on to another. Other SLB clientele can also be transitory depending upon geographical moves or passing out of the system, there are no guaranteed exit dates for these clients, unlike students in an educatiOnai setting. Another important variable is the discretion that some street-level bureaucrats have in the distribution of services and goods. Although a principal can fight the placement of a student in an educational context, she cannot deny that student services. The rights and responsibilities outlined in lDEA provide parents of students with special educational diagnoses the right to file due process when services are denied and most districts will do anything to stay out 159 of court. From our evidence, a principal can make a student's life difficult and can drag her heels on producing promised resources. However, in the end, if a parent fights for it, the student will receive those services whether or not the principal deems them worthy. Additionally the student clients will not lose these services because they break the rules or do not comply. The student clients are owed these services. Although many public-service recipients may believe that they are also owed their services, there are no guarantees the service will continue. lDEA alters this client/street-levei bureaucrat relationship. How does Lipsky’s Street-Level Bureaucrat framework answer this study’s research questions? What are the factors that influence LRE decisions? Are there differences between districts? A primary factor that emerges from this SLB framework is accountability. The last decade in education has appeared singly focused on accountability of all sorts. Beginning with Goals 2000 (developed in the 19903), states were encouraged to develop accountability measures and statewide standards. in 2002 when NCLB arrived, accountability was more than encouraged, it was required, as well as goals and plans to show how states were going to improve their accountability measures and scores. Since NCLB included measures to determine the progress of students with special educational needs on standardized exams, lDEA’s 2004 revisions had to adjust some previous IDEA 160 language that contradicted NCLB’s requirements. Before the age of accountability, it was commonplace for students with lEPs to be exempted from taking statewide standardized tests. The new lDEA sided with NCLB and made it clear only a small percentage (2%) could be exempted from assessment and the state needed to find an alternate way to evaluate those students. The new lDEA did not stop the acmuntability bus there. The Hasazi et al. (1994) study noted that federal regulations were influential, but that they also had “no bite.” There were no governmental penalties for not following the regulations, but the civil penalties if a parent sued could be costly. The fear of lawsuits often kept (and still keeps) administrators on their toes in terms of special education. Therefore, IDEA 2004 added a new layer of accountability in the form of 20 indicators that examined how well education agencies were following the law in serving students with special educational needs. These indicators were chosen to address some of the most controversial issues surrounding special education including overrepresentation of minorities in special education, the larger percentage of special education students who are disciplined and expelled from general education environments, and the amount of time students with special educational needs spend with their same-age peers in general education. These new layers of accountability provide impetus for administrators to examine their own practices and those of their district. There is some evidence that these indicators have heightened LRE awareness. As to whether there is a difference between districts, all administrators in this study were acutely aware of accountability, but different levels of 161 administrator had different levels of awareness. Building level administrators were not aware of the 80% of students with special educational needs in the general education environment 80% of the time goal. Each district level administrator and higher did know about that measurement. Interestingly, the charter school special education director also had not heard of the 80/80 measures, but had her own accountability issues with the state and federal departments. it seems that instead of divisions along district or regional lines, differences in terms of accountability may depend on the level of administration. How do administrators balance meeting the needs of the individual with the procedural expectations of special education? One key to SLB decision-making is the belief that the rules to be followed are there for the best interest of the students. Procedural expectations are sometimes frustrating, but exist to protect children; a sentiment echoed by all the administrators in the study. None of the participants in this study demonstrated a negative attitude towards LRE decisions; therefore, the perceptions described here are only a slice of the aggregate administrative system. When rules become a problem for SLBs, they examine their alternatives and find a way to meet needs of the client (if the client is deemed worthy). At the street level, administrators have the power of discretion to distribute resources. Resources, in terms of LRE determinations, can be as diverse as finding accommodations in the building for a student who needs a safe place to go when he is feeling agitated, to providing behavior management training for his general education teacher. School administrators, acting as street-level bureaucrats, 162 may not have extra money or teachers, but they can find a room or a space for a teacher or therapist They can support a positive behavior plan and encourage support from other faculty in the building. The resources they control can, as one administrator put it, “make or break” a child’s experience. If administrators wield this much power, then how are they actually held accountable for their actions? Numbers submitted to a central office can say many things, but not adequately describe leadership. The federal government realized this and initiated the IDEA indicator measurements to force some form of vertical accountability on administrators. Although these indicator measurements do have a bite, unlike those in the Hasazi et al. study, are they the only reason administrators support IDEA and integrative practices? Hupe and Hill (2002) offer another option with horizontal or professional accountability. Are administrators accountable to each other in a professional sense? There is some evidence in this study to back up administrators respecting each other’s opinions and going to each other for advice. Although it is not blatantly stated in the data, it is not a stretch to imagine that there are professional expectations among the circles of administrators this study’s subjects turn to when needing advice. If an administrator is not up to speed on the current values and knowledge in the system, that advice might not come. This researcher acknowledges that this is a conjecture with limited data from this study in support. it is a valid area to explore with subsequent research. The potential for a strong horizontal accountability influence exists among administrators who see each other at regional meetings, all each other for . 163 advice on issues, and turn to each other for help when a need is presented (some districts come to Sunnydale for self-contained programs.) I Another measure of accountability this research would like to propose is also a horizontal accountability bUt to the client, which in all fairness refers to the student and the parents. This data consisted of one story after another describing how an administrator struggled to meet the needs of a student while negotiating the realm of IDEA. There is a constant common thread that rides throughout these narratives of do no harm. Administrators are most often concerned with whether or not they are doing what is best for the student. Looking back over the quotes in this chapter, administrators are concerned with whether a parent understands what is happening in an IEP process, and whether a student is getting a fair chance considering the reputation that precedes him. They wonder whether a new student has the appropriate amount of special education service minutes, and, in our opening narrative, how to help a student obviously in trouble, while keeping his classmates safe. There is a high level of attention placed on the best interest of the student and the happiness of the parent. There are no clear vertical accountability measurements that would account for an administrator caring about these issues. As long as the IEP is reasonable and implemented correctly, parents do not necessarily have to be happy (although it is highly recommended). Administrators do not keep their jobs based on the happiness of their client base. However, their jobs are easier, when the clients are happy. Although clients are not on an equal professional 164 level with administrators, and the accountability is not a direct, horizontal line, it also does not qualify as a vertical measurement. This research poses that the multidimensional accountability includes a depth dimension; much like the magic eye produces an image with depth once one can see it. This depth dimension includes parents, students, and even teachers and service providers who might not be considered peers but still provide a level of professional accountability for the administrator. This dimensional accountability discussion will continue in Chapter 7. What are the conflicts of LRE decision-making and how are they mediated? Street-level bureaucrats, as discussed above, struggle with the mediation between federal rules and client needs. From this approach, the conflicts focus on negotiating what it looks like to meet a child’s needs. SLBs are stressed between maintaining an organizational value of keeping a child in the general education environment, and providing that child with the assistance needed to become a successful student. These conflicts appear across all levels of administration and across all districts. How SLBs use discretion to address those conflicts, however, reflect the organizational values in place as well as the levels of accountability pertaining to those particular situations. in the next chapter, the conceptual frameworks of Hasazi et al., March, and Lipsky come together in a three-dimensional exploration of administrator interaction with least restrictive environment. We explore larger observations from this research and examine implications for policy and practitioners. 165 Chapter 7: The Three Dimensions of Least Restrictive Environment Decisions Clearly, a least restrictive environment decision is a complex and multi- faceted phenomenon. lt requires multiple lenses to see the full picture, but which lenses to use? This study has chosen three that, when combined, reveal a dimensional rendering of an administrator’s moment of decision within a particular educational context. Although this does not tell us how the decision happens all over the country, it can help us think about how the decision happens here in Everystate. Hasazi et al.’s (1994) factors along with the factors identified in this research provide the contextual background in which the decision is made. They describe the environment influencing these administrative decision-makers. March’s (1994) theory of decision-making examines the decision being made and how those involved make it. Finally, Lipsky’s (1980) understanding of street-level bureaucrats allows us to focus attention on the administrators making those decisions within the described contextual background. All together, these frameworks provide a fully dimensional view of LRE, but do they help us better understand the districts and administrators in this study? Further, how do they provide answers to the questions posed by this research? If least restrictive environment decisions are individual and contextual, then how can this research inform a larger audience of policy makers and decision-makers? 166 The Complexities of a Least Restrictive Environment Decision in Three Dimensions inance Individual Student Need Decision-Making inputs Street-level Bureaucrat Outputs o 7 Identity as a DM . ' . 0 Rule Following Distribute Resources | . Limited f Rationality Detennine 1 \/ Alternatives Appropriateness I \ / \ Consequences Create Routines Administrator Decision-Maker High User of Low User of Separate Separate Environment Environment . Educational Context - Values educating - Values educating students with 2$E$$2aso$ruum disabilities in the general lDEA) and maintaining educatlon envrronment status quo . Finance less of a motivator . Finance can be a - Involves parents in change motivator process 0 Parents are involved in maintaining status quo Figure 3: The Three Dimensions of LRE Decisions 167 This chapter renders a three-dimensional image of administrative decision-making in least restrictive environment decisions by applying each of the lenses described in this analysis to the data in the study. These lenses, when combined, provide an image of the factors involved in an LRE decision and how the decision-makers address alternatives available for students with disabilities. A cross comparison of the data viewed through these lenses, details the image further. This process is visualized in the figure on the previous page. Contextual factors and the educational context paint the background for the decision-maker administrator. inputs from decision-making systems depend upon and determine whether the decision-maker is utilizing a rule-following or A limited rationality framework. Outputs represent the ways a street-level bureaucrat can affect the least restrictive environment decision—making process. The discussion then turns to additional themes that emerged from the data and what those themes say about this study’s administrators and least restrictive environment. Along the way, we return to the students presented throughout this dissertation and connect their experiences with the theoretical frames Hasazi et al. (1994), March (1994), and Lipsky (1980) provide. We complete the discussion by examining what we learned through this pilot research and how that Ieaming will inform a larger effort to understand administrator’s roles in least restrictive environment decisions. 168 The Contextual Surroundings: Hasazi et al.’s Factors The Hasazi et al (1994) research framework outlined six primary factors that were most influential on the least restrictive environment decision-making process. These were finance, organization, advocacy, implementers, knowledge and values, and state and local. Although this dissertation research found many of these factors remained, newer, influential factors have become a part of the current special education landscape. These factors include student needs, student behavior, program options, teacher ability, and academic success for the student. Larger contextual changes occurred between the time of the Hasazi I research and the current policy environment. Some factors such as state and local and organization have more influence in the current environment because stronger accountability measures are in place at the state level to enforce lDEA. While finance, when measured by the self-reports of this research, has minimal effect on LRE placement decisions. Most administrators phrased their answer to i say finance cannot be an issue. According to regulations, a district must address a student’s needs and finances should not come into the equation in the Hasazi et al (1994) study, states were paying differential amounts to districts depending upon the severity of the disability and the extensiveness of the services provided. Essentially, states paid more to districts that self- contained students with special educational needs. Although Everystate does not (indeed can not) pay per diagnosis, there is evidence that a slight differential in funding may occur within regions with consideration to educational placement. 169 The charter school administrator referenced a small amount her school loses or gains depending upon the level of special education services provided to a student. On the other hand, Sunnydaie's district administrator described a system where most districts receive financial rewards for including students in the general education classroom. The caveat was that Sunnydale was not subject to that reward because of a court settlement that exempted certain districts. That's very interesting, because in some school districts, in the State Aid Act for special ed funding, there's an incentive to include kids. You get the membership deduct is actually lower if you include kids. So, uh, the less time kids spend in special education, the more state aid you get. But in (Riverdale), and in a number of other school districts in the state, we are not subject to that because of (a state court decision), a while back, and we're called the hold harmless school district so, we don't - we're not subject to that, so there's not an incentive to include kids - for us. We'd have to include about 600 or 800 more kids to - to get into financial benefits. So for us, it's a financial disincentive to include kids because it costs more in the secondary level to do co- teaching. (interview-Sunnydale district administrator, February 13, 2009) Even though administrators will say finance is not a factor, logically it must have some influence on the overall decision. This is not to infer that state money dictates diagnosis and placement decisions. However, money buys resources, 170 which provide a student and her school with options for accommodating her needs and providing her access to the general education curriculum. On a larger scale, resources are scarce for everyone, so one could say all kids, and not only students with special educational needs, are doing without these days. All students are feeling the budget pinch as district resources dwindle. it may be a sign of forward-thinking leadership to understand finances cannot dictate LRE decisions, and creatively acquired alternatives might be the answer for troubled students. Another factor that emerged in Hasazi et al.'s 1994 study and re- emerged in the March (1994) and Lipsky (1980) frameworks describes how an organization acquires and utilizes knowledge, and passes down organizational values in a vertical manner. Labeled as knowledge and values, statements coded for this factor describe how an organization acquires and distributes knowledge as well as communicates the values of the organization in reference to a particular situation. Although knowledge is important, values emerged as a much more pertinent factor. Values appeared most prominently as a directed effort towards keeping students with special educational needs in the general education classroom as much as possible. Each administrator in this study shared this value in both direct statements and anecdotal evidence. The statements went far beyond what could be termed as lip service or something said because a person knows it is expected. There were genuine layers of concern in these administrator stories. All of the participants were concerned that students with 171 special educational needs access the appropriate supports in order to be successful in the general education classroom. That's the most difficult part - understanding what do they really need, what is the source of what do they really need and placing them based on that. (Interview-Riverdale principal #1, February 28, 2009) Um, so at the district level, we are now getting a re-education in a much - clearer concise, well-defined understanding of LRE...than we've had over the, you know - it's been sporadic in the sense that personnel changes have occurred. We're getting - we're finally getting the same message, Uh, in terms of LRE that it be taken very seriously...that it be a considered decision with all - all possibilities looked at from - if you want to say top to bottom with top being the most restrictive all the way through or bottom to top. Where okay gen ed is not the best placement, so what's the next level. Okay is that the best placement, no? Okay. So, what's the next? So really, sequential consideration of the best _. placement. (Interview-Riverdale principal #2, June 17, 2009) My biggest concern is that we make sure that we put in the'supports that the child needs and then that we’re monitoring the effectiveness of those interventions. Because simply putting in the interventions and then just letting it go isn’t enough and I don’t know that we have the habitual history of doing — monitoring student's progress and are the supports actually working, and if they’re not, we ship them, even though that’s been part of the (10.21) forever and ever — so that piece is important. (interview-Riverdale district administrator, February 13, 2009) 172 And in the end, though, i think the vast majority of our staff think about keeping the kid in general ed as much as possible, and i think people will tell you, since I got here 3-1/2 years ago, I’ve been pushing that idea, and they do - people are better and better at it - less, though, at the secondary level. (Interview-Sunnydale district administrator, February 13, 2009) So, there, I mean there needs to be that cooperative lay of the land, but one, i think we’ll have less kids in special ed, I think — i think our percentages are bound to decrease, although some folks are worried that this is going to increase numbers, but i don’t - I don’t really think it would because we’re really, we’re using interventions. We're not just saying, well I caught it, he didn’t get it, you know? Which is, you hear still, you know, and so then, I think we’ll have the right kids in special ed and then we can do a better job of that. (Interview-Regional Administrator, March 3, 2009) Looking at the statements of administrators from the county level through the buildings, there are clear verbal commitments to give students with special educational needs time in the general education classroom. Although some of these administrators may have already chosen this belief system (of integration), there is a note (from Riverdale building administrator #2) about how the idea of considering all general education options before placing a student under more restrictions is a new district value that is being favored in leadership. There are some indications through the Riverdale district administrator’s interview (see Chapter 3), that principals, who initially resisted, were seeing the logic of the new 173 policy and calling her about placement decision advice. Although these actions do not necessarily mean the administrators in question have changed their attitudes about students with disabilities, it does indicate that administrators respond to administrative value changes within the organization. Administrator responses such as this may indicate a larger change in educational attitudes toward students with disabilities. Can an administrative value change encourage and create positive attitude change towards a particular population? Testing this finding and its potential implications is an imperative goal for the next stage of this research. it is difficult to separate whether the regional values are more influential than the federal values concerning students with disabilities. Although this study notes the regional education agency appears to have some influence in what districts within it value, the region forwards a value system that encourages compliance with federal accountability measures. Although through quotes, a clear line valuing maintaining students with disabilities in the general education environment from the region down can be discerned, it is difficult to determine the genuineness of the quotes. Is this value carried forward because it is expected by the federal and state system, or is this value reflecting a true attitude change towards students with disabilities? Unfortunately, although this value is present, it does not indicate equity in inclusion rates. Although the value of placement in the general education environment is present, like it is in Sunnydale, the overall constructs and priorities of the district may still favor the status quo. A change in administrator and district values may also include 174 incorporating that change into an already existing special education structure. These structural changes may require more time for visible change to occur Factor adaptation. Analysis of the data using decision-making and street-level bureaucrat lenses identified additional factors that appear to have some influence on the LRE decision-making process. Upon further inspection, these new factors are not necessarily unique, but versions of Hasazi et al.’s factors that adapted in response to the current educational context. Organization in Hasazi et al.’s study is reflected as program options in the current research. Today's administrator is concerned with the options available along the continuum of placements the organization (or district) can provide. The more options there are available for a student, the more likely the lEP Team will find an appropriate placement. These options are inherently located within the organization of the district. lmplementers appear in the current research under teacher ability. This factor outlines how confident an administrator is in a general education teacher’s ability to include a student with disabilities as well as differentiate instruction for her. Teachers who resist maintaining students with disabilities in the general education environment may do so because of a perceived or real lack of ability to successfully plan and differentiate for these students. The administrators in this study mentioned teacher concerns either as catalysts in instigating a special education referral, or as impedances to students accessing the general education environment. Either way, teachers play a visible role in how the environment shapes an LRE decision. 175 Advocacy appears in this study in two fascinating ways. One is in a brief reference alluding to parents as powerful factors in IEP team decisions. Only two administrators noted parents as being important factors in the LRE decision on first response. However, all the administrators acknowledged the power of parents after a prompt. The two who did mention parents made comparisons between the parental power of the 1990’s and what parents can do today. Although no real change has occurred in the parental rights accorded by the law, policy changes have affected how much parents can demand of school districts. “And what the parent wants is still taken into account, but fortunately it's not running the show the way it did there for about a 15 year period, where it was really scary.” (interview-Riverdale principal #2, June 17, 2009) The use of external advocates has decreased in recent years. Only two of the administrators interviewed evoked the image of a parent advocate aggressively pursuing services and supports for a student with disabilities. Currently, school districts are in such poor shape financially, it is impossible to acquiesce to individual demands that are not outlined in the lEP by the IEP team. This is why schools must be careful in writing the Individualized Education Program. If the IEP, in writing, says a child needs something to access the general education environment, the school district is required to provide it. Another, more fascinating version of advocacy emerged in the analysis of this data; that of the administrator advocating for students with disabilities. The new factors most mentioned by administrators reflect a focus on the student. These include student need, student behavior, and student academic success. 176 Administrators concerned with making the right LRE decision will consider each of the above factors in that deliberation. Student need and student academic success measure the student’s academic and functional needs and student behavior measures the appropriateness of a student placement Can the student in question function and have academic success in the general education placement? What are the student's needs and how can the stateldistrictlschool meet them? Administrators in this study focused intensely on making the right decisions for the benefit of students with disabilities. This advocacy concept returns later in the street-level bureaucrat discussion as a new form of accountability. Using the analysis through the Hasazi et al. (1994) lens, this study’s . factors create two pictures of two different policy environments that are twenty years apart. The Hasazi et al. environment was heavily influenced by finances and state appropriation of money, noting influence of money, organization, and implementers. All of these are external factors in the environment acting upon the student and the LRE decision. In this dissertation research, however, the environment softens. There is more focus on individual access and success in the general education environment. The administrators are concerned with student need and student success, and incorporate all of the available options to meet those needs. The current environment is shaped not only by the context, but also by what the student with‘disabilities needs and what the education agency can provide for those needs. 177 If we return to the example of Stephen from Chapter 4, we have the story of a child who is dealing with emotional trauma by lashing out at his classmates in school. in the older, Hasazi et al. environment, Stephen’s advocate might have demanded the district provide a paraprofessional and other supports for Stephen. However, because of his outbursts and aggression, he might have been placed in a self-contained environment for the safety of the other students in the classroom. Moreover, in that environment, his district would receive more money to hire specialist who could help Stephen with his educational needs. If we move to the current environment and look at the districts in this study, there are several alternate possibilities for what might happen to Stephen. Riverdale is a district moving towards becoming a low user of special education environments. There are seif-contained classrooms within the district, but they are maintained within general education buildings allowing for more integration. Riverdale principals spoke of discerning what a student needs and providing for those needs in order to help thatstudent succeed. One principal had a story that was very similar to Stephen’s tale. The administrator’s and Riverdale’s actions reflect a value of moving students back into the general education classroom as quickly as possible. Actually, the school where we have our resource kids go also has the El room. And the student in question definitely is El. I built the background information, CST, suspension piece, unfortunately, for that child for two years, so at the end of first grade we matriculated that child to this other school. The parents would - still would not hear anything to do with El, but did matriculate to 178 the resource setting to have that small group placement, the kind of time out of general ed. So that's where LRE becomes okay. When gen ed is not restrictive enough for the child's Ieaming. (Interview-Riverdale principal #2, June 17, 2009) Riverdale’s district administrator adamantly spoke against trapping students in a special education hole from which there is no escape. I think in the last couple of years I’ve Ieamed more and more of the importance of kids being in gen ed and with content experts and differentiating instnrction and meeting kids where they are. Um, looking at the data around post-school outcome - you know, we label a child El, they’re most likely gonna be out of the general ed setting a lot. We have a 50% dropout rate as soon as we label them that. Um, LD kids have a pretty high dropout rate. Um, underemployment — high rates of unemployment, home ownership is like 3% for people with disabilities, and i just - I mean, we have 30 some years of data in special education now and we pour a lot of resources into the programs we’ve been doing and not getting real good outcomes for our kids. Not as a - because of a lack of goodhearted people trying, but some systemically, we’re not doing it right. (Interview-Riverdale district administrator, February 13, 2009) In Riverdale, Stephen might stay in his general education classroom with intensive assistance provided by the teacher specializing in emotional impairments and the speech pathologist. He might have a system arranged in 179 the building where there are several supportive adults to help him make more appropriate personal choices. Stephen would learn how to behave in the general education environment by having success in that same environment. Sunnydale, comparatively, is a high user of special education environments. Sunnydale also maintains one of the largest special education populations in the state. This is not because of over-diagnosis, but because fl'rey have programs in place for students with disabilities that smaller districts could not afford to run, including a self—contained special education building. Sunnydale’s special education program takes in students from other districts and has a highly diversified set of offerings for special education placement. According to IDEA 2004, this follows the continuum of services districts are required to provide, but somehow, having the full continuum also seems to encourage placement in special education environments. Sunnydale administrators touted the value of education in the general education environment, but they also spoke of keeping students protected within the shelter of special education. Because of these mixed messages, it is difficult to uncover the true value system at work. in Sunnydale, Stephen might start out in a self-contained classroom in order to establish better behavior guidelines and regulate his medication. If Stephen could learn to regulate his behavior, Sunnydale might increase his integration into the general education environment. But as a high user of special education environments, the district might see the implementers in a self-contained environment as being better qualified to address Stephen’s needs. It might also see keeping Stephen in the status quo of 180 the self-contained classroom will be the best for all parties involved, protecting the world from Stephen and protecting Stephen from the world. Sunnydale made a unique move of taking building principals out of the special education equation and installing Teacher Consultants (TC) as the district special education administration representative. These consultants are often former special educators and tend to look at the administration of lEPs from the teacher's perspective. This move is fascinating on two fronts. First, if principals have as much influence over what happens to special education students as this study’s literature review implies, then it might make sense to take that level of bias out of the situation. What happens in special education classrooms in Sunnydale is not under the jurisdiction of the principal, it falls to the TC administrator. While this may solve some issues teachers or students might have with an unwilling principal, it also may engender a separation of resources and personnel. Second, the TCs, being former special educators, fill more roles than simply administrator and district representative. They might provide direct intervention for a student. The interview data suggests the two building administrators in Sunnydale work directly with students, and they are the only participants who mentioned doing this outside of behavior intervention. This puts the administrators in a fascinating position. They have the power to not only allocate resources for a student intervention, but also allocate their own time for student intervention. The Sunnydale building administrators walk a fine line between teacher and bureaucrat; they fall into the teacher category much more 181 than the remaining participants in this study. This presents an interesting connection to be explored in subsequent research. How many districts are utilizing a secondary administrative system to manage issues and responsibilities concerning students with disabilities? Are those districts high or low users of special education environments? The Least Restrictive Environment Decision Process What does a decision-making framework tell us about the least restrictive environment process? Why break down the decision process itself when the administrator, by law, should not be the only person making it? Although the Hasazi et al. (1994) environmental frame allows a view of the greater contextual picture, it does not assist in understanding how the action of decision is considered. Yes, there are factors that have influence, but how is that influence determined? March’s (1994) decision-making framework provides a glimpse into the consideration process of individual placement decisions and a better understanding of the complexity surrounding each of these decisions. March outlined two major frames of decision—making, rule following and limited rationality. instead of discovering which frame best describes the LRE process, we found evidence of both frames at work in concert. Rule following was observed when the law was evoked or any discussion turned to IDEA rules and regulations. The administrators in the study clearly knew and understood special education law. The one exception was the first year principal, expressing a good conceptual understanding of the law but still Ieaming the nuances of IDEA. 182 The rule-boundedness of some administrator responses demonstrated that those rules were never far from their minds. This rule factor may be influential because of the unique special education threat of due process, or it may be because IDEA 2004 instituted new accountability measures. The administrators in this study expressed a belief that the rules in IDEA were there for the protection of the child, no matter how maddening they may be administratively. As noted before, this study is incomplete in that it does not offer an administrative perspective that was negatively inclined towards LRE placement processes. It is safe to say that not all administrators are as thoughtful and deliberate about LRE decisions as are those who chose to talk with this researcher. Resistance to integration still exists in the United States educational system, which is why Congress added accountability measures for the implementation of special education to IDEA 2004. Many more administrator responses reflected a limited rationality decision- making framework. After examining a plethora of information about a student with educational needs, the lEP team explores a variety of alternatives and considers what the consequences and rewards would be for each of those alternatives. The alternative chosen will be the one that best addresses the needs of the student with disabilities in the least restrictive environment possible. Because limited rationality focused heavily on the exploration of alternatives and the prediction of what consequences might arise from those alternatives, it parallels the process already in place to create and maintain a student’s Individualized Education Program. 183 Looking at the administrators in this study, all subjects expressed aspects of rule following and limited rationality in their statements about least restrictive environment. From the state level to the building level, these administrators all spoke of the search for the right context, or the best possible supports for individual students with disabilities. As noted earlier, the entire process of special education administration is a series of limited rationality exercises in the context of the rule following framework of IDEA. The Charter School administrator discussed the limitations of being a one school district providing all grade levels and special education options. There are no self—contained classrooms in the school so all students must be integrated into the general education environment .with supports. This limits the alternatives available for the IEP team to explore, but it also requires a school to become creative in how to solve special education challenges. But in one of the cases, it was either have an FI’K (follow the kid) or make a referral to a center-based program, which we all agreed would do more harm than good. A family with a whole bunch of kids, all the kids are in the school with us, parents volunteer in the school, I mean, to remove the youngest kid from our school where he knows everybody, he knows - you know, he knows where to go, if he’s in a panic he knows where to go if he needs a hug, I mean, we have it down to a science, we just cannot have him go by himself. So, we needed somebody to be with him all the time. We weren’t gonna send him to center- based. It just wouldn’t be the right decision for us. And so - and as it turns out, then we knew that — we found out that we could put in an application to (Regional 184 Agency), and we're waiting to find out if they are going to help us fund this person, so — it kind of works out. (Interview—Charter School Administrator, May 26, 2009) In the above quote, the Charter School administrator notes how she examined the alternatives for a student in question and then projected what the possible consequences for these alternatives might be. Although the student might get services that are more specialized in a self-contained environment, his siblings and parents are consistent actors in his daily environment at the Charter School. However, there are issues in finding the funding to pay for the appropriate support services the student requires; in this case, a one on one assistant to shadow him throughout the day. The next alternatives this administrator must address are funding possibilities for this needed staff member. With each solution comes a new set of options and potential consequences. Other administrators in this study discuss exploring options for funding, training, and implementation of special education services. These decision- makers are accustomed to operating with limited resources and finding ways to meet the needs of the students in their care. Yeah, and I’ll come from the lens that money is not an issue. Because my job really is -l have two responsibilities: one, to be fiscally responsible on the district’s end; and two, meet the individual needs of the child. So, we really have to look at maximizing the services that we have in place to meet the kids’ 185 needs, um, and being creative in how to do that without breaking the district. So it’s always - it’s always a real fine balance between being fiscally responsible whfle meeting that child’s needs. (interview-Riverdale district administrator, February 13, 2009) Here the Riverdale District administrator explains a part of that process of seeking alternatives but doing so within the confines of the overall budget. Given the current economic situation of Everystate, more public school administrators will be seeking alternate ways of doing more with much less in the way of financial support. The educational agencies in this study share another important factor from the decision-making framework, following the rules. All of the districts, including the Charter School mentioned some form of state or federal monitoring they were enduring at that time. All of these administrators, including the state administrator, indicated their struggle to measure and meet performance standards for the State Performance Plans. The state not only creates and submits these larger plans to the Department of Education, but also is responsible for addressing and monitoring districts performing below expectations. All levels of administration interact with monitoring systems but building-level administrators indicated the least concern towards IDEA accountability measurement Those participants who worked directly with their student clients were more focused on the particular needs of the individual students than the data requirements for special education access. 186 Returning to Justin, the student with autism from Chapter 5, his current classroom is becoming more abstract and intellectually frustrating. However, the school is in his neighborhood where his friends and siblings attend. There are community supports available in local schools that might be more difficult to access in a distant, self-contained building. If Justin were attending the Charter School, he might access supports similar to the ones described by the Charter School administrator. Since there are no self-contained classrooms in the building, a one on one assistant might work with Justin as he negotiates the school environment and the curriculum. Although this arrangement may need further adjusting as Justin moves towards adolescence and transitional training to adulthood, for now, his needs can be met in the same environment as his siblings and friends. In Riverdale, Justin might have more options for his academic career. Riverdale operates self-contained classrooms for students with autism in neighborhood schools and, unlike the Charter School, has an array of options that reflects a continuum of placements. Sunnydale has the same array but also offers programming in a self-contained building. Riverdale is too small a district to offer this in-house and must contract with Jefferson County Regional or Sunnydale for self-contained alternatives. If Justin’s home school in Riverdale does not have a self-contained classroom, an option open to the IEP team would be for him to be bussed across town to a building that did. Similar to the Charter School, Riverdale may also try to locate additional funding for a one on one assistant for Justin, but it would not have that money available in the general 187 resource fund. Because it would increase costs to send him to a program in a self-contained building, it is unlikely Riverdale would send Justin out of the general education environment entirely. Since Sunnydale has a self-contained program in the array of alternatives available, if Justin were in that district, he might find himself in a functional skills classroom outside of a general education building altogether. Even though these administrators operate under a rule following framework, they also enact limited rationality decision making reliant on the alternatives available from their organizational context. The differences uncovered by the decision-making framework lie in the contextual support of each district, not in how the decision-makers approach their task. Each decision- maker will examine the decision and alternatives available, but can only work with what is provided through district resource allocation. Here is where Hasazi et al.’s values come into play. A district or educational agency will provide support and resources for those enterprises it values and those resources will directly reflect the overall values of the agency. How a decision is made is dependent upon the alternatives available, reflecting the values of an educational context. Thus far, this chapter has explored the context of a least restrictive environment decision by identifying influential factors that create the landscape of the decision. it then explored the decision process and how or whether alternatives are explored for that decision. One vital dimension remains in this analysis—that of the decision maker. This discussion has talked about and 188 around the person making the decision. It has utilized the words of the decision makers to support the analysis but it has not yet turned to that individual for further enlightenment. The Least Restrictive Environment Decision-Maker: A Street-Level Bureaucrat Addressing federal and state requirements with available funding while meeting student needs makes an administrator's job seem more like a juggling exercise rather than a balancing act. Because so many factors could come into play in any given LRE decision, it is unlikely that only two are on the table at a time. Administrators must be able to not only juggle, but also understand the weight of each factor on a particular contextual situation. These qualities are what make street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) a key framework in this analysis. Lipsky’s (1980) initial research on SLBs utilized education administrators struggling with new special education rules as primary subjects so it is only natural that this framework resonates deeply with the data. SLB codes accounted for 40% of all coded statements, beating the other code categories (which more equally distributed the remaining coded statements). Street-level bureaucrats are the center of this story and the data support that supposition. 189 Code distribution by group IAux I Hasazi I March I SLB Figure 4: Code Distribution of all Coded Statements. Distribution calculated by HyperRESEARCH The (SLB) framework takes the story of this research straight to the decision-maker. The SLB operates in an environment influenced by Hasazi et al.’s (1994) factors. We assume she approaches her decision within the boUnds of lDEA’s rules with a limited rationality perspective, examining the alternatives available and predicting the possible consequences of those alternatives. While examining those alternatives, she will use her discretion to consider her decision. In the SLB literature, this discretion presents the largest challenge to theorists and policymakers. It represents an aspect of bureaucratic decision-making that is out of policymakers’ control and inspires the accountability movement currently underway in the American education system. In order to control administrative 190 discretion, multiple layers of accountability exist to assure local agencies are addressing regulatory mandates appropriately. Two major conceptual themes arose from the street-level bureaucrat analysis of this study’s data. Discretion seems an obvious theme considering its importance in the overall framework. However, in this research, discretion becomes a highly influential factor when considering the street-level bureaucrat notion of client worthiness and the connection of that notion to the extensive representation of student behavioral issues in the data. Accountability also plays an influential role in SLB decision-making. Data from this study indicate administrators are not simply operating under a vertical accountability system, reporting data to, and receiving directives from a larger organizational system. They are also responding to a horizontal accountability system where colleagues and clientele provide the impetus to make the best decision for the situation. We begin our SLB exploration with this notion of accountability. Accountability. In the Hasazi et al research, done in the late 1980s, accountability was not a largely influential factor in its own right. There were notions of accountability in state regulations and requirements of informed consent, but none had a bite. The only punitive measure available towards schools was a due process lawsuit brought by parents. Everything else appeared as an insignificant punishment. SLBs were allowed a large amount of discretion to make educational decisions for students with special educational needs. As years passed, several lawsuits, 191 outlined in Chapter 2 of this dissertation, shaped how LRE was determined and the guidelines were sharpened based on implementation events rather than direct intervention from congress. By the late 1990’s, it was clear that students with special educational needs may have been in the general education classroom, but were not necessarily getting the education of their general education peers. The federal government addressed these concerns in two waves, the first with testing requirements for students with disabilities and the second with the accountability measures added to IDEA 2004. These new measures were designed to target trouble areas in terms of applying the regulations of IDEA to a local school context. Many of the accountability indicators of IDEA come from longstanding challenge targets such as reducing overrepresentation of minorities and immigrant students in special education, or reducing the amount of time students with disabilities, particularly an emotional impairment (behavioral disability) are suspended from school. lndiCator 5 (out of twenty) targeted the amount of time students with disabilities were spending in the general education environment. Schools and states are responsible for this indicator and making sure it meets standards (which are not altogether clear), which may mean placing districts or schools in a monitoring program. Sunnydale was under monitoring during this study, but Riverdale and the Charter School were not. Because of these new monitoring systems and reportable measurements, vertical accountability (from the top down) is playing a more influential role in how administrators are viewing and addressing the needs of students with special educational needs. 192 The term ‘vertical accountability’ (Day & Klein 1987, Pollitt 2003) is specified above because there are some indications that a level of 'horizontal accountability' (Hupe & Hill 2007) may also influence how administrators are viewing LRE decisions. Horizontal accountability refers to a structure where value changes are made because of an affiliation with other workers on the same level. An administrator values the perspective or opinion of a colleague and may alter her behavior based on interaction with and feedback from this colleague. This research takes that horizontal accountability further by asserting that administrators are also deeply accountable to their clients, and their clients’ parents. Moving back to the discussion of values, administrators consistently referred to their idea of the appropriate treatment of students with special educational needs. This often involved a statement about doing “what is right” for the student. Street-level bureaucrats are a particular form of bureaucrat that have face to face interaction with their clients, unlike most policy makers. Because of that close connection to clientele and because parents can become great disrupters when they feel they or their children are being mistreated, it seems appropriate to include students and parents in the horizontal accountability frame. The one hesitation this researcher has to this assertion is that the line between parents, students, and administrators is not necessarily horizontal. It is a form of professional accountability but not the same as being accountable to one’s peers. This study saw the client accountability as more of a third dimension, perhaps of depth. This deeper accountability reflects the 193 . responsibility administrators feel towards their clients and leans more towards a value of not letting someone down than of doing something because of the rules or the numbers. This accountability concerns administrators who related their many stories of behavioral issues and students who present the most poignant challenges to integrative practices. There is a question as to whether the client is the parent or the student. Do administrators hold out against parents claiming it is the best thing for the student? Yes. Do administrators give in to parents because they clients as well? Yes. It appears that both parent and student hold some relevance as a client. Administrator discretion slips in at this moment to determine who is more pertinent in the eyes of an administrator, the student or the parent. Some administrators will push back against unreasonable parent demands if they believe it is not in the best interest of the child. Many administrators will acquiesce to reasonable parent demands because it is easier than fighting. Pursuing this question further in the next stage of research may yield fascinating results as to how administrators view these clients and whether parents or students hold the primary title of client Connecting discretion and client worthiness with behavioral challenges. in Chapter 6, considerable discussion time is devoted to the concept of discretion. Discretion applies when decision-makers consider their own perceptions and perspectives before making decisions. Discretion concerns policymakers because it is dependent upon the individual sensibilities of the 194 street-level bureaucrat. Some research indicates SLB’s may utilize their powers of discretion to maximize their own self-interest (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2000), but as discussed in Chapter 6, education administrators have few opportunities to pursue self—interest in the face of their mounting responsibilities. We presented some possibilities as to how this self-interest plays out in the education context for administrators and noted that steps could be taken to make the work of administration easier using routines. One potential arena of self-interest for education administrators connects to another, large theme emerging from the data analysis. Lipsky (1980) addressed SLB construction of clients and how that construction affects the distribution of resources. He then argued that the alteration of resource distribution based on client construction, resulted in SLB policy-making action. Through contextual alteration, policy changes. Maynard-Moody and Musheno’s (2000) later work with SLBs found that they did not see themselves as policy makers, but as policy implementers, which could take the form of determining a client’s worthiness (or in this case, appropriateness) to access the services in question. Although denying services may be an option for other SLBs, it is not for education administrators. Once a district diagnoses a student (which is conducted by an evaluation team, not the administrator), services must be provided. There were indications, however, of another arena where client appropriateness seems to have emerged as a potential determinate. This arena falls under the umbrella term, student behavior, and it was on the mind of every administrator in this study 195 Student behavior refers to actions students take to disrupt their own education or that of others around them. Early in the development of special education, there was a diagnosis for behavior disorders which generally covered conduct issues (or acting out, acting impulsively, acting aggressively) that were not the result of a psychological disorder. If a child had a behavioral issue that was the result of a psychiatric diagnosis, the label was emotionally impaired or emotionally disordered. These diagnoses included childhood schizophrenia, severe depression, bi—polar disorders, and other psychological issues for which a child would receive outside therapeutic treatment. Sometime after the authorization of IDEA 1997, conduct disorders and the diagnosis of behavior disorder disappeared from state disability categories. Only emotional impairment remained, and El was a much harder diagnosis to achieve than BD. Skip ahead to 2009 and behavior has changed in public education. Before the late 1990’s, the hesitation to integrate a student into general education rested with her academic ability to keep up with her same-aged peers. Now, hesitations to integrate because of academic ability are almost invisible. Today’s hesitations lie with behavioral issues. Each administrator had a story about behavioral issues and the challenges in solving them. Considering that behavioral issues are often at the center of overrepresentation concerns, it is important to understand how behavior affects a child’s opportunities to stay in the general education classroom. When special education was in its infancy, teachers worked towards getting kids with behavioral issues out of their rooms, a classic expression of “not 196 my problem” (NMP). Throughout the continuing evolution of IDEA on the ground level, this attitude was progressively not acceptable when it applied to most other disability diagnoses. However, behavior always seemed to be the one big out if a child was physically aggressive in the general education classroom, she was out and the new self-contained environment was simply one step closer to incarceration. This was enough of a problem that IDEA 1997 required schools to complete positive support behavior plans to begin addressing the issue of students with behavioral issues not accessing the general education environment. However, court challenges such as Hartmann v. Loudoun County Board of Education (1997) reiterated the Fourth Circuit Court’s position that general education students have the right to an education without the threat of harm. Behavioral issues are those that pit the needs of the student with disabilities directly against the needs of the student without disabilities. The reauthorization of IDEA (1997) targeted policies of expelling students with behavioral disabilities. How can students be guaranteed FAPE if they are not allowed to come back to school? What if their expeliable offense could be directly attributed to their disability? New rules were put into place along with the accountability measures that were designed to keep students who were struggling with a behavioral issue in the general education environment. Suspensions are limited to 10 days and after that, the lEP team meeting must be called to address the behavioral issue. The current IDEA (2004) incorporates behavioral issues in its accountability measures, including counting how many students with special educational needs are suspended per year and reporting 197 how they continue to receive FAPE while they are out of the general education environment Student behavior is not a new factor, nor should it be a surprise for administrators in education, but the level of behavioral issues appears to be rising each year and the level of violence found in the typical general education classroom is also on the rise. Back in the 1970’s, students with special educational needs were rejected from general educatiOn classrooms because they were considered academically unable to keep up. Now, academic variance is more the norm for classrooms with students performing on multiple levels of competence. Behavioral issues, however, have the potential to disrupt an entire class for a period, or an entire afternoon. They appear, according to administrators in this study, to be the most challenging of disability diagnoses. Here are a few narratives: Well, I worry a lot about, uh, so depending on the kid, but - but What would go through my mind are things like are they emotionally stable. Um, are they physically and maturely prepared to be at grade level - to be with their peers of the same age. And are they socially, um, they don't have to be socially appropriate, but they have to be socially, um, capable of surviving in a classroom. Do you know what I mean? (Interview-Charter School Administrator, May 26, 2009) Because sometimes, I think often, again as an example, I have a student who is in third grade that they're - we're kind of - they're really pushing for him to 198 be labeled as El so he can get the support that they feel he needs. I don‘t think that he needs to be labeled El because I think the biggest part of his problem is all of the rejection he has received over the years was environmental, and that if we could kind of do some type of mentoring, then this child wouldn't need to be - spend time in the El room. This child would be able to spend all of his time in general ed, and um, we would really be getting at what his needs really are through the mentoring and not through El. (Interview-Riverdale principal #1, February 28, 2009) What l'm seeing is severely disturbed behaviors that are a physical threat to the child or others, adults and children in the classroom. The kids that were El 15 years ago would not even be a blip on the screen - even 10 years ago, I'm looking at behaviors of literally picking up chairs and coming after a teacher and striking a teacher with a chair. And tearing the bulletin boards off the walls, I mean we're looking at some really disturbed behavior and in very young children. So I think part - part of the issue is you don't want to go back into a warehousing or a shutting them away format or mentality, but by the same token there has to be a - a certain level of guaranteed safety for all. (interview-Riverdale principal #2, June 17, 2009) Um, I get pulled in when there is problems, a lot of times at which point there is some push and pull with the district and the family in terms of needing a more restrictive environment and the press may be that the district wants the student in a center-based program because of behavior and the parents want them in with typical peers (interview-Riverdale district administrator, February 13, 2009). 199 These narratives relate a story that transverses district and even regional area (the charter school is a part of another region of Everystate.) Behavior has become an issue for LRE. If a child cannot read at grade level, but can sit appropriately in her seat and follow directions, she will maintain in that environment without much push back and be deemed appropriate to remain. if that child is instead disruptive, aggressive, and explosive, she presents reasons that are more pressing to teachers and administrators to move her to a more self- contained environment. She is deemed less worthy to be in the general education environment and may be considered for a self-contained classroom more quickly than a student who is not disruptive. Behavior examples were so prevalent in the data that this research points to it becoming one of the primary factors in LRE determinations in the future. If we return to the administrator narrative opening Chapter 6, it is clear that the student described is creating challenges for both teacher and administrator. Because the wheels of special education turn slowly, especially for a child so young, time provides opportunities for the student to engender negative will in the classroom through his actions. The administrator works hard to maintain an objective perspective but alludes to others, including parents of students from the classroom, who have deemed the student inappropriate (a form of worth) for the classroom and are working to persuade other parents to do the same. In some educational environments, the administrator could easily bow to that parental pressure and move the student while the IEP process proceeds. Although 200 policymakers instill accountability to keep administrator discretion in check, no measure of accountability can restore a student’s appropriateness in the eyes of classmates or teachers. Are administrators using discretion in examining behavioral data to determine a student’s appropriateness to be in the general education classroom? This is another dimension where the next stage of this research could provide valuable insight. [ Painting a Portrait with Three Framework Dimensions Now that the three dimensions of this study’s three theoretical frameworks have been laid out for consideration, how do they help us see a clearer picture of the administrators and the educational agencies involved? Everystate. Everystate wants to be a low user of special education environments. In some areas, it is close to achieving that designation. Everystate’s overall least restrictive environment statistics closely mirror the national average numbers, but the disaggregated numbers indicate areas of the state that are still hanging on to separate special education environments. Everystate’s organizational values currently advocate the placement of students with disabilities in general education classrooms as much as possible. At the state level, the administrator in this study indicated her desire that students with disabilities' needs are met in the general education environment as much as appropriate. However, she also supported the use of a full continuum of placement options to meet the varying 201 needs of individual students with disabilities. The state administrator also noted her concerns that students with behavioral difficulties will become the primary special education challenge for the future. Jefferson Regional Education Agency. The Jefferson Regional administrator also supports educating students with disabilities in the general education environment as much as is appropriate. The factors he identified as being most prevalent to LRE decision included the students academic capacity, the instructional ability of the general education teachers, and the student’s ability to maintain appropriate behavior, although through further conversation, finance emerged as another concern. This administrator often referenced rules and rule following as part of his interaction with least restrictive environment, which is not surprising considering his agency interacts with districts when they find themselves under monitoring because of LRE rule concerns. However, elements of limited rationality appear when he describes an IEP meeting (and least restrictive environment determination) as a “Thanksgiving Dinner” where the process starts long before the event occurs. This metaphor is also an example of street-level bureaucracy innovation, where administrators create routines and innovations to make the work more streamlined and, theoretically, easier. Sunnydale. Sunnydale school district is traditionally a high user of special education environments. However, it is undergoing state monitoring as it transitions towards becoming a lower user of special education environments in order to 202 accommodate lDEA’s accountability measures. Being a large district with one of the highest special education populations in the state figures prominently in the identity of the district, with additional funding being raised through tuition to its many special education programs. It has been, in the past, the place other districts go to for targeted, self-contained programs that address a particular need or disability category. It is the only district in the area that maintains its own special education building. In Sunnydale, finance still plays a role in least restrictive environment decisions, if only because of the programming options money can buy. The district is not rewarded for maintaining students in the special education classroom, but, as the administrator admits, it has no financial incentive to integrate students either. Although innovation is touted, and the district is utilizing grant money to implement Response To Intervention, the district also spends energy maintaining a level of status quo. This factor appears to be a large influence on the workings of the district. Although both Sunnydale’s and Riverdale’s district administrators and the four building administrators espoused the virtues of educating students with disabilities in the general education environment, Sunnydale maintains more students in special education environments than Riverdale does. Sunnydale’s identity as a provider of specialized services in self-contained environments may hinder the development of more inclusive programs. Because there is a financial plus to taking in students from other districts, there actually is a financial incentive to maintain district status quo. This financial incentive is not from governmental structures, but from providing a service that other districts are not 203 financially capable of providing. In a way, Sunnydale is acting as a regional entity and taking some of the responsibility, and tuition from Jefferson County regional. There are many more incentives for Sunnydale to keep things the way they are, than for the district to make structural changes towards more inclusion. This may begin to explain why the values of the districts are very similar, but the actions of the districts diverge. Future research can key in on the use of special education facilities and whether the presence of such capacity affects inclusion rates in the district Are there additional reform challenges when a district’s identity includes the provision of special education services? Least restrictive environment decisions made within Sunnydale appear to follow a path similar to the other districts in this study of limited rationality bounded by a rule following framework. A major difference in the decision- making process in Sunnydale is the use of specialized administrators called Teacher Consultants for special education decisions. These street-level bureaucrats walk a line between teaching and administration but have the capacity to distribute district resources and represent the district at all IEP meetings. Teacher Consultants attend lEP instead of the building principal, essentially relieving the principal of any stake in the outcome of the special education placement. However, she remains responsible for the assessment scores of that building and that includes scores from students with disabilities. The concept of dividing the administrative labor between special education and general education is not new. Many districts employ a dual administrative system, or contract out with a special education organization that comes in to 204 provide services ranging from speech therapy to a fully self-contained special education building for the most severely impaired. Although this dual system may be beneficial in allocating resources, it can also be divisive and result in a two-tiered system of sorting students (our kids and their kids). Although this study did not explore the issue, an important strand for the continuation of this research would be to discover whether systems such as these result in more or P less general education integration for students with disabilities. Since the only district utilizing this type of administrative system in this study is a high user of special education environments, indicators point towards less time in general education for these students. The street-level bureaucrats in the Sunnydale system are all more connected to the larger district organization and to students directly, than they are to particular buildings. This creates an unusual administrative allegiance to students with disabilities and the district administration, leaving out the remaining students and staff. This is not to say Sunnydale teacher consultants do not care about all students in the district, but to clarify that their primary focus is on particular students. This is a drastic difference from the building principal who must address the needs of every student in her care. Riverdale. The Riverdale school district is moving from being a high userto a low user of special education environments reflecting new administrative values within the organization. Although Riverdale does not have the complete continuum of placements available, it has a wide array of options and, because it 205 is a small district, students do not travel long distances to access a particular special education service or environment. Riverdale’s administration has undergone recent change and the new special education director instituted that aforementioned value change that is ongoing as of this writing. The Riverdale Special Education Administrator admitted during the study that she has had to address fear and concern from building administrators who have functioned in a status quo of sending challenging students out of the classroom for decades. Although there has been resistance, she also sees much progress on the part of her fellow administrators in seeing general education as the primary placement for all students. The Riverdale principals interviewed for this study demonstrated elements of street-level bureaucrats making decisions using limited rationality frameworks. They both described instances of searching for the right alternative for a particular student situation, considering the consequences of these alternatives, and they touted the value of all students accessing the general education environment. These principals also struggled with the challenges of reaching students with emotional impairments and other behavioral issues. Although no indication was present that these SLBs were questioning the worthiness of students with emotional impairments, indications were that other actors in the educational environment, particularly teachers and parents, did make these judgments. When students interact violently with their environment and classmates, even the court system considers them unworthy of remaining in the general education classroom. 206 The Charter School. The Charter School presents a fascinating comparison to the two larger districts in the study. Because of space and personnel limitations, self-contained classrooms are not feasible. Because they are a charter school, turning away students is also not a feasible course of action. Charter schools need students or they go out of business. Since special education classrooms are not an F’ option, all students with disabilities in the charter school attend class in the general education environment with supports from special education staff. Here, as in Riverdale, the funding that follows a student is not as important as the student's ability to socially interact with his peers. The SLB’s concern focuses on student need and student success with much less concern pointed towards regulatory accountability. There were indications of assessment of worth in this administrative environment. However, they were all oriented towards the positive. worthiness of a student to maintain in the general education environment. This worthiness was constructed in a form reflecting readiness and was based more on the student's needs and challenges than purely on his ability to make appropriate social choices in the classroom. What do we loam about administrators using the dimensions of environment-decision-decision maker? From the Hasazi et al.’s (1994) environmental factor framework, we see an indication that overall attitude movement is occurring from a procedural perspective focused on finance and organization, to a client-centered framework 207 focused on student need and student success. Student behavior has also appeared as a primary factor in least restrictive environment decisions and it promises to play a large role in the debates over general education access in the future. Although federal monitoring requirements are in place to encourage states and local agencies to become low users of special education environments, there will always be local contextual factors that also contribute to the orientation of a district's special education policy. More research is required to determine whether high users‘of special education environments are doing a disservice to their students with disabilities. From March’s (1994) decision-making framework, we learn that these special education decisions exist within a rule-bound framework. However, those ‘ rules are designed to respond to local discretion by encouraging a limited rationality approach to least restrictive environment determinations. By exploring alternatives and their consequences, IEP teams attempt to create an education program that will bring the most benefit to the student in question. However, the current reality of this approach may more closely reflect a satisficing where, for the sake of expediency and due to reduced district capacity, instead of exploring all the possible options, a few potential situations are explored and the one that would best meet the minimum requirements of the situation is chosen. Additional research would provide a closer look at what types of alternatives are explored by IEP teams and whether those alternatives, or lack thereof, correspond to agencies being high or low users of special education environments. 208 Finally, from Lipsky’s (1980) street-level bureaucrat framework, we learn that local administrators operate under a vertical accountability lens through state and federal reports or district administrative reviews, but respond to and identify with an accountability to their student clients. Because these administrators face their clients on a daily basis, these decisions become more intimate than other administrative decisions. Anticipating consequences for potential alternatives is r not a theoretical exercise, but a potentially life changing event for a student and her family. This contextual intimacy allows a local street-level bureaucrat to ta make decisions and allocate resources as necessary to meet'the most possible needs. The ability to connect LRE decisions to the context is due to the maddening vagueness of the least restrictive environment mandate. It turns out this vagueness allows administrators to utilize their own discretion in tailoring each LRE decision to the needs of the individual student If there were a more distinctly worded federal mandate, this leeway might not exist. The street-level bureaucrat framework also provides an interesting lens with which to view the increasing student behavior phenomenon. All of the administrators in this study mentioned inappropriate student behavior as being a major concern for keeping students in the general education environment. Recent studies of street-level bureaucrats indicate that many bureaucrats engage in a form of judgment deciding whether a client is worthy of the services they are receiving. Although administrators cannot deny a student services, placing an Emotionally Impaired label on a student allows the system leeway in moving that student to a more contained special education environment. 209 This insight is especially poignant in today’s special education environment. The consistent mention of behavioral issues within this study’s interview transcripts is fascinating considering none of the protocol prompts mention student behavior in any form. The behavior factor was one of the first flags raised during analysis, and became a consistent theme throughout the study. A question was raised in the Charter School Administrator interview as to [ whether the behavior issues were increasing. I think that the kids that I see that are violent, I think that l - i think that i see a higher level of violence now than I did ten years ago, and I don't know if it is because I am looking for it, or if it is because it's actually there. But if you talk to people that have been in special ed for a while, they will tell you that the - the threshold is higher than it used to be, but now also what you have, is that you have a lot of ADD and ADHD parents that do not want their children medicated, that do not want their children in special ed, so you have your at risk - what we used to call our at risk population - it's actually expanding. (Interview-Charter School Administrator, May 26, 2009) It would benefit the next stage of this research to more closely examine the behavior factor and whether any level of client appropriateness influences behavior related placement decisions. As for this study’s research questions. We have found that the factors influencing least restrictive environment decisions are not static but fluid and responsive to changing policy environments. These factors could serve as a 210 barometer for public policymaking in that they respond to not only the political environment but also the local contextual priorities. When looking at the conflicts administrators experience in the LRE decision-making process, the dual accountability systems provide fascinating insight. Administrators struggle between addressing the organizational and legal requirements of LRE and addressing the accountability they feel towards their student clients. This I accountability towards clients was prevalent through all of the interviews and appears to be a driving force behind administrator decision-making process when LRE is at stake. In answering the last research question, administrators are 1“ challenged to assure the needs of the individual are not overrun by procedural expectations. However, are administrators more accountable to their clients, or to the organization? If there are administrators who fall under both categories, then which approach better serves the needs of students with disabilities? Future research targeting this accountability would further determine the level of influence this client accountability holds with education street-level bureaucrats and whether allegiance to one or the other affects students with disabilities’ access to the general education environment. This pilot qualitative study ponders larger policy questions with a small sample of administrators. Results from this study can provide the foundation for the next stage of research that may better inform policy makers and organizations as to how administrator discretion and decision-making affect the implementation of least restrictive environment policy at the building and client level. The final chapter in this dissertation describes a possible design for the 211 next stage of research along with potential policy implications of its findings. It then turns to the stakeholders of this research with direct advice in the way of toolkits designed to apply to each level of special education administration. -‘ 212 Chapter 8: The Next Step in Understanding Least Restrictive Environment This final chapter moves the conversation about least restrictive environment decisions into the future by describing the next phase of this research. Although the administrator data from this study yielded fascinating results, the sample size is too small to generalize implications for the larger field of policy. However, the nuances teased from this small data set can provide a theoretical base to design a larger, more comprehensive survey. Utilizing a national sample, responses from administrators across the country can test the findings of this dissertation study. Section two of this chapter addresses the stakeholders of this study and responds to them with insights gained from this analysis. An administrative toolkit is then proposed to help administrators at all levels think about least restrictive environment and develop practical tools to assist administrators and IEP teams in making these decisions that have implications for a student’s future. This toolkit is intended to be a prototype that will undergo review and vetting with administrative professionals before large-scale distribution. This vetting and the next phase of the least restrictive environment research could occur simultaneously providing diverse feedback for the final product. Section One: National Survey Research The next step in this research involves taking the implications of the pilot study and testing them on a larger, more diverse audience. This will involve 213 three phases of activity including development, implementation, and a qualitative follow-up. Each of these phases is described below. Development. The development phase involves utilizing the data from this current study to create a survey. One of the primary issues with the preliminary research is the small sample size and lack of comparative data. The next stage of this research will need to access a larger sample of administrators from all sections of the country. Sampling: Sampling would include administrators from multiple economic contexts including rural, suburban, and urban. areas, and various school contexts including private, public, and charter schools. Although the current research limited participants to elementary level administrators, the next phase should also include secondary administrators because of the unique challenges transitioning presents to special education placement. Administrators from all levels of the bureaucratic organization should be sampled. These would include, but not be limited to, federal consultants to states, federal monitors, state administrators, state monitors, regional administrators, district administrators, and building administrators including any district representative who serves as an administrator at individualized education program meetings. Sampling should occur from all fifly American states and include the Bureau of lndian Affairs and United States territories such as Puerto Rico. The BIA and Puerto Rico submit the same special education placement reports as states do; therefore expanding 214 this survey to those areas will bring systems often ignored into the national conversation. ' A database of administrators will be created utilizing state data either provided by the state or through information available on state sponsored websites. All administrators will be contacted through professional channels only. This database will track administrator demographics such as administrative level, economic context, school context, age, race, gender, and location. Researchers will draw a sample population from this database utilizing and randomizing the tracked factor analysis. Survey Development A second, very important phase of this survey will involve the development of the survey itself. To test the theories promoted from this initial dissertation study, the survey will need to address several dimensions of least restrictive environment decision-making. Dimension 1: Describing Least Restrictive Environment 0 Provides a place for respondents to submit their own definition of least restrictive environment - Probes the initial decision environment including who makes up the IEP team and where and when meetings occur Dimension 2: Factors Affecting LRE Decisions - Questions probing the factors identified in initial research (including Hasazi et al.’s 1994 factors) 215 - Probes included to uncover additional factors not already identified " Dimension 3: Decision Making - Probes to determine how rule bound the particular decision maker is 0 Questions concerning how the decision is approached and whether alternatives are considered - Opportunity to collect data on types of alternatives considered when least restrictive environment is determined Dimension 4: Street-Level Bureaucrat - Probes into the resources particular administrators control - How do respondents view their work with student clients? Include questions that approach potential accountability towards students. - Probes here also investigate whether behavioral concerns identified in the preliminary study are widespread and whether the SLB concept of client worth plays a role in decisions Survey creation will include a phase of testing with local volunteers to determine whether survey questions, as written, will evoke the types of responses researchers are seeking. Surveys will undergo multivariable factor analysis to verify whether the five main dimensions of questioning hold true. Survey Implementation The sample group will receive invitations to participate in the survey online. These invitations will include a code that is connected to the particular demographic information for the participant minus personal identification 216 information. Participants responding will be sent a personalized survey link and an individualized password. Participants who complete the survey will be asked if they are willing to undergo a follow-up interview. Those who agree will be flagged in the database for further possible sampling. Surveys will be tallied and data will be analyzed for themes as well as data confirming or disconfirrning the underlying findings of the initial research. Before coding, researchers will undergo a series of inter-rater reliability exercises to bring group reliability in the 85-90% coherence range. Throughout the coding period, researchers will periodically conduct inter-rater reliability exercises. Researchers will code in teams and teams will exchange coded material for additional inter-rater reliability tests. Follow-up A follow up group will be composed of a sample of the survey sample and will be conducted once the initial round of surveys are completed. The number of follow-up surveys will depend upon how many respondents complete the initial survey. Follow-up interviews will be conducted either on site, via lntemet connection (i.e. Skype) or by phone. Follow-up protocols will be developed after the initial round of coding is completed on the survey. The qualitative interview process is not considered an optional segment of this research plan but a necessary counterpart to the quantitative findings of the survey. Qualitative interviews provide opportunities to support and further explore the findings from survey data. Narratives from the field allow theoretical 217 suppositions to take shape in three dimensions and ease the transition from theory to practical connections. Once qualitative interviews are complete, transcript analysis utilizes the same coding process, and inter-rater reliability process as survey data. Additional data for analysis will include state least restrictive environment policy, state and local LRE statistics, training materials utilized for LRE professional development, and information provided to parents and other stakeholders regarding LRE. ‘ Through this research, we can achieve a better understanding of the process of determining least restrictive environment for bOfl'l policy makers and for the street-level bureaucrat implementers. Initial research revealed a potential change in administrator attitudes towards placement of students with disabilities in the general education environment. Policy makers can capitalize on this trend by creating assessment tools that rely on the expertise of local administrators, who are operating with the welfare of the individual student in mind. Local administrators can utilize aspects of the toolkit (part two of this chapter) to make the placement process less frustrating and more productive, minimizing the time spent in due process hearings. Section Two: Advice and Tools for the Street-Level Bureaucrat The next section of this chapter speaks to the administrative stakeholders in the least restrictive environment process. Policy makers, state and regional administration, and local street-level bureaucrats all play a role in the 218 . "d" r. ... ‘ .-——rl‘ implementation of LRE policy and all expressed frustration in this research over the mechanics of it. Because this pilot project requires further research to verify its findings, the advice provided here is based not only upon this research but also upon the court decisions that tend to define least restrictive environment policy. Additionally, the toolkit is intended as a prototype that will be later disseminated to administrators, including those who participated in this research, for feedback and advice. After further vetting and subsequent redesign, this toolkit will provide administrators with a locally responsive set of tools that can be utilized to construct their own least restrictive environment implementation policies and procedures. Advice from this research: Policy Level. At the policy level, the least restrictive environment mandate itself will continue to be a vaguely worded policy that allows local implementers to respond to the context. Concerns at the policy level center on administrator accountability, and the discretionary freedom left to the local level. However, this research suggests that that discretion is the strength of the policy and diverse implementation of it is to be expected because of the local level of control. If, as this research also suggests, administrators have begun to buy in to the idea that students with disabilities should be educated in the general education environment as much as possible, then that local discretion will be used to meet the individual needs of those students. Even with this new diligence to student need, policy makers still require a way to measure district adherence to lDEA. Current measurements examine 219 placement percentages and compare them to a national average. As of the writing of this chapter, The Office of Special Education Programs has yet to publish targets for least restrictive environment percentages, but provides feedback to states on how well or poorly their percentages perform. Unfortunately, aggregated percentages only reveal who is in what environment. There are no measurements available that examine whether or not the process of individual placements adhered to the LRE mandate. Further, nothing exists to determine whether those placements are appropriate or functional for the student in question. Some administrators in this study questioned the validity of measuring an individual process with aggregated and de—contextualized numbers. To make LRE policy or reform implementation more effective, a more representative assessment will be required. This assessment might take the form of investigating the LRE process, documenting the alternatives presented at an individual IEP meeting, and client input surveys. Suggestions for these tools are presented in the policy section of the toolkit at the end of this chapter. Advice from this research: State and Regional Level. 1 State and regional level administrators develop least restrictive environment policy from the federal mandate and pass that policy down to local levels. Depending upon state funding formulas, states or regions control how federal IDEA funds agencies, and disseminates supplementary services and professional development to local agencies. The IDEA 2004 LRE mandate includes wording disallowing states to pay incrementally for more restrictive special education placements. Because written state policy will often directly 220 reflect the federal mandate verbatim, state influence over the local implementation of LRE is not clear. However, regional influence in Everystate included funding distribution, conflict negotiation (before a case goes to due process), provision of related service providers such as speech-language pathologists and occupational therapists, and provision of professional development and implementation guidelines. Some regions pour resources into the process where others have minimal resources to go around and special education implementation involves much more than LRE placement decisions. We found it interesting that the state was reluctant to post a written least restrictive environment policy (on the advice of lawyers according to the Regional Administrator) beyond what is written in its special education regulations. Although the overall vagueness supports local discretion, there should be some guidelines for that local discretion to follow. These guidelines should emanate from the state’s examination of its own LRE policies, now ongoing through the federal monitoring process, and should be principles the state would support in court if taken there. These principles should be guiding but not overly restrictive in order to allow that important local discretion to occur. Additionally, administrators deserve to understand what the state is expecting from them. Specific guidelines for educational leaders would help administrators address difficult placement situations knowing they understand the state’s policies and recommended approaches. Suggestions for creating these guidelines are included in the toolkit at the end of this chapter. 221 Advice from this research: District and Building Level. District and Building level administrators would also benefit from a guided effort to discern and describe least restrictive environment policy. Although state and regional officials may be up to speed on LRE changes or concerns, administrators at the local level may be operating under different concerns. Many of the administrators in this study mentioned federal and state monitors, but what policy are the monitors following? What guidelines are the monitors reinforcing? This study has noted strength in the trust the LRE mandate places in local education agencies. How else can districts meet individual student needs if not with consideration of the local context? However, district and building administrators need guidelines to assure all district representative approach the LRE process with the same understanding and the same training. District and building administrators are the street-level bureaucrats charged with the implementation of least restrictive environment policy. This study did not find a district-wide written LRE policy or a purposeful program for training administrators to make least restrictive environment decisions. This is most obvious within the interview with the Riverdale Building Administrator #1, a first year principal, who had some knowledge about the process and an indication of the district policy, but not a clear indication. Although she understood that the least restrictive environment was the preferred environment, she could not provide documentation that the district preferred the general education classroom. Administrators are given training, but, in this situation, the overwhelming nature of Ieaming to be a school principal is a hindrance. 222 District administration needs to provide consistent professional development in special education rules and regulations including least restrictive environment determination. Part of this training should include a thorough grounding in the available special education placement options offered through the district, and the region. All building administrators should understand what these placements mean and the services they can provide. Building administrators also need to understand their role in the LRE decision-making process. How do they fit in and what is the procedure for promising and supplying additional resources for students with disabilities? Building administrators should have a district policy special education toolkit that includes district policy, decision-making rubrics like those suggested in the toolkit at the end of this chapter, a descriptive list of district placement options, and a list of resources and contact persons for a variety of special education issues. The best defense against due process is to have a well-functioning and well-informed administrator in the building working with the IEP team to find the best possible alternative to meet a particular student’s needs. Building administrators need to seek out this information whether the district provides it or not. Limited resources result in limited professional development opportunities. Administrators unsure of their steps in making LRE decisions need to request further advice and training from district entities to ensure they have a clear understanding of what is expected from them. Building administrators would also benefit from a personal assessment of special education information and priorities. What are the special education priorities for 223 a particular building? How do those priorities come into play when the principal makes a placement decision? Rubrics and checklists, such as the ones . suggested in the following toolkit, developed by district representatives would provide the guidance that most administrators need to appropriately and successfully address special education issues. Administrator Toolkit The following resources are intended as a beginning and a suggestion to administrators in developing and implementing least restrictive environment policy. They reflect the need for local administrators to understand not only the federal guidelines and court decisions, but also the needs of local, contextual factors that will come into play in an individual decision. The tools are broken into four sections. The first provides direct quotes from the federal law mandate and a review of three major LRE court decisions and the resulting tests created from those decisions. Sections 2 through four apply to each level of administration discussed in this dissertation study, policy/federal, state/regional, and district/building. This initial toolkit contains but a few tools to begin policy revisions. It is anticipated that through the vetting process, more tools will be developed to include in this kit before it is made available to administrators nationally. These tools are intended to help administrators discover their own local policies and create their own templates for carrying out LRE decisions. Any tool created for making the LRE process more streamlined, easier, or productive must be 224 3 adaptable to local contextual needs. If there is one thing this research reinforces, it is the strength and power of local discretion and local control in special education implementation. 225 LRE Administrator Toolkit: Federal Law and Court decisions lDEA states that all school-aged children in the United States of America are entitled to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). FAPE requires all states to offer a public education to all students, including those with disabilities, by stating: “(9) Free appropriate public education. -The term ‘free appropriate public education' means special education and related services that— “(A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; “(3) meet the standards of the State educational agency; ' “(C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and “(D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 614(d). (20 U.S.CA § 1401 (9)) IDEA goes on to state that part of FAPE is the ability of the student with disabilities to access the general education environment and interact with their non-disabled peers as much as possible. This is the least restrictive environment mandate. “(5) Least restrictive environment. — (A) in general, -To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily” (20 U.S.CA §1412(a)(5)(A)) 226 Major Court Decisions Affecting Least Restrictive Environment Implementation Court Case Resulting Decision Rule Roncker v. Walter (1 983) ‘Roncker Portability Test' - The IEP Team presumes IDEA was designed with a preference for the general education environment in mind. The team must then determine whether 1. 2. Segregated special education services that are superior in addressing the needs of the student, can be feasibly located in the general education environment. The student is mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate. Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education (1 989) 5“ Circuit Court - Two-pronged test 1. Has the educational agency provided supplemental services and supports including modifying the general education curriculum? Are those efforts sufficient? a. Can the child receive educational benefits from receiving instruction in the general education environment? b. What type of overall educational experience does the child have in the general education environment? c. What effect does the child with special educational needs have on other students in the educational environment? if a successful, satisfactory education for the student cannot be achieved in the general education environment, is the student mainstreamed as much as is appropriate? (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999) Hartmann v. Loudoun County Board of Education (1997) The court created another test of circumstances where mainstreaming was not required under the IDEA statute (Palley 2006). 1. 3. 4. If a student with special educational needs is receiving no educational benefit from the general education environment If the benefits to being in the mainstream setting are outweighed by the benefits provided in the segregated setting If the student is disruptive to the regular education setting If the social benefits are outweighed by the educational benefits of the segregated settirLL Table 5: Court Decisions and Least Restrictive Environment 227 LRE Administrator Toolkit: Tools for Policy makers Policy makers’ focus on assessment and evaluation require a second look at how states measure LRE implementation. Percentages of students in general or special education environments may show access to the general education environment, but do not belie the process that occurs to make that placement. This process is at the heart of lDEA and Individualized Education Programs. The following tool suggestions, if developed, would provide a more accurate level of feedback for local and state policymakers as to whether students with disabilities’ rights are upheld, and needs are met. - Develop a qualitative checklist for lEPs. Individualized Education Program forms are developed by state policy makers and then adopted, or not, by local agencies. If those agencies do not adopt the state lEP, their own lEP form will need to be approved by the state to assure it meets standards. Policy makers can develop a checklist for IEP meetings that encourage teams to examine the student fully as well as the options available to meet the student’s needs. The document can encourage this process by asking for detailed responses on the lEP and providing the space needed to write them. States can then utilize the checklist to assess local implementation by sampling lEPs from each district or agency. 0 Develop a qualitative survey for parents to complete. Although this approach may be inviting complaints, it is a direct way to assess whether the IEP meeting was held to address the educational needs of a student 228 with disabilities. Parent feedback provides an early warning system of potential troubles. It can also be analyzed to target patterns of behavior in districts as well as parents. LRE Administrator Toolkit: Tools for State and Regional Administrators State and regional administrators are charged with creating state and local educational policy and implementing as well as measuring the implementation of that policy. There is a legal leaning by states to avoid putting special education placement policy in writing. In one way, this assures that local discretion will not be overshadowed by a semantic interpretation of the written policy. In another way, administrators must guess at the state’s level of commitment to the policy of educating students with disabilities in the general education environment. if creating a written policy is not possible, then the state can create an implied policy through reinforcing and rewarding a particular value in the system. Those that emulate that value are rewarded through accreditation. Those that do not are placed under monitoring and consultation. Part of reinforcing a particular value in the system is providing opportunities for that value to appear. A state or region should undergo a form of branding that discloses its perspective on students with disabilities’ access to the general education environment This perspective should be clearly communicated through lEP form designs and state special education policy. The following tool suggestions would assist in this process. 229 Develop a checklist of state values concerning least restrictive environment implementation. What does the state encourage and how? What is unacceptable in terms of LRE implementation? How does the state disseminate these values to administrators on the local level? What does the state prefer in terms of students accessing the general education environment? Create a rubric for placement options that would allow local agencies to fill in the placement options available in that district or region and utilize the rubric to consider altematives and the consequences of those alternatives. Create a rubric for state resources available to local education agencies to meet the needs of students' with disabilities. Match the resources to the potential benefits and student qualification requirements Develop a grid of professional development that provides assistance to agencies large and small in developing LRE placement policies or in implementing state required policies. Develop a qualitative checklist for lEPs. If the federal policy system is hesitant to develop a checklist that will identify a well written and executed lEP and differentiate it from a poorly written or poorly executed lEP, then the state system certainly would benefit from such a checklist. Administrators benefit from feedback, allowing them to adjust their behavior accordingly based on the feedback information. 230 LRE Administrator Toolkit: Tools for District and Building-level Administrators Tools at the district and building level need to reflect the values of the state system as well as the values of the local system. District officials would do well to examine the checklist developed at the state or regional level as to developing a well-written IEP. District-level tools should reflect the IEP meeting and placement decisions directly. These should simplify the decision-making process while providing thorough information for all participants, especially the parents. - Policy Checklist for determining LRE placement provides IEP team— meeting participants with a sequence of events that should occur during the meeting and up to the placement decision. This checklist, distributed at the beginning of an IEP meeting, provides all members the same information as to what is expected from the process. - District placement continuum rubric explaining the various levels of placements available within the district, and the resource options that accompany those placements. This chart is essential to the IEP placement decision process because it allows team members to see the available options. The chart can be created as a rubric to match student programming needs wiflr available supports in each placement. - District training and experience checklist allows districts to identify key faculty members who have prior LRE training or experience working with LRE decisions. These individuals can serve as an on-site resource 231 person for district buildings. Additionally, this checklist can identify training needs in the district and allow for careful professional development planning. Electronic Resources http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/behvr.asp The Office of Special Education Programs offers many resources for administrators concerning special education implementation. This particular toolkit addresses the implementation of a school or district-wide behavior program focused on promoting appropriate behavior for all students. 232 Appendix: Expanded Methodology Sampling Sampling began with gathering and reviewing demographic, Free and Reduced Lunch, and special education data for Everystate. This sampling data was collected from reports generated in the spring of 2007. These were ' 1“ available for download at the state education website as was all of the data, “*7 utilized to select sample districts‘. Everystate is separated into multiple regional education agencies (REAs), which connect a group of districts typically within the “in, county after which the REA is named. These REAs determine funding and provide professional services and supports for the districts within its borders. Two REAs were initially chosen for the comparative study. These REAs were chosen because they: 0 Represented districts within the most populous zones in the state 0 Contained districts that ranged from suburban to rural to urban ' Contained districts that could compare to each other demographically s Were districts that were accessible to researchers from the region After initial REAs were chosen (Study REAs and Comparison REAs), an additional REA was added with the addition of the Charter School Administrator respondent. F rom the study and comparison REAs, districts were selected from the sample based on several variables: ' http:/Mwwmichigangov/mdelo,1607,7-140—6530_6598_31834—,00.html 233 - Percentage of students with special educational needs (those with an IEP) being served by the district - Demographic information including race and participation in the Free and Reduced Lunch Program 0 Overall number of students. Districts with fewer than 500 students were not considered for the study due to confidentiality concerns. Small districts are easier to recognize based on basic demographic information. In the first figure, the population total of the study REA, and the two study districts are compared to a comparison REA and two comparison districts. These additional comparison districts and REA were included in the original design of this study and chosen with the same demographic comparison information used to select the original study REA and districts. After multiple attempts (described below) to obtain access to the comparison REA and districts, the comparison aspect of this study was postponed for the next round of research. This choice was made with respect to the difficulty in obtaining entrance into districts that are much closer to two research institutions in direct competition with the researchers institution. The adaptation was also made with respect to the limited time frame placed upon the current study. It is hoped that the results of the initial study will encourage further participation in the next stage of research as the theories produced here are tested. 234 Total Students Figure 5: Student totals within study sample. Figure 5 above displays total student population comparisons for the study districts (Sunnydale and Riverdale) and for the two districts from Comparison Regional 1 that best match the study districts in size and composition. Total student population for Everystate in the 2006-2007 school year was reported to be 1,675,234’. The Study Regional and Comparison Regional 1 were selected from surveys of state data. The Comparison Regional 2 was included in the sample when the Charter School administrator joined the study. Three regions in Everystate were ultimately pursued for interviews. Only one regional entity responded. 2 data resourced here: http://www.michigan.govlcepilo,1607,7-113- 21423_30451__30460—176887-,00.html 235 Figure 6 below displays one of the demographic variables considered when choosing study and comparison districts. Although the percentage of African American students do not play a role in this study, the preponderance of African American students in self-contained special education environments is a well- documented problem in the United States. The District D, bar at the right end of the figure represents a large metropolitan district that falls within the REA that contains the Charter School. Comparison REA data (Study REA, Comparison REA 1) relate information about students attending self-contained programs offered through the regional facilities. %Afrlcan American Figure 6: Percentage of African American students 236 REAs provide specialized special education services for students with disabilities that cannot be served in their home districts. They maintain self- contained buildings and functional skills programs for students requiring extensive services and assistance. Because of this, an REA’s racial makeup does not necessarily reflect that of the communities around it. Figure 6 above shows a concentration of African American students in the urban areas represented by Riverdale, Comparison District B, and Comparison District D. Comparison REA 1 also shows a higher concentration of African American students in regional self—contained buildings. Figure 7 below demonstrates the percentage of students in each agency who do not receive any free and reduced lunch (FRL) benefits. This statistic is usually displayed as percentage of students who do receive FRL benefits. 237 % Students Not Receiving FRL Figure 7: Percentage of students not receiving FRL In Figure 7, the difference between the two study districts is vast While 70% of Sunnydale's students do not receive FRL, less than 30% of Riverdale’s students fall into that category. These districts are geographically connected, but the small town, suburban feel of Sunnydale stretches as far away as possible from the urban setting ever present in Riverdale. Both districts enjoy student teachers, professional training and professional interaction from the local state university’s College of Education. Sunnydale, however, enjoys the additional perks of being located in an area where many professors choose to live. Property values are up and the schools benefit from middle class neighborhoods 238 surrounded by college rentals. This is reflected in the large number of students who do not require FRL assistance. . Riverdale, on the other hand, is an urban school system destroyed by the fall of the auto industry. The town was booming from the late 19503 to the early 1980s, although by the eighties, the decline was already beginning. During that boom, neighborhoods rose up from fields and the city, swimming in money, built schools for each of those new neighborhoods. Over the last two decades, the plants in the city slowly shut down and families moved to where the jobs were, leaving vast swaths of downtown, including decades-old neighborhoods, to become rental property. School enrollment has declined steadily in this city as has the city population, where even the teenagers are competing for work with family men and women trying to make the mortgage. Property values in Riverdale have been falling for the last few decades and schools have slowly emptied. Riverdale’s school district has responded to changing times much like other urban districts, by closing schools and consolidating programs. Figure 8 below demonstrates the percentage of all students in a district or REA that are identified as having an educational disability. Comparing Figure 7 to Figure 8, note how the agencies with the lowest number of students not receiving FRL are also those with the highest percentage of students with disabilities. This was an intriguing aspect of the sample data and was instrumental in choosing the study and comparison districts. This aspect was not investigated within this study but could play a role in the next stage of this research 239 SNdonbwlthadlnblllty(%oftohl) Figure 8: Percentage of students diagnosed wiflt a dlsablllty Finally, each district and REA was examined for least restrictive environment placement data as revealed in Table 1. The table begins with the percentage of students who are identified as having a disability. The second column provides the percentage of those students who spend more than 80% of their day in the general education environment. The third column represents the percentage of students who spend anywhere from 40-79% of their day in the general education environment This includes kids who spend 50% of their school time in special education. The fourth column represents the percentage of students who spend less than 39% of their day in the general education environment. These students most likely integrate for lunch, art, music, and physical education but take all of their academic work in the special education 240 classroom. The final column provides a percentage of students who are in self- contained buildings or private facilities away from the neighborhood school. Site %SPED >80% 40- <40% Separate 79% US Average 8.9 57 22 15 3.5 Everystate 14.3 52.7 24.5 16.6 4.3 Study REA 16 57.1 20.9 17.7 3.1 Riverdale-Urban 19.2 34.9 27.74 33 4.22 Sunnydale-Sub 12.64 50.14 30.03 17.36 0 Charter-Sub 12 65 <30 <5 0 Comparison REA 14.8 81.3 8.7 7.9 1.7 1 District A—Sub 13.44 79.56 12.44 7.58 0 District B-Urban 19.48 74.01 2.82 19.07 3.81 Table 6: Placement data In looking at the data provided by Table 6, both urban districts push the upper limits of percentage of students with disabilities. The study REA’s data closely follows state data. In using that state data as a comparison mark, Sunnydale and Riverdale provide interesting differences. Riverdale has a special education population that is nearly five percentage points higher than that of the state. Comparatively, Sunnydale's population count demonstrates a district with 241 lower overall diagnosis rates. This may not seem impressive initially, but other numbers in Sunnydale’s data show a district with over half of its students with disabilities in the general education classroom most of the time. Although the number is less than the state average of 52 or the United States average of 57, it is a large difference from the 35 percent of Riverdale. What does it mean to educate less than a third of students with disabilities in the general education environment? Combine that with the 33 percent of students with disabilities that see their general education peers only 39% of the day (approximately 3.2 of 8 hours), and an unspoken district policy may be on display. Riverdale demonstrates what this study calls a “High User Agency.” This means that the education agency is a frequent user of special education environments or separate education environments. Sunnydale, however, is much more like a “Low User Agency,” meaning the district prefers to educate students in the general education environment as much as possible, using separate environments sparingly. These concepts of High User and Low User emerge in Chapter 3 discussing the Hasazi et al. (1994) framework. Recruitment Sixteen recruitment emails initially went out on January 15, 2009 inviting participants to discuss LRE. Two weeks later, a follow-up letter was mailed to the original sixteen potential recruits, but to an additional four principals from Riverdale, which did not publish or provide access to principals through email. A record of contacts was kept including responses and lack of responses. Most 242 interviewees required at least two contacts before responding and three to four contacts to establish and acquire an interview. Initially, principals did not respond to a cold request for information. Only two principals/building administrators responded to the request directly without a reference from another district employee. The remaining three administrators responded after the researcher mentioned a district level administrator as a reference. This restraint appeared to come from the top down. The first principal who agreed to interview without district reference was a colleague of the researcher and was also a first year principal. The second building administrator (charter school administrator) was also a colleague of the researcher and became involved because of the opportunity to include information from one of the fastest growing segments of public education, charter schools. Although these two subjects qualify as subjects of convenience, the first principal (Sunnydale Building 1) comes from a district initially chosen because of sampling data. She would have been invited to participate whether or not she was acquainted with the researcher. The charter school administrator IS a subject of convenience. However, the data provided allows a unique perspective on the struggles of administrators charged with implementing special education programs. In essence, she represents building and district administrator all in one and is, unlike the other district administrators, estranged from her regional LEA and the special education support that it could provide. 243 Although two subjects from the comparison LEA and districts chosen did respond initially, they both declined an interview. Both stopped responding to attempts to schedule the interview. After further investigation, one was no longer employed with that regional LEA, and the other was involved in a very public superintendent search. No principals or other district or LEA representatives would respond to letter or email attempts for an interview. Phone attempts were not made after two email attempts went with no response. Phone attempts were made if any positive or inquisitive email response was received. Interviews were scheduled at the interviewee’s convenience and occurred in either the interviewee’s office, a public coffee shop, over the phone, or at the local university. Interviews lasted approximately 45-60 minutes and were conducted on the following dates: - February 13, 2009: Sunnydale district administrator at a coffee shop and Riverdale district administrator in the administration offices. - February 25, 2009: State Administrator: Phone interview - February 26, 2009: Riverdale principals #1 and #2. These two subjects requested to be interviewed together. - February 28, 2009: Sunnydale principal #1 at a coffee shop 0 March 3,2009: Regional Administrator: at regional offices 0 May 26, 2009: Charter School Administrator at a local university - June 17, 2009: Sunnydale principal #2 at the school building 244 Interviewees were provided with a small box of chocolate as a small token of appreciation. No other compensation was offered, however all participants will be sent ”Administrator Toolkits’ that will incorporate the results of this study. Interviews were audio taped and the researcher took notes as the interview progressed. Interviews were then transcribed and uploaded into HyperRESEARCH, a Macintosh-based qualitative research program. Interview transcripts were also printed into a hard copy. Study Subjects Table 7 below provides descriptive characteristics of the study subjects. Out of nine subjects, seven are female and two are male. All subjects have classroom teacher experience and three have experience teaching in special education environments. Six of the nine have advanced (post BA) degrees. All subjects have been in the field for at least ten years. Geographimlly, all subjects with the exception of the charter school administrator work in the region of the two study districts. This region boasts a large university with a renowned teacher education program. Additionally, the region surrounding the charter school is near three large teacher education institutions. 245 # Location/Title Experience/Gender 1 State: Coordinator, Office of 10+years in classroom, PhD research in Special Education and Early teacher perspectives on LRE. Female Intervention Services 2 Regional Special Education 24 years in education, some classroom Administrator teaching experience. BA from local U. and MA from Big 10 U. Male 3 Charter. Special Education Classroom teacher experience, several Dimctor years as special education administrator, advanced degree candidate. Female 4 Riverdale District Special 15 years high school teacher: graduated Education Director from local U., graduate degree, multiple ’ years of administrative experience at the regional level. Female 5 Riverdale Building Administrator Several years elementary teacher, first #1 year principal, advanced degree candidate. Female 6 Riverdale Building Administrator 20+ years teacher including special #2 education teacher, 15+years principal. Female 7 Sunnydale District Special 10+ years classroom teacher including Education Director special education, 10+ years administrator, advanced degree. Male 8 Sunnydale Building Administrator 15+years special educator, multiple #1 years administrative experience. Female 9 Sunnydale Building Administrator 20+ years special educator, multiple #2 years administrative experience. Female Table 7: Respondent Demographic Information Respondent background may have some influence on responses in this study. Most of the respondents have special education experience in their backgrounds and this might belie a level of bias in the data. Because special educators have a direct connection to students with disabilities, their responses may be more directed towards student needs. On the other hand, if an administrator has no prior experience with students with disabilities, contextual or rule-based factors may have more influence than student need. 246 Data Analysis Interviews were coded three times. First as a hard copy, utilizing Grounded Theory, the researcher reviewed the transcripts for a first and second read through. During these read-through coding sessions, the researcher noted first impressions, emerging themes, and repeating themes. These themes became relevant as the second round of coding began. In the second round of coding, HyperRESEARCH was utilized to apply three sets of codes developed to reflect the three theoretical frameworks being applied to the data. The initial codes created were as follows: Hasazi H1-Finance H2-Organizational H3-Advocacy H4-lmplementation H5-Knowledge and Values H5a-Knowledge H5b—Values H6-State and Local Decision-Making MD1-Rationaly' MD1A-Altematives MD1B-Expectations MD1C-Preferences MD1D-Decision Rule MD1E—Exploration—Exploitation MD1G-Adaptation MD1 H- lnforrnation Redundancy 247 MD2-Rule Follgvg‘ng MD2A-Role Fulfillment MDZB-ldentity Fulfillment MDZC-Rule Following Example MDZD-Ambiguity Street-Level Bureaucrats SLB1-Problem of Resources SLB1A-Suppy/Demand SLB1 B-Support SLB1C-Allocation SLB2—Client-Centered Goals SLBa-Organizational Goals SLB4-Contradictory Expectations SLB4a-Peers SLB43-Reference Groups SLB4C-Public SLB5-Performance Measures SLB6-Client Construction SLB7-Client Relationships SLB8-Advocacy SLBQ—Routines SLB 10-Simplilication SLB 11-Ration Services SLB 12-Consequences Management Other codes were added from the first round of Grounded coding and from subsequent re-coding during data analysis. These codes were given the general category of Alternate codes. Alternate Codes A1 -Behavior A2-Change A3-Consulting A4-Curriculum A5-Direct Intervention A6-Federal A7-Job Description 248 A8—Leaming A9-LRE Definition A 10-Monitoring A 11-No Direct Intervention A 12-Parental Involvement A 13-Personal Background A 14—Personal Example A 15—Protection A 16-Restriction of lnforrnation A 17-RTI A 18-Training After coding was completed, HyperRESEARCH computed general statistics for the coding results. These results were analyzed for themes and larger indications. The larger code categories and their percentage of overall coded statements are listed in Figure 9 below. Each individual code was examined statistically to calculate influence a particular code or concept had over the data. This data is displayed in Table 8 below. 249 Code distribution by group Figure 9: Distribution of coded statements by code 250 l Aux l Hasazi I March I SLB Code MD1B- Expectations H4-lmplementation SLB3-Organizational Goals SLBZ-Client—Centered Goals MD1A-Altematives SLB4B-Reference Groups SLB6-Client Construction H2-Organizational H6-State and Local H5-Knowledge and Values SLB1 C—Allocation SLB4-Contradictory Expectations SLB7-Client Relationships MDZA-Role Fulfillment SLB1 B—Support H5a—Knowledge MD1C-Preferences SLB11-Ration Services SLB1-Problem of Resources SLBB-Advocacy MD1 E—Exploration-Exploitation SLB5-Performance Measures H1-Finance H3-Advocacy SLB4A-Peers SLB1A—Supply-Demand H5b-Values MDZD-Ambiguity SLB12-Consequences Management MD2-Rule Following MD1G—Adaptation SLB10—Simplification SLBQ-Routines MD1D-Decision Rule MDZC-Rule Following Example MD2B-ldentity Fulfillment MD1H-lnformation Redundancy SLB4C-Public MD1-Rationality Table 8: Full count and distribution of codes from HyperRESEARCH coding session Caunt Mean 1 13 1 04 98 97 87 82 77 67 53 52 50 50 42 41 39 38 38 37 36 36 33 28 23 23 23 22 21 1 9 18 17 16 13 13 12 11 9 8 3 2 251 11.3 10.4 9.8 9.7 8.7 8.2 7.7 6.7 5.3 5.2 2.1 gag—3.3.5.3.; (DANQCDQNQ (0 OP COG 0. SD 7.484 6.132 6.596 6.093 6.395 6.63 5.458 5.314 3.86 5.432 4.667 3.367 3.456 3.479 3.9 3.458 2.741 2.946 3.169 2.914 3.653 1.751 1.629 2.497 1.829 1.619 2.961 2.558 1 .476 1 .252 1 .897 1 .337 1 .252 2.15 1 .37 0.876 1 .619 0.675 0.632 Percent 0.062 0.057 0.054 0.054 0.048 0.045 0.042 0.037 0.029 0.028 0.027 0.027 0.023 0.022 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.018 0.015 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.01 1 0.01 0.01 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.001 0.001 Code MD1B- Expectations H4-Implementation SLBB—Organizational Goals SLB2-Client-Centered Goals MD1A-Alternatives SLB43-Reference Groups SLBB-Client Construction H2-Organizational H6-State and Local H5—Knowledge and Values SLB1C—Allocation SLB4-Contradictory Expectations SLB7-Client Relationships MDZA-Role Fulfillment SLB1 B-Support H5a-Knowledge MD1C-Preferences SLB11-Ration Services SLB1-Problem of Resources SLB8—Advocacy MD1 E-Exploration-Exploitation SLB5-Perfonnance Measures H1-Finance H3-Advocacy SLB4A-Peers SLB1A—SuppIy-Demand H5b—Values MDZD-Ambiguity SLBtZ-Consequences Management MD2-Rule Following MD1G-Adaptation SLB10—Simplification SLBQ—Routines MD1D—Decision Rule MDZC—Rule Following Example MDZB-ldentity Fulfillment MD1H-lnforrnation Redundancy SLB4C-Public MD1-Rationality Table 8: Full count and distribution of codes from HyperRESEARCH coding session Count Mean 251 1 13 1 04 98 97 87 82 77 67 53 52 50 50 42 41 39 38 38 37 36 36 33 28 23 23 23 22 21 1 9 18 17 16 13 13 12 11 9 8 3 2 1 1.3 10.4 9.8 9.7 8.7 8.2 7.7 6.7 5.3 5.2 gag—34.4.5.3 C-‘NODOJOJNQ CD 0.0 0000 0. SD 7.484 6.132 6.596 6.093 6.395 6.63 5.458 5.314 3.86 5.432 4.667 3.367 3.458 3.479 3.9 3.458 2.741 2.946 3.169 2.914 3.653 1.751 1.829 2.497 1.829 1.619 2.961 2.558 1.476 1.252 1.897 1.337 1.252 2.15 1.37 0.876 1.619 0.675 0.632 Percent 0.062 0.057 0.054 0.054 0.046 . 0.045 0.042 0.037 0.029 0.026 0.027 0.027 0.023 0.022 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.018 0.015 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.01 1 0.01 0.01 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.001 0.001 Coding revealed a stronger presence of Hasazi et al. (1994) factors and street-level bureaucrat indicators than March decision-making indicators. This may indicate a stronger connection of the contextual factors affecting the least restrictive environment decision with street-level bureaucrats making these decisions. It also may indicate the decision process is so embedded in the special education IEP routine, that it is difficult to discern; requiring more subtle coding to uncover it Subtlety is not required to observe the presence of alternatives, role fulfillment, and preferences, all decision-making aspects that intertwine naturally with LRE determinations. IEP meetings exist to examine alternatives, fulfill support roles in a student’s academic career, and consider the preferences of the professionals in the meeting when making a placement decision. The top five codes demonstrate that no particular area fully dominates the decision process. Expectations, client-centered goals, and alternatives all focus on meeting the needs of the student. Implementation and organizational goals indicate the presence and influence of an administrator's vertical accountability pressures. Although the focus on the client/student is clear, the administrative aspects of being a street-level bureaucrat are never far from the mind of an administrator. Although the environmental factors are ever present, it appears the SLB interactions of the administrator are foremost in respondents’ discussions. This also reinforces the choice of street-level bureaucrats as an analytical framework. 252 Finally, the protocol utilized for respondent interviews is displayed below. This protocol went through several variations leading to the choice of ten questions with follow-up possibilities. Several mock interviews were conducted and feedback from colleagues was solicited in order to sharpen the focus of the interview questions. Questions asked were the same for upper administration (State, Regional, District) as for building administrators with one exception. Upper level administrators were asked how policy was created, where building administrators were asked what the district policies were. This can be noted as question 6 below. In reflecting on this protocol, one of the most profound questions asked was the final question. Projecting what might make the decision-process easier allowed administrators to express their preferences, and some hopes for the future. It would serve the next phase of LRE research well to continue this line of inquiry to determine potential paths of innovation and reform. 253 StateIREA Administrator protocol 1. Please describe your current position and responsibilities in reference to special education. Do you work with students with special education needs directly? Have you been involved directly or indirectly in a decision process concerning Least Restrictive Environment? What are your responsibilities concerning Least Restrictive Environment decisions? 2. Would you please define Least Restrictive Environment in your own words? 3. Who is responsible for making a least restrictive environment determination? From your perspective, what lEP Team member has the most influence on LRE decisions? What role do parents play in this process? Advocates? Teachers? 4. How does state attention to LRE (in terms of policies and requirements) affect your job? In what way does the state intervene or determine your actions towards LRE policy? What about federal intervention and expectations? Do they have an effect on how you do your job? How? 5. How are statellSD/District LRE policies determined? Who explores policy questions? Is there an overall organizational philosophy and how do you know? How do you disseminate that policy? 254 6. Where did you learn what you know about LRE? Where did you learn what you are expected to do in reference to LRE? How did that Ieaming occur? Where do you go when you have questions about LRE? 7. When you think about LRE placement determinations, what are the factors that influence that determination? 8. What do you consider to be the most challenging aspect of LRE? What is your primary concern when involved in a LRE decision? 9. How does funding come into play when LRE placement is being considered? 10. What would make LRE policy and decision-making easier? 255 Principal protocol 1. Please describe your current position and responsibilities in reference to special education. Do you work with students with special education needs directly? Have you been involved directly or indirectly in a decision process concerning Least Restrictive Environment? What are your responsibilities concerning Least Restrictive Environment decisions? 2. Would you please define Least Restrictive Environment in your own words? 3. Who is responsible for making a least restrictive environment determination? From your perspective, what IEP Team member has the most influence on LRE decisions? What role do parents play in this process? Advocates? Teachers? 4. How does state or federal attention to LRE (in terms of policies and requirements) affect your job? In what way does the state intervene or determine your actions towards LRE policy? What about federal intervention and expectations? Do they have an effect on how you do your job? How? 5. Could you describe how your district views LRE? What is the district policy on LRE? How does your district inform you of LRE policy? How do they know that principals and schools are following that policy? Do you have reporting requirements concerning LRE? 256 6. Where did you learn what you know about LRE? Where did you learn what you are expected to do in reference to LRE? How did that Ieaming occur? Where do you go when you have questions about LRE? 7. When you consider LRE placement determinations, what are the factors that influence your thinking? 8. What do you consider to be the most challenging aspect of LRE? What is your primary concern when involved in a LRE decision? 9. How does funding come into play when LRE determination is being considered? 10. What would make LRE decision-making easier? 257 References Algozzine, B., & Korinek, L. (1985). Where is special education for studentsth high prevalence handicaps going? Exceptional Children, 51(5), 388-394. Allison, GT. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The American Political Science Review, 63(3), 689-718. Allison, G.T., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (second ed.). New York: Longman. Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision-making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 363—375. Armstrong, F. (2003). Space, place, and policy making: developing a theoretical framework. Spaced out: policy, difl'erence, and the challenge of inclusive education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 928. Barnett, C. Monda-Amaya, LE. (1998). Principals’ knowledge of and attitudes toward inclusion. Remedial and Special Educafion, 19(3), 181-192. Barton, L. 8 Slee, R. (1999). Competition, selection, and inclusive education: some observations. lntemational Journal of Inclusive Education, 3(1), 3-12. Bateman, D.F., Bright, K.L., O’Shea, D.J., O’Shea, L.J., Algozzine, B. (2007) The Special Education Program Administrator’s Handbook. Pearson. Bellman, R.E., Zadeh, LA. (1970). Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Management Science. 17(4), Application Series, PB14-B164. Beratan, G. (2006). Institutionalizing inequity: ableism, racism, and IDEA 2004. Disabilities Studies Quarterfy, 26(2), http://www.dsq- sds.orglarticlelviewl682!859. Blackman, HP. (1989). Special education placement: is it what you know or where you live? Exceptional Children, 55(5), 459-463. Bobrow, D.B, & Dryzek, JS. (1987). Policy analysis by design. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klinger, J., Pugach, M., 8. Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195- 207. 258 Browder, D.M. & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and the requirement for accountability in 'No Child Left Behind“. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 157-163. Cipani, E. (1995). Inclusive education: what so we know and what do we still have to learn? Exceptional Children, 61(5), 498-500. Cline, R. (1981). Principals’ attitudes and knowledge about handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 48(). 172—174. Clyde K. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., 35 F.3d 1396 (9th Cir. 1994). Cohen, MD, March, J.G., Olsen, JP. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarteriy. 17(1). 1-25. Cook, B.G., Semmel, M., Gerber, MM. (1999). Attitudes of principals and special education teachers toward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 20(4), 199-207. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A (2007). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Third Edition. Sage Publications. Crockett, J .B. (1999). The Least Restrictive Environment and the 1997 IDEA Amendments and Federal Regulations. Journal of Law and Special Education, 28(4), 543-564. Crockett, J. & Kaufrnann, J. (1999). The least restrictive environment: its origins and interpretations in special education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education, 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989). Danielson, L.C., Bellamy, GT. (1989). State variation in placement of children with handicaps in segregated environments. Exceptional Children,55(5), 448-446. Davis, W.E. (1980). Public school principals’ attitudes toward mainstreaming retarded pupils. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1 5, 174—178. Day, R, Klein, R. (1987). Accountability. London: Tavistock. Doe v. Arlington County School Board, 41 F. Supp. 2d 599. (1999). 259 Douvanis, G. & Hulsey, D. (2002). The least restrictive environment mandate: how has it been defined by the courts? Eric Digest, ED469442. hmJ/wwwericdigests.org/2003—3Icourts.htrn. Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Pub. L. No. 94.142, 69 Stat 773 (1975). Evans, J.H., Bird, KM., Ford, LA, Green, J.L., & Bischoff, RA. (1992). Strategies for overcoming resistance to the integration of students with special needs into neighborhood schools: a case study. CASE in Point,7(1), 1-15. Fairclough, N. (2004). Critical discourse analysis in researching language in the new capitalism: overdeterrnination, transdisciplinarity, and textual analysis. In L.Young&C. Harrison (Eds), Systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis: Studies in social change. 103-122. London: Continuum. Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and social change, Cambridge: Polity Press. Falvey, MA. (1995). Inclusive and heterogeneous schooling: assessment, curriculum, and instruction. Baltimore: Brookes. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, LS. (1996). Consultation as a technology and the politics of school reform. Remedial and Special Education, 17(6), 386-392. Fuchs, D., 8. Fuchs, L. S. (1995). What's special about special education? PhiDelta Kappan,76(7), 522-530. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L S. (1994). Sometimes separate is better (education for Ieaming disabled children). Educational Leadership, 54(4), 22-27. Fulcher, Gillian (1999). Introduction, in Disabling policies? A comparative approach to education policy and disability. 1-18, Philadelphia: The Falmer Press. Goodlad, J.l., 8r Lovitt, T.C. (Eds). (1993). Integrating general and special education. Merrill: New York. Goor, M.B., Schwenn, J.O., Boyer, L. (1997). Preparing principals for a leadership in special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32(3), 133-141. Hallahan, D.F., Keller, C.E., Martinez, E.A., Byrd, E.S., Gelman, J.A., & Fan, X., (2007). How variable are interstate prevalence rates of Ieaming disabilities and other special education categories? A longitudinal comparison. Excelptional Children; Winter, 73(2), 136-146. 260 Harrison, J.R., March, JG. (1984). Decision making and post-decision surprises. Administrative Science Quarterly. 29(1). P.26-42. Hany, B., Sturges, K., & Klingner, J. (2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher, 34(2), 3-13. Hartmann v. Loudoun County Board of Educ, No. 96-2809 (4th Cir. 1997). Hasazi, S.B., Johnston, A.P., Schattman, RA, Liggett , AM. (1994). A qualitative policy study of the least restrictive environment provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Exceptional Children, 60(6), 491-508. Hendrick Hudson School District Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 u.s. 176,181(1982) Hipp, KA., Huffman, J.B. (2000). Presented at the American Educational Research Association meeting 2000. ERIC # ED446359. Hocutt, A. M. (1996). Effectiveness of special education: Is placement of critical factor? The Future of Children: Special Education for Students with Disabilities, 6(1), 77-102. Howard, P. (2004). The least restrictive environment: how to tell? Journal of Law and Education, 33(2), 167-181. Hupe, P., Hill, M. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration. 85(2). P.279-299. Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108- 444, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004). Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat. 1141 (1990). Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 105—17, 111 Stat. 37 (1997). lnnantuono, A, & Eyles, J. (1997). Meanings in policy: a textual analysis of Canada’s “Achieving Health For All” document. Sociology, Science, Medicine, 44(11), 1611-1612. Lasky, B., Karge, B. (2006). Meeting the needs of students with disabilities: experience and confidence of principals. National Association of Secondary School Principals, NASSP Bulletin, 90(1), 19-36. 261 Lazaurus, S. S., Thurlow, M.L, Lail, K.E., &Christensen, L.C.(2009). A Longitudinal analysis of state accommodations policies. The Joumal of Special Education, 43(2), 67-80. Light v Parkway c2 School District, 41F. 3"l 1223 (1994). Lindblom, C. E. (1968) The policy making process. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice—Hall. Lindblom, C. E. (1959) The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79-88. Lipsky, M. (1980). Sheet-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. MacMiIlan, D.L., 8r Siperstein, GM, (2002). Learning disabilities as operationally defined by schools. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D.PI. Hallahan (Eds) Identification of Ieaming disabilities: research to practice. 287-333. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: how decisions happen. New York: The Free Press. March, J. G. (1988). Decisions and organizations. Oxford: Blackwell. March, J. G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Bell Joumal of Economics, 9, 587-608. March, J. G., & Olsen, JP, (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Unversitetsforlaget. March, J. 6., &Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations. 2"6 ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Maynard-Moody, S., Leland, S. (1999). Stories from the front-lines of public management street-level workers as responsible actors. In Hal Rainey and Jeff Brod ney (Eds), Advancing public management: new developments in theory, methods, and practice. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: stories from the front lines of public sen/ice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 262 Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: two nanatives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration, Research, and Theory. 10(2), P.329-358. McLaughlin, M.J., Nolet, V. (2004). What every principal needs to know about special education. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. McLeskey, J., Pacchiano, D. (1994). Mainstreaming students with Ieaming disabilities: are we making progress? Exceptional Children,60(6), 508-517. McNulty, BA, Rogers-Connolly, T., Wilson, P.G., Brewer, RD. (1996). LRE policy: the leadership challenge. Remedial and Special Education, 17(3), 158-167. - ' Merleau—Ponty, M. (1958). Phenomenology of perception. New Yorszoutledge 8 Kegan Paul. Miles, M. B., & Huberrnan, A M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2" ed. ). Thousand Oaks, CA' Sage. Mosteller, F ., 8. Moynihan, D. (1972). On Equality of educational opportunity; papers deriving fiom the Harvard University Faculty Seminar on the Coleman Report. New York: Random House. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership: creating a compelling sense of direction for your organization. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002). Nolet, V. 8 McLaughlin, M. (2005). Accessing the general cuniculum: including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks: Conrvin Press. Oberti v. Board of Education of Clementon School District, 995 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993). Obiakor, R.E., Wilder, L.K. (2003). Disproportionate representation in special education. Principal Leadership, 4(2), 16-21. Osborne, AG. (1998). The principle and discipline with special education students. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 82, 599 Research Library Core. 1-8. ' 263 Osborne, AG., Dimattia, P. (1994). The lDEA’s least restrictive environment mandate: legal implications. Exceptional Children, 61(1), 6-15. Osborne, A.G., Russo, C.J. (2006). Special education and the law: a guide for practitioners!” Ed. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Palley, E. (2006). Challenges of rights-based law: implementing the least restrictive environment mandate. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 16(4).P.229-235. Panacek, L. (2003). The social lives of children with emotional and behavioral disorders in self-contained classrooms: a descriptive analysis. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 333-348. - Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257(E.D.Pa.); 343 F. Supp. 279 (ED. Pa.) (1971,1972). Peters, S. (2002). Inclusive education in accelerated and professional development schools: a case-based study of two school reform efforts in the USA. lntemational Journal of Inclusive Education, 6(4), 287-308. Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. Buckingham: Open University Press. Pollitt, C. (2000). Public management refonn: a comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Praisner, CL. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children,69(2), 135-145. Pressman, J., 8 Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Reynolds, A. J. (1991). Early schooling of children at risk, American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 392-422. Riccucci, NM. (2005). Street-level bureaucrats and intrastate variation in the implementation of temporary assistance for needy families policies. Joumal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 89-111. Rickey, K. (2003). Special education due process hearings: student characteristics, issues, and decisions. Joumal of Disability Policy Studies, 14(1), 46-53. Roach, A. T., & Elliott, S. N. (2006). Influence of access to the general 264 education curriculum on the alternate assessment performance of students with ' significant cognitive disabilities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 280, 181-194. Rock, M. L., & Bateman, D. (2009). Using due process opinions as an opportunity to improve educational practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(1), 52-62. Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1983). Rueda, R., Gallego, MA, Moll, LC. (2000). The least restrictive environment: a place or a context? Remedial and Special Educafi'on, 21(2), 70- 78. Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H. 14 F.3d 1398 (1994). Sage, D.D., Burrello, LC. (1994). Leadership in educational reform: an administrators guide to changes in special education. Baltimore: Brookes. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.29 U.S.C. 791 et seq. Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds). (2002). Scienfi'fic research in education. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Sindelar, P.T., Shearer, D.K., YendoI-Hoppey, D.J., Liebert, T.W. (2006). The sustainability of inclusive school reform. Exceptional Children, 72(3), 317- 331. Slee, R. (1997). Imported or important theory? Sociological interrogations of disablement and special education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18(3), 407-419. Slee, R. (1999-a). Policies and practices? Inclusive education and its effect on schooling. In Harry Daniels, Phillip Garner (Eds), Inclusive Education. LondonzKogan Page. Slee, R. (1999-b). Special education and human rights in Australia. In F. Armstrong and L. Barton (Eds), Disability, human rights, and education: Cross- cultural perspectives (PP 119-131). Philadelphia: Open University Press. Smith, A (2006). Access, participation, and progress in die general education curriculum in the least restrictive environment for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 31 (4). P>331-337. 265 Smith, D., Wild, T. (2006). Least-restrictive environment for students with visual impairments. Joumal of Visual lmpaimrent & Blindness, 100(10), 592-593. Soukup, J.H., Wehmeyer, M.L., Bashinski, S.M., Bovaird, JA, (2007). Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children,74(1), 101-120. Taylor, Shannon. (2005). Special education and private schools: principals’ points of view. Remedial and Special Education, 26(5), 281-296. . Taylor, SJ. (1988) Caught in the continuum: a critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment. The Journal of the Association For the Severely Handicapped. 13(1). Reprinted (2004) Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(4). P.218-230. Thomas, S. & Rapport, M. J. (1998). Least restrictive environment: understanding the direction of the courts. Journal of Special Education, 32(2), 66-78. Thurlow, M.L., House, A, Boys, C., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (2000). State assessment policies on participation and accommodations for students with disabilities: 1999 Update (Synthesis Report 33). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. \filla, RA, Thousand, J.S. (1990). Administrative supports to promote inclusive schooling. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds) Support setworks for inclusive schooling: interdependent integrated education. 201-218. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Wla, RA, Thousand,J.S., Meyers, H., Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 36(1), 29-45. Weishaar, MK, (2007). Case studies in special education law. No Chlid Left Behind Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. New Jersey: Pearson. Weatherly, R. (1980). Implementing of social programs: The view fiom the front line. Washington D. C.: American Political Science Association. Weatherly, R., Lipsky, M. (1977), ”Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: implementing special education reform", Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171-97. Yanow, D. (1996) How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. 266 Yanow, D. (1993).The communication of policy meanings: Implementation as interpretation and text, Policy Sciences, 26(1), 41—61. Yanow, D. (1992) Silences in public policy discourse: organizational and policy myths. Journal of Public Administration and Theory, 2(4), 399-423. Ysseldyke, J. & Algozzine, B, (2006). Public policy, school reform, and special education: a practical guide for every teacher, Thousand Oaks: Conrvin Press. Ysseldyke, J. E., 8. Algozzine, B ,(1 984). Introduction to special education. Boston. Houghton Mifflin. Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., & Gilman, C. (1993). Educational outcomes and indicators for early childhood (age 6). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Education Outcomes. Yell, M., Katsiyannis, A., Bradley, R. (2003). A special role. Principal Leadership, 4(2), 22-28. Yell, Mitchell, (2006). The law and special education 2'" edition. New Jersey: Pearson. Yola Center, Ward, J., Parmenor, T., Nash, R. (1985). Principals’ attitudes towards the integration of disabled children into regular schools. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 32(3), 149-161. Zigmond, Fuchs L., Jenkins J, Dana, Fuchs D., Baker, Jenkins L. (1995). Special education in restructured schools: findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(7), 531-540. http:llstats.bls.goleCO/OCOSOO7.HTM 267