etadd_48(1) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

finding (i.e., 10.4% for African Americans vs. 3.3% for Caucasians and 2.7% for non-African Americans). Findings from this study suggest disproportionality in the MID category continues to be a problem for African American students despite decades of research and attention (Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher, & Ortiz, 2010; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Dunn, 1968). Disproportionality in the MID category is problematic if these students are not receiving what they need in terms of educational programming (Nietupski et al., 2001). Special education can be considered a protective or a risk factor (Donovan & Cross, 2002). African American students placed in the MID disability category may actually be receiving educational support necessary to help them succeed in high school; however, researchers document this is frequently not the case. The efficacy of special education services has been contested for many years due to the problematic outcomes of the special education system (e.g., achievement level, dropout rate, poor postschool outcomes) (Artiles & Bal, 2008; Harry & Anderson, 1994; Polloway et al., 2010). Concern also exists that African Americans with MID receive low-quality instruction and experience more segregated education settings than Caucasians with MID (Polloway et al., 2010). Students placed in segregated settings may be denied access to the general education curriculum and receiving services that do not meet their learning needs, which can further exacerbate poor postschool outcomes, such as decreased opportunities for employment, as well as in-school success (Hosp & Reschly, 2002; McDermott et al., 2006; Nietupski et al., 2001; Polloway et al., 2010; Reid & Knight, 2006; Skiba et al., 2006a; Waitoller et al., 2010). The negative postschool outcomes associated with African American students with MID (e.g., school completion, postschool economic and occupational attainment, access to college)—both those correctly and wrongly identified, indicate a need for an increased commitment to successful school completion for these students (Artiles & Bal, 2008; Polloway et al., 2010). Particular attention should be given to methods to improve African American students with MID postschool success, such as access to meaningful employment and postsecondary education. One such strategy is the use of a functional curriculum as it has the potential to improve students with MID in school success as well as postschool outcomes (Bouck, 2004; Bouck & Flanagan, 2010). Conclusions and Implications Findings from this study highlight the issue of overrepresentation at the secondary level among African American students—particularly when considering students with MID, a problem still existing over 40 years after Dunn (1968) raised the issue (Artiles et al., 2010; Waitoller et al., 2010). One potential solution to the issue of disproportionality is training school professionals to be culturally competent (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008). Schools have become increasingly diverse, but the same cannot be said for teachers (e.g., Caucasian women of Anglo-European origin) (Case & Hemmings, 2005). Many school professionals lack knowledge about the cultural experience of African Americans students (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008). Training school professionals to be culturally competent would permit them to be better equipped to work with a broad range of students from different cultures with varying disabilities. Additionally, training school professionals to be culturally competent could result in fewer inappropriate referrals of African American students to special education and, consequently, reduce their overrepresentation (Artiles, Harry, Reschly, & Chinn, 2002; Valles, 1998). Another potential solution is re-evaluating the assessment and identification process. The assessment and identification process has been the focus of many researchers as this process may possibly contribute to the disproportionate number of African American students in special education (Skiba et al., 2006b). Often, in the identification process, tests used for assessments are typically standardized on Caucasian Americans and reflect that particular cultural knowledge base (Artiles & Trent, 1994; Harry & Anderson, 1994; Harry & Klingner, 2006). One way to circumvent this issue is to implement assessments that focus more closely on instruction and classroom practice, such as performancebased measures or curriculum-based measures Disproportionality at the Secondary Level / 37
(Donovan & Cross, 2002). By implementing assessments that are more academically meaningful, the potential bias experienced by those unfamiliar with standardized assessments will be reduced and may result in the determination of fewer students eligible for special education services (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Limitations and Future Directions A few limitations are identified in this study. One limitation is the number of logistic regressions. Due to limitations with NLTS2 data, we were unable to conduct one single logistic regression comparing all ethnic groups. Thus, there is some redundancy in the two logistic regressions because they are comparing similar populations (i.e., Caucasian and non-African American—which included Caucasians). Future research should examine the identification of other racial/ethnic groups (i.e., non- African American) as there is the potential for these groups to be over/under-represented as well. This would also remove the issue of redundancy in the logistic regressions and strengthen the findings of the study. Another limitation is the use of ethnicity as the only predictor variable. Although research suggests ethnicity predicts disability (e.g., Artiles & Trent, 1994; Chinn & Hughes, 1987; Skiba et al., 2006a; Zhang & Katsiyannis, 2002), previous research also suggests correlations between income and ethnicity and their effect of predicting disability (Artiles, 2003; Artiles & Trent, 1994; Gottlieb et al., 1994). Future research should examine a range of factors that may impact disability identification (e.g., academic achievement, parental educational status, socio-economic status, suspension rates, postschool outcomes) as further analysis of these variables may strengthen the results of the study. Additional research is needed regarding disproportionality at the secondary level considering students with MID as well as other high incidence disabilities categories, such as emotional/behavior disorders. There is a lack of research addressing disproportionality issues at the secondary level; most studies focus attention on students at the elementary level (Hosp & Reschly, 2004; Oswald et al., 1999). Future research should longitudinally examine the school experiences of students identified with MID beginning at the elementary level and follow these students into the secondary level. A longitudinal study would provide evidence of the disproportionality issues that exist at the secondary level. Moreover, this type of study would provide some insight into how disproportionality initiates at the elementary level and culminates at the secondary level. References Artiles, A. J. (2003). Special education’s changing identity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in views of culture and space. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 164–202. Artiles, A. J., & Bal, A. (2008). The next generation of disproportionality research: Toward a comparative model in the study of equity in ability differences. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 4–14. Doi: 10.1177/0022466907313603 Artiles, A. J., Harry, B., Reschly, D. J., & Chinn, P. C. (2002). Over-identification of students of color in special education: A critical overview. Multicultural Perspectives, 4, 3–10. Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., Trent, S. C., Osher, D., & Ortiz, A. (2010). Justifying and explaining disproportionality, 1968–2008: A critique of underlying views of culture. Exceptional Children, 76, 279–299. Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 410–437. Bouck, E. C. (2004). State of curriculum for secondary students with mild mental retardation. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 169–176. Bouck, E. C., & Flanagan, S. M. (2010). Functional curriculum evidenced-based education?: Considering secondary students with mild intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, <strong>48</strong>7–499. Cartledge, G., & Kourea, L. (2008). Culturally responsive classrooms for culturally diverse students with and at risk for disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 351–371. Case, K. A., & Hemmings, A. (2005). Distancing strategies: White women preservice teachers and antiracist curriculum. Urban Education, 40, 606– 626. doi:10.1177/0042085905281396 Chinn, P. C., & Hughes, S. (1987). Representation of minority students in special education classes. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 41–46. De Valenzuela, J. S., Copeland, S. R., Huaqing Qi, C., & Park, M. (2006). Examining educational equity: Revisiting the disproportionate represen- 38 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-March 2013
Page 1 and 2: Education and Training in Autism an
Page 7 and 8: daily lives (e.g., Kishi, Teelucksi
Page 9 and 10: TABLE 1 Participation in General Ed
Page 11 and 12: tive responses were invalidated. As
Page 13 and 14: TABLE 3 Self-Determination Skill Us
Page 15 and 16: ment, economic dependence, segregat
Page 17 and 18: of setting may serve as a mediating
Page 19 and 20: Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., & Lo
Page 23 and 24: y teachers than students with more
Page 25 and 26: three to four students identified a
Page 27 and 28: dents with severe disabilities. A t
Page 29 and 30: feelings of self-efficacy (Bandura,
Page 31 and 32: eyond the opportunity to socialize
Page 33 and 34: access to the general education cur
Page 35 and 36: al., 2008). Within the identificati
Page 37 and 38: TABLE 1 Characteristics of Students
Page 39: compared to Caucasians and African
Page 43 and 44: paring students with emotional dist
Page 45 and 46: DI instructional approaches with in
Page 47 and 48: TABLE 1 Participant Demographics La
Page 49 and 50: TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviatio
Page 51 and 52: Autism and Other Developmental Disa
Page 53 and 54: phonetic skills have been shown to
Page 55 and 56: middle), across two school district
Page 57 and 58: TABLE 1 Instructional Sequence for
Page 59 and 60: lending the sounds, the student was
Page 61 and 62: TABLE 2 Initial and Functional Phon
Page 63 and 64: Figure 3. A multiple baseline desig
Page 65 and 66: Figure 4. A multiple baseline desig
Page 67 and 68: Phonics Component. Due to limited w
Page 69 and 70: children basic reading skills. Rese
Page 71 and 72: egins to age. Unfortunately, post-s
Page 73 and 74: TABLE 1 Articles and Participant Ch
Page 75 and 76: TABLE 2 Characteristics of Selected
Page 77 and 78: For reasons yet to be fully explain
Page 81 and 82: journals?, (b) what was the curricu
Page 83 and 84: Browder et al.’s content analysis
Page 85 and 86: Figure 2. Percentage of Research Me
Page 87 and 88: content for this population could e
Page 89 and 90: ality in the special education lite
Page 91 and 92:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 93 and 94:
skills by observing their peers? an
Page 95 and 96:
TABLE 2 Task Analysis of First Aid
Page 97 and 98:
TABLE 4 Participants, Procedures, a
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 1. Percentage of correct res
Page 101 and 102:
TABLE 6 Efficiency Data Participant
Page 103 and 104:
ities were required to put on dispo
Page 105 and 106:
Assessing the duration of first-aid
Page 107 and 108:
instruction, for promoting the acqu
Page 109 and 110:
tasks. Jonathan’s employment goal
Page 111 and 112:
each participant, the number of cor
Page 113 and 114:
VSM alone. In this intervention pha
Page 115 and 116:
Figure 1. Percentage of Steps Compl
Page 117 and 118:
achieve criterion, VSM3 was impleme
Page 119 and 120:
tasks (Cihak & Schrader, 2008; Lasa
Page 121 and 122:
Research in Developmental Disabilit
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
were in the positive direction. Con
Page 127 and 128:
the “Next” button at the end of
Page 129 and 130:
Figure 1. Comparison of the average
Page 131 and 132:
oration in the title or description
Page 133 and 134:
survey asked respondents to rate th
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Staff participants. The three parti
Page 139 and 140:
peat of the post-test; and g) a sel
Page 141 and 142:
seemed to increase the use of mand
Page 143 and 144:
ing: An investigation of the impact
Page 147 and 148:
DADD Statement on the use of the te
Page 149:
Search the entire archives of Educa
show all

etadd_48(1) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?