You are on page 1of 18

The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services

Page 1

Academic effects of the removal of special education services on students with


Marginal Gain: Action Research

--

Presented to the Department of Educational Leadership


and Postsecondary Education
University of Northern Iowa

--

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the
Master of Arts in Education or Advanced Studies Certificate

--

By
Jessiah P. Gilchrist
Taft Middle School
Cedar Rapids, IA
April 24th, 2016

--

Dr. Benjamin Forsyth, PhD


Dr. Dewitt Jones, EdD
The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 2

Question and Initial Reflection

The purpose of special education has undergone a metamorphosis over the

past half-century. Originally designed to ensure that students with physical disabilities

could attend school just as a non-disabled student would, special education was the

route which advocacy groups took to get handicapped children in school. Wright and

Wright explain how school leaders could keep students whom they thought would not

benefit from the educational system out of the school. (2007) Special education is

now a system by which students are deemed eligible to receive services via specially

designed instruction to improve week academic, behavioral, or physical skills.

Although special educations primary goal is to help students with disabilities

function at their highest level, it seems the goal, and ultimately, the student is

overlooked in place of the system and how it is run.

The special education system is set up to identify students with special needs

beginning in second grade. Students with severe disabilities are identified much

earlier and receive services as early as their first year of life. However, students with

less severe disabilities must undergo an eligibility process that, depending on the

academic discrepancy and skill level, can take anywhere from six weeks to multiple

school years to complete. Once the student is deemed eligible, the evaluation team,

parents, and other interested parties will engage in an IEP team meeting whereby

services and accommodations will be put in place for them based on the evaluations

and data collected in the determination process.

The process for special education is designed to eventually progress students

back into their Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). The LRE for special education

students varies by individual student and can range from a small class with a modified

curriculum to a general education class with special education teacher consulting the
The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 3

teacher regarding the instruction of the student. The spectrum is massive and there are

many combinations of services and instruction that can be put in place for each

student. For students with marginal discrepancies, special education services should

not be permanent, yet it often is. The removal of services seems to be a firm trigger by

which many educational professionals seem unwilling to pull.

This author has noted many 8th grades special education students with

marginal discrepancies linger in special education with minimal gaps in learning and

the cost may be great for these students. Special education services may stifle

academic and social opportunities for these special education students. With these

assumptions in mind, the reciprocal must be addressed. How does the removal of

special education from students with marginal discrepancies improve their

academic and social skills?

To address this question, one must first understand how students with marginal

gains are served. There is not one specific mode of delivery for these students as it

varies from school to school. Many factors are included in why special education

students with marginal gaps are served so differently across schools. These factors

include school administrations beliefs, special education teachers ideals and

experience, and even services available during their time in special education.

At the Cedar Rapids School District in Cedar Rapids, IA, the mode of delivery

is left to the IEP team which consists of the special education teacher, a general

education teacher, the parent(s), the student, administration from the school, a Grant

Wood Representative, the school nurse, if needed, and any other party who has an

interest in the students education. Furthermore, at Taft Middle School, the special

education teacher, as the professional, has the most suggestive pull for making

educational programming changes for the student. Traditionally, Taft Middle School
The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 4

special educators have retained students in special education until they reach full

general education grade level expectations. As a special education teacher, I raised the

research question after seeing many special education students succeed in their special

education programming as shown by multiple forms of data and then continue to stay

in special education when it seemed natural for them to move towards general

education. As I reflected, I questioned if these special education students should not

be moved to general education earlier than they had been. Although they were not at

grade level, they were often close; what were they missing by being held in special

education, such as academic gains and non-core programming, as opposed to being

fully integrated into general education.

Review of the Literature

While reviewing the literature, I found it difficult to locate specific research

supporting or disproving the research question. Although there is myriad of research

on special education, there was not a lot on how the removal of special education

services affected the academic growth of students with or without marginal academic

gains. In my opinion, there are two possible reasons for this. First, there is not enough

students who have exited special education to focus specific studies on said students

and second, special education teachers do not, by habit, push students towards exiting

special education if there are marginal gains.

Regardless of the lack of related literature, the delivery of special education

services has been moving toward provision within general education. Ainscow,

Dyson, & Weiner (2006) explain further, Across the world there is evidence of

patterns of development in which school systems have responded to children

experiencing difficultiesfrom exclusion to special education provision, through to

an emphasis on integration and, finally, to the idea of inclusive education. (p. 6) This
The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 5

has been evidenced in the lives of both general and special education teachers; rather

than previous practices of providing instruction to special education students in a fully

removed special education setting, the shift in how teachers provide this instruction

has been ever moving toward the general education setting. The evidence of the

success of students with special needs being in their least restrictive environment

closest to general education is clear.

Co-teaching is one method of instructional delivery in which the special

education student can receive services and accommodations for their education buy

still participate in the general education class. There are many benefits to a co-taught

classroom in addition to having special education students in the general education

classroom. As reported by the metasynthesis report by Scruggs et al, explain how

students in special education appreciated the extra attention they were able to receive.

(2007) By just placing a special education teacher in the classroom, students who

originally might struggle to keep up and understand the general education curriculum

are now able to attain and maintain success because of the support they have access to

in a co-taught setting.

Wagner and Blackorby have studied how special education students fare post

high school and explain how difficult it is to study special education students when

comparing them to general education students because they are often significantly

different than their general education peers and because of these different levels, the

effects of programming is unclear because of this (1996). The research subjects

included in this research, as outlined in later sections, are not significantly different

than their general education peers thus keeping the study of described programming

intact.
The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 6

Research from Texas has shown that students who exit from special education

do not fare as well as those who are in special education when studied by the effect on

program effectivness. Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin (2002) found that exiting students

likely depress the average program effect, which in their case is based on a

comparison of achievement gains while receiving special education services and

achievement gains following the exit. (p. 591) This study infers that the special

education students gains were greater during their time in special education than after

their final exit. However, many factors are not addressed in this study and two in

particular, may have influenced the data in question. First, students may exit special

education for a variety of reasons, not just academic and achievement growth. If the

students in this research were exited for reasons other than obtaining the marginal

academic gains level mentioned in this research, the data could be invalid. If, for

example, the students were exited from special education due to parental refusal, than

it can be assumed their post special education performance would depress program

effectiveness due to their lack of proper growth. Second, the special education

students studied by Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin were learning disabled, emotionally

disturbed, and speech-imparted. Although each group in their research showed a

decrease in program effectiveness post special education exit, the learning disabled

group, most closely represented by this research held a small effect on program

effectiveness (-0.09) verses a 0.0 effect on program effectiveness with speech-

impaired students.

Exceptional Children released a study in 2015 outlining the increase in

mathematical achievement in varying groups over the course of five years.. The study

compared three groups of mathematically discrepant students and their success in

closing the achievement gap over the course of the study. One group was students
The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 7

who were never in special education, one who were always in special education, and

one who were in special education at some point throughout the study. Although this

group most likely refers to students who began in special education and were exited

from special education, the authors explained that it may also mean students who

were not in special education but later identified. The group with the largest amount

of success in closing the achievement gap was the students who were never in special

education. The group with the lowest gains was the students who were always in

special education. The group who were in special education were reported to have

lower gains than the group who were never in special education but larger gains than

the students who were always in special education. (Shulte and Stevens, 2015).

Although this is not definite proof that removal of special education services improves

academic achievement, it outlines how greater gains can be achieved when students

are not retained in special education for longer periods of time.

Research Plan/Method

When looking at removing services from special education students with

marginal gains, limitations exist that impact the research. One cannot randomly select

special education students with marginal gains and remove services to see how they

perform. As a special education teacher, it is my responsibility to support the students

I teach. Therefore, the research taken is done so only on students whom have shown

they have met the states criteria to exit special education. That criteria being that the

IEP team determines the student has the ability to succeed in the general education

setting without special education support delivered in the form of specially designed

instruction and accommodations.


The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 8

Because this criteria only exists for a small portion of the special education

students this researcher serves, the research sample is relatively small. Additionally,

the sampling of students with whom will be compared is small due to the lack of the

number of students available to study whom have marginal gains but are kept in

special education.

With this limit in research subjects, seven subjects will be used to determine

the effectiveness of the removal of special services while only three subjects will be

used as a comparison. The students being researched have had marginal academic

gains for multiple years and their progress will be compared across the span of two

years.

Data
Data was taken from a variety of sources to fully determine if the students had

indeed make growth academically. First, IA Assessment data was used to determine

growth in each students National Percentile Ranking (NPR) as well as National

Standard Scores (NSS). Each of the scores were overall Assessment scores, not

subtest category scores. Naturally, if growth occurs in the students NSS scores, their

NPR scores should also rise. However, there may be cases where this does not happen

due to other students rising at the same rate as the student in question, thereby

negating any gain in NPR.

Second, Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) is collected each year for students

from 3rd grade to 12th grade to assess students progress to college and career

readiness. Proficiency levels at the end of each grade level produce ranges that each

student is expected to be within by then end of that academic year. Growth of students

SRI is represented by the formula year 2 SRI- year 1 SRI equals growth.
The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 9

Third, growth rate was measured in each of their IEP goals over the course of

their 8th grade year (research group) and 9th grade year (comparison group). Each

student had either different goal areas or goals written differently for them depending

on their individual skill level. IEP goal growth is represented using the formula of

median ending progress data subtracted by the baseline data divided by the number of

weeks of instruction.

Fourth, grades were analyzed over the course of two years. Grades are

subjective and vary from teacher to teacher but because they are subjective both in 8th

grade and 9th grade, they are still a useful indicator of academic success. Grade point

averages (GPA) from each year were used and growth was determined using the

formula of GPA of year 2 minus GPA of year 1 equals growth.

Fifth, a parent survey was given to the research subjects and not the

comparison group. The research questions consisted of the following four questions:

1. Have you seen an increase in Payton's academic skills after the

removal of special education services?

2. Has Payton struggled in any way this past year that you feel
would have been avoided had special education services not been
removed?
3. Has Payton's school based options such as non-core
classes increased since the removal of special education services?
4. If you had to make the decision again, would it be the same?

The response were analyzed based on a positive, negative, or neutral response and put

into percentage form. For each positive answer, the student earned 25%, for each

negative answer, the student earned -25%, and for each neutral answer, the student

earned 0%. The total possible score could be 100% or -100%.

Research Subjects:
The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 10

The research subjects are categorized through the use of data as it pertains to

their selected academic skill or skills. Data used to conduct this research will be IA

Assessment percentiles and national standard score (NSS) growth, Scholastic Reading

Inventory (SRI) scores, Individual Education Plan (IEP) goal scores, grade reports,

and a parent survey. Data will be analyzed from one year prior to the removal of

special services until one year after the removal of special education services.

The research group subjects being used are those with marginal academic

gains who have been exited from special education. The control group subjects being

analyzed are those with marginal academic gains who have not exited special

education. Marginal academic gains for the research group means less than one

academic school year of deficiency when compared to grade level standards. Marginal

academic gains for the control group means between 1-2 years of academic deficiency

when compared to their grade level peers. Chart 1a below describes the expected and

average general education academic standard at the 8th grade level across the data

being analyzed.

Iowa Assessment data is a normed reference test and is collected in the spring

and in this study includes NPR and NSS data. National percentile scores rank students

as they compare to other students who take the assessment. The NSS score give a

score to every student and provides a normed range of scores that every student scores

within. Rather than comparing the NSS score to other students, the NSS is used to

compare previous years scores to their current years scores and then analyze the

individual growth. For this reason, the NSS data is listed as a percentage of growth as

compared to their scores from previous years, not their peers scores.

The only forms of data that will be compared between the research group and

the control group will be IA Assessment percentile data and NSS scores, SRI scores,
The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 11

and GPA. Data has been collected and the growth of each of the students was

analyzed and then averaged together to form a group growth score across the four data

areas collected.

Results

Table 1 outlines the data being collected and provides describes the expected growth or range
for 8th and/or 9th grade students. IA Assessment percentiles ranges are based on the normed bell curve
test where the averages fall between the 16th and 84th percentiles. The growth on the NSS scores from
the IA Assessments vary depending on the students previous years level. Scholastic Reading Inventory
(SRI) proficiency ranges are based on nationally recognized Lexile reading levels. Expected IEP goal
growth vary by student and goal. Grade point averages are based on nationally recognized averages and
expectations. Parent surveys expected range cannot be determined but vary depending on the 9th grade
experience of the research group.

Table 1 Data analyzed with explanation of expected performance for general education students.
IA IA SRI scores IEP Goals Grade Parent
Assessment Assessment Reports Survey
Percentiles NSS
Expected: Expected: Year End Varies Expected: Varies but
Above 40th Growth (8th grade) depending 3.0-4.0 positive
%ile Varies Proficiency on goal area Avg: responses
Avg. 16th- depending Range from 2.0 indicate
84th %ile. on students 955-1155 expected
current standard.
level

Table 2 compares the research groups data from their 8th grade academic year to their 9th grade
academic year across all data collected. Some data is incomplete for a variety of reasons. The IA
Assessment data for the most recent assessment is not available yet. The IEP goals are only available
from the research group from 8th grade as they do not have IEP goals in 9th grade due to their final exit.
The current group of 8th grade students who are exiting special education will also not have IEP goals
for their 9th grade year as they no longer have IEPs. Parent survey data was only taken on students who
have not had an IEP for more than one year.

Table 2: Cohort 1, Students with marginal gains exited from special education.
IA IA SRI scores IEP Goals Grade Parent
Assessment Assessment Reports Survey
Percentiles NSS
Student/Grade 8th 9th 8th 9th 8th 9th 8th 9th 8th 9th9th
Only
1.PB 54 N/A 255 N/A 1090 * .12 N/A 3.08 1.889 50%
2.LP 72 N/A 276 N/A 1081 1166 .512 N/A 3.87 3.5885 25%
3.PW 61 N/A 263 N/A 990 1069 .475 N/A 3.75 3.3 100%
4.IL 86 N/A 281 N/A 1415 N/A 1.3 N/A 3.1 N/A N/A
5.JM 52 N/A 242 N/A 980 N/A .233 N/A 2.95 N/A N/A
6.MS 32 N/A 222 N/A 902 N/A -.78 N/A 2.64 N/A N/A
The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 12

7.MW 44 N/A 263 N/A 1065 N/A .629 N/A 2.67 N/A N/A
Students 4-7 9th grade data not available as they are not in 9th grade when data was compiled.
*Student did not take the SRI their 9th grade year.

Table 3 includes the comparison group; students who have marginal, but greater academic gaps than
the research group. IA Assessment data for the comparison group is also not available at the time the
data was collected. The parent survey was also not included in the group as they were not exited from
special education and the survey would not apply.

Table 3: Cohort 2, Students with marginal gains not exited from special education.
IA IA SRI scores IEP Goals Grade Reports
Assessment Assessment Growth
Percentiles NSS
Student/Grade 8th 9th 8th 9th 8th 9th 8th 9th 8th 9th
1.CR 44 N/A 244 N/A 970 * 1.21 .75 3.573 3.8055
2.TH 21 N/A 219 N/A 760 774 .261 .805 2.94 3.222
3.QS 36 N/A 236 N/A 1166 1177 -.03 .13 2.26 2.278
*Student did not take the SRI their 9th grade year.

Table 4 represents the growth of students in the research group.

Table 4: Growth of students with marginal gains exited from special education from
8th to 9th grade.
IA Assessment IA SRI IEP Grade
Percentiles Assessment scores Goals Reports
NSS
1.PB *** *** N/A * -1.19
2.LP *** *** 151 * -.2815
3.PW *** *** 79 * -.45
4.IL *** *** ** * **
5.JM *** *** ** * **
6.MS *** *** ** * **
7.MW *** *** ** * **
*Represents growth during 8 grade year as no IEP goal existed during 9 grade year.
th th

**Growth cannot be analyzed as these students have not been in 9 th grade at time of data collection.
***Data not made public at time of data collection.

Table 5: Growth of students with marginal gains not exited from special education
from 8th to 9th grade years.
IA Assessment IA SRI IEP Grade
Percentiles Assessment scores Goals Reports
NSS
1.CR N/A N/A N/A -0.46 .2325
2.TH N/A N/A 14 .281 .282
3.QS N/A N/A 11 .16 .018

Table 6: Growth of research group compared to growth of control group-IA Assessments.


NPR Growth NSS Growth
Average Average
Research Group N/A N/A
Control Group N/A N/A
The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 13

Table 7: Growth of research group compared to growth of control group-SRI Scores


Average SRI
Growth
Research Group 115
Control Group 12.5
Table 8: Growth of research group compared to growth of control group-GPA
Average GPA
Growth
Research Group -.6405
Control Group .1775

Limitations

The largest and most noticeable limitation of this research is the difference

between the two groups being studied. The research group with marginal gains who

exited special education had smaller academic gains than the control group who

continued in special education. Additionally, some students in the research group held

different academic gains, such as gains in writing instead of reading, than the control

group which causes potential misrepresentations in the data. For example, student A

may have been improving their reading skills while student B was improving their

writing skills. Each of the students growth in IA assessments was an overall score

and not a subsection score. Subjects could have had overall growth but not made

growth in a particular IA Assessment subsection.

Another limitation of this study is the grade level switch from 8th to 9th grade.

The variables for students who begin high school are numerous and different for each

student. Variables that change for students entering high school include but are not

limited to a change in delivery of instruction, a change in scheduling, and the potential

change in family life or other extracurricular activities. Due to the random events and

family life that influence the change from 8th to 9th grade, it is difficult to ensure that

the shift from special education to general education is the cause, or any cause for an

increase or decrease in academic skills of the research group.


The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 14

Data Analysis and Interpretation.

Non-Compared Data

Data was collected for the research group that was not compared to the control

group but was considered important by the researcher. The first is IEP goal data from

their last year in special education. This data was important to see their final progress

toward closing their academic gaps and laterally moving toward being equally

comparable to their general education peers. Interesting trends were uncovered. Most

of the research groups IEP growth over the course of their final year in special

education were very large. One student had negative growth but was still exited due to

her ability to maintain success in general education without any specially designed

instruction or accommodations. All others in the research maintained large IEP goal

growth which shows their ability to successfully integrate into general education

without special education services.

Two of the three control group showed large growth in their IEP goals during

their 8th grade years and the large growth was continued in their 9th grade year. This

would appear to show their special education instruction and accommodations are

working to continually close the achievement gaps existent in each of these students.

The parent survey was also provided to the parents of the research group.

Quantitative data can provide many details and support the researchers hypothesis

but it cannot provide accurate qualitative data that can often be as or more important

than the quantitative data so relied on by research. Due to the timeframe restraints of

the study, only three of the seven research subjects parents were interviewed. One of

the three parents interviewed provided very neutral answers to the questions posed.

There was a sense of take it or leave it in regards to their student exiting special

education. They did not feel it was a negative or positive move but spoke of it more as
The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 15

a horizontal move. The second research subject provided all negative answers due to

their students anxiety hitting her very hard midway through her 9th grade year.

Interestingly enough, this same student held the largest gains in both the SRI and GPA

categories. As a parent myself, it is safe to assume that the mental health of ones

children is as important, and potentially more important than academic gains. The

final research subjects parent was thrilled with the exit from special education and

explained that her daughter seemed to have become ever more motivated and driven

to do well since being exited from special education. Although there was no

comparative purpose of the parent survey, it is important to note the varying responses

of the parents as they have the most vested interest in their child future and success.

Compared Data

The IA Assessment data was not available at the time of original data

collection so it is unknown what growth was experienced by both the research group

and the control group.

The average SRI score growth was comparable across the research group and

the control group. The research group maintained a larger growth margin (102.5) than

the control group. SRI scores are indicative of reading comprehension gains and

provide students with a score that details the students levels compared to their peers.

Data showing greater growth among the research group is likely due to the greater

amount of unaccommodated general education instruction. The control group is

provided with general education instruction but at a slower pace and is often

accommodated or delivered at the students instructional level. Although this seems

naturally ethical and correct, students with marginal gains in special education are

often given lesser expectations than their general education peers. The amount of
The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 16

reading comprehension practice in general education instruction is greater than the

amount of practice in special education settings.

Regarding GPA, the research group had a much lower growth (-.6405) as

compared to the control group (.1775). One explanation for this discrepancy is the

amount of expectations placed on the research group after their final exit from special

education. General education teachers in high school are not necessarily aware of

their previous special education status and treat them as they would any other general

education student. However, the control group with their accommodations and slower

pace, are often treated different and given higher grades for hard work even if the

work is not up to the quality of their general education peers.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Multiple conclusions can be drawn based on the data. With the ultimate goal

being to push students toward their least restrictive environment, an exit from special

education should be at the forefront of priorities for special educators. The data

supports this assumption can be considered correct. The only quantitative data to

support that the removal of special education services and accommodations should

not occur for students with marginal gains is the decrease in GPA after being exited

from special education. However, it is important to note that high grades do not

necessarily correlate with learning, understanding of content, or increased academic

ability. The other data that suggests the removal of special education for students with

marginal gains is the parents concerns for one of the research subjects. This student is

struggling with anxiety, a large part of this anxiety could have stemmed from not

being in special education and feeling safe or having a location in the school where

she knows she could go to get away from the source of her anxiety. However, using

this logic begs the question, If she had continued in special education would she
The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 17

have had the same level of anxiety? This question is impossible to answer. The

academic gains she has earned may be greater than if she continued in special

education and her anxiety could still have been as high as it is now.

With all of the data in mind, it is important to note the individual student each

time they have marginal academic gains and a decision is necessary. It is

unprofessional and unethical to create a line students can meet and then cut the

platform from under them that has helped them to become successful to that point.

The idea of the individual student must take precedence and each special education

teacher must look at all perspectives prior to making a decision for the students they

serve.

If indeed the individual is the focal point of the decision and it is decided that

the student could be successful in general education without the support of specially

designed instruction or accommodations it is the recommendation of this researcher,

based on the data, it is the better way to obtain continued academic success and

growth. Although the student may still make gains if they continue in special

education, data supports larger gains in students who have ended their special

education services.
The Effects of the Removal of Special Education Services
Page 18

References

Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Weiner, S. (2013) From exclusion to inclusion: ways of
responding in schools to students with special needs. CfBT Education Trust.

Wright, P.W., Wright P.D. (2007) Wrightslaw: Special Education Law (2nd ed.).
Hartford, VA: Harbor House Law Press.

Schulte, A.C., Stevens, J.J., (2015) Once, sometimes, or always in special education:
mathematics growth and achievement gaps. Exceptional Children, 81(3), 370-387

Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., McDuffe, K.A., (2007) Co-teaching in inclusive


classrooms: a metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392-
416

Wagner, M.M., Blackorby, J., (1996)Transition from high school to work or college:
How special education students fare. The Future of Children 6(1), 103-120.

Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., Rivkin, S.G. (2002) Inferring program effects for special
populations; does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities?
The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(4), 584-599.

You might also like