ERIC ED603619: Planning Supports for Students with Intellectual Disability in General Education Classrooms

2020·0.36 MB·English

by  ERIC

INCLUSION (cid:2)AAIDD
2020,Vol.8,No.1,27–42 DOI:10.1352/2326-6988-8.1.27
Planning Supports for Students With Intellectual Disability
in General Education Classrooms
JamesR.Thompson,VirginiaL.Walker,MelindaR.Snodgrass,JessicaA.Nelson,MeganE.Carpenter,
Mayumi Hagiwara, and Karrie A. Shogren
Abstract
For most students with intellectual disability (ID), education in the least restrictive
environment has been determined to be separate special education classrooms. One means
to promote greater participation in general education classrooms is for educators to identify
and arrange individualized supports that students need to be successful. We conducted focus
group interviews with 33 educators in 6 schools from 3 states to explore how they currently
plan supports for their students, obtain their opinions on the usefulness of a systematic
problem-solving process for supports planning, and gather their perspectives on resources,
including the nature of technical assistance, that would be most helpful in planning
individualized supports. Themes from the focus group interview transcripts were identified
and recommendations for increasing educator competencies in planning and monitoring
individualized supports for students with ID in general education classrooms are provided.
Key Words: inclusive education; support needs assessment; Supports Intensity Scale–Children’s Version;
focus groups
The American Association on Intellectual and If the purpose of identifying and arranging
DevelopmentalDisabilities(AAIDD)andTheArc individualized supports and services is to address
publishedajointpositionstatementoneducation mismatches between a student’s personal compe-
that begins with the assertion that students with tencies and the environmental requirements (i.e.,
intellectual disability (ID) and related develop- demands that are associated with settings and
mental disabilities (DD) ‘‘must receive a free activities) and the most culturally valued educa-
appropriate public education that includes fair tional activities and settings are linked to the
evaluation, ambitious goals, challenging objec- general education curriculum and occur within
tives, the right to progress, individualized supports general education classrooms, it is misguided to
andservices[emphasisadded],highqualityinstruc- invest significant time and energy in providing
tion, and access to the general education curriculum in individualized supports and services in settings and
age-appropriate inclusive settings [emphasis added]’’ activities that are outside of general education
(AAIDD, 2018, para 1). Each of the features of classrooms and curriculum. Settings that segregate
quality educational services identified by AAIDD students with disabilities (even those settings that
and The Arc is important in its own right, but are, by all outward appearances, completely
collectively they offer a comprehensive vision of benign) are not highly valued by students, family
what educational systems should be offering to members, educators, or society as a whole
students with disabilities and their families. We (National Council on Disability, 2018). Thomp-
added emphasis to two of the indicators because sonetal.(2009)characterizedsupportsasabridge
we believe they go hand in hand, and it makes betweenthepersonandtheenvironments(settings
little sense to consider one without considering and activities) in which the person wants to
the other. participate. Providing individualized services and
J. R. Thompson et al. 27
INCLUSION (cid:2)AAIDD
2020,Vol.8,No.1,27–42 DOI:10.1352/2326-6988-8.1.27
supports to participate in separate, segregated extremely restrictive settings (e.g., institutions,
settings due to being excluded from culturally homebound instruction), but they are also rarely
valued, integrated settings can be considered a educatedingeneraleducationclassroomsformost
bridge to nowhere, or perhaps a bridge to the or all of their school day.To borrow the words of
wrong destination. Segregated school environ- StevenTaylor(1998),today’sstudentswithIDare
ments tend to lead to segregated adult environ- caught in the continuum, just as they have been for
ments (Wagner, Newman, Camento, Levine, & the past 40 years. Unless educators approach their
Garza, N. 2006), and segregated adult environ- work differently than what has been done in the
ments are associated with limited life opportuni- past, there is no reason to believe that large
ties and experiences (Lakin & Stancliffe, 2007). numbersofstudentswithIDwillbreakthroughto
Although the AAIDD and The Arc’s call for the general education classroom.
individualized supports and services in inclusive Why has the pattern of placing students with
classrooms and access to the general education ID in special classrooms been so persistent over
curriculum is well aligned with an abundance of time? The answer surely is not simple, and
research evidence supporting positive outcomes McDonnell and Hunt (2014) pointed out the
(e.g., Browder, Hudson, & Wood, 2013; Cole, importance of systems-level factors, such as the
Waldron, & Majd, 2004; Matzen, Ryndak, & wayschoolsarestaffedandorganizedandtheway
Nakao, 2010; Roach & Elliott, 2006; Spooner, in which funding is used, in creating inclusive
Saunders, Root, & Brosh, 2017; Wehmeyer, schools. Without discounting the importance of
Lattin, Lapp-Rincker, & Agran, 2003), it is not a system-level, structural factors, good inclusive
new idea. In 1975, the Education for All education ultimately comes down to having
Handicapped Children Act (now the Individuals educational team members with sufficient knowl-
With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 2004) edge and imagination to find solutions to
mandated that all students with disabilities be challenges that are inherent to meaningfully
provided with an appropriate education designed educating individual children with diverse charac-
to meet their unique needs in the least restrictive teristicsingeneraleducationclassrooms.Thework
environment (LRE). The conceptual roots of LRE of inclusive education is hard work, and the most
are usually attributed to Deno’s (1970) seminal convenientsolutions(e.g.,hiringaparaprofession-
article in Exceptional Children (e.g., see Kavale & al to manage a child during the day) are not
Forness,2000).Denoenvisionedspecialeducation necessarily good solutions (e.g., a child is physi-
services as a cascade of placements, with most cally included in a classroom but is not socially
children receiving their education in the general included and is not learning much; Giangreco,
education classroom alongside their same-aged Suter, & Hurley, 2013).
peerswithoutdisabilitiesandothersreceivingtheir Thompson, Walker, Shogren, and Wehmeyer
education in increasingly restrictive placements (2018) suggested that systematic approaches to
(progressively farther away from general education understanding students by their support needs in
classrooms and peers). relation to curricular demands, instructional
It is often forgotten that Deno’s (1970) strategies, and participation requirements were
cascade was presented in the figure of a cone, needed to enhance the capacity of schools and
with a miniscule number of students in the most general education classrooms to educate all
restrictive placements (the section occupying the students. They proposed a problem-solving pro-
narrow point of the cone) and the largest number cessthatwasstructuredaroundthreequestions:(a)
ofstudentsinthegeneraleducationclassroom(the Whattoteach?,(b)Howtoteach?,and(c)Where
section occupying the circular base). The reality to teach? (see Figure 1). Answering each question
for most students with ID, however, is that the requires educators to proceed through a series of
LRE has been determined to be separate special critical questions and essential actions. At the end
education classrooms. In contrast to Deno’s cone- of the process, there is a support plan specifying
shaped cascade, the placement distribution of curricular adaptations, instructional supports, and
students with ID in U.S. schools is diamond- participation supports a student requires to
shaped,with49%ofstudentsingeneraleducation participateingeneraleducationclassroomlearning
settings for less than 40% of the school day (U.S. activities. The authors made a conscious effort to
Department of Education, 2018). To be fair, provide a problem-solving process that was
students with ID disability are unlikely to be in systematic but not formulaic. A formulaic process
28 Planning Supports
INCLUSION (cid:2)AAIDD
2020,Vol.8,No.1,27–42 DOI:10.1352/2326-6988-8.1.27
Figure 1. The General Education Supports Planning Model. Adapted from ‘‘Expanding Inclusive
Educational Opportunities for Students With Significant Cognitive Disabilities Through Personalized
Supports,’’ by J. R. Thompson, V. L.Walker, K. A. Shogren, and M. L. Wehmeyer, 2018, Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 56, 396–411.
isonewhereeducatorsprogressthroughaseriesof academic classes. We sought to gain a clear
stepstoproduceaproduct(e.g.,supportplan),but understandingofeducatorperspectivesonsupport
the process does not encourage creative thinking needs and supports planning, and to get educator
or provide the flexibility to propose innovative input on how they might use the problem-solving
solutions. Thompson et al.’s (2018) process process we were introducing. The following
emphasized the importance of problem solving, questions drove our research:
and they contended that
1. How do educators currently plan, arrange,
schools need a critical mass of educators who andimplementsupports forstudentswithID
can correctly diagnose what is causing a in general education settings and what
person-environment (i.e., student-classroom) information do they value in this process?
mismatch and creatively arrive at solutions 2. What are the challenges educators encounter
based upon careful consideration of student in planning, arranging, and implementing
characteristics (i.e., relative strengths, prefer- supports for students with ID in general
ences, and relative limitations) and the tasks education settings?
and skills necessary for full participation in a 3. What are educators’ attitudes toward using a
classroom. (p. 407) systematic problem-solving process to plan,
arrange, and implement supports for students
The current investigation was initiated as the
with ID in general education settings?
first step in a larger project involving work with
educators on using support needs assessment
results (i.e., findings from the Supports Intensity Methods
Scale-Children’sVersion[SIS-C]assessment)with-
in the Thompson et al. (2018) problem-solving Setting
process to identify and arrange supports for Sixfocusgroupsinterviews(henceforthreferredto
students with ID attending general education as‘‘focusgroups’’)wereconductedduringAprilof
J. R. Thompson et al. 29
INCLUSION (cid:2)AAIDD
2020,Vol.8,No.1,27–42 DOI:10.1352/2326-6988-8.1.27
2019witheducatorsfromelementaryschools(i.e., recruit a diversity of colleagues in terms of
Grades K-6) in three states (two each in Kansas, educational roles (e.g., special education teachers,
North Carolina, and Illinois). Two focus groups general education teachers, related service staff,
were held at elementary schools located in mid- school administrators). Potential participants re-
sizedcities(i.e.,metropopulationsfrom50,000to ceived a flyer explaining the aim of the focus
500,000);theotherfourfocusgroupswereheldat group (i.e., to get opinions and insights from
elementary schools in suburban communities of educatorstoinformworkonanupcomingproject
large cities (i.e., metro populations greater than on inclusive education) and the parameters (e.g.,
500,000). Four focus groups were conducted in focus group was to take about 60 min).
the afternoon shortly after students had been A sufficient number of participants were
dismissed from school, one was held in the recruited to justify conducting a focus group at
morning prior to students arriving, and one was each of the six schools. Focus groups ranged from
held during a work day devoted to in-service four to seven participants. Collectively, 33 educa-
training for educators when students were not torsparticipated,with29identifyingasfemaleand
present. Theschooldistrictsfromwhichthefocus four as male. Thirty participants identified as
group participants were recruited were relatively White, one participant identified as Black, one
large, with the smallest district serving just over identifiedasAsian,andoneidentifiedwithtwoor
6,000 students and the largest district serving just more races. In regard to ethnicity, 29 participants
under 33,000. reported they were not Hispanic, one indicated a
Hispanic ethnicity, and three did not report an
Participants ethnicity. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the
School district administrators in Illinois, Kansas, participants were special (n ¼ 16) and general (n
and North Carolina were contacted based on ¼9) education teachers, with the remaining 25%
working relationships that research team members consisting of three related service personnel (one
had established through prior projects. The occupational therapist, two speech/language ther-
administratorsreportedthattheirschoolsincluded apists),twobuildingprincipals,andthreeothers(a
some children with IEPs in general education paraprofessional,astudentteacher,andanEnglish
classrooms, but also had classrooms that included for Speakers of Other Languages [ESOL] teacher).
onlystudentswithIEPswhospentthemajorityof Thirty-one of the 33 participants provided infor-
their school day with one another. The school mation regarding the number of years they had
administratorswelcomedtheexpertisetheresearch been employed in their current position (range 0–
team might be able to provide to promote greater 20;M¼5.39)andtotalnumberofyearsemployed
inclusive education, and identified special educa- in K–12 education (0–25; M¼8.48).
tion teachers from six elementary schools as
potential candidates to participate in a multiyear Focus Group Data Collection Procedures
project focused on supporting elementary-aged All six focus groups were conducted in April of
students with ID to learn academic content in 2019. Guidelines for conducting focus groups
general education classrooms. presented by Vaughn, Schumm, and Sinagub
All teachers who were nominated by their (1996)andKruegerandCasey(2015)wereadapted
administrators expressed a willingness to partici- for this study. Specifically, a printed moderator
pate. Initial consulting with the teachers (and packet (i.e., the focus group interview script) was
colleagues with whom they worked) started in the prepared inadvancethatincludedspecific textfor
Illinois and Kansas schools prior to conducting a moderator to introduce each topic of discussion
the focus groups. The consultations consisted of andposequestionstotheparticipants.Moderators
half-day visits to observe classrooms and students were encouraged to probe for additional informa-
and relatively short (e.g., 30 min) meetings with tionandparaphraseinformationfromparticipants
teachers either after school was dismissed, before to clarify responses. Five members of the research
school began, or during teacher lunch/planning team served as moderators. In two focus groups,
times. In the North Carolina schools, no consul- an additional member of the research team was
tation had occurred prior to the focus groups. present as an observer.
The research team asked their contacts in the Also, a printed participant packet was pre-
schools to recruit five or more colleagues to pared in advance that highlighted the moderator’s
participate in a focus group, encouraging them to instructions and provided specific material (e.g.,
30 Planning Supports
INCLUSION (cid:2)AAIDD
2020,Vol.8,No.1,27–42 DOI:10.1352/2326-6988-8.1.27
mockSIS-Cassessmentresults,figuredetailingthe discussed their perspectives on what the big ideas
problem-solvingprocess)aboutwhichparticipants were, came to agreement, and put these into
were asked to comment. Each participant was writing. Second, the big ideas were shared and
provided their own packet to review. Participants discussed with the rest of the research team, all of
proceeded through the packet sequentially and whom had been involved with one or more focus
collectively as a group. group.Basedonthisdiscussion,initialthemesand
In each case, the elementary school hosting an initial codebook were developed. Additionally,
thefocus groupprovided aprivate room inwhich the research team agreed that the data set was
to conduct the focus group. Once all potential saturated. That is, based on evidence of extensive
participants arrived, the moderator explained the repetition between the initial themes in the
purpose and procedures, provided each partici- transcripts of the six focus groups, it was
pantwithagiftcardworthnotmorethan$25asa determined that it would be highly unlikely that
‘‘thank you’’ for coming, and requested partici- additional focus groups would generate new
pants sign a consent form if they were willing to information. A schedule was set up to code each
participate. The consent form was explained and transcript in a sequential order, and coding dyads
the procedures for conducting the focus groups were assigned.
that had been approved by the University of Third, dyads of research team members
Kansas’HumanResearchProtectionProgramwere independently coded the transcripts using line-
followed. All recruited participants signed the by-line coding. After each member of the dyad
consent form, which provided the option of finished coding, they negotiated final codes for
leaving the focus group at any point. Thirty-one their transcript and recorded descriptions and
educators participated for the length of the focus explanations for each code in an updated
group interview, but two had to leave approxi- codebook to be used by subsequent dyads. Each
mately 15 min prior to their focus group’s subsequent dyad proceeded to code their tran-
conclusion because of prior commitments. scripts in the same fashion (first independent
Focus groups were audio recorded on a coding, then negotiating final coding). This
portable recording device. The six sessions ranged process for data analysis was iterative. That is,
from 42 min 16 s to 61 min 01 s (M¼53 min 01 wheneachsubsequenttranscriptwasanalyzed,the
s). Audio recordings were (a) stored on a HIPAA- codebook was modified in some fashion (e.g.,
compliant server at the University of Kansas, (b) refining codes, combining codes, adding needed
erasedfromtheportablerecordingdevices,and(c) codes) and dyads who had coded previous
sent to a third-party transcription service which transcripts returned to their coded transcript to
produced a draft of a transcript. Each focus group modify and negotiate new coding based on any
moderator read through the draft transcript while modifications made to the codebook. This
listening to the recording, correcting any tran- iterative process (coding and recoding transcripts
scription errors and replacing identifying informa- with every change to the codebook) was repeated
tion with pseudonyms. until all dyads reported that (a) they had recoded
theirtranscriptsinlightofthefinalchangestothe
Data Analysis Procedures codebook and (b) agreed that no further modifi-
The focus group transcripts provided the data for cations were necessary.
our study. We conducted a thematic analysis Fourth, research team members followed up
(Braun&Clarke,2012;Vaughnetal.,1996)ofthe withall 33focusgroup participantsvia e-mail as a
six focus group transcripts guided by our research member check. This was designed to (a) obtain
questions. Next, we describe the procedures we their perspectives in regard to the accuracy of the
used for analyzing data, which were consistent initialthemestheresearchteamhadidentified,(b)
withthe constant-comparative method for analyz- seek additional information for clarification of
ing qualitative data originally proposed by Glaser thoughts and perspectives (including specific
and Strauss (1967). quotes)thatweresharedduringtheirfocusgroups,
First, two researchers independently listened and(c)requestadditionalreactiontospecificideas
to audio from all six focus groups and read the presented during other focus groups. Of the 33
correspondingtranscriptstoidentifywhatVaughn follow-up e-mails sent, 27 participants responded.
et al. (1996) referred to as ‘‘big ideas’’ from the The information provided in these responses were
focus groups. These two researchers shared and added to the data set (i.e., data from the original
J. R. Thompson et al. 31
INCLUSION (cid:2)AAIDD
2020,Vol.8,No.1,27–42 DOI:10.1352/2326-6988-8.1.27
transcripts), and the initial themes and codes were Ialwaysaskfor[generaleducation]teachersto
adjusted accordingly. give me their plans and just put it in my
Fifth,thefinalcodesappliedtothetranscripts mailboxanditdoesn’thavetobeadiscussion
provided the basis for identifying final themes. because I think sometimes that hinders on us
The six-member research team met in person to that they have to use their time to sit andtalk
review all transcripts in relation to the codes to us. So instead I was like, ‘‘Just put it my
generated and the initial themes that had been mailboxandI’llfigureouttheinstructionson
identified. Finalthemeswere negotiated,andeach this,’’ or whatever, and kind of develop from
theme was justified based on evidence of substan- there. (IL Group A)
tial support from the line-by-line coding of the
transcripts. Moreover, each theme was considered Similarly, a general education teacher described
in relation to the research questions. supports planning with the speech language
pathologist, stating that,
Results
it’s just in conversation within bringing the kid
back [from elsewhere in the building] and
Inthefollowingsection,wedescribetheresultsof
talkingaboutthestrengths,thethingsthatwe’re
ourthematicanalysisbyresearchquestion.Quotes
seeing in the class with the child and stuff. So,
are attributed by noting the speaker’s role in their
not that sit-down time. (NC Group B)
school,theirstate,andeitherFocusGroupAorB.
To ensure the confidentiality of the participants,
Educators also reported engaging in reactive
we do not offer further clarification of the
problem solving to identify supports, rather than
speaker’s identity. The quotations are the exact
proactive planning. Some teachers described
words of theparticipant, and we made no edits or
sending their students to the general education
corrections to improve grammar.
classroom and subsequently identifying supports
Research Question 1. How do educators
tosolveanyproblemsthatarose.Othersdescribed
currentlyplan,arrange,andimplementsupports
planning, arranging, and implementing supports
for students with ID in general education
that accommodated school schedules or the
settings and what information do they value in
general education teacher’s preferences and/or
this process? Three themes emerged from educa-
concerns rather than focusing first and foremost
tors’descriptionsoftheircurrentpracticesandthe
on their student’s support needs. As one special
information they value.
education teacher explained,
Theme1:Educatorsdonotuseastructured
processforplanning,arranging,andimplement- Currently, it’s like, ‘‘Alright, we’re going to
ing supports; current practices are mostly throw them in the general education class-
informal and are context- and educator-depen- room; now what are we going to do with
dent. Across all focus groups, educators described them?’’...It’s, ‘‘Here, general education teach-
their efforts to plan, arrange, and implement er, add another student to your roster and
supports for their students with ID to access and we’ll figure it out as we go.’’ (IL Group B)
participate in general education settings as infor-
mal,unsystematic,andevenhaphazard.Educators In regard to the informal processes they used
describedapiecemealapproachthatwasdrivenby to plan individualized supports, a few educators
factors related to context and educator priorities identifiedinstancesinwhichtheresponsibilityfor
and perspectives. Some educators reported hold- identifying, arranging, and/or implementing sup-
ing brief, informal meetings to discuss various ports was proportionally distributed among team
aspects of supporting students in the general members. More commonly, however, participants
education setting, which often took place while described instances where one member of the
transitioning in the hallway, catching one another team (most often the special education teacher)
before or after school, or sending text messages or was disproportionately responsible for planning
e-mails. For example, one special education and arranging supports. For example, a special
teacher explained how she attempted to plan education teacher suggested that ‘‘the gen ed
supportsforthegeneraleducationcurriculumofa [general educator’s] responsibility is more of that
particular week, saying, coreinstructionandtheEC[exceptionalchildren]
32 Planning Supports
INCLUSION (cid:2)AAIDD
2020,Vol.8,No.1,27–42 DOI:10.1352/2326-6988-8.1.27
teacher is going to be really supporting those IEP Educators also specified information they
[Individualized Education Program] goals and try needed about the general education context to
to help close the gap’’ (NC Group A). plan, arrange, and implement supports for stu-
The informal processes that characterized dents with ID in general education settings. First,
supports planning in the schools also impacted educators wanted information about the general
the availability of resources (e.g., modified mate- education teacher, including their teaching style,
rials, professional development for teachers) for dispositions andattitude, knowledgeandskills for
supportsplanningandimplementation.Educators providing supports to students with ID, and
suggested that resources used in the past, which academic and behavioral expectations both gener-
were familiar and understood by everyone, often ally forallstudentsintheirclassroom andspecific
drove the decision-making process and therefore to the student with ID and their supports. They
displaced consideration of new resources and/or also described the need for information about the
newideasthatmightbetter addressstudentneeds. classroom environment, including physical ar-
Overall, current approaches to planning sup- rangement, materials, and the nature of learning
portswereunsystematic,andthesupportsthatwere activities in the class. For example, one special
put into place were heavily context- and educator- education teacher said, ‘‘From my side, I feel like
dependent. Educators engaged in supports plan- knowing what your environment is like, having
ningdidnotperceivetheircurrentapproachestobe your expectations in your classroom would be
good to know’’ (IL Group B), and her special
ideal. There were also a few special education
education colleague added,
teachers who reported that they did not engage in
planning supports because none of their students
Iwas thinking of...finemotorexpectationsin
were accessing general education classrooms.
theclassroom,writing,andhowtheclassroom
Theme 2: When identifying, arranging, and
is set up. ... If we have to change the way the
implementing supports, educators expressed a
classroom is physically set up, does [the
desire for comprehensive information on both
student’s] desk need to be in a public space?
the student and the general education context.
Isthereenoughspaceforthestudenttomove
Educators specified that they wanted information
around the classroom? (IL Group B)
about the student’s strengths, current skills and
support options, areas of need, current behavior
Educators also reported that information about
patterns and social context, and the goals and
peers in the classroom was important information
priorities as identified by educators, family to inform planning. For example, one participant
members, and the student. For example, one who was a speech therapist noted,
general education teacher said,
Are there behaviors of other students in the
Iwouldsayitwouldbehelpfultoknowif[the [general education] classroom? Or are there
student] has a behavior issue, or if he can just gonna be other students with special needs in
comeinandsitdownquietlyandgetreadyto thatroomaswellorwillthisstudent[withID]
work,evenifhisleveliswhereveritis.Canhe betheonlyone?Heorshe[generaleducation
follow along with everybody else or is he in teacher]cangivealittlemoreattentiontothat
constant need of redirection and everything student or will there be a handful where she
because of his behavior? (IL Group B) kind of has to [juggle]? (IL Group A)
Another special education teacher said, ‘‘[One] Finally,educatorsreportedthatinformationabout
question would be if they [student] would have the team composition and expectations for each
one-to-one support with them in the [general member’s role was needed.
education] classroom’’ (IL Group A). Another Theme3:EducatorsperceivedSIS-Cassess-
special education teacher said, ‘‘I’m also thinking ment information as an important component
about family dynamics, like who, what are their of comprehensive information needed to plan
supports outside of the school and do they have supports.Whenprovidedwithabriefoverviewof
extra supports outside of the school or resources theSIS-C,educatorsindicatedthatitseemedlikea
or are they on their own in the classroom’’ (KS useful tool for gathering supports needs informa-
Group B)? tion but only a few participants were already
J. R. Thompson et al. 33
INCLUSION (cid:2)AAIDD
2020,Vol.8,No.1,27–42 DOI:10.1352/2326-6988-8.1.27
familiar with the instrument. However, most the general education classroom of meeting the
participants felt that SIS-C results would have disparate needs of all students. In other cases,
limited usefulness to the supports planning participants described the time-consuming re-
process unless the results were accompanied by sponsibilities and scheduling challenges of the
additionalinformationforeachexistingsectionof special education caseload. In one focus group,
theinstrument.Suchinformationmightincludea two special education teachers (SpEd 1 and
brief interpretation guide describing the meaning SpEd2) had this exchange:
of scores and brief descriptions of why a student
received a particular score. Additionally, there SpEd 1: If there’s not enough people and
were topics that were not explicitly represented in there’stoomanystudents—notenoughpeople
the SIS-C for which they felt assessment informa- meaning supports, teachers, TAs [teacher
tion would be valuable (e.g., communication, assistants] and things like that—and there’s
sensory preferences, family information). For an abundance of students in the classroom,
example, a speech therapist observed, that’s tremendous barrier for students with
any disabilities, but specifically with someone
Thereisalsonovisualtypeofsupport[inthe who is intellectual disabled that needs heavy
rating scale]. So I’m looking at moving one-on-one instruction.
around within a school and transitioning
SpEd2:Youknow,Isoagreewithyou,[SpEd
and I’m thinking [another teacher’s] kids can
1], I think. I literally go in my room and I
do it independently when they have the
literally, not figuratively [think], ‘‘Gosh, what
visual [support]. So I’m thinking what type
amIgoingtodo?’’HereIamwith10kidsand
of support would you even put there?
ateacherthathas20plus.Tome,it’slikehere
Because it’s not really monitoring but there
I have these 10 kids but each child is really
is no visual support [in the SIS-C] rating
scale. (IL Group A) three and it’s adapting and modifying every-
thing for their specific needs. And then you
Research Question 2. What are the chal- have days that I try to pull out and do as
lenges educators encounter in planning, arrang- muchinclusion as I can, but then if they’re at
ing, and implementing supports for students differentlevels,it’slikemyonebodyneedsto
with ID in general education settings? When gohere,twoneedstogohere,oneneedstogo
asked to describe the challenges they encoun- here, I’m like–
tered in their current supports process, a single
SpEd 1: There’s only one of you. (NC
theme emerged acrossthe conversationinthe six
Group A)
focus groups.
Theme 4: Educators perceived the most
Another general education teacher summarized
common barriers to including students with ID
the issues of time well, saying,
in the general education setting to be related to
time, resources, and personnel. First, educators
I think that the biggest challenge is time. We
reported multiple challenges associated with
justdon’thaveenoughtimetodifferentiatefor
time. This included a lack of time for collabora-
eachkidwhoneedsitandtodoeverythingthat
tive planning, both within the special education
we can possibly do, whether that’s finding the
team (e.g., special education teacher with para-
resourcesorjustspendingone-on-onetimewith
professionals) and between the general education
them.Wejustdon’thavetime.(KSGroupB)
teacher and the special education team. For
example, one general education teacher said, In addition to these drains on their time,
‘‘We have time to collaborate with other areas educatorsdiscussedhowtimeconsumingitcanbe
in the building, but we do not get planning time to identify specific supports for each particular
withourspecialneedsteachers,ever’’(NCGroup student for each particular content area and grade
B). Educators also described ways in which level. As one general education teacher put it,
competing responsibilities reduced the time
available for planning, arranging, and/or imple- Well,thepartIstrugglewithisIthinkforyou
menting supports. In some instances, educators guys [special education teachers], you have a
described the competing responsibilities within spreadofstudents.Howcanyoupossiblyknow
34 Planning Supports
INCLUSION (cid:2)AAIDD
2020,Vol.8,No.1,27–42 DOI:10.1352/2326-6988-8.1.27
whatthebigthingsaretohitinK[indergarten] Others noted challenges in navigating the varia-
through 2[nd grade], or whatever grade span tion in buy-in for access to the general education
you’re working with? I mean, [special educa- curriculum from a variety of personnel (e.g.,
tionteacher’sname]can’tknowthecurriculum administrators, grade -evel teams, special educa-
forGrades3,4,and5insideandoutinorderto tion paraprofessionals). Educators also described
knowwhatkindofthingstohaveherstudents challenges related to team member roles (whether
focuson.YouknowwhatImean?AndIthink theychosethemornot).Thiscouldbeconnected
that’sadifficultthing.(ILGroupB) tofixed,inflexibleresponsibilitiesandroleswithin
theschool,competingresponsibilities thatcreated
Second, educators identified limited resources resistance to supporting a student with ID, and
as another barrier to the supports process. They variation in expectations for how a student will
identified limited environmental and instructional access general education settings and who is
resources, including, for example, limited physical
responsible for what piece of the process. As one
space in general education settings and minimal
special education teacher described,
‘‘libraries’’ of modified materials. Some educators
indicatedthat,evenwhentheyhaddevelopedaset I notice a difference with even grade levels or
of modified materials, frequent district-mandated things like that when you’re with, say I have
curriculumchangesnecessitatedthattheyabandon students that are both in first grade but have
these resources and repeatedly begin the work of different teachers. So, I get completely differ-
building these libraries again. They also identified ent [experiences]; one I might get their two-
limited personnel as a resource barrier. This was week lesson plans, the other one I have to
connected to time barriers in that educators constantly go in and be asking for those
described insufficient personnel and competing things.Soyeah,administratorsandreallywho
schedules that prevented the special education you’re working with, I feel like it can make
teacherfromobservingthegeneraleducationsetting such a difference of how the student’s
or having sufficient paraprofessional availability to environmentisinthere[thegeneraleducation
providesupports.Educatorsalsoidentifiedalackof classroom]andthewaythestudents[withID]
professionaldevelopmentandtrainingresourcesas are considered. (IL Group A)
a common barrier (e.g., training in inclusive
strategiesforidentifyingeffectivesupports). Educators raised additional concerns related
Finally, educators cited challenges involving to the challenges that arose when planned
teacher dispositions and roles/expectations. For supports were not implemented and the influence
example, educators described experiences involv- ofthe‘‘achievementgap’’betweenstudentsonthe
ing negative dispositions from both general and general education caseload and students with ID.
special education teachers toward providing sup- According to a school principal,
ports in general education classrooms. A special
education teacher spoke of the difficulty of Thegap,frommyperspective,ofbeingableto
workingwithcolleagueswithfixedmindsetsabout support what you guys do in the [general
the roles and responsibilities of educators in a education]classroom,thegapisreallybigand
school, and how rigid understandings of what theolder they[students]get thegapgetseven
people’s jobs were (and were not) could shape bigger. If you have a fabulous fourth or fifth
people’s fundamental view of teaching and grade teacher who’s amazing, [but] has never
schooling. In response to a member check taught younger aged kids and the content
following the focus group, this educator said, there,sometimesthat’swherethislittleperson
[receivingspecialeducationservices]mightbe
The statement about ‘‘fixed mindset’’ comes and so they [general education teacher] don’t
from experiences with teachers who have had have the skill set. (NC Group A)
a harder time including students with special
needs in their classroom. They may not fully Research Question 3. What are educators’
understand the purpose of providing accom- attitudes toward using a systematic problem-
modations or understanding the ‘‘why’’ be- solvingprocesstoplan,arrange,andimplement
hind the accommodations that are being supports for students with ID in general
provided. (KS Group A) education settings? We shared Thompson et
J. R. Thompson et al. 35
INCLUSION (cid:2)AAIDD
2020,Vol.8,No.1,27–42 DOI:10.1352/2326-6988-8.1.27
al.’s (2018) process (Figure 1) for planning process if team members met on a regular basis
supports with the focus group participants and throughout the school year to evaluate the
asked for their feedback. Their responses reflected effectiveness of supports implementation and
two themes. adjust strategies accordingly, and if a record of
Theme 5: Educators were supportive of the supports a child had received and their
using a systematic problem-solving process as effectiveness followed the child over time. For
the basis for planning, arranging, and imple- example,twogeneraleducationteachers(GenEd1
menting supports, but had differing opinions and GenEd 2) and two special education teachers
about the ways it could be implemented (SpEd 1 and SpEd 2) had this exchange:
effectively. Educators embraced the concept of
using the systematic problem-solving process to GenEd 1: [If the supports planning app had]
guide planning, arranging, and implementing like a ‘‘Chad’’ folder, and things that work
supports in the general education setting that is well for Chad would go into Chad’s folder
and then
structured around three questions (what, how, and
wheretoteach;seeFigure1).Someeducatorsfavored
SpEd 1: Move with him.
the sequential process shown in Figure 1 that
involves planning around a what-how-where se- GenEd 1: Right.
quenceofthequestions.Othereducators,however,
SpEd 1: For the next year.
preferred a more flexible process that would allow
team members to address these same questions in
Moderator: So student accounts inside this
any order that was responsive to the present
[app that accompanies the supports process]
considerations of the team. Take, for example, the
where you kind of have a running record of
following observation from a special educator,
the things?
I think you should follow certain strategies GenEd 1: Yeah.
that work, which would fall under How to
Teach, and then fit the content to that. So, if GenEd2:Differentgamesoractivitiesthey’ve
you have a certain type of lesson that really done. That way they’re not starting from
works well with the student, you would use square one the next year, right?
that type of lesson format again. But just
Moderator: And you can see where they’ve
change the content as you go through the
been and how they’ve—
weeks because, otherwise, you’re gonna keep
changing,Imeanobviouslyyouwanttomake SpEd2:Givesusabetterpicture.(ILGroupB)
things diverse but otherwise you’re gonna be
changing [all the time]. (IL Focus Group A) Theme 6: To implement a systematic
problem-solving process effectively, educators
Additionally, several educators mentioned the expressed the need for tangible resources and
importance of gathering information about the technicalassistance.Intandemwiththeirsupport
student to develop a student profile as critical to for a systematic approach to planning, arranging,
the success of using the planning process. and implementing supports, educators consistent-
Educators reported two other factors that ly reported that they would need tangible
would influence the extent to which they resources to effectively use the process in their
embraced the systematic problem-solving process contexts. The focus group moderators explained
forsupportsplanning.First,educatorsemphasized that there were plans to create a computer
the importance of collaborative teaming that interface (an application for a tablet; hereafter,
involves training of all team members and shared ‘‘app’’) for guiding educators through the process.
responsibilities in facilitating planning, arranging, The educators were universally enthusiastic about
and implementing supports. A special educator accessing such a resource (e.g., ‘‘awesome’’ [IL
indicated that ‘‘if there’s like a real team that’s GroupB],‘‘reallyuseful’’[ILGroupA],‘‘I’mabig
trained in this [process] and facilitates this fan of it’’ [KS Group B], ‘‘Wow’’ [KS Group A]),
process,’’ she would welcome the process shown as long as it was designed to be feasible, useful,
in Figure 1 (NC Group B). Second, educators and efficient. Several educators suggested creating
indicated they would be more likely to use the the app with features that allowed them to input
36 Planning Supports