Link Between Inclusive Link Between Inclusive Settings and Achievement Settings and Achievement

in Urban Settingsin Urban Settings

Elizabeth CramerElizabeth Cramer

Florida International Florida International UniversityUniversity

Given That…Given That…

Standard-based school reform and Standard-based school reform and accountability systems raise expectations accountability systems raise expectations about learning outcomes about learning outcomes

Students receive instruction based, in the Students receive instruction based, in the LRE (LRE (Koegel, Matos-Freden, Lang, & Koegel, 2012), on the standard , on the standard curriculum curriculum

61% of all students with disabilities spend 61% of all students with disabilities spend 80% or more of their time in general ed 80% or more of their time in general ed (NCES, 2013)(NCES, 2013)

Combined With…Combined With…

Overrepresentation (Harry & Klingner, 2014)Overrepresentation (Harry & Klingner, 2014) Shifting of LD students from White to CLD Shifting of LD students from White to CLD

leads to more restrictive settings for LD leads to more restrictive settings for LD students (Ferri & Connor, 2005).students (Ferri & Connor, 2005).

Urban children from lower SES are less Urban children from lower SES are less engaged academically when compared to engaged academically when compared to their suburban peers their suburban peers (Blanchett, Klingner, & Harry, 2009  ).   

Especially problematic at the secondary level Especially problematic at the secondary level where placement decisions may directly where placement decisions may directly affect post school outcomes affect post school outcomes

Overview of This Line of WorkOverview of This Line of Work

Examine achievement rates of Examine achievement rates of students with and without disabilities students with and without disabilities in urban settings as related to in urban settings as related to inclusion rates and/or class typeinclusion rates and/or class type

Is inclusion the least restrictive Is inclusion the least restrictive environment for included students?environment for included students?

Any ramifications for students Any ramifications for students without disabilities?without disabilities?

SettingSetting

MDCPS 4MDCPS 4thth largest school district largest school district 22ndnd most culturally and linguistically most culturally and linguistically

diversediverse 52% of SWD included 80% or more of 52% of SWD included 80% or more of

the school daythe school day

Purpose of Study 1Purpose of Study 1

Evaluate Learning Gains of Black and Evaluate Learning Gains of Black and Hispanic Middle School Students with Hispanic Middle School Students with SLD in Urban schools to determineSLD in Urban schools to determine Is there a difference in learning gains Is there a difference in learning gains

made in inclusive versus non inclusive made in inclusive versus non inclusive settings?settings?

Do these differences vary between Do these differences vary between ethnic groups?ethnic groups?

Participants Participants

40 840 8thth grade students with LD grade students with LD 20 Black, 20 Hispanic20 Black, 20 Hispanic

10 resource/10 inclusion for each group10 resource/10 inclusion for each group All free reduced lunchAll free reduced lunch None more than 5 absencesNone more than 5 absences None ELLNone ELL All 2 consecutive years in type of All 2 consecutive years in type of

settingsetting

Data CollectionData Collection

FCAT scores used FCAT scores used 77thth and 8 and 8thth grade scores in reading grade scores in reading

and mathand math Measured developmental scale score Measured developmental scale score

changes for each group from the 7changes for each group from the 7thth to 8to 8thth grade administration grade administration

Overall Scale Score ChangesOverall Scale Score Changes

Inclusive SettingsInclusive Settings Average of 248 pts increase in readingAverage of 248 pts increase in reading Average of 187 pts increase in mathAverage of 187 pts increase in math

Resource SettingsResource Settings Average of 71 pts decrease in readingAverage of 71 pts decrease in reading Average of 88 pts decrease in mathAverage of 88 pts decrease in math

Inclusive Settings by Race/EthnicityInclusive Settings by Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic StudentsHispanic Students Reading 344 pts increaseReading 344 pts increase Math 230 pts increaseMath 230 pts increase

Black StudentsBlack Students Reading 151 pts increaseReading 151 pts increase Math 143 pts increaseMath 143 pts increase

Resource Settings by Resource Settings by Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity

HispanicHispanic Reading 10 pts increaseReading 10 pts increase Math 192 pts decreaseMath 192 pts decrease

BlackBlack Reading 153 pts decreaseReading 153 pts decrease Math 16 pts increaseMath 16 pts increase

Hispanic/Black ComparisonHispanic/Black Comparison

Inclusive SettingsInclusive Settings 193 pts difference reading193 pts difference reading 87 pts difference in math87 pts difference in math Hispanics had higher scores in both areasHispanics had higher scores in both areas

Resource SettingsResource Settings 142 pts difference in reading (Hispanic 142 pts difference in reading (Hispanic

higher)higher) 177 pts difference in math (Black higher) 177 pts difference in math (Black higher)

Settings Scale Score ChangesSettings Scale Score Changes

Inclusive Setting Scale Score ChangesInclusive Setting Scale Score Changes

Inclusive Setting Scale Score ChangesInclusive Setting Scale Score Changes

Resource Setting Scale Resource Setting Scale Score ChangesScore Changes

Resource Setting Scale Score Resource Setting Scale Score ChangesChanges

Hispanic Scale Score ChangesHispanic Scale Score Changes

Black Scale Score ChangesBlack Scale Score Changes

DiscussionDiscussion

Overall, inclusion showed larger Overall, inclusion showed larger scale score gains than resourcescale score gains than resource

Score changes less consistent in Score changes less consistent in resource by race/ethnicity and resource by race/ethnicity and subject areasubject area

Overall, Hispanic students had higher Overall, Hispanic students had higher scores than Black students in scores than Black students in inclusive settingsinclusive settings

ImplicationsImplications

Need for increased inclusion rates in urban Need for increased inclusion rates in urban schools and for Black and Hispanic schools and for Black and Hispanic studentsstudents

Need for culturally responsive teaching Need for culturally responsive teaching rather than a one size fits all approachrather than a one size fits all approach

Need to look at quality of instruction in Need to look at quality of instruction in urban schools across settingurban schools across setting

Need for much further in-depth study of Need for much further in-depth study of inclusive practices and access to general inclusive practices and access to general education curriculum across placementseducation curriculum across placements

Purpose of Study 2Purpose of Study 2

To determine if the recommendations provided to 56 schools via the LRE/Achievement at a Glance review process and the support that followed served to improve the inclusion and achievement of urban students with disabilities.

LRE Achievement at a Glance LRE Achievement at a Glance ToolTool

Walkthroughs conducted at each of 56 schools Walkthroughs conducted at each of 56 schools (elementary, middle, high)(elementary, middle, high)

District staff (at least 2) evaluated random District staff (at least 2) evaluated random students across 6 domains on a 3 point scalestudents across 6 domains on a 3 point scale

Grand total led to classification: outstanding – meets requirements; good – needs assistance; fair – needs intervention; and needs improvement – needs substantial interventions

Results shared with administrative team; follow up activities/plan provided

ResultsResults

Significantly significant increase in Significantly significant increase in inclusion rate inclusion rate (t = -8.97, p < .01).

Significantly significant increase in amount of time SWD spend with non-disabled peers (t = -12.17, p < .01).

Power analysis showed all variables Power analysis showed all variables had a high power with the exception had a high power with the exception of changes in math achievement for of changes in math achievement for gen ed studentsgen ed students

ResultsResults

Changes in inclusion rate showed Changes in inclusion rate showed significant correlations with changes in significant correlations with changes in average time spent with peers average time spent with peers ((Pearson’s correlation coefficient of .675 [p < .01]).

Changes in inclusion rate showed significant correlations with with significant correlations with with changes in math proficiency of gen ed changes in math proficiency of gen ed students students with a Pearson’s correlation coefficient of .299 (p < .05).

ResultsResults

Statistically significant correlations found Statistically significant correlations found between between math proficiency for SWDs and reading proficiency for students without disabilities (r = .362, p < .01)

Math proficiency for students without disabilities and reading proficiency for students without disabilities (r = .480, p< .01),

math proficiency for students without disabilities and math proficiency for SWDs (r = .352, p < .01).

DiscussionDiscussion

LRE review process supported schools in LRE review process supported schools in making significant gains in inclusion (mean making significant gains in inclusion (mean shifted from 50% to 68% in one year)shifted from 50% to 68% in one year)

Even when significant, achievement showed Even when significant, achievement showed an upward trend and NO significant an upward trend and NO significant decreases (implies LRE)decreases (implies LRE)

Relationships between proficiency across Relationships between proficiency across subjects and student typesubjects and student type

Possibility of greater results beyond year 1Possibility of greater results beyond year 1

ImplicationsImplications

More widespread use of this tool or More widespread use of this tool or othersothers

Combine review with follow up Combine review with follow up supportsupport

Involve administratorsInvolve administrators Longer term/more in depth studyLonger term/more in depth study Examine quality of instruction in Examine quality of instruction in

inclusive classroomsinclusive classrooms