Doctor of Education / Department of Special Education / James Teagarden / Gerald Bailey / Finding qualified teachers is a growing concern to school districts nationwide. Special Education is one of those areas that is highly in need. Researchers have suggested the reason for these shortages is not recruitment of special education teachers, but the retention of special education teachers. The research has also shown that lack of effective building administrative support may be a critical factor in a teachers’ decision to stay or leave the field. This study was developed to determine what administrative behavior special education teachers value the most. Additionally, this study sought to find out if there were differences in the administrative behaviors that special education teachers value and what building administrators perceive to be of value. A survey was sent electronically to a random sample of convenience to 200 special education teachers and 200 building administrators in the state of Kansas; 276 surveys were returned. The survey collected data to determine the perceived value of administrative support behaviors by the special education teachers, and any differences of the perceived value of administrative supports by the building administrators. The survey items were categorized into four subgroups of administrative behaviors: emotional, environmental, technical, and instructional. The administrative behaviors of most value to the special education teachers were those that were emotional in nature. Respondents reported that the most valued support actions included providing praise and acknowledging that the teacher makes a difference, supporting the teacher in front of parents, and trusting the teacher’s judgment. Findings also indicated that there were statistically significant differences between what administrative supports special education teachers valued and what building administrators perceive to be of value to special education teachers, with the exception of the technical administrative support actions. These findings suggested that it would benefit school districts positively to implement strategies to evaluate the emotional support provided and desired by their special education teachers as one method to reduce special education teacher attrition. One way of ensuring administrators provide these supports is to hold them accountable, perhaps through policy change in the evaluation process. With recent legislation such as No Child Left Behind, mandating all students receive a quality education form qualified teachers despite the current shortage of special education teachers; administrators must implement strategies to reduce teacher attrition.

Doctor of Education / Department of Educational Leadership / Gerald D. Bailey / The purpose of this study was to create a handbook for school and museum educators to support their development of curriculum materials that provide meaningful access to diverse learners. The handbook was developed using the research and development methodology (R&D) developed by Borg and Gall (1989). The steps in the R&D cycle used in this study included: (1) Research analysis and proof of concept; a proof of concept consisted of interviews with three national experts in the areas of accessibility, education, and museum education to determine the need for the resource. (2) Product planning and design; information was gathered through a literature review, curriculum materials derived from a collaborative partnership between Kansas State University and the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum were used as examples. (3) Product development; a prototype of the handbook was created. (4) Preliminary field test; the handbook was evaluated by five national leaders in the fields of education, accessibility, and museum education. (5) Product revision; revisions were made based on feedback from the preliminary field test. (6) Main field test; seven potential users from the areas of education and museum education reviewed the handbook. (7) Operational product revision; feedback from the main field test was used for final revisions. Conclusions: 1. There was a need for a resource to assist professionals in the design of curriculum materials that were accessible to diverse learners in both the school and museum setting. 2. The handbook was useful to both intended audiences. Museum educators found the handbook expanded their thinking to include cognitive accessibility. School educators reported the handbook increased their skills in designing learning activities for diverse learners. 3. The handbook provided specific instructions in the applications of differentiated instruction and universal design to curriculum developed for museums. 4. Physical accessibility was accepted as an important concern for museum educators. This awareness provided a useful bridge to cognitive accessibility. 5. Cognitive accessibility was accepted as an important concern for school educators. The handbook increased their skills in reaching diverse learners. 6. Both museum and school educators appreciated the technology resources that prompted reviewers’ expanded thinking.

Doctor of Philosophy / Curriculum and Instruction Programs / Marjorie R. Hancock / No Child Left Behind legislation has required public schools to increase efforts to measure and track student performance through school, district, state and nation-wide assessments. Researchers argue that it is essential for all students, including special education students, to be included in accountability assessments in order to help measure and track educational progress and compare the performance of schools, districts and states in terms of achieving educational goals. One method for including more special needs students in accountability assessments is to use accommodations during testing. Assistive technology is an accommodation that is approved for use on accountability assessments in many states and has the potential to significantly impact the performance of special education students. The primary purpose of this research was to gather and analyze data from special service providers (staff of a special education cooperative) and educators and administrators (employees of the school districts the cooperative serves) on the subject of using assistive technology as an accommodation on Colorado State Assessment Project (CSAP) testing. The researcher conducted a survey to measure the attitudes and knowledge of educators and special service providers on this subject. The survey was a five point Likert scale comprised of ten items designed to measure "attitudes" and ten items designed to measure "knowledge". Data was analyzed using backward regression analysis to compare scores between groups and consider the impact that years of work experience had on survey scores. The researcher used responses from survey data to select ten survey respondents to participate in in-depth interviews. Interview data was analyzed using pentadic analysis, a method of rhetorical analysis designed by Kenneth Burke (1945). Survey results indicated that the knowledge and attitudes scores between the two groups were similar, however regression analysis identified a significant increase the attitude scores of employees of the special education cooperative as they gained work experience. Scores of district employees did not increase on either scale as participants gained work experience. Analysis of interview data provided rich description of participants’ knowledge and attitudes concerning the use of assistive technology as an accommodation and enabled the researcher to identify significant similarities and differences between groups of employees and the state standards intended to guide their decision making on this subject. Results of this research suggest a need for improving education on the subject of assistive technology, related state regulations and improving resources to foster the use of assistive technology as an accommodation on accountability assessments.

The research, on which this account is based, took place within the context of Blooming Acres, my home, and the learning community that I co-founded with my wife Sherri-Ann. In the first chapters, I tell the story of how I came to home-educate learners with complex special needs at my farm north of Toronto, Canada. I describe the neurological disorders that the children in my care are diagnosed with and map out the main literature that guides how I think about and practice education. The aim of this section is to paint a picture of the context in which the research takes place and describe my role in this community. The second section consists of my research with two of the children who lived and learned at Blooming Acres. This includes their stories as told by them, their parent(s), and the educators at Blooming Acres. As I juxtaposed the life experiences of these learners with each other, and wove together aspects of these stories, significant themes emerged relating to their academic and medical histories, as well as their social, extracurricular, and family life, and finally, their experience at Blooming Acres. I employed a life history methodology; one that honours the meaning and knowledge that exists in the storied lives of individuals. As I applied this methodology and engaged in the storied lives of these learners I learned more about what it is like to live and learn with neurological disorders. Four major themes emerged. The first, Pathology for Support / Support for Pathology, relates to learning issues, referral, assessment, diagnosis, medications and “school battles”. Second, Parent Stress includes behavioural issues, judgment, stressful calls from teachers and principals and school failure. Third, Oasis Teachers / Mentors is an expression of care, support, social competence, self-esteem and relationships. Finally, Strengths and Coping is a culmination of issues such as advocacy for support, strategies for success, identifying and coping with stress, understanding diagnosis and becoming well. These emergent themes are articulated within the context of neurology and school failure (risk) and the context of transformation and getting well (resilience). This work contributes to parenting, education, social work, disabilities, medical and risk / resiliency literature.

Jusqu’à maintenant, la prison a surtout été analysée à partir du point de vue des détenus et celui des surveillants comme si le vécu de l’enfermement et la relation détenus-surveillants étaient les seuls points de vue permettant d’en apprendre sur ce qu’elle est et d’en saisir le fonctionnement. Nous pensons, pour notre part, que d’autres points de vue sont possibles, voire même souhaitables. C’est le cas, notamment, de celui des enseignants qui exercent leur métier en prison. Bien que théoriquement en mesure d’offrir un complément intéressant aux fonctions de dissuasion et de réinsertion sociale que la prison remplit difficilement à elle seule, le projet éducatif carcéral constitue une activité plus ou moins marginalisée qui est ramenée au niveau des autres activités pénitentiaires. Au premier chef, c’est à la prison que nous sommes tentés d’en imputer la responsabilité et, de fait, elle y est pour quelque chose. D’abord conçue pour neutraliser des criminels, il lui est difficile de les éduquer en même temps. Mais cette marginalisation, nous le verrons, n’est pas le seul fait de la prison. Elle tient aussi beaucoup au mandat qu’ils se donnent et à la façon dont les enseignants se représentent leur travail. S’étant eux-mêmes défini un mandat ambitieux de modelage et de remodelage de la personnalité de leurs élèves délinquants détenus, prérequis, selon eux, à un retour harmonieux dans la collectivité, les enseignants déplorent qu’on ne leur accorde pas toute la crédibilité qui devrait leur revenir. Cette situation est d’autant plus difficile à vivre, qu’à titre de travailleurs contractuels pour la plupart, ils sont déjà, aux yeux du personnel correctionnel, objets d’une méfiance qui sera d’autant plus grande que, pour effectuer leur travail, ils doivent se faire une représentation du délinquant et du délit peu compatibles avec celles qui prévalent dans le milieu. C’est ainsi qu’à la marginalisation comme fait organisationnel se superpose une auto-marginalisation, incontournable, qui est le fait des enseignants eux-mêmes et qui se traduit par leur attitude de réserve à l’égard de la prison. La chose est d’autant plus paradoxale que le mandat que se donnent les enseignants, bien qu’ils s’en gardent de le dire, correspond tout à fait au projet correctionnel. Mais la prison, davantage préoccupée par la gestion du risque que par la réinsertion sociale des détenus, n’a d’intérêt pour l’éducation en milieu carcéral que dans la mesure où elle permet une socialisation à l’idéologie pénitentiaire et contribue à consolider la paix à l’intérieur des murs avec la complicité des enseignants eux-mêmes. Du reste, ces derniers ne sont pas dupes et lui en font grief, encore qu’il soit permis de nous demander si on ne lui reproche pas, plus simplement, de ne pas leur donner toute la place qu’ils croient leur revenir et de les laisser suspendus dans le vide carcéral. / Until now, the prison has been analyzed, primarily, from the prisoners and warders points of view as if the reality of confinement and the prison-warder relationship were the only likely opinions that could allow us to learn how the prison operates and thus understand its function. On the contrary, we think that other points of view are not only possible but even desirable. In particular, this is the case for teachers who are working in prisons. Although theoretically being able to offer an interesting complement to the functions of dissuasion and social rehabilitation that the prison fills with difficulty, the prison educational project constitutes a more or less marginalized activity which is brought down to the level of other penitentiary activities. At its highest degree, we are tempted to charge the prison with responsibility for it; and, in fact, a prison does have a certain liability in this matter. Initially conceived to neutralize criminals, it is difficult for the prison to educate them at the same time as pointed out by the sociology of organizations. This marginalization, we will see, is not solely that of the prison but also in the way in which the teachers perceive their work and the mandate which they assign themselves. Prison teachers have defined, for themselves, an ambitious mandate of modeling and remodeling the personalities of their delinquent pupils, a prerequisite, according to them, for a harmonious return to the community. It is an ambitious mandate for which they feel that they do not receive the respect they deserve. This situation is made all the more difficult because, as contractual workers for the majority, they are, in the eyes of the correctional staff, more or less objects of mistrust. This feeling is increased by the fact that the teachers, in order to carry out their work, develop a portrait of the delinquent and offence that is not very compatible with that which prevails in the prison environment. Thus, this marginalization as an organizational fact superimposes a self-marginalization, impossible to circumvent, which is true of the teachers themselves and which results in their attitude of detachment toward the prison. It is all the more paradoxical that the mandate the teachers give themselves, although they take great care to not say it, corresponds completely with that of the correctional project. Even though the prison is more preoccupied with the risk management of its prisoners rather than their social rehabilitation, it does have an interest in education in prison but only insofar as it merges with penitentiary ideology and contributes to a consolidated peace inside the walls made complicit by the teachers themselves. The latter are not easily deceived and object to this point of view and we may ask ourselves whether their criticism of the prison is simply because the prison does not provide them with the required space they believe they should occupy thus leaving them suspended in a vacuum that is the correctional system.

Master of Science / Department of Family Studies and Human Services / Karen Myers-Bowman / The reciprocal interaction between children and their environment can affect their development. Certain environmental interactions such as problematic parent-child relationships or peer rejection in school are associated with the development of emotional and behavioral disorders. Children with emotional and behavioral disorders experience difficulties in a variety of areas including academics, social relationships, behaviors, and life outcomes. These emotional and behavioral disorders can progress or regress depending on relationships occurring within the child’s environment. Positive, healthy, and caring parent and teacher involvement in the lives of these children is an important factor. When parents and teachers become involved, especially when they work together to set mutual goals to help with success, children with emotional and behavioral disorders may see improvements in their problem behaviors, experience more successful achievement in academics, and develop in a direction that is more normative rather than problematic. This information can be applied through an online educational module for parents of children with EBD that aims to educate these parents on the avenues to and importance of involvement.

Doctor of Education / Department of Special Education, Counseling and Student Affairs / Warren J. White / Since 1990, IDEA has required a transition-focused IEP for adolescents with special needs. There have been limited data on whether culturally and/or linguistically diverse (CLD) students in Kansas were receiving transition services to mitigate or remedy their marginalized, disenfranchised, and dis-empowered status. This study examined transition practices for CLD students with special needs in Kansas. The hypothesis tested was that Kansas schools address the multicultural needs of exceptional students in transition practice. There were two research questions. First, do considerations of multicultural needs figure into transition practices in Kansas schools? Second, are multicultural needs taken into account to a greater extent in certain areas of transition? A review of research literature yielded multicultural considerations relevant to the five domains of transition: 1) self-care, domestic living; 2) recreation and leisure; 3) communication and social skills; 4) vocational skills; and 5) community participation skills. An Internet survey with 22 Likert items covering these multicultural needs and concerns was administered via e-mail. A total of 582 valid e-mail addresses were used, comprising contact information developed from a sample frame of a KSDE database of resource-room teachers. The survey e-mail and follow-up were sent to every contact, covering 190 of the 293 unified school districts of Kansas. The completed sample was 178, for a response rate of 30.58%. Data were analyzed from the 93 participants whose responses indicated experience as caseworkers in the past three years on transition-focused IEP teams for at least one student in any of the three CLD groups of interest in the present study—African Americans, Native American Indians, or Hispanic/Latinos. Means and standard deviations were calculated for the frequencies of choices on the 22 Likert items. Pearson's chi-square testing was used to determine significance. Survey results indicated that on 17 of 22 items there was 80% or higher agreement among caseworkers that their school communities were addressing the multicultural needs and concerns of students and families in transition practices. Discussion includes participants' comments. Recommendations are given to increase the roles of cultural and linguistic heritages in transition in Kansas schools, especially in the skill-areas of community participation and communication-and-social skills.

This study used multilevel measurement modeling to examine the differential difficulties of math and reading items for Grade 6 students participating in Ontario’s provincial assessment in 2005-2006, in relation to whether they received a setting accommodation, had a learning disability (LD), and spoke a language in addition to English. Both differences in difficulty between groups of students for all items (impact) and for individual items (differential item functioning) were examined. Students’ language backgrounds (whether they spoke a language in addition to English) were not significantly related to item difficulty. Compared to non-accommodated students with LD, math and reading items were relatively difficult for accommodated students with LD. Moreover, the difference in overall impact on math items was larger than on reading items for accommodated and non-accommodated students with LD. Overall, students without LD and who did not receive a setting accommodation outperformed students with LD and/or who received a setting accommodation as well as accommodated students without LD. It is important to note that, because this was an operational test administration, students were assigned to receive accommodations by their schools based on their individual needs. It is, therefore, not possible to separate the effect of the setting accommodation on item difficulty from the effects of other differences between the accommodated and non-accommodated groups. The differences in math and reading item difficulties between accommodated and non-accommodated students with LD may be due in part to factors such as comorbidity of LD and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or a possible mismatch between the setting accommodation and the areas of disabilities. Moreover, the results of the present study support the underarousal/optimal stimulation hypothesis instead of the premise of the inhibitory control and attention for the use of setting accommodation. After controlling for the impact across all items of setting accommodation and LD, several math and reading items were found to exhibit differential item functioning (DIF). The possible sources of DIF were (1) math items that were not adherent to specific item-writing rules and (2) reading items targeting different types of comprehension. This study also found that the linguistic features of math items (total words, total sentences, average word length, monosyllabic words for math) and reading items (word frequency, average sentence length, and average words per sentence for reading) were associated with math and reading item difficulties for students with different characteristics. The total sentences and average word length in a math item as well as total words in a reading item significantly predicted the achievement gap between groups. Therefore, the linguistic features should be taken into account when assessments are developed and validated for examinees with varied characteristics.

This study used multilevel measurement modeling to examine the differential difficulties of math and reading items for Grade 6 students participating in Ontario’s provincial assessment in 2005-2006, in relation to whether they received a setting accommodation, had a learning disability (LD), and spoke a language in addition to English. Both differences in difficulty between groups of students for all items (impact) and for individual items (differential item functioning) were examined. Students’ language backgrounds (whether they spoke a language in addition to English) were not significantly related to item difficulty. Compared to non-accommodated students with LD, math and reading items were relatively difficult for accommodated students with LD. Moreover, the difference in overall impact on math items was larger than on reading items for accommodated and non-accommodated students with LD. Overall, students without LD and who did not receive a setting accommodation outperformed students with LD and/or who received a setting accommodation as well as accommodated students without LD. It is important to note that, because this was an operational test administration, students were assigned to receive accommodations by their schools based on their individual needs. It is, therefore, not possible to separate the effect of the setting accommodation on item difficulty from the effects of other differences between the accommodated and non-accommodated groups. The differences in math and reading item difficulties between accommodated and non-accommodated students with LD may be due in part to factors such as comorbidity of LD and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or a possible mismatch between the setting accommodation and the areas of disabilities. Moreover, the results of the present study support the underarousal/optimal stimulation hypothesis instead of the premise of the inhibitory control and attention for the use of setting accommodation. After controlling for the impact across all items of setting accommodation and LD, several math and reading items were found to exhibit differential item functioning (DIF). The possible sources of DIF were (1) math items that were not adherent to specific item-writing rules and (2) reading items targeting different types of comprehension. This study also found that the linguistic features of math items (total words, total sentences, average word length, monosyllabic words for math) and reading items (word frequency, average sentence length, and average words per sentence for reading) were associated with math and reading item difficulties for students with different characteristics. The total sentences and average word length in a math item as well as total words in a reading item significantly predicted the achievement gap between groups. Therefore, the linguistic features should be taken into account when assessments are developed and validated for examinees with varied characteristics.

Jusqu’à maintenant, la prison a surtout été analysée à partir du point de vue des détenus et celui des surveillants comme si le vécu de l’enfermement et la relation détenus-surveillants étaient les seuls points de vue permettant d’en apprendre sur ce qu’elle est et d’en saisir le fonctionnement. Nous pensons, pour notre part, que d’autres points de vue sont possibles, voire même souhaitables. C’est le cas, notamment, de celui des enseignants qui exercent leur métier en prison. Bien que théoriquement en mesure d’offrir un complément intéressant aux fonctions de dissuasion et de réinsertion sociale que la prison remplit difficilement à elle seule, le projet éducatif carcéral constitue une activité plus ou moins marginalisée qui est ramenée au niveau des autres activités pénitentiaires. Au premier chef, c’est à la prison que nous sommes tentés d’en imputer la responsabilité et, de fait, elle y est pour quelque chose. D’abord conçue pour neutraliser des criminels, il lui est difficile de les éduquer en même temps. Mais cette marginalisation, nous le verrons, n’est pas le seul fait de la prison. Elle tient aussi beaucoup au mandat qu’ils se donnent et à la façon dont les enseignants se représentent leur travail. S’étant eux-mêmes défini un mandat ambitieux de modelage et de remodelage de la personnalité de leurs élèves délinquants détenus, prérequis, selon eux, à un retour harmonieux dans la collectivité, les enseignants déplorent qu’on ne leur accorde pas toute la crédibilité qui devrait leur revenir. Cette situation est d’autant plus difficile à vivre, qu’à titre de travailleurs contractuels pour la plupart, ils sont déjà, aux yeux du personnel correctionnel, objets d’une méfiance qui sera d’autant plus grande que, pour effectuer leur travail, ils doivent se faire une représentation du délinquant et du délit peu compatibles avec celles qui prévalent dans le milieu. C’est ainsi qu’à la marginalisation comme fait organisationnel se superpose une auto-marginalisation, incontournable, qui est le fait des enseignants eux-mêmes et qui se traduit par leur attitude de réserve à l’égard de la prison. La chose est d’autant plus paradoxale que le mandat que se donnent les enseignants, bien qu’ils s’en gardent de le dire, correspond tout à fait au projet correctionnel. Mais la prison, davantage préoccupée par la gestion du risque que par la réinsertion sociale des détenus, n’a d’intérêt pour l’éducation en milieu carcéral que dans la mesure où elle permet une socialisation à l’idéologie pénitentiaire et contribue à consolider la paix à l’intérieur des murs avec la complicité des enseignants eux-mêmes. Du reste, ces derniers ne sont pas dupes et lui en font grief, encore qu’il soit permis de nous demander si on ne lui reproche pas, plus simplement, de ne pas leur donner toute la place qu’ils croient leur revenir et de les laisser suspendus dans le vide carcéral. / Until now, the prison has been analyzed, primarily, from the prisoners and warders points of view as if the reality of confinement and the prison-warder relationship were the only likely opinions that could allow us to learn how the prison operates and thus understand its function. On the contrary, we think that other points of view are not only possible but even desirable. In particular, this is the case for teachers who are working in prisons. Although theoretically being able to offer an interesting complement to the functions of dissuasion and social rehabilitation that the prison fills with difficulty, the prison educational project constitutes a more or less marginalized activity which is brought down to the level of other penitentiary activities. At its highest degree, we are tempted to charge the prison with responsibility for it; and, in fact, a prison does have a certain liability in this matter. Initially conceived to neutralize criminals, it is difficult for the prison to educate them at the same time as pointed out by the sociology of organizations. This marginalization, we will see, is not solely that of the prison but also in the way in which the teachers perceive their work and the mandate which they assign themselves. Prison teachers have defined, for themselves, an ambitious mandate of modeling and remodeling the personalities of their delinquent pupils, a prerequisite, according to them, for a harmonious return to the community. It is an ambitious mandate for which they feel that they do not receive the respect they deserve. This situation is made all the more difficult because, as contractual workers for the majority, they are, in the eyes of the correctional staff, more or less objects of mistrust. This feeling is increased by the fact that the teachers, in order to carry out their work, develop a portrait of the delinquent and offence that is not very compatible with that which prevails in the prison environment. Thus, this marginalization as an organizational fact superimposes a self-marginalization, impossible to circumvent, which is true of the teachers themselves and which results in their attitude of detachment toward the prison. It is all the more paradoxical that the mandate the teachers give themselves, although they take great care to not say it, corresponds completely with that of the correctional project. Even though the prison is more preoccupied with the risk management of its prisoners rather than their social rehabilitation, it does have an interest in education in prison but only insofar as it merges with penitentiary ideology and contributes to a consolidated peace inside the walls made complicit by the teachers themselves. The latter are not easily deceived and object to this point of view and we may ask ourselves whether their criticism of the prison is simply because the prison does not provide them with the required space they believe they should occupy thus leaving them suspended in a vacuum that is the correctional system.