In the 27 years since the establishment of federal law mandating special
education, no state has been fully in compliance. In addition, the voices of school
personnel (special education teachers, speech and language pathologists, and school
psychologists) charged with implementing these laws and regulations have been
largely silent in the national research. A review of 1306 references concerning the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) did not find studies that
included these front line school district personnel who serve as "intermediaries"
and have responsibility to implement special education policy.
This is the first study that provided a forum for Oregon professionals to
share their concerns and suggestions regarding implementation of the IDEA. The
study went beyond the enumeration of noncompliance areas, asked questions about
why compliance is problematic, and compared what study participants view as
problematic to litigated areas at the Oregon complaint investigation and due
process hearing levels.
Multiple methods in the data collection process included surveys (n=169),
semi-structured interviews (n=11), and document analysis (n=147). To provide
baseline information, quantitative analysis provided ordinal ranking of responses
and statistical comparisons among participants from the different specialty areas,
different years of experience, and different district sizes. It also compared
participant responses to Oregon litigation. Part of the study used an exploratory and
descriptive approach to obtain accurate and thick description of participant
experiences.
Participants' rankings differed significantly from identified areas in the
literature and alleged violations brought in due process hearings and complaint
investigations. Participants ranked least restrictive environment and evaluation
concerns highest while the literature and reviewed litigation identified the
individualized education program as most problematic. Differences existed among
participants based on district size and their disciplines. No differences were found
based on experience.
A thorough review of policy and funding are indicated. Implications for
practice include increased focus on the emphasis of training programs and technical
support. Increasing placement options, consistency of information, streamlining of
the individualized education program, and assistance in the evaluation and
eligibility process are also needed. Because the study included participants from
Oregon, generalizability is limited to the state. / Graduation date: 2003
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ORGSU/oai:ir.library.oregonstate.edu:1957/30750 |
| Date | 08 July 2002 |
| Creators | O'Dell, Richard M. |
| Contributors | Cohen, LeoNora |
| Source Sets | Oregon State University |
| Language | en_US |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis/Dissertation |
Page generated in 0.0023 seconds