Susan Fread Albrecht

Federal Policy on Disproportionality in Special Education: Is it Moving us Forward?

Monitoring requirements in the 1997 amendments to and 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) acknowledged the existence and extent of racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education, especially when, in 2004, Congress designated this concern among the top three priority areas for monitoring and enforcement of the law. However, federal interpretations of the 2004 requirements have created confusion at the State (SEA) and Local Education Agency (LEA) levels. This article analyzes data from state Annual Performance Reports to assess the progress made in identifying disproportionality. Though high levels of disproportionality remain, an increasing number of states are finding no LEAs with disproportionality when it must be shown that the disproportionality was caused by inappropriate identification. The analyses provided suggest that federal interpretations of IDEA 2004 have not been effective in addressing disproportionate representation in special education. Recommendations for improving policy to remedy this serious problem are provided.

Accountability and Access to Opportunity: Mutually Exclusive Tenets Under a High-Stakes Testing Mandate

Abstract The No Child Left Behind Act mandates that all students must be included in accountability assessments of educational progress. This article examines the undesirable social and vocational ramifications associated with the use of a single high-stakes test to assess the academic proficiencies of students with disabilities and the present discriminatory nature of the required performance on one standardized exam. Acceptable alternatives satisfy the requirement of accountability and ensure equal access to opportunity for students with disabilities in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner.

A School-wide Three-tiered Program of Social Skills Intervention: Results of a Three-year Cohort Study

The purpose of this paper was to summarize the implementation of a school-wide tiered intervention program in three Midwestern U.S. elementary schools over a period of three years. The program, Social Skills Training and Aggression Reduction Techniques plus Time-Away (STARTPlus) includes components of social skills training at the universal primary level, small group instruction at the targeted level, and individualized, intensive intervention in problem-solving and conflict resolution at the tertiary level. The effectiveness of the tiered program was assessed through measures of attendance, frequency of Time-Away referrals, frequency of disciplinary referrals, and levels of academic achievement. Results indicated significant increases in attendance, reductions in Time-Away and disciplinary referrals, and mixed results in academic achievement scores. Informal survey and anecdotal data indicated changes in the climate of the school. Implications for future research and limitations are included.

Combating the Attrition of Teachers of Students With EBD What Can Administrators Do

Students with emotional/behavioral disorders (EBD) can present intensive needs, requiring the intervention and instruction of well-trained and qualified teachers who work with them in the classroom. However, schools face serious shortages in the field of special education, particularly for staff who work with this population of children (McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, 2003; Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education, 2000; Texas Center for Educational Research, 2006). According to the U.S. Department of Education (2012), the current high-need fields in schools that serve low-income students include special education, with many states reporting shortages in the field of teachers working with students with EBD. School personnel not only must focus their efforts on the recruitment of special educators but must work to keep the individuals who are credentialed and performing well in the field.When factors can be identified that are associated with intent to stay in or leave the field, it is important to consider strengthening those positive factors and working to mini-mize or eliminate the negative factors. Support from principals of teachers has been cited as one of the most important factors for both general and special educators’ retention (Correa & Wagner, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2003). In 2007, the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders (CCBD) conducted a survey of school personnel working with students with EBD to determine the key fac-tors that result in their staying or exiting the field. The study revealed significant factors that determine whether teachers were likely to stay, although it should be noted that the sam-ple size was small and reflected only members of CCBD (Albrecht, Johns, Mounsteven, & Olorunda, 2009). Both positive (retention) and negative (resignation) factors Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com

New Direction for CCBD? Three Studies Examining the Future of the Organization.

To determine if its current mission and purpose are in line with contemporary issues in the field, the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders commissioned a 3-year project that included three separate but related studies. This article reports the results of each of those studies and suggests implications of these findings.

Time Away: A Skill-Building Alternative to Discipline

The time-away intervention model targets students in conflict with teachers or other students. The model features a 3-step intervention process: (a) time out, (b) redirection, and (c) conflict resolution. Schools that implement time away have documented an effective skill-building strategy for preventing the need for tertiary-level restrictive programming for students with emerging behavior problems.

CCBD's Position Executive Summary on School-Based Mental Health Services

[Image omitted: See PDF.]This document provides administrative recommendations of the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders (CCBD) regarding the need for school-based mental health services (SBMHS) in schools ([Kern et al., 2017]). It includes (a) an introduction, (b) key considerations for successful SBMHS, and (c) recommendations regarding local, state, and federal administrative guidelines. Examples of specific recommendations are designated by italics.Consistent and compelling evidence indicates that the mental health needs of our school-age population are not being met and there is a need for SBMHS (e.g., [Forness, Kim, & Walker, 2012]). Although mental health services may be available outside of the school setting, such services are rarely utilized (e.g., [Langer et al., 2015]). The consequences of insufficient mental health services have been chronicled for decades and can be seen in the form of poor educational attainment, juvenile delinquency, compromised physical health, substance abuse, underemployment, and ultimately premature mortality ([Brooks, Harris, Thrall, & Woods, 2002]; [Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2002]; [Ghandour, Kogan, Blumberg, Jones, & Perrin, 2012]). In addition, youth mental illness has been estimated to cost society approximately US

The ABCs of RTI: An Introduction to the Building Blocks of Response to Intervention.

247 million annually when factors such as health care, special education services, juvenile justice services, and decreased productivity are considered ([Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013]).In the last 20 years, media has highlighted instances of school violence ranging from bullying to drug distribution to mass shootings. Comprehensive SBMHS can provide the structure to facilitate early identification, prevention, and intervention to prevent escalation of mental health issues in a timely manner (e.g., [Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011]). SBMHS are effective for families and children from varied cultural backgrounds and result in increases in prosocial behavior, appropriate classroom behavior, and academic achievement of participating students (e.g., [Harry, 2008]).Keys to Effective SBMHSProgrammatic ConsiderationsAdministrative support is necessary to build infrastructure, ensure efficient allocation and use of resources, enhance implementation with fidelity, and facilitate organizational management. The use of evidence-based practices is a critical expectation of SBMHS in that instructional practices should be supported by high quality research that offers empirical demonstration of effectiveness ([Weist et al., 2014]). With a focus on prevention, the initiation or worsening of mental health challenges can be mediated ([Anello et al., 2016]). A preventive approach relies on instructional procedures that teach the skills needed for healthy development and positive social interactions. Curricular components of a tiered intervention delivery system help educators target specific instructional strategies to students at different levels of need. Any instruction or intervention should reflect culturally responsive practices, particularly as racial and ethnic disproportionality have been documented in identification, as well as the types and quality of school-based special education and mental health services for students with emotional disorders ([Clauss-Ehlers, Serpell, & Weist, 2013]). Such practices would include specific teacher training in culturally responsive pedagogy and positive support strategies.Schoolwide PracticesAn essential schoolwide practice is regular and universal screening of all students to identify those with and at-risk for mental health challenges, rather than waiting the estimated 8 to 10 years to provide services after symptoms of mental illness first appear ([Lane, Menzies, Oakes, & Kalberg, 2012]). In addition, it is critical that schools have crisis plans and procedures that (a) define the events that are crises, (b) identify and train a crisis team, (c) determine how to assess trauma levels, (d) delineate how to access resources and support, (e) specify reporting procedures, and (f) include review procedures. …

Reflections on the Future of Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders: A Response to Colvin, Forness, and Nelson.

The change in allowing school districts to use the more prevalent discrepancy model or the new addition of response to intervention to determine whether a disability is present has sparked discussion among educators. As districts decide which method to use, it is important to base decisions on factual and researched information. The authors hope to convey a clearer understanding of response to intervention, issues that still need to be addressed, and how the model could work. This piece includes an overview of response-to-intervention levels or tiers and what can occur for the student within each level. The advantages and current concerns are discussed as well as the quality of instruction that is needed for this model to be implemented effectively.

WORKING CONDITIONS AS RISK OR RESILIENCY FACTORS FOR TEACHERS OF STUDENTS WITH EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISABILITIES

* In issue 37(1) of Behavioral Disorders, we published the findings of three studies addressing the status of Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders (CCBD) as an organization and of the field of special education for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (E/BD). In order to continue discussion of the status of CCBD, the editors of Behavioral Disorders invited three distinguished scholars from the field - Geoff Colvin, Steve Forness, and Mike Nelson - to comment on the article.We are pleased to continue this dialogue. We are grateful for the comments by Colvin, Forness, and Nelson. Their compliments about our studies and their endorsement of our general ideas as well as their instantiation of specific recommendations are all appreciated. We urge readers to carefully review each of their perspectives in issue 37(1 ).In this paper, we highlight three topics on which we agree and about which we believe the CCBD Executive Committee (EC) needs to act. We also discuss the few inconsistencies between our findings and some of the recommendations of our distinguished colleagues, recognizing that these topics require further study. We begin with a discussion of the consistencies between our findings and the insights presented by Coivin, Forness, and Nelson on three issues: (a) the need for an organizational name change, (b) professional development, and (c) increased role in advocacy.Need for Organizational Name ChangeIn our studies, we found that a change in the name of the organization to one that recognizes emotional disability in addition to behavioral disorders was highly desirable. From our interviews and our survey data, we found that members believe that the field currently fails to sufficiently attend to students who display internalizing disorders to the extent that it addresses externalizing behaviors. This is seen as an important shortcoming of current services for students with E/BD, and a name change would at least acknowledge that CCBD is aware of the issue and is being responsive to member concerns. While Forness (201 2, p. 44) generally agrees, he suggests an alternative name (Council for Children with Mental Health Disorders) to our suggestion (Council for Children with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders) that reflected the majority response to the survey. We knew from the interview study that there were lead members of CCBD, including some members of our research team, who desired a shift to more of a mental health focus for the organization. We did include several possible name changes with a mental health focus in the survey, but a majority of the members in the survey rejected those options. We recognize that Colvin (201 2, p. 50) was less enthusiastic about a name change, but we believe that some of the other issues that we discuss later (i.e., advocacy, journal content, and conferences) will alleviate some of his concerns. Colvin also questions whether it is wise for CCBD to limit itself to students with E/ BD when students with other disabilities also experience behavioral challenges. We knew from the interview studies that some lead members of CCBD would welcome such a widening of purpose, but, once again, a majority of respondents desired a focus on the E/BD population.Professional DevelopmentOverall, our research found strong support for the organization to focus on the education component of services for children and youths with E/BD. Highlighting educational services (as opposed to addressing purely behavioral concerns) would give the organization a unique identity among professional organizations working on childrens mental health. We note that Nelson (2012, pp. 47-48) agrees on the importance of the topic and that Colvins comments regarding student learning (2012, p. 51) can be seen as additional support. Forness (2012, p. 44) also recommends that the organization conduct and disseminate periodic reviews of proactive practice. These recommendations are consistent with our findings that emphasize professional development opportunities to support practitioners in evidence-based teaching practices for students with E/BD, and we heartily endorse this and recommend it to the EC for action. …