Challenges of Urban Educators in Implementing State Standards for Students with Disabilities

Abstract

A lack of information, research, and teacher training exists on the effective implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) or other state standards for struggling learners. The pace and standardization of the curriculum are often at odds with the unique learning needs of students from diverse backgrounds. Researchers in one large urban school district conducted a series of focus groups with special educators to identify their perceptions of these standards and the training needs associated with effective implementation of the standards. The results revealed a pressing need for professional development to facilitate effective implementation of the standards for struggling learners in urban settings. Implications for teacher preparation and urban education are discussed.

Keywords

urban education accountability educational reform

For the first time in our nation’s history, national standards for K-12 education emerged in 2009, forcing schools around America to engage in planning, preparation, and implementation (Haager & Vaughn, 2013) of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). These standards were initially adopted by 45 states, with seven states removing the federal standards in favor of their own state standards by 2019. Standards (whether state or federal) generally outline the academic expectations for students and are meant to guide teacher instruction. Coupled with the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015), CCSS required states to adopt challenging academic standards to ensure that students graduating from high school are college or career ready. The standards brought an emphasis on developing students’ conceptual understanding as well as procedural skills to facilitate greater depth of comprehension and use. There is increased rigor of content and assessment of knowledge and application throughout a progression of standards across the grade levels (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), 2013). The (perhaps) unintended consequence of the implementation has resulted in other standardized practices such as mandated textbooks, district-wide curriculum pacing guides, and high-stakes state assessments which often ignore diverse pedagogical and instructional approaches, differentiation, individualization, and accommodations (Cramer et al., 2018).

This shift toward standardization of curriculum and pedagogy raises particular concerns for vulnerable populations such as students from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds and students with disabilities; in fact, Sleeter (2012) noted that the standardization movement has marginalized culturally responsive pedagogical approaches. These student subpopulations have persistently demonstrated achievement gaps that indicate more individualized teaching approaches may be warranted, particularly for diverse learners (Jozwik et al., 2018). Data from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) show that students with disabilities are performing on average about 31 points below their general education counterparts in mathematics and 42 points lower in reading. Similarly, Hispanic students continue to perform on average about 18 points below their White, non-Hispanic peers in mathematics and 21 points lower in reading. Black students continue to score about 25 points below their White peers in mathematics and 26 points below in reading (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019). The lack of closing of such gaps 10 years after the implementation of standards raises concerns about the efficacy of standardization for such groups.

One of the biggest concerns about the implementation of state standards is the preparation of educators to implement them, especially for struggling learners. Although some resources were created to guide implementation of the standards for struggling learners and/or students with disabilities (e.g., Armstrong, 2012; Bulgren et al., 2013; Dukes et al., 2017; Graham & Harris, 2013; Haager & Vaughn, 2013; Powell et al., 2013; Scruggs et al., 2013), these resources were not based on empirical research. Instead, the aforementioned resources were grounded in analysis of the demands of the standards and the alignment of evidenced-based practices (EBP) available at the time of their adoption. Limited research has examined teachers’ ability to implement these standards for students with disabilities. For example, a survey conducted in 2012 by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center (EPERC) about teachers’ views and preparation to implement the new standards had only one question of the 34 items addressing how teachers felt about their own preparation to implement these new standards to students with disabilities (EPERC, 2013). Results showed teachers scored an average of 2.7 on a 5-point scale to indicate their preparedness to teach students with disabilities, suggesting that teachers were less confident to teach the new standards to students with disabilities than students as a whole, which had an average of 3.4. However, these findings do not address the special education teacher’s perspective or awareness regarding students with disabilities using the standards to guide instruction. Further, per Corlett (2014), teachers who work with students with disabilities were concerned with the adaptability of and implementation of the standards for struggling learners.

Coupled with the lack of preparation of educators to implement standards is the reality that urban and high poverty schools with large populations of high needs students often struggle with a critical shortage of well-prepared and qualified teachers who possess skills to work with CLD learners or students with disabilities and to tackle the complexities of challenges of diverse and urban settings (Artiles et al., 2010). According to Bulgren et al. (2013), teachers had to make changes that were complex and challenging in order to implement the new standards. This could potentially put high need students at higher risk for having standards implemented in a way that addresses their needs. Overall, there was a delay in information, research, and teacher training outlining effective implementation of state standards for students with disabilities (Murphy & Marshall, 2015; Wexler, 2014).

The shift toward standardization of curriculum and pedagogy, the lack of preparation of educators to implement the standards, and the requirement that teachers make complex changes in order to implement them (Bulgren et al., 2013) combined with the requirement to increase the amount of time students with disabilities spend with their non-disabled peers and to improve their reading and mathematics proficiency levels (Florida Department of Education Bureau for Exceptional Education and Student Services [BEESS] SEA and LEA Profiles, 2019) raises challenges for schools to meet competing mandates. Teachers’ perceptions of the standards, particularly from those working with the most vulnerable of populations (Wexler, 2014), were largely absent from the process of creating the common core standards (Matlock et al., 2016). The recent ruling of Endrew F. v. Douglas Co. School District requires school districts to develop meaningful IEPs (Hedin & DeSpain, 2018) which necessitates research on the experiences, understandings and perceptions of all teachers to work with struggling learners.

Due to the limited information to support teachers with the implementation of state standards for struggling learners, researchers in this project worked collaboratively with a large urban school district in Florida to conduct a series of focus groups with special educators. The goal was to provide an opportunity for teachers to voice their perceptions of the state standards and to ascertain their perceived training needs to implement those standards effectively with their most vulnerable population of students. It should be noted that in Florida, state standards were required to be implemented in all public schools with all students in the 2014 to 2015 school year. The state quickly transitioned from using the Common Core to using their own modified version called the Florida Standards. Although the Florida Department of Education and other entities provided information related to the implementation of the standards with students, including those with the most profound disabilities (Access Project, 2014; Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013), a lack of information describing the special education teachers’ perspectives or understandings related to the implementation of the standards to guide their instruction with students with disabilities remains (Wexler, 2014). In February 2020, Florida’s governor eliminated the state’s version of the common core in favor of Benchmarks for Excellence Student Thinking (B.E.S.T.) Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics (Gov. DeSantis Says Common Core Eliminated in Florida, 2020). While B.E.S.T. Standards are notably clearer for parents and teachers, address struggling learners through 12th grade, and were created with a team of teacher stakeholders, the perspectives of urban and special educators implementing the new standards may not have been captured as there are large gaps in diversity among the many districts across the state.

Methods

Context and Participants

To capture the experience of teachers working with the vulnerable populations, this study took place across various schools within the fourth largest and among the most diverse urban school districts in the nation. At the time of this study, this large, diverse urban district served a total of 356,480 students: 7.3% White, Non-Hispanic; 69.2% Hispanic; 21.8% Black, Non-Hispanic; and 1.8% of “other” ethnicity. Spanish was the most commonly spoken language in the home and 74% of all students received free/reduced price lunch. The total number of students with disabilities in the district was 34,834. The teaching force mirrored the diversity of the student body with 81% of the full-time staff coming from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds. Of the 24,546 teachers employed by the district, 3,679 of them were special educators.

Researchers sought to examine special education teachers’ perceptions of the Florida Standards and of the training needed to implement the standards effectively with their students. Nine focus groups were conducted at various school sites throughout the north, central, and south areas of the county. Including participants from these large areas of the county helped to increase the diversity of the participants as well as the diversity of the student bodies they teach. Emails were distributed across the school district to all special education teachers inviting them to participate. Dates were scheduled across time and location and teachers were provided a $50 stipend in exchange for their participation in the focus group. Sessions took place after school in the afternoon allowing teachers from nearby schools enough time to get to the selected sites in time to participate. All teachers who wished to participate were given the opportunity to do so.

Seven researchers (one professor and six doctoral students) conducted the nine focus groups with teachers. The sample included 76 special education teachers who taught in elementary, middle, and high schools. Participants identified themselves in the following categories: 46% Hispanic, 32% White, 17% Black, and 5% biracial. For more information on the participants, see Table 1. The participants reported having teaching experience in inclusion classes and separate class settings, such as resource rooms. Teachers across the sample reported having experience teaching students with specific learning disabilities (SLD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disabilities (IND), emotional and behavioral disabilities (EBD), and varying exceptionalities (VE).

Table 1.

Teacher Demographics.

Race/ethnicity	%	N
Hispanic	46	35
White	32	24
Black	17	13
Biracial	5	4
Grade level taught
Elementary	42	32
Middle school	8	6
High school	34	26
Not available	16	12
Years of experience as educator
0–4	12	9
5–9	33	25
10–14	17	13
15–19	18	14
20–24	7	5
25+	13	10
Disabilities taught
SLD	66	50
ADHD/OHI	34	26
ASD	41	31
IND	30	23
EBD	28	21
SLI	17	13
VE	17	13
Other	22	17

Note. ADHD/OHI were classified together as in this district, ADHD is often labeled under OHI. Some teachers identified multiple disability labels in their response so numbers exceed 100%. SLD = specific learning disabilities; ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; OHI = other health impairments; ASD = autism spectrum disorders; IND = intellectual disability; EBD = emotional and behavioral disorders; VE = varying exceptionalities, a non-categorical class designation.

Data Collection and Analysis

The procedures for creating, implementing, and analyzing the focus groups followed the recommendations of Carey and Asbury (2012). The focus groups were conducted using a structured interview format lasting between 45 and 60 minutes. A protocol was developed and used as the guide for the sessions. The researchers utilized the protocol to open discussion and probe participants, however, the participants in the focus groups guided the discussion. All focus group discussions opened similarly with introductions and a brief overview of the study. Guiding questions were used to frame the discussion. Because probing questions and clarifying questions were used following the participants’ responses, not all questions were exactly the same between the various focus groups. Questions in the guiding protocol included: What are your thoughts on the new Florida Language Arts and Mathematics standards? What about for students with disabilities? How has your prior training or experience affected your ability to implement these standards? What types of supports do you feel you need to implement these standards for students with disabilities? What types of supports do you feel your students need? How well do the standards align with your students’ Individual Educational Plans (IEPs)? What do you think the implications of the implementation of these standards are for your students with disabilities?

The audio recordings for each of the sessions were transcribed, and transcripts were then analyzed and coded by the researchers. A team of at least three researchers examined each response to form consensus with interrater reliability around the selected codes. The codes were then analyzed for emerging themes, patterns, and concepts following a constant comparative analysis procedure (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007) to help build a composite description of teachers’ perceptions about the Florida Standards.

Results

The coding resulted in five themes that emerged from the analysis. These themes included: teacher concern over low student academic levels, the discrepancy between IEP goals and the Florida English Language Arts and Mathematics Standards, time management, concern about the quick transition to the Florida Standards, and lack of training for special education teachers in the implementation of the standards.

Concern Over Low Student Academic Levels

Overall, many teachers felt that their students were not academically prepared for the rigor of the Florida Standards, leading their students to feel frustrated and leading to a decrease in motivation levels. One teacher captured this by using her own students as an example.

I work with a very diverse population right now. I’m currently working with EBD but I also oversee ASD, IND and VE settings and the teachers. I help support besides my own classes. It depends on what component but a lot of the students, especially with the reading, they are having major issues because even of our higher scoring students, not counting our gifted or ASD, but I’m in a high school setting our students are reading 4 to 5 reading levels below what they are supposed to be. That is not including our students in our profound disabilities we are talking. But even our regular track students are nowhere near grade level so they are expected to comprehend read analyze material reading. It is like handing a first grader a 5^th grade level textbook. They are totally lost half the time. Those students who can read are able to spit it out but they retain nothing. The comprehension is not there because the material is far above their level.

Discrepancy between IEP Goals and Standards

Because many of their students were performing below grade level, their IEP goals were in line with their developmental needs and not necessarily corresponding to their grade-level standards as expected under IDEA 2004 (Caruana, 2015). Teachers, therefore, expressed their need for more guidance with how to teach the standards to their students whose achievement levels were significantly below the standards. Similar to Bartlett et al. (2015), teachers expressed concerns with how to address students’ individual needs as stated on their IEPs; moreover, teachers requested specific training on how to provide instruction that could meet both IEP goals and the Florida Standards.

The majority of teachers who participated in the focus groups taught students on a standard curriculum. The few teachers present who taught students on a modified curriculum (in this case, Access Points which are expectations designed for students with significant cognitive disabilities to access the standards) echoed the concerns of their colleagues. However, these teachers had an added concern:

I teach Access Points so for me it's been kind of crazy because we don't have any kind of curriculum supplies. We don't have textbooks. We have no documents. We have to make up curriculum. There is some on the website that we can Google. . .Google here, Google there. By that time you spend an hour trying to find a lesson plan that you can use for that class, I could have taught five lessons if I had a textbook . . .We used to have books that you could actually use. Right now I have to use a third grade book and a fourth grade book to get to what I'm required to teach but it's not an IND book so it's very frustrating for me. I waste time making lesson plans to try to hit the Access Points.

Time Management

As echoed by the last example, teachers also reported feelings of frustration regarding time management, particularly with maintaining the rigor of the curriculum and following the school district’s pacing guide (timelines dictated by the district for each subject showing what material should be covered within a given time frame). This is captured in an exchange between four teachers during one of the focus groups. One teacher stated, “I think, realistically, following the pacing guide sometimes is not realistic for our students. And I think we get pushed on that: ‘Oh, you’re not on pacing; you’re not on pacing.’ It’s called a guide for a reason, but they still push it really hard, so that when you fall behind . . . Like, we give them extended time on their IEP; that’s part of their accommodation. We need extended time to get through the pacing guide.”

Another teacher asked, “Do you think the county would give the special eds their own pacing guide? Because, like Mrs. M. was saying, I re-teach and re-teach. Do I keep up with the pacing . . .” The first teacher interrupted and answered, “No, because they’re on the standard diploma.” A third teacher continued the conversation by asking, “Do you teach until they get it, or do you teach until you’re supposed to move?” A fourth teacher answered, “No, we have to move on.” It was clear that the teachers felt pressure to keep to the pacing guide but couldn’t reconcile how to keep to this pace when their students were not ready to move on to new content.

Teachers, particularly special education teachers, are often in a quandary, as the teaching and learning process must move forward in spite of the little time available to understand a policy (Dukes & Darling, 2017).

Quick Transition

According to Bicehouse and Faieta (2017, p. 43) “students with disabilities have often been left behind in the advancement of American educational practices.” Many teachers reported that the transition to the new standards was sudden and difficult, and shared that it would have been better to transition the students at a slower pace, possibly creating two tracks. One teacher said,

I think we come from here to here too fast [the teacher was making a gesture with her hands one down low the other up high] of course all the kids are struggling because we used to prepare in one way, we prepare in a more thinking way, in a more out-of-the-box way and I think it's great but the transition was one step that was too much for the students.

While another teacher stated, “I agree with them in the sense that it was done too quickly. It was switched kind of just from 1 minute to the next. . .” The teachers’ main concern was for middle and high school students who, in some cases, followed less rigorous curricula prior to the change, which made it challenging to rise to the new rigor level of the Florida Standards

Lack of Training

Similar to the findings of Walker-Thompson (2014), a common concern shared by these teachers about the transition to the Florida Standards was that they had been provided a limited amount of training on how to implement the new standards, and none of the training they received was specifically designed for teaching students with disabilities.

Yeah, as teachers you’re learning as you teach. Because they give you something and it's like, you got to learn it, and then you got to teach it. And then you have someone else come in, from the district or wherever, and say, "No, you’re not teaching that right." Okay, well, it's not like y'all told me how to teach it. You just gave it to me and said they had to know it, so I'm teaching it as I think I need to be teaching it.

Across each of the themes, teachers expressed a negative view on the impact that the Florida Standards have had on special education students. Most teachers in this study believed that effective education for students with disabilities requires an individualized curriculum that is flexible and meets the specific needs of their students. They felt that the Florida Standards were too rigorous for students who are significantly below level in reading and mathematics. Students and teachers were often left frustrated with the high demands of the new standards. Further, the teachers felt that the new standards were too fast paced for their students, leaving little or no time to effectively teach the standards and meet the students’ individual goals. According to these teachers, their students require extended time to learn new material; however, the rigor of the pacing guides offers little time to meet the individual needs of their students. Finally, teachers expressed their concerns over the quick implementation of the new standards and their frustrations with the limited professional development opportunities offered to teach children with special needs. In fact, the teachers reported that they received no training, but were expected to effectively use the Florida Standards to teach their children.

Discussion

Responses from the teachers in this study demonstrated the necessity to implement IEP goals within the context of curricular pacing guides (Hedin & DeSpain, 2018), to implement educational accommodations in varying educational settings, and the need for differentiated training related to state standards (Leko et al., 2019; Love et al., 2020; Walker-Thompson, 2014). In order to adequately implement these standards and to keep up with curricular guides, special educators have reported finding themselves in a predicament. They find it challenging to collaborate with general education teachers in the implementation of regular standards with students with disabilities (Caruana, 2015; Van Boxtel, 2017). One special education teacher went as far as saying that there is resistance on the part of some general education teachers when it comes to implementing educational accommodations (Witmer et al., 2018). This refusal may be due in part to lack of information, adequate training and/or false perceptions on how to best address diverse learners in their classrooms (Jozwik et al., 2018).

Teachers’ responses indicated that most of the training to implement the Florida Standards focused mainly on preparing general education teachers without focus on how to accommodate for the individualized needs of diverse learners, echoing the findings of other current research (Hoover et al., 2019; Jozwik et al., 2018) including that on students with disabilities (Caruana, 2015; Van Boxtel, 2017). These results remain consistent with findings from the 2012 national teacher survey (EPEREC, 2013) which shows that this situation has not improved in the years since implementation. One possible solution may be providing extensive differentiated instruction training to educators in order to address individualization of instruction for students with diverse learning needs or for those with disabilities through IEP goal implementation (Van Boxtel, 2017) with follow-up to ensure that teachers are using the curricular pacing guides. Since pacing guides are instruments used by most school districts to implement standards, they must address the needs of all students through explicit examples, approaches, techniques, and strategies (Walker-Thompson, 2014).

Those who provide support and/or instruction to teachers and/or struggling learners in urban settings must have a meta-understanding of the purpose of accommodations. They must be able to implement accommodations within the context of subject specific (e.g., English Language Arts) classroom assignments, projects and activities. They must also have a deep enough understanding of the content and materials provided to understand how to differentiate the delivery to meet the needs of their diverse student population (Jozwiket al., 2018, Van Boxtel, 2017). They also must be able to do this in a culturally relevant manner (Aronson & Laughter, 2016). Additionally, it is imperative that teachers collaborate to provide meaningful instruction to students with disabilities (Da Fonte & Barton-Arwood, 2017) and struggling learners. More specifically, specially designed instruction for students with disabilities requires that special educators provide a level of continuous support to general education teachers in the form of targeted consultation and/or direct, systematic and explicit instruction if providing in-class support through collaborative models implemented with fidelity which will result in accountable differentiation of instruction.

Further, school districts should consider allowing for flexibility in both the implementation of the state or common core standards and in the pacing guide for students who struggle to keep up with academic content and pace (Dukes et al., 2017). This recommendation is made with the realization that states may place external pressures (e.g., established percentage of students with disabilities needing to meet proficiency on the standardized state assessments; increase the time students with disabilities are with their non-disabled peers) on districts that may limit flexibility in both of these measures (FLDOE, BEESS, LEA Profile, 2019; Meglemre, 2016). However, it should be noted that this was a strong sentiment of the teachers who participated in the focus groups. This is consistent with findings of a previous study of teachers experiences with implementation of CCSS across schools in North Carolina (Porter et al., 2015) in which timing and pace was a consistent concern among the participating teachers regardless of school type or amount of time and experience implementing the standards.

Implications for Urban Education and Society

As the landscape of public education has changed to meet the era of common standards, so must educator preparation programs change to ensure that teachers are best prepared to teach all students meeting accountability measures (Dukes & Darling, 2017; FLDOE, BEESS, LEA Profile, 2019). Educator preparation programs must be aligned to the new demands placed on teachers. These demands require that the programs emphasize the changing role of the teacher within the context of standards, and provide extensive training on collaboration, differentiated instruction, and accommodation implementation (Bicehouse & Faieta, 2017; Caruana, 2015; Dukes et al., 2017; Van Boxtel, 2017) all within the lens of using culturally relevant education to support evidence based instruction across content areas (Aronson & Laughter, 2016). The role of institutions of higher education in educator preparation must include their integrated partnerships with urban schools in the in-service of teachers to assist them in juggling the competing demands of implementing a standardized, rigorous, paced curriculum with the realities of the students sitting before them.

As the need for vulnerable populations of students has changed from one of having access to the curriculum to one of demonstrating proficiency with the new standards, the role of educators has changed. Educator preparation programs must provide training to special and general educators with an emphasis on collaboration to support struggling learners and ways in which to support student learning through direct, culturally responsive instruction to support students from vulnerable populations and assist them in accessing and mastering standardized content.

All educator preparation programs should now include a strong emphasis on differentiating instruction so that teachers are prepared to assist students of various abilities in meeting a set standard. Teachers must have depth and breadth of knowledge to “unpack” established standards (Access Project, 2014) and teach them in ways that are meaningful and understandable to students of various ability levels. Educators should also be prepared to provide instruction that takes into account the unique strengths, desires, and needs of diverse learners. Even standardized curricula can be made relevant to diverse learners by utilizing culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2013; Paris, 2012).

With the implementation of the standards and the stipulation that a percentage of students in subgroups need to achieve proficiency of the standards, accommodation implementation and documentation has become an ever-increasing need for teacher preparation programs to address. Educator preparation coursework must all integrate accommodation training so that educators at the preservice level have those skill sets developed (Bicehouse & Faieta, 2017). Within methodology courses, educator preparation programs must integrate the use of pacing guides, including the managing of instructional time so that they are able to address the needs of struggling learners within those parameters.

Further, universities should collaborate with local school districts, particularly in urban areas, to provide professional development to teachers in implementing standards with students with below grade level proficiencies. This collaboration will result in relationship building and growing awareness of the pragmatic demands placed on educators with respect to the implementation of the standards. This realization will result in partnerships to support schools and educators to positively impact the educational needs of diverse learners and to be allies in the challenges associated with urban education. In this era of implementation of state standards and of ever changing demographics within classrooms, a challenging transition has presented itself for teachers and students among the legal mandates of two antithetical core tenets of education: high expectations and addressing individual student needs. Because these standards are legally mandated by the majority of states, this challenge must be met so that all students, including those from diverse backgrounds and abilities, can be successful. Through partnerships between universities and public schools, educators who teach vulnerable populations can receive support and targeted, focused preparation both at the pre- and in-service levels to assist with the delicate balance between meeting the students’ needs and meeting the mandated rigorous benchmarks of the standards.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Elizabeth D. Cramer

Author Biographies

Dr. Elizabeth D. Cramer is a Professor of Special Education and the Graduate Program of the Department of Teaching and Learning and Florida International University. Her research is focused on the education of high-need children in inclusive urban settings including opportunity and achievement gaps; the intersection of race, culture, language, poverty, and ability; collaboration with diverse family and faculty; data-based decision making; and placement issues and educational outcomes for diverse learners.

Dr. Rosalia F. Gallo was employed for over 35 years in different capacities with Miami Dade County Public Schools; she was Instructional Supervisor in the Division of Exceptional Student Education for 20 years supervising programs for students with learning disabilities, inclusion, English learners with disabilities, and parentally placed private school students. She has been a consultant and co-author on various federally-funded educational projects and an adjunct at many local universities, including FIU where she has created and taught summer institutes related to intensive supports for culturally and linguistically diverse learners.

Dr. Catherine Salum is a practicing school psychologist who is dedicated to helping students with learning differences excel in their academic setting. She also teaches adjunct courses to graduate students who are interested in learning more about data collection, assessment and individualized instruction.

Dr. Lorena R. Munoz is a mathematics teacher to culturally and linguistically diverse students with disabilities at a public secondary school in Miami, Florida. Her research interests include teacher education, online education, and instructional practices that assist students with high-incidence disabilities to access the general curriculum in mathematics classes.

Dr. Cynthia Pellegrini Lafont is a special education and social studies teacher and has been teaching with Miami-Dade County Public Schools for 18 years. Her research interests focus on student engagement, dropout and dropout prevention particularly with respect to students with disabilities.

Dr. Belinda B. Baptiste has dedicated the past 24 years of her teaching career to improving the educational outcomes for students who have difficulty learning mathematics. Her research focus has also been on the successful inclusion of students with specific learning disabilities in general education classrooms and she is currently an instructional leader in the Miami Dade School District.

References

Access Project. (2014). Florida department of education. http://accesstofls.weebly.com/

Armstrong

(2012). Neurodiversity in the classroom: Strength-based strategies to help students with disabilities needs succeed in school and life. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Aronson

Laughter

(2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163–206. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582066

Artiles

A. J.

Kozleski

E. B.

Trent

S. C.

Osher

Ortiz

(2010). Justifying and explaining disproportionality, 1968–2008: A critique of underlying views of culture. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 279–299.

Bartlett

Otis-Wilborn

Sim

N. J.

(2015). CCSS: Rigor or righteousness in special education. Journal of Reading Education, 40(3), 23–30.

Bicehouse

Faieta

(2017). IDEA at age forty: Weathering common core standards and data driven decision making. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (Online), 10(1), 33–44. https://doi.org.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/10.19030/cier.v10i1.9878

Bogdan

R. C.

Biklen

S. K.

(2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.

Bulgren

J. A.

Graner

P. S.

Deshler

D. D.

(2013). Literacy challenges and opportunities for students with learning disabilities in social studies and history. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 6–16.

Carey

M. A.

Asbury

(2012). Focus group research. Left Coast Press, Inc.

10.

Caruana

(2015). Accessing the common core standards for students with learning disabilities: Strategies for writing standards-based IEP goals. Preventing School Failure, 59(4), 237–243.

11.

Corlett

A. L.

(2014). Teachers’ perceptions on the implementation of the common core standards in special education (Order No. 1525287). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (1529424956). http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/1529424956?accountid=6579

12.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). Common core state standards: Implementation tools and resources. Council of Chief State School Officers. http://ezproxy.fiu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1373087298?accountid=10901

13.

Cramer

E. D.

Little

Alvarez McHatton

(2018). Equity, equality, and standardization: Expanding the conversations. Education and Urban Society, 50(5), 483–501.

14.

Da Fonte

M. A.

Barton-Arwood

S. M

. (2017). Collaboration of general and special education teachers: Perspectives and strategies. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(2), 99–106.

15.

Dukes

Darling

S. M.

(2017). Common core state standards and students with severe disabilities: An introduction to the special issue. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(3), 139–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796917715408

16.

Dukes

Darling

S. M.

Bielskus-Barone

(2017). States’ description of common core state standards to support students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(3), 143–154.

17.

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2013). Findings from a national survey of teacher perspectives on the common core. Editorial Projects in Education. https://epe.brightspotcdn.com/f7/76/c5c15b2e46db9e4e5390ef6de28b/epe-survey-teacher-perspctives-common-core-2013.pdf

18.

The Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). Education Week, 35(14), 16–17.

19.

Florida Department of Education, Benchmarks for Excellence Student Thinking (BEST), Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics. (2020). http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/18736/urlt/StandardsOnePager.pdf

20.

Florida Department of Education, Bureau for Exceptional Education and Student Services (BEESS), & SEA and LEA Profiles. (2019). http://www.fldoe.org/academics/exceptional-student-edu/data/

21.

Gay

(2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12002

22.

Gov. DeSantis Says Common Core Eliminated in Florida (2020, February 7). https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/gov-desantis-says-common-core-eliminated-in-florida/2188104/

23.

Graham

Harris

K. R.

(2013). Common core state standards, writing, students with LD: Recommendations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 28–37.

24.

Haager

Vaughn

(2013). The common core state standards and reading: Interpretations and implications for elementary students with learning disabilities Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 5–16.

25.

Hedin

DeSpain

(2018). SMART or not? Writing specific, measurable IEP goals. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(2), 100–110. https://doi.org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1177/0040059918802587

26.

Hoover

J. J.

Erickson

J. R.

Patton

J. R.

Sacco

D. M.

Tran

L. M.

(2019). Examining IEPs of English learners with learning disabilities for cultural and linguistic responsiveness. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Wiley-Blackwell), 34(1), 14–22. https://doi.org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1111/ldrp.12183

27.

Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Education Act. Pub. L. No. 108–446, Part B (2004).

28.

Jozwik

S. L.

Cahill

Sánchez

(2018). Collaboratively crafting individualized education program goals for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 62(2), 140–148.

29.

Leko

M. M.

Handy

(2019). Literacy instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities: Examining teacher practice and preparation. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 17(1), 117–138.

30.

Love

T. S.

Roy

K. R.

Marino

M. T.

(2020). Inclusive makerspaces, fab labs, and STEM labs: How can instructors make appropriate accommodations and modifications while maintaining a safer teaching and learning environment for ALL students and themselves? Technology & Engineering Teacher, 79(5), 23–27.

31.

Matlock

K. L.

Goering

C. Z.

Endacott

Collet

V. S.

Denny

G. S.

Jennings-Davis

Wright

G. P.

(2016). Teachers’ views of the common core state standards and its implementation. Educational Review, 68(3), 291–305. https://doi.org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1080/00131911.2015.1070333

32.

Meglemre

(2016). Fair does not mean equal: Creating an inclusive environment for students with disabilities. Leadership, 45(5), 36–39.

33.

Murphy

M. R.

Marshall

K. J.

(2015). Common core preparation in special education teacher programs: Beginning the conversation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28(3), 167–185.

34.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). National Assessment of Educational Progress: An overview of NAEP. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

35.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2013). Common core mathematics. Solution Tree Press.

36.

Paris

(2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and Practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97.

37.

Porter

R. E.

Fusarelli

L. D.

Fusarelli

B. C.

(2015). Implementing the common core: How educators interpret curriculum reform. Educational Policy, 29(1), 111–139.

38.

Powell

S. R.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

(2013). Reaching the mountaintop: Addressing common core standards in mathematics for students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 38–48.

39.

Scruggs

T. E.

Brigham

F. J.

Mastropieri

M. A.

(2013). Common core state standards: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 28(1), 49–57.

40.

Sleeter

C. E.

(2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban Education, 47(3), 562–584.

41.

Van Boxtel

J. M

. (2017). Common core expertise for special education teachers: What do special education administrators think is important? Teacher Education Quarterly, 44(3), 57–73.

42.

Walker-Thompson

(2014). Special education teachers’ knowledge and use of brain-based teaching, common core state standards, formative feedback practices and instructional efficacy for the diverse learning needs of students in high and low proficiency groups (Order No. 3581567). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global: Social Sciences (1590933593). http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/1590933593?accountid=6579

43.

Wexler

(2014). Reaching higher? The impact of the common core state standards on visual arts, poverty and disabilities. Arts Education Policy Review, 115(2), 52–61.

44.

Witmer

Schmitt

Clinton

Mathes

(2018). Accommodation use during content area instruction for students with reading difficulties: Teacher and student perspectives. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34(2), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2017.1382407