UVM Theses and Dissertations
Format:
Print
Author:
Wells, Vicki A.
Title:
Dept./Program:
College of Education and Social Services
Year:
2007
Degree:
Ed. D.
Abstract:
Prereferral intervention teams were developed in the 1980s in an attempt to decrease the numbers of students being referred to and found eligible for special education. Interventions through the prereferral process were designed to provide supports and services to an increasingly diverse student population within the general education system of supports without the high costs associated with special education (Bangert & Baumberger, 2001, p. 70; Buck, Polloway, Smith-Thomas, & Cook, 2003; Hartman & Fay, 1996; Pysh & Chalfant, 1997; Short & Talley, 1996; Weishaar, 2002).
Within Vermont, legislation enacted in the early 1990s established a similar prereferral model, requiring all schools to create teams known as Instructional Support Teams. The purpose of these teams was to increase the capacity of general educators to meet the needs of all students in the general education classroom, to the greatest extent possible. In addition, schools were required to establish Instructional Support Systems that defined services available to students who were in need of support but were not eligible for special education. The legislation was reauthorized in 1996, resulting in more comprehensive systems of support at the school level. Educational Support Systems (ESS) replaced Instructional Support Systems and Educational Support Teams (EST) replaced Instructional Support Teams.
Today's ESTs are challenged to support individual students while simultaneously building the capacity of teachers to help all children meet standards assessed at the local, state and national levels. The purpose of this study was to determine if the application of an action research model across three schools would lead to more consistent and effective participants. The study was designed utilizing an action research approach, as this strategy for change "enhances the motivation and efficacy" of teachers and allows them to "meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student body" (Sagor, 2000, p.9).
The study was conducted in three elementary schools within the same supervisory union. Participants in each school were asked to assess their ESTs using criteria set forth in a rubric that articulated promising practices related to leadership, collaborative problem-solving, and the use of data-based decision making. Each school then developed an action plan to improve two or more priority areas identified through the self-assessments. Participants were interviewed prior to the use of the rubrics and several months after the development of team action plans, for the purposes of eliciting their perceptions about effective team practices and changes occurring within their teams as a result of action planning. In addition, each EST was observed a minimum of two times.
A total of five themes emerged as a result of the analysis, including: 1) Defining effective educational support teams for improving student outcomes, 2) Creating effective team structures and formats, 3) Using collaborative problem solving to better idenify needs and strategies, 4) Leading for increased accountability and collaboration, and 5) Utillizing the rubric and action research strategies to assist in implementing change.
Results from the study will be helpful as we move forward in implementing requirements set forth in both the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004). The results will also provide local leaders with a model for effecting change through the use of rubrics and an action research approach.
Within Vermont, legislation enacted in the early 1990s established a similar prereferral model, requiring all schools to create teams known as Instructional Support Teams. The purpose of these teams was to increase the capacity of general educators to meet the needs of all students in the general education classroom, to the greatest extent possible. In addition, schools were required to establish Instructional Support Systems that defined services available to students who were in need of support but were not eligible for special education. The legislation was reauthorized in 1996, resulting in more comprehensive systems of support at the school level. Educational Support Systems (ESS) replaced Instructional Support Systems and Educational Support Teams (EST) replaced Instructional Support Teams.
Today's ESTs are challenged to support individual students while simultaneously building the capacity of teachers to help all children meet standards assessed at the local, state and national levels. The purpose of this study was to determine if the application of an action research model across three schools would lead to more consistent and effective participants. The study was designed utilizing an action research approach, as this strategy for change "enhances the motivation and efficacy" of teachers and allows them to "meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student body" (Sagor, 2000, p.9).
The study was conducted in three elementary schools within the same supervisory union. Participants in each school were asked to assess their ESTs using criteria set forth in a rubric that articulated promising practices related to leadership, collaborative problem-solving, and the use of data-based decision making. Each school then developed an action plan to improve two or more priority areas identified through the self-assessments. Participants were interviewed prior to the use of the rubrics and several months after the development of team action plans, for the purposes of eliciting their perceptions about effective team practices and changes occurring within their teams as a result of action planning. In addition, each EST was observed a minimum of two times.
A total of five themes emerged as a result of the analysis, including: 1) Defining effective educational support teams for improving student outcomes, 2) Creating effective team structures and formats, 3) Using collaborative problem solving to better idenify needs and strategies, 4) Leading for increased accountability and collaboration, and 5) Utillizing the rubric and action research strategies to assist in implementing change.
Results from the study will be helpful as we move forward in implementing requirements set forth in both the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004). The results will also provide local leaders with a model for effecting change through the use of rubrics and an action research approach.