State level curricular, assessment, and accountability policies, practices, and philosophies for exclusionary school settings
CITATION THUMBNAILS DOWNLOADS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00000471/00001
 Material Information
Title: State level curricular, assessment, and accountability policies, practices, and philosophies for exclusionary school settings
Series Title: Gagnon, J. C. (2010). State level curricular, assessment, and accountability policies, practices, and philosophies for exclusionary school settings. Journal of Special Education, 43, 206-219.
Physical Description: Journal Article
Creator: Gagnon, Joseph
 Notes
Abstract: The purpose of the current study was to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of state-level policies and practices concerning youth with disabilities in secondary day treatment and residential (DTR) schools, as well as juvenile correctional (JC) schools for committed youth. A survey of state directors of special education or their designees focused on curricula, assessment, and accountability in these school settings. State-level administrators from 49 states and the District of Columbia responded to mail and online surveys. They reported that approximately one third of DTR schools and half of JC schools used state or district curricula. Moreover, although most respondents noted that students should participate in state assessments, only one third noted that DTR or JC schools were supervised to a great extent to ensure the alignment of curricula and assessments. Implications for policy and practice and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Acquisition: Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Joseph Gagnon.
Publication Status: Published
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the submitter.
System ID: IR00000471:00001

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

( PDF )

( PDF )


Full Text


The Journal of Special Education
http://sed.sagepub.com



State-Level Curricular, Assessment, and Accountability Policies, Practices, and Philosophies for
Exclusionary School Settings
Joseph Calvin Gagnon
J Spec Educ 2010; 43; 206 originally published online Aug 12, 2008;
DOI: 10.1177/0022466908321442

The online version of this article can be found at:
http://sed.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/43/4/206


Published by:
Hammill Institute on Disabilities





and

*SAGE
http://www.sagepublications.com




Additional services and information for The Journal of Special Education can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://sed.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://sed.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


Downloaded from http //sed sagepub com by Joseph gagnon on January 30, 2010












State-Level Curricular, Assessment,

and Accountability Policies, Practices,

and Philosophies for Exclusionary


The Journal of Special Education
Volume 43 Number 4
February 2010 206-219
� 2010 Hammill Institute on Disabilities
10.1177/0022466908321442
http://journalofspecialeducation.sagepub.com
hosted at http://online.sagepub.com


School Settings


Joseph Calvin Gagnon
University of Florida


The purpose of the current study was to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of state-level policies and
practices concerning youth with disabilities in secondary day treatment and residential (DTR) schools, as well as
juvenile correctional (JC) schools for committed youth. A survey of state directors of special education or their
designees focused on curricula, assessment, and accountability in these school settings. State-level administrators
from 49 states and the District of Columbia responded to mail and online surveys. They reported that approximately
one third of DTR schools and half of JC schools used state or district curricula. Moreover, although most respondents
noted that students should participate in state assessments, only one third noted that DTR or JC schools were super-
vised to a great extent to ensure the alignment of curricula and assessments. Implications for policy and practice and
suggestions for future research are discussed.

Keywords: special education policy; jn . ,i . corrections; day treatment schools; residential schools


More than a decade has passed since the 1997
reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which spurred a
major shift in special education from a focus on
equity (e.g., funding, resources) and procedural com-
pliance to a concentration on student access to the
general education curriculum and educational out-
comes (McDonnell, McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997;
McLaughlin, 1999). As a result of IDEA, progress for
youth with disabilities was also "benchmarked
against a standard and publicly reported in the aggre-
gate" (Gagnon & McLaughlin, 2004, p. 264). This
shift away from the individualization of curricula and
outcomes for students with disabilities was intended
to provide increased access to and accountability for
learning the same demanding curricula as peers with-
out disabilities. Accountability for student learning
was promoted by the expectation that students with
disabilities would participate in district and state
assessments (National Information Center for
Children and Youth With Disabilities, 1998).
In the years that followed, the legislative trend contin-
ued to emphasize improved access to a rigorous educa-
tion and accountability for students with special needs.


The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; 2002)
amended Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965. It increased the focus on
accountability, in part, by expecting states to develop
standards that every youth should know and by which
they would be assessed (Yell, Shriner, & Katsiyannis,
2006). An important premise in NCLB is that all youth
(with the exception of a small number with significant
cognitive disabilities) could receive instruction on
grade-level curricula and be assessed against grade-level
achievement standards (Ratcliffe & Willard, 2006).
The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEIA; 2004) and the final IDEIA
(2006) regulations continued to support access to the


Author's Note: This research was funded by Grant
H324C030043 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. The views
expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the U.S.
Department of Education. I would like to thank Dr. James
McLeskey, Dr. Margaret McLaughlin, and Dr. Paula Maccini for
their comments and support. Correspondence concerning this arti-
cle should be addressed to Joseph Calvin Gagnon, University of
Florida, Department of Special Education, P.O. Box 117050,
Gainesville, FL 32611-7050; e-mail: jgagnon@coe.ufl.edu.


Downloaded from http //sed sagepub com by joseph gagnon on January 30, 2010







Gagnon / Exclusionary School Settings 207


general education curriculum, as well as provide
greater alignment with the assessment and account-
ability components of NCLB (2002). For example,
consistent with NCLB, the IDEIA regulations require
that (a) academic performance goals for youth with
disabilities be consistent with a state's definition of
adequate yearly progress (AYP), as well as goals and
standards that are established for youth in the state;
(b) students with disabilities participate in local edu-
cation agency (LEA) and state education agency
(SEA) assessments, as required by NCLB; and (c)
states annually and publicly report on the progress of
students with disabilities on established performance
indicators (Cortiella, 2006).
Both the 2004 reauthorization of IDEIA and
NCLB (2002) have led to significant challenges at the
school, LEA, and SEA levels. Information is greatly
needed at the school and LEA levels, because these
professionals are called on to enact policy within
their local contexts and often have a great deal of dis-
cretion with regard to the implementation of policies
(Weatherly & Lipsky, 1977). Research on a "bottom-
up" approach to policy analysis is one important
method to understanding implementation of educa-
tional reform. However, current educational demands
originated at the federal level, and leadership and
accountability for educational reform occur largely at
the state level (Minnici & Hill, 2007). As such, a
"top-down" approach, or analysis at the SEA level,
provides important insight into the complexity of
issues that affect educational policies and practices.
In addition to federal requirements for state leader-
ship, it is clear that SEAs are powerful in that they
control "substantial resources, regulate school adher-
ence to laws, and are dominant in the hierarchy of K-
12 education" (Hamman & Lane, 2004, p. 429).
Thus, it is evident that ensuring the appropriate inter-
pretation and implementation of educational reform
at the SEA level is of paramount concern.
Two types of schools that are in most need of SEA
leadership are day treatment and residential (DTR)
schools and juvenile correctional (JC) schools for
committed youth. In fact, compliance with IDEA/
IDEIA and NCLB are consistently noted as the most
significant issues facing these schools (Gagnon,
Barber, & Van Loan, 2008; Gagnon & McLaughlin,
2004; Gagnon, Van Loan, & Barber, 2008; Leone &
Meisel, 1997; National Association of State Directors
of Special Education, 1999; Wolford, 2000). Over
81% of JC and secondary DTR schools reported
accreditation by their state departments of education;


yet the principals of these schools noted little actual
oversight related to curricula, assessment, and
accountability (Gagnon, Barber, et al., 2008; Gagnon,
Van Loan, et al., 2008).
There are considerable complications with appro-
priately serving the approximately 144,000 youth
who are committed to out-of-home placements (e.g.,
secure care, group homes, rehabilitation programs)
and the more than 75,000 students with emotional
disturbance (ED) who are educated in DTR schools
(Snyder & Sickmund, 2006; U.S. Department of
Education, 1999, 2007). The diverse and specialized
needs of youth in these exclusionary settings result in
significant challenges to developing and sustaining a
quality education program (Carman, Dorta, Kon,
Martin, & Zarilli, 2004). For example, DTR schools
must balance therapy and education and deal with
pressure to reintegrate youth back to their home
schools (Carman et al., 2004). JC schools are also
faced with very real security issues that may conflict
with the scheduled school programs and services.
Many DTR and JC facilities attempt to balance com-
peting demands, but the result is often a neglect of
education and special education services (Gagnon &
Leone, 2005; Gagnon & Mayer, 2004).
Although certain complications do exist for DTR
and JC schools, recent research has shown that neither
length of stay nor degree of school focus on academics
is an issue that should affect the curriculum offered to a
majority of youth in either school setting. Specifically,
the results of two recent national studies of secondary
DTR and JC schools for committed youth indicated that
the average student length of stay is 15 months in DTR
schools, 20 months in residential placement, and 9.37
months in JC schools for committed youth (Gagnon,
Barber, et al., 2008; Gagnon, Van Loan, et al., 2008). As
such, students are enrolled for a sufficient amount of
time to complete grade-level coursework. Another pos-
sible complication is the existence of a school focus
other than assisting youth with obtaining high school
diplomas (e.g., vocational education, passing the
General Educational Development [GED] test). In fact,
national studies at both the LEA and school levels indi-
cated that with regard to DTR and JC schools, there was
an overwhelming agreement on the primary goal to
assist youth with obtaining high school diplomas.
Other complications to the provision of access to
the general education curriculum, the assessment of
student progress, and accountability for student learn-
ing are the characteristics of youth in DTR and JC
schools. In general education public schools, nearly


Downloaded from http //sed sagepub com by joseph gagnon on January 30, 2010







208 The Journal of Special Education


9% of students are classified with disabilities (U.S.
Department of Education, 2007). In a recent national
study, Gagnon, Van Loan, et al. (2008) reported that
approximately 95% of students in secondary DTR
schools were classified as special education. Within
JC schools, reports of the percentage of youth with
disabilities are hampered by poor child-find proce-
dures (i.e., schools are required to identify, locate, and
evaluate students with disabilities; Quinn, Rutherford,
Leone, Osher, & Poirier, 2005; U.S. Office of Special
Education Programs, 2008). Nevertheless, according
to two national studies, an average of 30% to 44% of
youth receive special education services and in some
states, the rate exceeded 75% (Gagnon, Barber, et al.,
2008; Quinn et al., 2005).
More specifically, of students with disabilities in
public schools, approximately 8.0% are classified
with ED and another 47.4% with a learning disability
(LD) (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). In con-
trast, of students with disabilities in secondary DTR
schools, 67% have ED and 10% have LD (Gagnon,
Van Loan, et al., 2008). In JC schools, more than 42%
are classified with ED, and another 42% are classified
with LD (Gagnon, Barber, et al., 2008; Quinn,
Rutherford, & Leone, 2001; Quinn et al., 2005; U.S.
Department of Education, 1999). The high percentage
of youth with ED and LD in JC and DTR schools
complicates school-level educational outcomes, given
the poor academic achievement and mental health
issues of these students (Newcomer, Barenbaum, &
Pearson, 1995; Oseroff, Oseroff, Westling, & Gessner,
1999; U.S. Department of Education, 2007; Wagner,
Kutash, Duchnowski, Epstein, & Sumi, 2005).
In light of the unique needs of youth in DTR and
JC schools and current IDEIA (2004) and NCLB
(2002) policies, it is important to understand state-
level approaches to curricula, assessment, and
accountability. The current national study of SEA
directors of special education or their designees pro-
vides a timely state-level study specifically focusing
on the serious concerns with policies, practices, and
philosophies with regard to these schools.

Purpose
The purpose of this study was to address the fol-
lowing questions concerning SEA policies for DTR
and JC schools:

1. What is the basis of curriculum? (e.g., "Which best
describes the curricular policy?")


2. What are respondents' views toward curricula? (e.g.,
"Should grade-level expectations apply?" "What is
the primary responsibility of these schools?")
3. What are respondents' views toward student partic-
ipation in state assessments? (e.g., "Should students
participate in state assessments?")
4. What are the state-level assessment and account-
ability policies? (e.g., "To what extent are these
schools supervised to ensure the alignment of cur-
riculum and state assessments?" "How are sec-
ondary schools held accountable for student
learning?" "Which best describes how results of
state assessments are reported?")


Method

Instrumentation
Given the demands on state directors of special
education, the survey was designed to address each of
the research questions in as brief a manner as possible.
As such, forced-choice answers were used with the
option of writing in an "other" response for several
questions. Options for each question were developed
using federal law and related research. Three proce-
dures were followed to increase the validity of the sur-
vey instrument: (a) Initial questions were based on
previous surveys of LEA directors of special educa-
tion, as well as principals of DTR and JC schools (see
Gagnon, 2008; Gagnon, Barber, et al., 2008; Gagnon,
Haydon, & Maccini, 2008a, 2008b; Gagnon, Van
Loan, et al., 2008); (b) the survey was reviewed by an
advisory group consisting of university professors in
the field of special education who had expertise in
special education policy, educational outcomes, and
juvenile corrections; and (c) the survey was provided
to a state director of special education, who provided
additional feedback on its focus and clarity, the appro-
priateness of the questions, and the alignment of the
survey questions and the research questions.
Reliability checks were conducted on data entry for
100% of questions on all 50 returned surveys.
Reliability was calculated by dividing the number of
agreements by the number of agreements and disagree-
ments and multiplying by 100%. Data entry
reliability was 98.6%. All discrepancies in data entry
were reviewed and addressed. Also, a multiple-step
process was used to code responses to open-ended sur-
vey questions (i.e., those with "other" response choices;
Fink, 1995). First, participants' responses were catego-
rized and coded independently by the researcher and an


Downloaded from http //sed sagepub com by joseph gagnon on January 30, 2010







Gagnon / Exclusionary School Settings 209


assistant. Second, coding reliability was determined on
100% of responses to ensure that each response was
assigned to the correct category. Additionally, during
the second stage, categories were identified for adjust-
ment, and additional categories were added, as needed.
Third, responses were independently recorded and com-
pared; agreement was 100%. The total number of
responses in each category was then calculated.

Data Collection and Response Rate
The current study surveyed state directors of special
education or their designees in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia. Participants could complete the
hard copy of the survey or an identical online version.
State directors were instructed to base their responses
to the questions on SEA policies and practices con-
cerning secondary-level (i.e., Grades 7 to 12) JC and
DTR school settings. Specific procedures were con-
ducted to increase response rate and minimize nonre-
sponse error, based on the work of Heberlein and
Baumgartner (1978). First, an increased number of
contacts has been shown to increase response rates. As
such, an initial letter was sent to directors, and three
survey mailings were completed. Follow-up phone
calls and e-mails were also completed for nonrespon-
dents after each mailing. Government sponsorship has
also been identified as increasing response rate. Both
the funding agency and participating universities were
noted on all survey materials. Responses included 39
hard-copy and 11 electronic surveys. Directors from
49 states and the District of Columbia responded, for a
total response rate of 98.04%. The single state that did
not respond to the survey is a midsized state with a per-
centage of students classified with disabilities and a
percentage of students in separate school settings that
are consistent with national averages.

Data Analysis
Data analysis included descriptive statistics (i.e.,
frequency, percentage, mean, and standard devia-
tion). For questions that asked respondents to answer
"all that apply," only frequency data were calculated.

Results

SEA Director Characteristics
To identify the general backgrounds of respon-
dents, two questions focused on their current and
previous employment. When asked to identify their
current positions, respondents identified that they


were state directors (n = 27), assistant state directors
(n = 4), or other designees (n = 19). The "other"
category consisted of coordinators (n = 5), consul-
tants (n = 4), and senior administrators (e.g., section
chiefs, managers; n = 10).
Only those respondents who noted they were cur-
rently state directors of special education (n = 27)
were requested to answer the question of how many
years they had been in the current SEA. Of state
directors of special education, 62.96% (17 of 27) had
been directors in their current state for 5 years or less,
with 11 having been in their current position for 1
year or less. The average number of years at their cur-
rent position was 5.77 (SD = 6.005). The question
concerning total years as director in any SEA took
into consideration all respondents, given that any one
may have been a director at some time. It is important
to note that not all respondents answered this ques-
tion. Of respondents, 52% reported having been SEA
directors for 5 years or less (13 of 25). Additionally,
the mean number of years as a director in any SEA
was 7.42 (SD = 7.613).

Curricular Policy, Practice, and Philosophy
Respondents were asked to identify the basis of DTR
and JC curricular policy. Concerning the curricular poli-
cies of DTR schools, 42.55% (n = 20) of respondents
noted that schools used LEA- or SEA-approved curric-
ula (see Table 1), and 23.40% (n = 11) of SEAs did not
have policies. In seven cases, respondents answered
"other" for the question concerning the approach to cur-
ricula for DTR schools. However, each of these "other"
descriptions was consistent with existing categories and
was integrated into these choices. Regarding JC
schools, 56.25% (n = 27) of respondents reported that
the curricular policies for JC schools were based on
LEA- or SEA-approved curricula (see Table 1). An
additional 10.42% (n = 5) of SEAs did not have poli-
cies. Eight respondents answered "other" as the basis
for curricular policies in JC schools. However, each of
these was also consistent with existing categories.
Respondents were also asked whether grade-level
expectations should apply to every student with ED
or LD in DTR and JC schools for committed youth.
Concerning DTR schools, 82.98% (39 of 47)
responded that grade-level expectations should apply.
With regard to JC schools for committed youth,
81.25% (39 of 48) of respondents asserted that grade-
level expectations should apply.
Participants ranked (i.e., most important, impor-
tant, or least important) their schools' primary


Downloaded from http //sed sagepub com by joseph gagnon on January 30, 2010







210 The Journal of Special Education


Table 1
Curricular Policy and Philosophy


Characteristic


Students in DTR schools
Which best describes the curriculum policy for DTR schools?
Schools use state curriculum
Schools use LEA curriculum
Schools develop their own school wide
Schools use student IEPs to determine curriculum
Schools individualize each student's curriculum, but not based on IEP
Our SEA does not have a policy
Don't know
Other
Should grade level expectations apply to every student with ED or LD in DTR schools?
Yes
No
Students in JC schools
Which best describes the curriculum policy for youth in JC schools?
Schools use state curriculum
Schools use LEA curriculum
Schools develop their own school wide
Schools use student IEPs to determine curriculum
Schools individualize each student's curriculum, but not based on IEP
Our SEA does not have a policy
Don't know
Other
Should grade level expectations apply to every student with ED or LD in JC schools?
Yes
No


Note: DTR = day treatment and residential; ED = emotional disturbance; IEP = individualized educational program; LD = learning dis-
ability; LEA = local education agency; JC = juvenile correctional; SEA = state education agency.


responsibilities from a list that included helping
students earn high school diplomas, pass the GED
test, or obtain vocational education. In JC schools,
both students with ED and LD were included within
the question (see Table 2). However, because of the
high percentage of youth with ED in DTR schools,
participants were asked to rank their schools' primary
responsibilities solely for students with ED. The pri-
mary responsibility reported for assisting youth with
ED in DTR schools was to help them earn high
school diplomas, with 86.96% (n = 40) rating it as
most important. The next most highly rated response
was to help students earn GED diplomas, with
55.56% (n = 25) reporting that it was important.
Respondents reported eight other priorities. However,
few patterns were apparent in these responses, which
included addressing emotional, behavioral, and treat-
ment needs (n = 2); that priorities were based on


individual needs or individualized educational programs
[IEPs] (n = 2); that all choices were equally important
(n = 1); combined vocational training and GED
preparation (n = 1); that the schools did not offer credit
or diplomas (n = 1); and workplace skills (n = 1).
The primary responsibilities reported for assisting
youth with ED or LD in JC schools were similar, in
that 89.13% (n = 41) reported helping youth earn high
school diplomas as most important. The next priority
was helping youth earn GED diplomas: 66.67% (n =
30) noted that it was important. Additionally, seven
respondents reported other priorities. However, no pat-
terns were apparent in these responses, which included
addressing emotional needs (n = 1), that all choices
were equally important (n = 1), that priorities were
based on individual needs or IEPs (n = 2), combined
vocational training and GED preparation (n = 1), occu-
pational diploma (n = 1), and workplace skills (n = 1).


Downloaded from http //sed sagepub com by joseph gagnon on January 30, 2010


n (%)


8 (17.02)
12 (25.53)
8 (17.02)
6 (12.77)
1 (2.13)
11 (23.40)
1 (2.13)
0 (0)

39 (82.98)
8 (17.02)


12 (25.00)
15 (31.25)
8 (16.66)
5 (10.42)
0 (0)
5 (10.42)
3 (6.25)
0 (0)

39 (81.25)
9 (18.75)







Gagnon / Exclusionary School Settings 211


Table 2
Responsibility for Student Learning
Characteristic n (%)

Students with ED in DTR schools
High school diploma
Most important 40 (86.96)
Important 2 (4.35)
Least important 4 (8.69)
GED diploma
Most important 2 (4.44)
Important 25 (55.56)
Least important 18(40.00)
Vocational education
Most important 3 (6.98)
Important 17 (39.53)
Least important 23 (53.49)
Students with ED or LD in JC schools
High school diploma
Most important 41 (89.13)
Important 1 (2.17)
Least important 4 (8.70)
GED diploma
Most important 3 (6.67)
Important 30 (66.67)
Least important 12(26.66)
Vocational education
Most important 5 (11.63)
Important 15 (34.88)
Least important 23 (53.49)
Note: DTR = day treatment and residential; ED = emotional
disturbance; GED = General Educational Development; LD =
learning disability; JC =juvenile correctional.


Assessment and Accountability

Study participants were asked four questions con-
cerning state assessments and accountability policies
and philosophies for secondary students in DTR
schools (see Table 3). When queried whether students
should participate in state assessments, all respon-
dents (n = 49) answered "yes." Respondents also
reported the extent to which DTR schools are super-
vised to ensure the alignment of curricula and state
assessments, and only 27.66% (n = 13) reported
supervision to a great extent. When asked to list all the
policies that applied for holding secondary DTR
schools accountable for student learning, the most
common responses were student participation rates on
state assessments (n = 30) and scores on state assess-
ments (n = 29). Respondents also had the option of
writing in responses for the methods for holding
schools accountable. The most common "other" com-
ment was that state assessments were reported to
home districts (n = 8). In the final question concerning


DTR school policy, participants were asked how the
results of state assessments were reported for students
with disabilities in these schools (see Table 3).
Respondents marked all options that applied. A con-
sistent number of respondents noted that results were
reported at the school level, to the LEA as part of
aggregate data, to the state as part of aggregate data, to
individual parents or guardians, and to students' home
schools and LEAs.
Respondents also noted assessment policies for
students committed to JC schools (see Table 4).
Specifically, 98% (48 of 49) noted that students
should participate in state assessments. However,
when asked which best described the extent to which
JC schools were supervised by the SEAs to ensure
that their curricula were aligned with state assess-
ments, only 31.25% (n = 15) reported supervision to
a great extent. Participants were also asked about the
policies for holding JC schools accountable for
student learning. The most frequent responses were
the use of student participation rates on state assess-
ments (n = 27) and the use of student scores on state
assessments (n = 26). Concerning the reporting of
state assessment data for youth with disabilities in JC
schools, several approaches were reported an approx-
imately equal number of times, including that results
were reported at the school level, to the LEA as part
of aggregate data, to the state as part of aggregate
data, and to individual parents or guardians.


Discussion

As a result of IDEIA (2004) and NCLB (2002),
SEA directors of special education have the tremen-
dous challenge of ensuring adherence to federal law
while maintaining practical considerations for DTR
and JC schools. The current article reports on the first
national study focusing on the approaches that direc-
tors or their designees use to address the potentially
competing demands between federal requirements and
SEA curricular, assessment, and accountability poli-
cies, practices, and philosophies for DTR and JC
schools. Given the leadership role of SEAs (Hamman
& Lane, 2004), the state-level approach used in the
current study supplies vital information. However, the
results do not allow for direct statements of policy
implementation at the LEA or school level, where pro-
fessionals enact policy within their local contexts
(Weatherly & Lipsky, 1977). As such, the results of the
current study are discussed in light of national LEA
(Gagnon, 2008) and school-level studies in JC schools


Downloaded from http //sed sagepub com by joseph gagnon on January 30, 2010







212 The Journal of Special Education


Table 3
Assessment and Accountability in Day Treatment and Residential (DTR) Schools
Practice or Policy


Extent to which DTR schools are supervised by the SEA to ensure that their
curriculum is aligned with state assessments
Not at all
Very little
Somewhat
To a great extent
Don't know
Policy for holding DTR schools accountable for student learning
Student participation rates on state assessments
Scores on state assessments
Improvement on state assessment scores
Attendance
Schools are not included in state accountability processes
Don't know
Other
Should students in DTR schools participate in state assessments?
Yes
No
Policy for reporting of state assessment data for youth with disabilities in DTR schools
Results are reported at the school level
Results reported to the LEA as part of aggregate data
Results are reported to the state as part of aggregate data
Individual results are reported to individual parents/guardians
Results are reported to student's home school and LEA
Results are not reported
Don't know
Note: LEA = local education agency; SEA = state education agency.
a. Respondents answered "all that apply," so percentages could not be calculated.


(Gagnon, Barber, et al., 2008; Gagnon, Haydon, et al.,
2008a) and secondary DTR schools (Gagnon, Haydon,
et al., 2008b; Gagnon, et al., 2008). Consistency or a
lack thereof between SEA, LEA, and school levels
does not necessarily imply that SEA policies, prac-
tices, and philosophies translate into local policies and
practices. However, LEA and school-level information
and the degree of consistency with SEAs provide an
important context in which to consider the current
results (Weatherly & Lipsky, 1977). Additionally,
youth enrolled in DTR and JC schools are clearly
among the most volatile in society and have some of
the most complex needs. The challenges of educating
these youth are tremendous, as issues of disability are
combined with concerns with students' mental health,
drug abuse, and histories of abuse and neglect. With
these considerations in mind, the discussion addresses
(a) curricular policies, practices, and philosophies;
(b) assessment policies and philosophies; and (c)
accountability policies.


Curricular Policies, Practices,
and Philosophies

In the current study, related to curricula, it was
determined that (a) SEAs commonly lack curricular
policies for DTR and JC schools or allow schools to
develop their own curricula, (b) the pervasive philos-
ophy toward DTR and JC schools was that they were
to help students earn high school diplomas, and (c)
grade-level expectations should apply to youth in JC
and DTR schools.
Approximately one third of SEA directors identi-
fied that DTR and JC schools rely on school-devel-
oped or individualized curricula. Additionally,
directors reported that 10% of JC schools and 23% of
DTR schools had no policies regarding what these
schools should use as a basis for their curricula. The
present results indicate that SEA directors may
be struggling to combine individualization for a
unique student population with NCLB and IDEA


Downloaded from http //sed sagepub com by joseph gagnon on January 30, 2010


n (%)


4(8.51)
12 (25.53)
16 (34.04)
13 (27.66)
2 (4.26)

30
29
19
16
12
4
14

49 (100)
0(0)

23
21
25
23
23
4
3







Gagnon / Exclusionary School Settings 213


Table 4
Assessment and Accountability in Juvenile Correctional (JC) Facility Schools for Committed Youth


Practice or Policy


n (%)


Extent to which JC schools are supervised by the SEA to ensure that their
curriculum is aligned with state assessments
Not at all
Very little
Somewhat
To a great extent
Don't know
Policy for holding JC schools for committed youth accountable for student learning
Student participation rates on state assessments
Scores on state assessments
Improvement on state assessment scores
Attendance
Schools are not included in state accountability processes
Don't know
Other
Should students in JC schools participate in state assessments?
Yes
No
Policy for reporting of state assessment data for youth with disabilities in JC schools
Results are reported at the school level
Results reported to the LEA as part of aggregate data
Results are reported to the state as part of aggregate data
Individual results are reported to individual parents/guardians
Results are reported to student's home school and LEA
Results are not reported
Don't know
Note: LEA = local education agency; SEA = state education agency.
a. Respondents answered "all that apply," so percentages could not be calculated.


2 (4.17)
9 (18.75)
20 (41.66)
15 (31.25)
2 (4.17)

27
26
18
13
12
5
16

48 (98.00)
1 (2.0)

23
19
25
21
18
4
2


requirements that promote a common rigorous cur-
riculum for all students. The absence of specific
guidelines at the upper levels of the educational hier-
archy was noted by Weatherly and Lipsky (1977)
more than 30 years ago, and the issues remain. The
researchers also reported that the lack of clear poli-
cies resulted in wide variations of implementation,
and that concern also remains. At the local levels,
even more LEA directors of special education
reported a lack of reliance on LEA or SEA curricula,
indicating that almost 50% of DTR schools and 37%
of JC schools based curricula on school-developed or
individualized curricula (Gagnon, 2008). A higher
level of individualization also occurs at the school
level, compared with the SEA level. At the school
level, approximately one third of DTR and JC school
principals reported school-developed or individual
student needs as the basis for curricula (Gagnon,
Barber, et al., 2008; Gagnon, Van Loan, et al., 2008).
Across the SEA, LEA, and school levels, a discour-
agingly high percentage of DTR and JC schools


appear to be developing or individualizing curricula
rather than providing students with access to more
standard SEA or LEA curricula. The major concern
with using school-developed or individualized curric-
ula is that they may not provide students access to the
general education curricula appropriate for their ages
and grades and consequently might affect students'
performance on mandatory state assessments.
The breadth and coherence of curricula are also of
concern, given that some states, LEAs, and schools
reported a reliance on student IEPs as one approach
to individualizing student curricula in DTR and JC
schools. The inappropriate use of an IEP to develop a
curriculum may inhibit full student access to the gen-
eral education curriculum. As Gagnon and
McLaughlin (2004) noted, "an IEP is not a curricu-
lum nor can an IEP define a scope and sequence or
the performance expectations of a general education
curriculum" (p. 278).
The potentially inconsistent provision of rigorous
and age-appropriate curricula in DTR and JC schools


Downloaded from http //sed sagepub com by joseph gagnon on January 30, 2010







214 The Journal of Special Education


can affect the future postschool success of students
with and without disabilities. For example, lack of
access to and participation in higher level mathemat-
ics courses and the associated lack of challenging
math content may adversely affect students' achieve-
ment and limit their future career choices (Horn &
Carroll, 1997; Maccini & Gagnon, 2002). Second, the
increasing emphasis on state assessments necessitates
an alignment between curricula and assessments.
Concerning both JC and DTR schools, the primary
purpose noted by respondents was overwhelmingly to
help students with ED or LD earn a high school
diploma. However, respondents also noted that with
regard to JC schools, helping students with ED or LD
earn a GED was an important responsibility.
Similarly, recent research at the LEA (Gagnon, 2008)
and school levels has indicated that principals of DTR
and JC schools overwhelmingly reported that the pri-
mary goal for students with ED or LD was to earn
high school diplomas (Gagnon, Barber, et al., 2008;
Gagnon, Van Loan, et al., 2008). However, the limited
educational, post-exit, and postschool outcome data
make it difficult to conjecture as to the appropriate-
ness of this philosophy, particularly within DTR
schools. Surely, within the context of NCLB (2002)
and IDEIA (2004), the emphasis on assisting students
with earning high school diplomas is aligned with fed-
eral laws. What remains unknown is when and how
states can and should provide more functional alterna-
tives, especially for older youth who have few credits.
A variety of educational options may be necessary,
given that only half of youth who exit juvenile correc-
tions return to high school (Griller-Clark, Rutherford,
& Quinn, 2004; LeBlanc & Pfannenstiel, 1991).
Issues related to the perceived responsibility of
DTR and JC schools extend beyond the SEA level and
include federal policy, as it applies to students in these
unique settings. No information is available concern-
ing educational and post-exit outcomes of secondary
youth in DTR schools. However, data exist to illustrate
the complications of educating youth in JC schools and
the concerns with current federal laws. For example,
despite the emphasis of IDEA (1997) and NCLB
(2002) on student access to the general education cur-
riculum, there is convincing evidence of the positive
effects of vocational education or a GED program
while confined in JC schools (Black et al., 1996;
Corbett, Clark, & Blank, 2002; Wagner, 1991).
Moreover, 40% of students with ED in public schools
(students who are overrepresented in both DTR and JC


schools) have a goal to acquire postsecondary voca-
tional training (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
Another 44% of students with ED have a goal to attend
a 2- or 4-year college. However, only 11% actually
take college entrance exams (U.S. Department of
Education, 2006). Yet, the benefits of vocational edu-
cation and GED preparation must be tempered with
appropriate access to the general education curriculum
and ability for youth to earn high school diplomas.
Researchers (Bullis & Yovanoff, 2006) caution that the
sole focus on job skills is insufficient. As such, clear
federal requirements within IDEIA (2004) and NCLB
(2002) are needed to guide SEAs as they attempt to
provide a variety for pathways for youth with disabili-
ties in DTR and JC schools to ensure that they receive
the education that is most relevant and practical
(Wagner & Davis, 2006).
Over 80% of respondents in the current study
noted that grade-level expectations should apply to
youth in JC and DTR schools. The high percentage
contrasts with decreasing percentages across LEA
directors of special education and school principals.
Specifically, approximately 50% of LEA directors
asserted that grade-level expectations should apply in
both DTR and JC schools, whereas 33% of principals
in DTR and 46% of JC principals had the same phi-
losophy (Gagnon, 2008; Gagnon, Barber, et al., 2008;
Gagnon, Van Loan, et al., 2008). The common SEA
philosophy is aligned with NCLB (2002) and IDEIA
(2004). However, in light of the potential lack of
access to an appropriate curriculum (i.e., an LEA- or
SEA-based curriculum), as well as contrasting views
among LEA directors and principals, there is a dis-
tinct possibility that youth in these facilities may be
placed at a significant educational disadvantage.
IDEIA includes support for the provision of grade-
level expectations to every student with disabilities in
DTR and JC schools for committed youth. As such,
SEAs should ensure that students are granted appro-
priate access to education that is consistent with peers
in public schools via communication and oversight of
schools, as well as ensuring that a consistent and rig-
orous curriculum is offered to youth.


Assessment and Accountability
The key findings concerning SEA approaches to
assessment for youth in DTR and JC schools are that
(a) almost all respondents noted that students commit-
ted to JC facilities or in DTR schools should participate


Downloaded from http //sed sagepub com by joseph gagnon on January 30, 2010







Gagnon / Exclusionary School Settings 215


in state assessments, and (b) almost two thirds of DTR
and JCF schools were supervised by the SEAs to ensure
the alignment of curriculum and state assessments not
at all, very little, or somewhat. It is interesting to note
that in other research, approximately the same number
of LEA directors of special education asserted that
students in DTR and JC schools should participate in
state assessments (Gagnon, 2008). However, concern-
ing both participation and supervision, approximately
25% to 30% fewer principal held the same views as
SEA directors (Gagnon, Haydon, et al., 2008a, 2008b).
Currently, the effects of the disconnect between SEA
directors and principals is unclear. Moreover, there is an
inconsistency between SEA directors' views of student
participation in state assessments and their views of
whether grade-level expectations should apply to all
youth with ED or LD in DTR and JC schools. It is
unknown if state-level respondents' views that some
students should not be provided grade-level expecta-
tions but that students should participate in state assess-
ments actually translate to a change in curricular
expectations for these youth.
It is troublesome that DTR and JC schools are rarely
adequately supervised to ensure that the schools align
curricula and state assessments. The lack of monitor-
ing is a major concern, particularly when considering
the widespread acknowledgement that adherence to
federal education reform is, perhaps, the most pressing
issue for DTR and JC schools (Gagnon & McLaughlin,
2004; Leone & Meisel, 1997; National Association of
State Directors of Special Education, 1999; Wolford,
2000). State-level monitoring is a complex issue.
States are being asked to take on additional responsi-
bilities with decreased funding and staffing, as well as
a lack of guidance and technical support from the
Department of Education (Minnici & Hill, 2007).
There are experts who advocate for a move away from the
compliance and monitoring focus of SEAs and toward a
relationship with schools and LEAs that is more assis-
tive and collaborative (David, 1994). However, there is
a pervasive lack of provision of adequate educational
and special education services in DTR and JC schools,
despite the fact that approximately 80% reported SEA
accreditation (Gagnon, Barber, et al., 2008; Gagnon,
Van Loan, et al., 2008). As such, the widespread non-
compliance of schools to the requirements of IDEIA
(2004) and NCLB (2002) necessitates a continued
focus on monitoring. Clearly, success with added
responsibilities for the ongoing monitoring of DTR
and JC schools would require additional staff members
and a moratorium on budget cuts for SEAs, which have


been pervasive over the past several years (Minnici &
Hill, 2007).
Important trends concerning SEA accountability
policies for DTR and JC schools were evident from the
current study: (a) The most common responses for poli-
cies that hold secondary DTR and JC schools account-
able for student learning were student participation
rates on state assessments and scores on state assess-
ments, and (b) common methods for reporting results of
state assessments included several approaches (e.g.,
results are reported at the school level, to the LEA as
part of aggregate data, to the state as part of aggregate
data, and to individual parents or guardians). SEA poli-
cies concerning accountability are consistent with
NCLB reporting guidelines (Palmer & Barley, 2008),
as well as the views of LEA directors of special educa-
tion and principals (Gagnon, 2008; Gagnon, Haydon,
et al., 2008a, 2008b). Interestingly, many more LEA
directors and principals did not know how secondary
DTR and/or JC schools were held accountable or the
common methods for reporting state assessment
results, indicating significant gaps in communication
across the SEA, LEA, and school levels.
It is encouraging that students' scores are com-
monly the basis of holding schools accountable and
that public reporting exists for JC and DTR schools in
many states. However, it is recommended that, con-
sistent with general state policies, all states publicly
report all statewide assessment data (VanGetson &
Thurlow, 2007) and that the data include students in
both DTR and JC schools. It is also positive that there
were a variety of appropriate methods used for
reporting the assessment results of students in DTR
and JCF schools. However, there were no more than
25 SEAs enacting any particular method of reporting.
In other words, the most common method, reporting
results to the state as part of aggregate data, was
noted by only half of respondents. The lack of consis-
tent and appropriate policies for reporting state
assessment results risks excluding youth in DTR and
JC schools from accountability systems.


Limitations
A limitation of the current study is the level of
depth that can be provided from a survey. However,
the data provide the first national picture of curricu-
lar, assessment, and accountability policies, practices,
and philosophies at the state level concerning DTR
and JC schools. Although limited in scope, this
research provides a critical starting point for the


Downloaded from http //sed sagepub com by joseph gagnon on January 30, 2010







216 The Journal of Special Education


understanding and analysis of the reasons for and the
actual implementation, effectiveness, and appropri-
ateness of policies, practices, and philosophies. SEA-
level data are also particularly relevant when
considering the various consistencies and inconsis-
tencies with national data on LEA and principal
views. Additional research is needed to develop a
more in-depth understanding of curricula, assess-
ment, and accountability within these exclusionary
settings in the context of current general and special
education reform at the SEA level and across the
SEA, LEA, and school levels.
Another limitation is the fact that surveys were
completed by both state directors of special education
(n = 27) and their designees (n = 23). There is a pos-
sibility that some of the responses may have varied,
particularly for the questions that asked for more
philosophical responses (e.g., "Should grade level
expectations apply?" "What is the primary responsi-
bility of these schools?" "Should students participate
in state assessments?").

Implications

Future research. There is an ongoing need to com-
prehensively identify state-level approaches to the
education of youth in DTR and JC schools. Long-
standing concerns have existed that the most unstable
youth are placed at further risk because of a lack of
access to an appropriate education. The current study
provides the first look at how state-level officials
view curricula, assessment, and accountability for
youth in these settings. However, the results point
toward the need for additional research. Specifically,
follow-up surveys that include both open- and closed-
ended questions with SEA directors of special educa-
tion and other high-level state education officials are
needed to provide additional detail concerning the
complex issues of curricula, assessment, and account-
ability for DTR and JC schools. In particular, it would
be interesting to identify the extent to which common
student characteristics such as disability, mental dis-
orders, problems with drug abuse, and histories of
abuse and neglect are taken into consideration when
developing, implementing, and evaluating policies
for DTR and JC schools. Additionally, studies are
needed that include educators and administrators
across levels of the educational system (i.e., the SEA,
LEA, school, and teacher levels) to identify the extent
to which there is alignment in policies, practices, and
philosophies. Furthermore, it is important to assess


how and how well information is transmitted across
the SEA, LEA, school, and teacher levels.
Researchers should also use a variety of method-
ological approaches, including interviews to triangu-
late survey data, as well as to obtain a more in-depth
understanding of the reasoning on which certain poli-
cies, practices, and philosophies are based. Interviews
of Department of Education officials would also pro-
vide key information concerning the extent to which
SEA directors of special education are provided with
comprehensive and ongoing information concerning
federal requirements, support with enacting federal
law, and information on effectively evaluating imple-
mentation within DTR and JC schools.

Policy. Federal policies must be based on a consid-
eration of the unique educational situation in DTR
and JC schools. As such, several recommendations
for both policy analysis and change are provided:

* Without further discussion, it is premature to iden-
tify specific changes needed in IDEIA (2004) and
NCLB (2002) concerning curricula, assessment, and
accountability for youth with and without disabili-
ties in DTR and JC schools. However, experts in the
field should begin discussion of how federal require-
ments can be adjusted to take into account the high
percentages of youth with disabilities, significant
mental health issues, and problems with drug abuse
in DTR and JC schools. These issues can have a pro-
found impact on students' ability to participate and
be successful in state assessments.
* SEAs should have specific policies and hold DTR
and JC schools accountable for relying on LEA- or
SEA-approved curricula to maintain a degree of
consistency, ensure student access to the general
education curriculum, and increase the likelihood
that youth will have the necessary skills to pass state
assessments.
* Federal policies should provide guidance to SEA
directors of special education concerning when it is
appropriate to provide access to a general education
curriculum and at what point it is appropriate to
offer GED training and vocational education focus
for students in these schools.
* It is important that DTR and JC schools be held
accountable for student learning. However, criteria
for AYP may need to be adjusted for these settings.
For example, it is rare that the same students are in
a facility from 1 year to the next (see Gagnon,
Barber, et al., 2008; Gagnon, Van Loan, et al., 2008).
Moreover, the issue of AYP is complicated for facil-
ities in which students and parents or guardians are


Downloaded from http //sed sagepub com by joseph gagnon on January 30, 2010







Gagnon / Exclusionary School Settings 217


not able to exert their right to school choice if, for
example, a JC school fails to make AYP
* Clear policies and procedures, as well as the com-
prehensive implementation of an accreditation
process, are needed to monitor progress and hold
schools accountable, particularly in light of the fact
that approximately 80% of DTR and JC schools
reported SEA accreditation (Gagnon, Barber, et al.,
2008; Gagnon, Van Loan, et al., 2008) and that many
SEA directors of special education noted a lack of
monitoring.
* SEAs should require all JC and DTR schools to
report assessment results at the LEA and SEA levels,
to each student's home school, and to the school the
youth is attending (Gagnon & McLaughlin, 2004).

Practice. In addition to recommendations for pol-
icy, the current study brings to light implications for
practice:

* Until the time that federal law is modified to accom-
modate the varied needs of DTR and JC schools,
SEAs must be held accountable for ensuring the
implementation of IDEIA (2004) and, as appropriate
(i.e., those states receiving federal dollars), NCLB
(2002) in their states. Moreover, federal officials
must develop a series of sanctions, as well as persua-
sive collaborative efforts, to ensure that SEAs moni-
tor and insist on the appropriate implementation of
federal law at LEA and school levels (Manna, 2006).
* States must monitor LEAs, as well as DTR and JC
schools, to ensure that youth are provided appropri-
ate curricula, that they are participating in state
assessments, and that assessment results are appro-
priately reported. Schools that do not meet minimum
expectations should face consequences consistent
with all public schools in the state.
* SEA directors should support student access to
grade-level curricula. Almost all respondents
asserted that students should participate in state
assessments. However, only 80% of respondents in
the current study asserted that grade-level expecta-
tions should apply to youth with high-incidence dis-
abilities in DTR and JC schools. Access to
grade-level general education curricula requires the
use of research-based instructional strategies and
adaptations. The implementation of empirically val-
idated instructional practices is supported within
IDEIA (2004) and should be a consistent emphasis
of SEA directors of special education as a necessary
approach that will allow youth with ED and LD to
access grade-level general education curricula.
Without appropriate access to the general education
curriculum, it is clear that youth in these facilities


are placed at a significant disadvantage concerning
state assessments.
* The practice of using student IEPs as the curriculum
should be discontinued. Moreover, the use of individ-
ualized curricula that are not aligned with grade-level
expectations should not be considered as a statewide
approach to educating youth with disabilities in DTR
and JC schools. In light of the long-standing con-
cerns with the education of youth in exclusionary set-
tings, it is appropriate for these schools to use LEA-
or SEA-developed curricula. The use of LEA or SEA
curricula will ensure a degree of access to the general
education curriculum and linkage between curricula
and state assessments.



Conclusions

The current study provides an initial look at the
views of SEA directors of special education or their
designees toward curricula, assessment, and account-
ability for youth in DTR and JC schools. Previous
concerns that exclusionary settings are operating out-
side of the typical school oversight mechanisms are
confirmed, in many instances, by the present study
(Gagnon, 2008; Gagnon, Barber, et al., 2008;
Gagnon, Van Loan, et al., 2008). SEA directors of
special education are challenged to ensure the appro-
priate implementation of current educational reform
while considering complications inherent in exclu-
sionary school settings. Students' educational
progress, students' mental health, and security con-
cerns are among the issues that may affect the imple-
mentation of NCLB (2002) and IDEIA (2004). The
relationship of these variables to policies, practices,
and philosophies requires additional research.
However, there is a clear need for a comprehensive
discussion and consideration of federal law, if we are
to expect SEA special education directors to appro-
priately deal with the complex educational needs of
youth in DTR and JC schools. Additionally, directors
must be adequately informed and use this information
to develop and maintain a comprehensive plan for
monitoring the education of youth in these settings.
Moreover, SEAs should receive necessary funding,
staffing guidance, and technical support from the
Department of Education (Minnici & Hill, 2007).
There is a tremendous risk that many youth in JC and
DTR schools, particularly those with ED and LD,
will have poor academic and social outcomes if they
are excluded from educational reform efforts. As


Downloaded from http //sed sagepub com by joseph gagnon on January 30, 2010








218 The Journal of Special Education


such, it is the responsibility of SEA directors of spe-
cial education to provide the leadership necessary to
ensure that students in exclusionary settings are
included and provided the support necessary for long-
term success and integration into society.


References

Black, T. H., Brush, M. M., Grow, T. S., Hawes, J. H., Henry, D.
S., & Hinke, R. W., Jr. (1996). Natural Bridge transition pro-
gram follow-up study. Journal of Correctional Education, 47,
4-12.
Bullis, M., & Yovanoff, P. (2006). Idle hands: Community
employment experiences of formerly incarcerated youth.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14, 71-85.
Carman, G. O., Dorta, N., Kon, D., Martin, J., & Zarilli, M. A.
(2004). Special education in residential treatment. Child and
Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics ofNorth America, 13, 381-394.
Corbett, W. P, Clark, H. B., & Blank, W. (2002). Employment
and social outcomes associated with vocational programming
for youths with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral
Disorders, 27, 358-370.
Cortiella, C. (2006). NCLB and IDEA: What parents of students
with disabilities need to know and do. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
David, J. L. (1994). Transforming state education agencies to
support education reform. Washington, DC: National
Governors Association.
Fink, A. (1995). How to analyze survey data. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Gagnon, J. C. (2008). Local education agency curriculum,
assessment, and accountability policies, practices, and
philosophies for exclusionary school ..ii,1. Unpublished
manuscript.
Gagnon, J. C., Barber, B. R., & Van Loan, C. L. (2008). Juvenile
correctional schools: Characteristics and approaches to cur-
riculum. Unpublished manuscript.
Gagnon, J. C., Haydon, T., & Maccini, P (2008a). Juvenile cor-
rectional schools: Assessment and accountability policies and
practices. Unpublished manuscript.
Gagnon, J. C., Haydon, T., & Maccini, P (2008b). Secondary day
treatment and residential schools: Assessment and account-
ability policies and practices. Unpublished manuscript.
Gagnon, J. C., & Leone, P. E. (2005). Elementary day and resi-
dential schools: Characteristics and entrance and exit policies.
Remedial & Special Education, 26, 141-150.
Gagnon, J. C., & Mayer, M. (2004). Educating juveniles with dis-
abilities in correctional settings. In L. M. Bullock, R. A.
Gable, & K. J. Melloy (Eds.), F,;ii CCBD mini-library series
(pp. 1-59). Arlington, VA: Council for Children With
Behavioral Disorders.
Gagnon, J. C., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2004). Curriculum, assess-
ment, and accountability in day treatment and residential
schools. Exceptional Children, 70, 263-283.
Gagnon, J. C., Van Loan, C. L., & Barber, B. R. (2008).
Secondary day treatment and residential schools for students
with emotional and behavioral disorders: Characteristics and
approaches to curriculum. Unpublished manuscript.


Griller-Clark, H., Rutherford, R. B., & Quinn, M. M. (2004).
Practices in transition for youth in the juvenile justice system.
In D. Cheney (Ed.), Transition of students with emotional or
behavioral disabilities from school to community: Current
approaches for positive outcomes (pp. 247-262). Arlington,
VA: Division for Career Development and Transition/Council
for Children With Behavioral Disorders.
Hamman, E. T., & Lane, B. (2004). The roles of state departments
of education as policy intermediaries: Two cases. Educational
Policy, 18, 426-455.
Heberlein, T. A., & Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting
response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analy-
sis of the published literature. American Sociological Review,
43, 447-462.
Horn, L. J., & Carroll, C. D. (1997, October). Confronting the
odds: Students at risk and the pipeline to higher education
(Statistical Analysis Report NELS:88/94). Washington, DC:
National Center for Educational Statistics.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 USC 1401 et seq.
(1997).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L.
No. 108-446 (2004).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 34
CFR Parts 300 and 301 (2006).
LeBlanc, L. A., & Pfannenstiel, J. C. (1991). Unlocking learning:
Chapter 1 in correctional facilities. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
Leone, P. E., & Meisel, S. (1997). Improving educational services
for students in detention and confinement facilities.
Children's Legal Rights Journal, 17(1), 2-12.
Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2002). Perceptions and application
of NCTM's standards by special and general education
teachers: Implications for practice for secondary students with
emotional and learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68,
325-344.
Manna, P (2006). Control, persuasion, and educational account-
ability: Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act.
Educational Policy, 20, 471-494.
McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (Eds.) (1997).
Educating one & all: Students with disabilities and standards-
based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
McLaughlin, M. J. (1999). Access to the general education cur-
riculum: Paperwork and procedure or redefining "special edu-
cation." Journal of Special Education Leadership, 12(1), 9-14.
Minnici, A., & Hill, D. D. (2007, May). Educational architects:
Do state education agencies have the tools necessary to imple-
ment NCLB? Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
(1999). Students with disabilities in juvenile justice programs:
Directions for federal support (Proceedings of Project
FORUM at National Association of State Directors of Special
Education). Alexandria, VA: Author. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED428492)
National Information Center for Children and Youth With
Disabilities. (1998). The IDEA amendments of 1997. News
Digest, 26, 1-40.
Newcomer, P L., Barenbaum, E., & Pearson, N. (1995).
Depression and anxiety in children and adolescents with
learning disabilities, conduct disorders, and no disabilities.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 3, 27-40.


Downloaded from http //sed sagepub com by joseph gagnon on January 30, 2010








Gagnon / Exclusionary School Settings 219


No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat.
1425 (2002).
Oseroff, A., Oseroff, C. E., 1\ .1!.i. D., & Gessner, L. J. (1999).
Teachers' beliefs about maltreatment of students with emo-
tional/behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24,
197-209.
Palmer, E. A., & Barley, Z. A. (2008). What states can learn
about standards and assessment systems from No Child Left
Behind documents and interviews with Central Region assess-
ment directors (Issues & Answers Report REL 2008-No. 036).
Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/central/
pdf/REL_2008036.pdf
Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., & Leone, P. E. (2001). Students
with disabilities in correctional facilities. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED461958)
Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., Leone, P. E., Osher, D. M., &
Poirier, J. M. (2005). Youth with disabilities in juvenile correc-
tions: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 71, 339-345.
Ratcliffe, K. G., & Willard, D. T. (2006, Summer). NCLBA and
IDEA: Perspectives from the field. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 39(3), 1-16.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile iT...,i.. and
victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). T7......i , i annual report
to congress on the implementation of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. Jessup, MD: Education
Publications Center.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Twenty-sixth annual
report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. Jessup, MD: Education
Publications Center.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Twenty-seventh annual
report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. Jessup, MD: Education Publications
Center.


U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (2008). Child find.
Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.childfindidea.org/
VanGetson, G. R., & Thurlow, M. L. (2007). Nearing the
target in disaggregated subgroup reporting to the public on
2004-2005 assessment results (Technical Report 46).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Wagner, M. (1991). The lbntcfifr of secondary vocational educa-
tion for young people with disabilities: Findings from the
National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education
Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Wagner M., & Davis, M. (2006). How are we preparing students
with emotional disturbance for the transition to young adult-
hood? Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition
Study-2. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14,
86-98.
Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., Epstein, M. H., &
Sumi, W. C. (2005). The children and youth we serve: A
national picture of the characteristics of students with emo-
tional disturbances receiving special education. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13, 79-96.
WV iild.', R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street level bureaucrats and
institutional innovation: Implementing special education
reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 171-197.
Wolford, B. I. (2000). Juvenile justice education: Who is educat-
ing the youth? Richmond: Training Resource Center, Eastern
Kentucky University.
Yell, M. L., Shriner, J. G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2006). Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 and
IDEA regulations of 2006: Implications for educators, admin-
istrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children,
39(1), 1-24.

Joseph Calvin Gagnon, PhD, is an assistant professor of special
education at the University of Florida. His current interests
include curricular, assessment, and accountability policies and
practices in psychiatric schools and juvenile correctional schools.


Downloaded from http //sed sagepub com by joseph gagnon on January 30, 2010




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2011 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated May 24, 2011 - Version 3.0.0 - mvs