Determining the Most Appropriate Classroom Structure to Increase Academic Growth for Students with Autism Performing Two Years or More Behind Grade Level

This is a comprehensive study to determine the most appropriate classroom structure to increase academic growth for students with Autism performing two years or more behind grade level. Using experimental design, two classrooms were compared using multiple assessment tools and classroom based observations to identify the impact class size, student to teacher ratio, and environmental factors have on student performance. A group of twenty students pmiicipated in the study and academic growth was monitored over the course of one school year. For language mis and mathematics, ten students received academic suppmi in a small classroom setting of ten students. The other ten students were placed in a general classroom with seven additional peers for a class size of seventeen students. Through this study, it was found that class size and student to teacher ratio impacted the amount of time each classroom spent on standards based instruction and IEP goals. This directly impacted student results on standards based assessments and progress towards mastering IEP goals. Over the course of a year, students in the small classroom setting made similar or more growth than students in the larger classroom setting; justifying the need to keep this unique classroom structure to benefit academic growth for students performing significantly below grade level.

Determining the Most Appropriate Classroom Structure to Increase Academic Growth for Students with Autism Performing Two Years or More Behind Grade Level By Ashley Pamp Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education in Special Education in the Graduate College ofWestminster College, 2015 Salt Lake City, Utah APPROVAL of a thesis/project submitted by Author's Name _(:......~:......~-1-...:..-l L;;...-=1=-..Jj_'PJ_A_/'1_}_:)_. ------------ SchooVDepartment ·uE:=:·.PARTN£1\}T- OF EbL~C_A77DN J)t:::rGRNI /VI/\JGr THL HO"vT- I+PPieoPJ<.IA-TL CLJ).s&b{CC0/'-1 • . • , 7'YtlZucTUR£. TD i;UCRJ!./1S'C- ftcfJ-'I>CJ'-flc_ Cr-R(fJUJlrl RJR Tttle ofThests/ProJect S7J)T>Ct'-Jrs (?')tn-t fh.)n<;;N ?E!KEoRHitVCr TWo vfiJtrGS OR 1'-(oiZE ~H!r0J) &!Gfl"iY_ L£LicG· J The above named master's thesis/project has been read by each member of the supervisory committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English useage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the Westminster College Library. Date Chairperson, Supervisory Committee Date Member Date Member Date 2 ABSTRACT This is a comprehensive study to determine the most appropriate classroom structure to increase academic growth for students with Autism performing two years or more behind grade level. Using experimental design, two classrooms were compared using multiple assessment tools and classroom based observations to identify the impact class size, student to teacher ratio, and environmental factors have on student performance. A group of twenty students pmiicipated in the study and academic growth was monitored over the course of one school year. For language mis and mathematics, ten students received academic suppmi in a small classroom setting of ten students. The other ten students were placed in a general classroom with seven additional peers for a class size of seventeen students. Through this study, it was found that class size and student to teacher ratio impacted the amount of time each classroom spent on standards based instruction and IEP goals. This directly impacted student results on standards based assessments and progress towards mastering IEP goals. Over the course of a year, students in the small classroom setting made similar or more growth than students in the larger classroom setting; justifying the need to keep this unique classroom structure to benefit academic growth for students performing significantly below grade level. 3 To my family for their ongoing love and support 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project would not have been made possible without the support of the people who encouraged me tln·oughout my Masters program. Many thanks to my adviser, Peter Ingle, who helped me revise, edit, and finalize my thesis. Also, thanks to my professors Shamby Polycln·onis and Nancy Garr-ison, who offered their guidance and support. And finally, thanks to my husband, family, and friends who endured this long process with me, always offering love and suppmi. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 8 1.1: STATEMENT OF TOPIC AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......... 8 1.2: STATEMENT OF RESEARCHER ........................................ 10 1.3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ........................................... 12 1.4: POTENTIAL SIGNIFCANCE AND LIMITATIONS ................... 13 CHAPTER2: LITERATURE OVERVIEW ............................................. 15 2.1: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ................................................. 15 2.2: COGNITIVE PROCESS OF STUDENTS WITH AUTISM ............ 17 2.3: INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PLAN ................................ 18 2.4: CLASS SIZE ................................................................... 23 2.5: ABILITY GROUPING ....................................................... 24 2.6: DISCUSSION .................................................................. 27 CHAPTER 3: METHODS .................................................................. 28 3.1: APPROACH AND RATIONALE .......................................... 28 3.2: SETTING ....................................................................... 28 3.3: PARTICIPANTS .............................................................. 29 3.4: DATA GATHERING METHODS AND RATIONALE ................ 30 3.5: DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................... 31 3.6: V ALIDTY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS ................................. 32 3.7: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .... 33 6 CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.1: STUDENT GROUPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.2: NORM-REFERENCED ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 36 4.3: CLASSROOM ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4.4: DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 50 CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS AND RECCOMMENDATIONS ................. 52 5.1: IMPLICATIONS............................................................. 52 5.2: RECCOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ...... 54 5.3: FUTURE SUGGESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59 APPENDIXA .............................................................................. 64 APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 65 7 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Statement of Topic and Research Questions The purpose of this study was to examine academic growth for students diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) who were performing below grade level, and to determine if cunent classroom size, student to teacher ratio, and other environmental factors contribute to an increase in academic growth for this population. An expected outcome was to decide if current placement practices within the school setting should remain in effect or if changes need to be made in order to improve student performance and achievement. With the number of children classified with ASD served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) increasing from 93,000 to 455,000 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013), there is a need to develop a high level of expe1iise among educators across all academic settings to address the needs of students with Autism and to close the achievement gap. The theoretical rationale behind this research stems from IDEA, mandating that all children with disabilities have access to Free and Appropriate Public Education (F APE) with educational services designed to meet their individual needs (U.S Depatiment of Education, 2015). Since the implementation of IDEA, the percentage of public school enrollment for children served by federally suppmied special education programs has increased from 8.3% in 1975/76 to 13% in 2010/11 (NCES, 2013). Through this legislation, schools are also required to provide educational services in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) in which students have the opportunity to be educated with non­disabled peers to the fullest extent possible (U.S Department of Education, 2015). According to the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) in 2010, 94.8% of 8 students with disabilities were served in the general education classroom and, specifically, 90.7% of students with a diagnosis of Autism (20 1 0). Determining placement and duration of time spent in the general education setting following LRE guidelines is imperative to academic success. According to NCES, 34.1% of students with Autism spent less than 40% of their day in the general education classroom, the third highest compared to all thirteen special education classifications (2013). Furthermore, 3% of students with disabilities attended a separate school, with Autism reflecting a higher percentage of 7.9% when compared to other classifications (NCES, 2013). This demonstrates a need to identify suppmis for students with Autism across all educational settings and ensure students are in the most appropriate placement for academic success. Also, the need to provide educators with research-based resources in order to implement successful interventions and instructional techniques, which is impmiant in providing students with Autism access the general education curriculum. Historically, special education classrooms have remained smaller compared to general education classrooms to provide intensive instructional supports to students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). However, the need for small classroom sizes across all educational settings has been a topic preached by both educators and parents. If the goal is to close achievement gaps, then more individualized attention and suppmi is needed in order to see a higher level of academic growth amongst students (Education Week, 2011 ). A national movement intended to suppmi this need was the implementation of the Federal Class-Size Reduction Program in 1999, designed to give teachers more individual instructional time with students. This program was successful, decreasing the average class size from 18.1 students in 1995 to 16.0 in 2004 (NCES, 2006). However, 9 since this program, classroom sizes have continued to increase due to funding. The average class size in Utah increased from 24.2 to 27.6 pupils per classroom and the national average increased from 20.3 to 21.6 (NCES, 2008 and 2012). This rise in classroom size presents a question on whether or not students with disabilities who are included in the general education classroom demonstrate as much growth within a large classroom setting as compared to a smaller class size due to student to teacher ratio. To address these issues, this study used an experimental design to determine if a decrease in student to teacher ratio has a significant impact on students with Autism cutTently performing below grade level in making adequate yearly growth. Specifically, this study attempts to answer two research questions: 1. What is the impact of class size and student to teacher ratio on academic growth for students with autism who are performing below grade level? 2. What is the impact of different environments for students with autism to perform on IEP goals and various assessment measures? Statement of Researcher I am a first year Assistant Principal with seven years of teaching experience working in a variety of classroom settings including general education, gifted and talented, and students with severe, multiple disabilities. Over the past four years, I have been working at a charter school designed to suppmi students on the autism spectrum both socially and academically. As an administrator at this school, I wanted to focus my attention on student growth and ensuring we are providing the best level of suppmis for our students. 10 Our elementary school is unique compared to a traditional school as it provides smaller class sizes; a variety of onsite services such as occupational, speech, and behavior therapy; in addition to accessible accommodations to meet the needs of our students. Since 80% of our students have an IEP, students fall within a wide range of academic abilities. To help meet the individual needs of our students, instead of staying in one classroom for the duration of the day, students transition to different classes for language alis and math according to their academic performance. Typically within in each grade, a classroom is designed to suppoti students who are performing at or above grade level, with the other classroom suppotiing students who need strategic intervention. Within each classroom, a variety of cuniculum is used based on the needs of the students. Cunicula provided include: Reading Mastery, Read Well, Reading Street, My Math, and Triumphs Math. Although these materials provide modifications to content material for students needing strategic intervention, supplemental cuniculum is also used that is specific to the leaming style of students on the autism spectrum such as Standardized Test for the Assessment of Reading (STAR) and PCI reading program. All cunicula are linked to the common core state standards. However, this past year, two of these classrooms were changed into a strategies class called STRA Ts. These classes were established to suppoti students performing two grade levels or more behind their same aged peers. This class provided a smaller classroom setting with a 9:3 student to teacher ratio compared to a 16:2 ratio provided in other classrooms. The purpose of this class was to provide the intensive academic suppmi these students need in order to make adequate yearly growth with minimal distractions as compared to a general classroom. Although a smaller class size has its benefits such as 11 individualized instruction and additional staff suppoti, some difficulties arose with the implementation of these classrooms. Such difficulties included: other classrooms being overly populated, limited ability for students to transition between classes, and limited exposure to on grade level content. This study will allow me to identify if the structure of the STRATs class is crucial to student growth or if more resources need to be included in our general classrooms to meet the needs of students performing below grade level. Conceptual Framework There are numerous studies that provide evidence of highly effective instructional strategies and classroom management techniques for educators to use to improve classroom perfotmance. However, students diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder have specific needs that are not always addressed by traditional teaching methods and may need additional accommodations in order to access the common core cuniculum. As a result, teachers need the resources, suppoti and training to be able to identify students' strengths and weaknesses (Paneque, 2009). To identify these suppotis, an experimental design was used to compare student achievement across two different classroom settings through quantitative methods. The theoretical frameworks presented in most studies referenced in this research have followed a positivist paradigm using experimental study and quantitative methods to reach a conclusion. The direction of this study used a post positivist paradigm to encompass contextual clues when analyzing quantitative data in order to identify environmental factors that may have impacted student results on assessments and their academic growth. Quantitative data was derived from various classroom-based measurements, notm-referenced assessments, and annual IEP goals. These measurements 12 were tracked to calculate yearly growth among the participants. However, to accurately assess student growth, it was imperative to identify environmental factors that may have played a part in student achievement. Informal observations and collaboration with educators was used to identify how classroom structure, seating arrangements, and student behaviors may have contributed to student participation in assessments and overall achievement. Potential Significance and Limitations Autism is a growing classification for students with or without an IEP in the general education classrooms. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 1 in 68 children are diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder with a 10-17% annual growth rate (2013). With the push for inclusion within the general education classroom under IDEA, educators need additional tools and resources to help all students' access core academic standards. While it is impmiant for students to have access to grade level cuniculum, it is equally impmiant to identify academic gaps and provide achievable goals for students to scaffold their academic learning. Early intervention is critical in order to identify these academic deficits early on, in hopes to bridge the academic gap and make grade level achievement obtainable. A Pre­Elementary Education Longitudinal Study conducted by the U.S Department of Education in 2003, found that preschoolers who received early intervention through special education services, approximately 16% stopped receiving services after a two-year period (USDOE, 2010). These students were identified and provided with early intervention tools in order to master their IEP goals and independently participate in the general education setting. In relation, the intent of the cunent study is to determine the best educational setting at the 13 elementary level for students performing significantly below grade level in order to bridge the academic gap prior to moving into middle school. This goal can and should be implemented in all schools across the nation in order to provide the best educational supports for all students. Limitations of this study include small participant groups that attend the same school. This lends the study to have a limited view on how small class size and student to teacher ratio impacts student growth across various school settings and resources. Although triangulated data will provide a holistic view, the study is restricted to the amount of time allotted to observe other classrooms and collect data over consecutive years. This limits the documentation of patiicipant access to curriculum and response to instruction in comparison to a broad range of students in the general education classroom. As a result, the study only provides a snap shot of the level of success a classroom setting may have on academic growth. 14 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Historical Overview Educational equality for people with disabilities had been nonexistent for many years. People with disabilities were forced into institutions and were denied access to local schools. Families were equally denied the opportunity to be involved in the placement decision of their children. In 1967, close to 200,000 people with disabilities were assigned to institutional homes devoid of educational services and learning opportunities (USDOE, 201 0). Improving civil rights and academic achievement for all students has been the forefront of many recent legislative effmis. IDEA was the driving force to ensuring equal rights for all students with the philosophy "Every child is a precious resource whose full potential must be tapped ... we cannot afford to leave anyone out of our effmis" (USDOE, 2010). In 1975, under IDEA, students were guaranteed access to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (F APE), ensuring districts provided the necessary resources to educate all students regardless of their disability. This included effmis on how students were identified as needing special education services, how they accessed the cuniculum, and provided protection to children and families through due process. This held schools accountable and in 2008, 95% of all students with disabilities were educated in their local neighborhood schools (USDOE, 2010). In the early 1980s, IDEA recognized the need to provide educators with effective methods on how to integrate students with disabilities with their non-disabled peers by providing training opportunities and incorporating life skills cuniculum into the classroom (USDOE, 2010). Amendments to IDEA in 1997, required schools to have students with 15 disabilities access and participate in the general education curriculum (Chiang, 2007). This ensured students were not given watered-down curriculum but had an equal opportunity to access grade level material and high expectations were maintained. Following this legislation, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of2002, focused on ensuring all children have fair and equal oppmiunities to obtain high quality education (USDOE, 2015). This law mandated all classrooms were taught by a highly qualified educator and held schools accountable for repmiing adequate yearly progress. This legislation also moved to increase academic scores to proficiency level for underperforming students across all academic standards (Klein, 2015). NCLB further required that all children receive evidence-based reading instruction consistent with the National Reading Panel (NRP), which included the following essential components of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, oral reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension strategies (Whalon, 2009). This law focused on increasing educational standards across the United States but remained controversial for its push towards statewide academic testing. In 2004, an amendment was established to include the Response to Intervention model (RTI) as a research-based method to identify students with disabilities. This model provided a multi-tiered support system to identify appropriate levels of intervention to ensure maximum academic achievement and decrease negative behaviors (USDOE, 2010). Integration of this model provided educators a valuable resource in determining the level of support a child needed to be successful in the classroom. These individualized suppmis continue to be the focus of special education law. 16 Cognitive Process of Students Diagnosed with Autism According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition, "Autism is a complex developmental disability identified by restricted behavior pattems and qualitative impairments in social interaction and communication" (2013). The tetm "spectrum" also refers to a wide range of functional abilities and symptoms displayed by people with ASD (Office of Communications and Public Liaison, 2015). As a result, students with ASD often face specific challenges in the classroom setting that require diverse instructional methods in order to retain academic content. A study conducted in 2006, examined the reading skills of 41 children with ASD and noted a stark contrast in assessment results. Some students performed significantly well, where others struggled to complete the assignment. This level of variance demonstrated the diverse abilities across the autism spectrum as it is observed in the classroom setting (Nation, 2006). In a 2011 brain-imaging study that compared images of 357 children diagnosed with autism and 370 neurotypical children, scientists observed that children with autism exhibited more activity in the temporal and occipital regions and less activity in the frontal cortex than neurotypical children (Nauret, 2015). The identified temporal and occipital regions are typically involved in perceiving and recognizing pattems and objects, where as the frontal areas serve higher cognitive functions such as decision-making, cognitive control, planning and execution (Samson, 2012). As a result, students with ASD would more easily understand concepts such as phonics, sight word recognition, and basic mathematical concepts as they all rely on pattem and site recognition. In contrast, have more difficulty with information processing, comprehension, and problem solving skills. 17 Two studies found similar pattems in reading abilities among students with ASD, noting a deficit in comprehension skills. In Nation's 2006 study, the majority of students received high scores on text accuracy and word recognition but performance on comprehension tasks was impaired (2006). Again, in a study conducted in 2004, Wahlberg and Magliano investigated reading comprehension in individuals with high functioning autism and observed deficits in making connections to text. Noting students struggled to connect background knowledge with ambiguous texts, which limited their ability to make abstract connections and comprehend text as compared to their neurotypical peers (Wahlberg, 2004). Identifying cognitive pattems associated with ASD is crucial in identifying appropriate instructional strategies to suppmi retention of concepts. However, it is imperative to note that these pattems may not be consistent in all students with ASD as students fall within a spectrum of abilities. This lends a challenge to educators to implement effective strategies that meet the needs of all students and provide the necessary accommodations to enhance academic growth. Individualized Education Plans In special education, the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) serves to document the instructional and assessment plans needed for students served under IDEA to access and pmiicipate in the general education cuniculum. Per federal law, all curriculum modifications and instructional accommodations must be outlined in the students' IEP (Moores-Abdool, 2010). According to the U.S Department of Education, an IEP is required to contain: a summary of a students' current perfmmance and benchmarks; annual measurable goals individualized to a students' academic, behavioral, and social needs; a 18 list of special education and related service supports; curriculum modifications and instructional accommodations; an explanation of pmiicipation with non-disabled peers in the general education classroom; and a statement of students' participation in state mandated assessments (USOE, 2010). These components are developed as part of a team that consists of a Local Education Agency, special education teacher, general education teacher, parent or legal guardian, the student, and any additional members that are on the students' educational team. Each member is an integral pmi in dete1mining the suppmi a student needs in order to access and participate in the general education curriculum. A primary goal in education is closing the achievement gap and having students master grade level concepts, however, there are multiple interpretations on how students with disabilities access the general education curriculum. A qualitative study conducted by Dymond in 2007, illustrated these differences and its implications in developing an IEP. After interviewing 15 special education and 20 general education teachers, most special education teachers' defined "access to the curriculum" as providing students with adapted material that is appropriate to their life and individual needs (Dymond et al., 2007). However, most general education teachers identified this term as students receiving the same curriculum as their peers without a disability but with the support of a special education teacher (Dymond et al., 2007). Across all interviews, educators believed only the special education teacher was responsible for providing students access to the general education curriculum and working on goals suppmied by the IEP. However, with the requirements of IDEA and NCLB, this individualized suppmi cannot fall solely on the special education teacher to implement individualized accommodations and suppmi IEP goals. General education teachers are required to adapt their instructional strategies in the 19 general education classroom to accommodate students with disabilities. Unfortunately, most general education teachers do not feel they are adequately prepared to provide individualized instructional suppmis (Moores-Abdool, 2010). However, in a 2005 study on the conelation of mandated statewide assessments and IEP development, teachers demonstrated they could improve the content and outcomes on IEPs with additional professional development (Browder, Karvonen et al, 2005). Training and ongoing professional development is a critical component in educators identifying and supporting the individual needs of students with disabilities and ensuring academic growth. With a focus on inclusive settings, educators are required to find a balance between exposing students to grade level standards and suppmiing students in mastering individualized IEP goals to reach these academic standards. Soukup conducted a study with 19 elementary students to determine the effect inclusion has on academic achievement towards grade level standards and IEP goals. Participants were grouped based on the level of inclusion in the general education classroom: high inclusion representing 7 5%-100%, medium inclusion 51%-74%, and low inclusion 0%-50% of time spent in the general education classroom. Soukup repmied that patiicipants in the high inclusion classroom focused more on standard based content than any other group. This patiicipant group worked on a general education standard in 98% of intervals and worked on an activity linked to grade level standards in 83% of those intervals. As a result, only 10% of intervals focused on a student's individual IEP goals (Soukup, 2007). In contrast, students in the low inclusion did not work on any specific grade level standard but did participate in standard based activities in 46% ofintervals and 58% of intervals were activities petiaining to individual IEP goals (Soukup, 2007). 20 This stark contrast on what students are exposed to based on their educational placement, is the corner stone of identifying the least restrictive environment for students set forth by the IEP under IDEA and NCLB. As a result, discussions around whether or not IEP goals should be explicit to grade level standards has been an ongoing debate. In Dymond's study, interviews indicated that almost half of the special education teachers felt that the IEP should be aligned to content standards. This not only helps to identify the level in which a student needs to be perfmming in relation to their peers but is critical to identify benchmarks to support a student mastering a content standard goal (Dymond, 2007). On the contrary, some of the teachers stated they did not find the standards useful. Indicating that it was more of a technical writing activity that overshadowed the process of developing an IEP that was based on the individual needs of the student (Dymond, 2007). In addition, observations from Soukup's study highlighted that students with significant cognitive abilities can still access core standards through instruction and classroom based activities even if IEP goals do not directly align to core standards (Soukup, 2007). Educators are presented with the ongoing challenge of maintaining individualized instruction and evaluation methods outlined in an IEP while ensuring students access grade level standards. In a study conducted by Lynch and Adams, they identify the challenge as a lack of training in helping educator's link academic content standards to a student's individualized needs on the IEP (2008). As a result of the study, Lynch and Adams created a model for linking standards to IEPs based on the student's level of communication. This model recommends that the IEP team first consider the student's current academic performance in relation to core standards and functional skill level. Then, the team determines the critical function of the standard while simultaneously considering the 21 student's adaptive skills, needs, and communication level. The team then detetmines the long-range goals and functional outcomes for the students and translates that to the IEP benchmark or behavioral objective (Lynch & Adams, 2008). While this process has only a few steps, without training and suppoti for teachers and teams, the process may seem overwhelming. Additionally, a collaborative approach is needed to ensure that parents and those individuals with content knowledge are involved in the development of the IEP (Browder et al., 2007; Kleineti & Keams, 2004). In suppoti of IDEA, the No Child Left Behind Act not only suppmied all students having access to the general education cuniculum, but stressed the need for all students identified for special education to patiicipate in all state mandated testing (Moores-Abdool, 2010). This change brought fmih a new challenge on IEP development and ensuring students were exposed to grade level concepts in order to proficiently pass state-wide testing. A study conducted by Towles-Reeves and Kleinert in 2006, surveyed 261 teachers about the impact of altemate assessment on instruction and IEP development. The authors found that approximately 35% of teachers indicated that altemate assessments had a positive effect on IEP development, 6% indicated a negative effect, and almost 59% of teachers indicated that altemate assessments had no effect on IEP development (Towles­Reeves & Kleinert, 2006). The majority of teachers repmied they believed that altemate assessments had little to no positive impact on instruction or IEP development and saw the altemate assessment as an isolated event. While some teachers indicated that both instruction and IEP development were influenced, altemate assessment was perceived to have significantly lower impact on IEP development than on instruction (Towles-Reeves 22 & Kleineti, 2006). This illustrates a lack of connection between assessment results and instruction when developing an IEP to meet the individual needs of students. Class size For decades, the debate on the effectiveness of small class size on academic achievement has been discussed to determine whether or not the outcomes outweigh the cost. In 2010, Clanet conducted a comparative study of 200 classrooms with different student to teacher ratios. 99 classrooms maintained a normal class size of 20-25 students, while the other 101 classrooms patiicipated in a reduced class size often students. Clanet used a 22-point indicator to focus on specific teacher practices to identify if instructional methods used changed due the size of the class. In addition, three benchmark assessments were administered over the course of the year to analyze academic growth. At the completion of the study, it was observed that there was no direct link between teaching practices and class size (Clanet, 2010). Although teachers did not change their teaching practices based on the number of students in their classroom, a reduced class size facilitated an increase in student engagement. Clanet observed that students initiated interaction 30% of the time in a small group setting compared to only 17% in the standard classroom. The rate of initiating interaction also increased by 5% over a three-week period where as a 3% decrease was observed in the larger classroom setting (Clanet, 2010). This increased engagement had a direct impact on student performance on academic assessments. In another study conducted in 2011, similar findings were repmied with 71.9% of student patiicipation observed in a small class setting compared to 51.1% patiicipation in a larger class (Englehati, 2011) 23 Englehart's study analyzed environmental factors, such as student engagement, to identify their impact on student achievement in a small group setting. Englehart spent a total of 15 hours observing a class of 15 students and a larger class of 23 students. In addition, 20-minute interviews were conducted with eight students who transitioned between both classrooms throughout the day. Over the course of the study, it was noted that students expressed a higher level of comfort in the smaller class size because they knew more people. As a result, students felt more inclined to participate in classroom discussions without feeling embarrassed. Englehart also observed that more open-ended questions were posed in the small group setting where the majority of questions in the larger class were close ended. Questioning methods used by the instructors had a direct impact on the size of the class and time allotted for students to answer the questions (Englehart, 2011). With a small class size, there was more time to have an open discussion and have students respond to one another. This level of collaboration also increased student engagement in the lesson. In addition, there was a greater opportunity for all students to be called upon in the small group setting. In one interview, a student expressed his frustration in the larger class stating, " ... sometimes, when I raise my hand, he calls on someone else. I raise my hand again, he calls on someone else ... " (Englehart, 2011). Englehart concluded that class size, subject matter, and classmates influence student behavior and impacts student learning. Ability Grouping Ability grouping is an early intervention model that can be established in two ways: between-class and within class grouping. Between-class leveling involves a whole school structure to assign specific classrooms that support a targeted group of students performing 24 at the same academic level. In this model, students are required to transition throughout the day to their leveled class and educators are assigned to classrooms based on their expertise. Within class leveling establishes academic ability groups within the classroom that can either be heterogeneous or homogeneous depending on the classroom structure. Over the years, ability grouping has been a controversial topic as to the benefit it has on student growth across all academic levels. Proponents claim that ability grouping allows educators to tailor their instruction to meet the individual needs of each student while opponents claim it labels students and sets low expectations (NEA, 2010) Adelson and Carpenter express that ability grouping is not just cluster or within class grouping but can take the shape of group assignments, leveled reading, and interest grouping (2011). In their study of 9.340 kindergarten students across 580 schools, only 2% of patiicipants experienced negative growth when their class used within class ability grouping. The remainder of students exposed to this model, showed higher growth than students in the traditional classroom by 0.62 points (Adelson, 2011). When looking at identified gifted and talented students specifically, this group performed 4.31 points higher than students not identified. The study also showed positive results for smaller academic groups where students in a group of ten experienced a reading growth of 10.72 points as compared to 10.56 in an ability group of 18 students (Adelson, 2011 ). The positive effect ability grouping has on students was also illustrated in Castle's 2005 study that looked at ability grouping in a high-needs school. The study tracked students who were performing below grade level over a five-year period. During this time, students were exposed to flexible grouping, which allowed students to move in out of ability groups based on their level of concept maste1y, specific goals, and individual needs. 25 At the conclusion of five years, students who reached mastery level increased from 10% to 57% as measured by literacy assessments. As educators began seeing the positive results of flexible ability grouping, a 70% increase in teachers using this model was observed across the school setting (Castle, 2005). Matthews, Ritchotte, and McBee conducted a three-year study to analyze the effects ability grouping has on academic achievement. 68 gifted students and 186 non-identified elementary students were monitored across three educational settings. In 2008, within class ability grouping was established. The following year, school-wide cluster grouping was implemented and in 2010, within class ability grouping was utilized again with gifted and talented students spread across all classrooms. Students were administered three benchmark assessments throughout the year and overall performance was compared across all three years (Matthews, 2008). During the year of cluster grouping, reading and math scores of both gifted and typical students increased at the same rate over time. In language alis, typical students performed one point lower than gifted students but this deficit was eliminated by the 6th grade. As growth was observed across all three years, during the cluster year, all students grew at a slightly slower rate as compared to the third year. In the third year, typical students grew at a much higher rate in mathematics than students identified as gifted and talented. Although there was greater academic growth during the within class ability groupmg compared to cluster grouping, Matthews noted that the benefits of cluster grouping might take more than a year to manifest themselves (Matthews, 2008). This claim was also supp01ied in a 2011 study on cluster grouping led by Rebecca Pierce. Pierce's study resulted in academic growth by gifted and talented students over a three-year period 26 however; repmis indicated that the greatest gains were not observed until the latter year (Pierce, 2011). Although growth was achieved during all three years, both studies indicate the time and resources needed in order to obtain the benefits from ability grouping. Discussion A growing concern among educators is how to meet the individual needs and readiness level of each student in their classroom. Unfmiunately, scholars and educators do not have a consensus on how to meet these diverse needs. The two most controversial topics include ability grouping and class size. However, it terms of ability grouping, there are limited studies that address the effect grouping has on low-achieving students as studies predominately focus on the effect grouping has on gifted and talented learners. Nevetiheless, evidence derived from these studies illustrates that ability grouping and small class sizes can have a positive effect on student achievement. However, it is impmiant to acknowledge that within both models, the level of academic achievement is determined by the quality of instruction administered by the educator. "An ineffective teacher with 30 students will be just as ineffective with 15, if not more" quoted by Marcel Crahay (cited by Clanet, 2010) 27 CHAPTER3:METHODS Approach and Rationale For my action research, I chose to use both a quantitative and qualitative research design to determine the most effective classroom structure needed to increase academic achievement for students performing below grade level. This particular style of action research allowed me to dete1mine the effects classroom size and student to teacher ratio has on increasing academic scores and mastery of IEP goals. This data was obtained by various classroom assessments and graphing progress towards the mastery of annual IEP goals. Using a qualitative approach also provided me the opportunity to observe additional environmental factors that may have contributed to the academic growth of students and to note how students responded to various instructional strategies to access the core cuniculum. The combination of using qualitative and quantitative approaches provided me with a holistic picture of the relationship between classroom structure and environmental factors on academic growth. Setting This study took place at a charter school for students on the autism spectrum. The Academy is a kindergarten through twelfth grade chmier designed to suppmi students on the autism spectrum by providing social skills cuniculum and individualized academic suppmi. In addition, the school provides on sight occupational and speech therapy to support communication and self-regulation skills to increase access to the general education cmTiculum. In the elementary school, there are a total of 198 students, of which, 80% are on an IEP with varying special education classifications. For the 2010-2011 school year, 23% of students were proficient or higher in language arts and 32% in math 28 based on the annual Utah Criterion-Referenced Test (CRTs). According to the Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE) administered during the 2013/14 school year, 13.3% of students were proficient or higher in language atis and 23.7% were proficient in math. Two classrooms were used to analyze and compare student growth, a fomih grade classroom and a fomih/fifth cluster STRA Ts class. The fomih grade classroom has 17 students with one teacher and one paraprofessional to suppmi. The STRA Ts class has 10 students with one teacher and two paraprofessionals to support. Both classrooms suppmi students who are performing below grade level and provide modified or adapted cmTiculum to support student growth. Participants In conducting this study, 20 fomih and fifth grade students were observed to monitor academic progress. This group was selected because of the implementation of the STRATs class and the process of identifying who was eligible to be in this classroom. In the previous year, the majority of these students participated in the general education classroom with 17 students under the supervision of one teacher and one paraprofessional. This study is meant to compare in which classroom environment students demonstrated the most academic growth within a one-year period. In the fomih grade class, there are 1 7 students enrolled in both the language atis and math class. Of the 17 students, ten are classified with autism, four with speech language impairment, two with specific leaming disability, and one with other health impairment. Student's intellectual quotients (IQ) were taken into consideration with a standard score of 100 and a standard deviation of 10 as falling within average range. 29 According to student IQ scores: three students fell within borderline range (70-79), three scored in the low average range (80-89), five within average range (90-1 09), and one who performed in the high average range (11 0-119). Students in this classroom are exposed to on grade level cuniculum through whole group instruction. Cuniculum is modified and presented at a slower pace with frequent repetition to support retention of skills. All students participate in the SAGE assessment at the end of the year. In the fourth/fifth grade STRA Ts class, there are ten students emolled in both the language atis and math classes. Of the ten students, six are classified with autism, two with specific learning disability, and two with intellectual disability. According to student IQ scores: five students fell within the extremely low range ( <69), one scored in the low average range (80-89), and two performed within average range (90-1 09). Students in this classroom are exposed to cuniculum based on academic performance and IEP goals. Cuniculum is adapted and presented in small group instruction with frequent repetition to support retention of skills. Students qualify to patiicipate in the Utah Alternative Assessment (UAA) at the end of the year. The UAA is a statewide assessment used to evaluate students who cannot patiicipate in the standard assessments. Data Gathering Methods and Rationale Progress Monitoring Tools In addition to data obtained through cuniculum-based assessments, Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and Standardized Test for the Assessment of Reading (STAR) progress monitoring tools, as well as data graphs for IEP goals were used to compare student progress using norm-referenced criteria. These assessments are directly linked to common core state standards and were completed by 30 students on a monthly basis. This data was used to measure student academic growth from the beginning of the year to the end and was used to compare the similarities and differences amongst the two classroom settings. Classroom Based Measurements (CBM) At the beginning and end of the study, pre- and post- benchmark assessments and student placement exams were administered and reviewed as determined by the cun·iculum presented in the classroom. Three commercially packaged, research-based cu11'iculums were used in the classrooms. Reading Street is a kindergarten through sixth grade program linked to Common Core State Standards with explicit lesson plans for direct and small group instruction while providing an engaging online component. Read Well is a kindergarten through third grade program that helps students build critical skills needed to become successful readers. Lastly, PCI is an alternative reading program designed with comprehensive sight-words based curriculum developed for students with developmental disabilities and learning disabilities in reading. The data obtained from these cu11'icula was used to identify where students ended their academic performance the previous year, skills retained or lost over the summer break, and gains made throughout the year. In addition, data was obtained by weekly unit assessments. This data was used to graph progress in academic performance and relating it to the effectiveness of classroom structure and instruction. Using these measurements will also identify student access to the common core cu11'iculum and their relation to student IEP goals. Data Analysis Data obtained through benchmark assessments and IEP progress monitoring was converted into a percentage to represent academic growth and regression for individual 31 students. In addition, a classroom average was determined to compare the overall gains made by students in both academic settings. This information was used to identify trends among the data collected. Infmmation obtained through classroom observations was noted in a joumal and used to compare against student academic scores and trends. Data obtained from these various resources was used to determine how classroom size and student to teacher ratio with an understanding of environmental factors play a key role in student academic success. Validity and Trustworthiness This study was meant to benefit not only my school, but also as a means to support teachers who also work with students with disabilities. As a result, I have used multiple sources of data to provide a detailed picture of instructional strategies and supports that are proven effective through the data. The triangulation of data will provide readers information about how students with disabilities access the common core curriculum based on their individual needs. By focusing on students perfmming at various academic levels, data will not be generalized across all students but will be used to identify strategies across different leaming tiers. Worldng as an administrator and three years of teaching experience at my school, I will have established rapport with both students and families and will hope to increase that rapport throughout the study. In addition, using students I have previously worked with and being familiar with their strengths and weaknesses will allow me to represent observations and data accurately as students are working a natural setting. 32 Ethical Considerations Confidentiality is guaranteed in this study as all information will be converted into a percentage or represented on a graph. When presenting information on student academic progress, pseudonyms will be used to protect the identity of the student. Pmiicipation in the experiment is also optional so parents and students have the right to not disclose information as part of the study. 33 CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The purpose of this study is to identify the impact specific factors, including classroom size, student to teacher ratio, and effective IEP goals, have on academic growth for students with Autism who are significantly behind grade level. This determination will help guide classroom structure and student placement for following years to ensure students are receiving the maximum support needed to make academic growth. To measure the impact of these factors, national norm referenced assessments and classroom-based measurements were used. Results from each assessment were graphed to measure academic gains or regression of each student and identify any significant pattems. In addition, both student and teacher surveys were administered to determine if other environmental factors played a contributing role to student success. Student Grouping Students cunent Intellectual Quotients (IQ) are displayed in Table 1. Each student was administered a cognitive assessment within the last 4 years. Assessments included the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), Test ofNonverbal Intelligence (TONI), Leiter-3 Intemational Performance Scale, Early Leaming Accomplishment Profile (E­LAP), Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT), Woodcock Johnson III (WJIII), and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. Each assessment has a similar score distribution scale with 100 being the median level of performance and a standard deviation of 10: 109- 90 (average), 89-80 (low average), 79-70 (borderline impaired), 69-55 (mildly impaired or delayed), and 54-40 (moderately impaired or delayed). Students with an IQ score that fell within a specified range were grouped together within a tier. Tier one identifies students who would benefit from typical classroom supports. Tier two identifies students who need strategic support and tier three as students who need intensive support. Having all data 34 tables represented the same, provided the opportunity to identify if cognitive ability played a factor in the progress reported for each student. However, for the purpose of determining an average within tier groups, three students who perfmmed within the low average range were grouped with students in tier one. This decision was made because one of these three students was in the STRATS class and an overall average could not be calculated based on one student's performance. As shown in Table 1, there is a contrast within the classrooms based on IQ scores. Although no students fell within the moderately impaired range, only students from the STRATS class fell within the mildly impaired range. This range encompassed 50% of the classroom population. Although a cross comparison of students falling within this range was not available between the two classes, this infmmation is still critical in dete1mining if cognitive ability plays a factor in student academic growth. Table 1. Intellectual Quotient (IQ) distribution within each classroom STRATS 4th Grade (10 students with 3 adults) (17 students with 2 adults) Student IQ Student IQ 1 58 2 58 3 58 4 58 5 59 6 70 11 77 7 76 12 77 13 77 8 87 14 84 9 96 15 88 10 103 16 90 17 90 18 105 19 106 20 109 35 Only a few students fell within the borderline range, making up 20% of the STRATS class and 30% of the fourth grade classroom. Where we begin to see the major difference is within the low average to average range with 70% of students in the fourth grade class falling within this category and only 30% in the STRATS class. Within these two groups, cross comparisons can be made to identify if there was more academic growth within one classroom versus another within a specified IQ range. Norm-Referenced Assessments Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) DIBELS assessment is administered three times per year: at the beginning, middle, and end of the year, with the opportunity to progress monitor. Students are assessed on their fluency skills, accuracy, and comprehension. Table 2 represents data from each student's fluency score as achieved on the beginning and end of year benchmark assessments. For fourth grade students, the end of year benchmark goal is to read 115 conect words per minute and 130 for fifth grade students. The amount of students that mastered these goals based on their age group was 20% in each classroom. The similarity in this data is directly related to the high fluency rate of these students at the beginning of the year. As demonstrated by the average yearly growth, both classes made adequate gains in their overall rate of fluency. The data also shows that students in the STRATS class grew at a slightly higher rate than their peers in the fourth grade classroom, an increase by one word per minute. However, students in the STRATS class with an average to low average IQ score increased their fluency score by an average of six more words per minute than students in the same grouping in the fourth grade class. Although students in the STRATS class had a consistently lower baseline fluency rate compared to their peers in 36 the fourth grade classroom, it is plausible to conclude that if students in the STRA TS class maintain an increasing growth rate that the gap in baseline fluency rates will close with each progressing year. Table 2. DIBELS Fluency Scores: Number of correct words read per minute IQ STRATS (10 students with 3 adults) Student BOY EOY Growth 1 144 150 +6 M 2 2 0 -2 I-< ...~.... 3 16 19 +3 ~ 4 9 25 +16 5 0 0 +0 Average 34 39 +5 6 14 25 +11 M 7 2 0 -2 I-< ...~.... ~ Average 8 13 +5 8 3 17 [phone] +34 10 8 10 +2 ~ I-< ...~.... ~ Average 27 44 +17 Overall 23 32 +9 Average * BOY- Beginning of the year test results * EO Y- End of the year test results Average 56 60 14 102 83 15 16 48 16 112 127 17 28 26 Average 62 73 Overall 59 67 +4 -19 +32 +15 -2 +11 +8 Table 3 identifies growth in a student's comprehension ability. DIBELS retell score is based on the quality of details the student is able to recall. A student performing at a level 1 indicates they are only able to recall two or less significant details from the story. A level 2, the student recalls three or more details from the story in random order. Students rated at a level3 were able to give three or more details in chronological order. And finally, 37 students scoring at a level four were able to give the main idea of the story in addition to three or more important details. As demonstrated in table 3, no significant gains were made in either classroom. However, data analyzed from DIBELS repmis for all fomih and fifth grade students at the school show that, on average, students increase their retell score by one point over the course of one year. This contrast, illustrates that comprehension remains a challenge to all students patiicipating in the study. Table 3. DIBELS Retell Scores STRATS IQ (10 students with 3 adults) Student BOY EOY Growth 1 2 1 -1 M 2 1 0 -1 :.... ...~.... 3 1 1 +0 E-; 4 0 1 +1 5 0 0 +0 Average .8 .6 -0.2 6 1 1 +0 M 7 :.... 1 0 -1 ...~.... E-; Average 1 .5 -0.5 8 0 1 +1 9 1 1 +0 10 1 1 +0 ~ :.... ...~.... E-; Average .7 1 +0.3 Overall 0.8 0.7 -0.1 Average * BOY- Beginning of the year test results * EOY- End of the year test results 11 4 2 -2 12 1 1 +0 13 1 1 +0 Average 2 1.3 -0.7 14 2 2 +0 15 1 1 +0 16 1 2 +1 19 1 2 +1 20 2 2 +0 Average 1.3 1.7 +0.4 Overall 1.7 1.5 -0.2 38 When identifying patterns in student growth in relation to cognitive ability, there is no significant conelation. Students scoring in the average range made the same amount of growth as a student in the moderately impaired or borderline range. For example, students #2 and #17 are in different IQ brackets but they both decreased in their fluency score by two words per minute. In contrast, students #4 and #16, increased their fluency score by fifteen and sixteen words per minute. Although individual scores fluctuate significantly within each IQ sub category, the average fluency score within each range improved marginally as students progressed from moderately impaired to average. Standardized Test for the Assessment of Reading (STAR) Two scores were drawn from the STAR assessment to measure student academic growth in the areas of language mis and mathematics, grade equivalency and student growth percentile. Tables 4 and 5 reflect each students grade equivalency score at the beginning and end of the year as well as their overall yearly growth based on their STAR performance. Unfortunately, in language mis, the STRATS class did not make any gains as a classroom average and only made minimal growth in the area of math. In both of these content areas, only 50% of the class made academic gains based on the standards measured in this assessment. In language arts, those who demonstrated growth only made a one to two month gain over the course of the year. In mathematics, there was a greater scale of achievement with students increasing their end of year score by one to five months. One student did demonstrate over a year's growth in the area of math, however, this specific STAR repmi reflects that, overall, students in the class made minimal gains. 39 Table 4. STAR Reading Grade Equivalency Score IQ STRATS (10 students with 3 adults) 4 Grade Student Sept March Growth 1 1.9 2.1 +0.2 M 2 1.1 1.3 +0.2 ~ ..~.... 3 1.2 1.3 +0.1 E-< 4 1.4 1.5 +0.1 5 1.4 1.3 -0.1 Average 1.4 1.5 +0.1 6 1.3 1.3 +0 ~ 7 1.1 1.0 -0.1 ~ ..~.... E-< Average 1.2 L2 +0 Average 1.5 1.7 +0.2 8 1.1 1.2 +0.1 14 2.2 3.4 +1.2 9 2.4 2.3 -0.1 15 1.8 1.6 -0.2 10 1.3 1.2 -0.1 16 2.3 2.9 +0.6 ,...., 17 1.9 1.7 -0.2 ~ ...~... E-< Average 1.6 1.6 +0 Average 2.3 2.6 +0.3 Overall 1.4 1.4 +0 Average Overall 1.9 2.2 +0.3 The lack of growth achieved from this assessment could reflect the structure of the classroom. Since students in this class are performing significantly below grade level (two or more years), content is directed towards their individualized IEP goals to build fundamental skills vs. grade level content. This would hinder students' ability to answer questions on the STAR assessment as questions are linked to grade level core standards. In addition, based on classroom and teacher observations, most students struggled with the length of the assessment or had anxiety due to the difficulty of the test. As a result, students would become frustrated pati way through and would complete the rest of the assessment by guessing the answers instead of taking the time to solve them accurately. 40 For the fourth grade class, more significant gains were made. In language arts, the overall classroom made a 3-month growth over the course of the year, however, only 40% of the class actually made academic gains. Although the classroom gain was small, students who made improvements increased their grade equivalency by seven months to a year and two-months. All other students either made no growth over the course of the year or regressed by a month or two compared to their performance at the beginning of the year. This information illustrates students significantly struggle with reading and comprehension skills across both classroom settings. Table 5. STAR Math Grade Equivalency Score IQ STRATS March Growth 1.2 +0.5 M 2 1.0 0.8 -0.2 ...Q"..",.).' 3 1.3 1.1 -0.2 ~ 4 1.1 0.9 -0.2 5 1.1 1.1 0 1 1 +0 6 1.6 1.7 +0.1 N 7 1.9 2.0 ..."Q..",.).' ~ +0.6 +0.4 -0.1 16 -0.2 ~ 1 +0.5 ..."Q..".,).' 18 +2.6 ~ 19 2.5 2.8 +0.3 20 3.1 4.0 Average 2.2 2.3 +0.1 Average 2.2 2.8 +0.6 Overall 1.6 1.7 +0.1 Overall 2.2 2.8 +0.6 41 In the area of math, more consistent growth was observed over the course of the year. Fewer students regressed, with 80% of the class making academic improvements ranging from two-months to two years and six months growth. The overall average growth for the students in this classroom was six months. Although a year's growth was not achieved, each student is making the necessary gains to close the achievement gap and improving on the fundamental skills in order to understand grade level concepts. Table 6. STAR Reading Student Growth Percentile (SGP): IQ Student 1 2 ..... lo. ...~... E-; Average Overall STRATS 0 students with 3 Sept March ss ss 173 217 72 82 140 135 107 109 * SS- Scaled Score Growth +44 +10 -5 25th Average +2 22"d Overall 4th Grade 7 students with 2 500 341 236 276 177 212 +80 +3 +40 +35 42 36th 35th Tables 6 and 7 represent students academic growth based on their student growth percentile. When comparing a student's scaled score, the student growth percentile determines how quickly a student is growing in relation to other students in the same grade that started the year at roughly the same achievement level. Students who perform within the 5th and 34th percentile show less than typical growth over the year. Students who fall within the 35th and 65th percentile demonstrate typical growth. Lastly, students who perform higher than 66 percent of their peers represent accelerated growth. Table 7. STAR Math Student Growth Percentile (SGP): IQ 1"""1 l-< ..~... E-; Average Overall * Scaled Score STRATS 0 students with 3 Sept ss 430 368 277 295 289 376 414 438 374 Growth [phone] +11 +19 20 +8 56th Average +6 32nd Overall 4th Grade 7 students with 2 527 431 494 422 488 +35 +73 +63 +66 43 48th 37th In language mis, only 30% of the students in each classroom demonstrated typical growth or higher. In math, 30% of students in the STRATS class increased their scaled score within the typical growth range compared to 70% in the fourth grade classroom. This data presents the same findings as observed in the STAR grade equivalency scores reported previously, students in both classrooms struggle with basic reading skills and/or being able to generalize those skills when assessed. Generally twice as many students have higher scores in math compared to reading. Although the students are not making significant progress across their grade level as repmied in the grade equivalency scores, the student growth percentile scores show that students are making academic progress on an individual basis. This is impmiant to identify as it shows that instructional approaches are effective for students to make progress. Classroom Assessments Classroom assessments were used to identify students' baseline scores at the beginning of the year and to assess their growth over the course of the year based on curriculum and individualized instruction. For this study, IEP goals and benchmark assessments were used to measure academic growth. Individualized Education Plans Each pmiicipant's IEP was reviewed and 173 objectives were categorized as academic or nonacademic. Academic objectives included reading, writing, and math. Nonacademic objectives included social skills, self-regulation, occupational therapy, and communication. For the purpose of this study, only academic objectives were used to identify academic growth. A total of 95 objectives were analyzed with 64% addressing language arts standards and 36% mathematic standards. 44 Table 8. IEP Goals: Number of goals per objective for each class STRATS 4th Grade (10 students with 3 adults) (17 students with 2 adults) Language Arts Language Arts Type of Objective Number of Goals Type of Objective Number of Goals Sight Words 7 Sight Words 1 Decoding 6 Decoding 0 Fluency 4 Fluency 4 Comprehension 7 Comprehension 12 Sentence Writing 10 Sentence Writing 10 Total 34 Total 27 Mathematics Mathematics Type of Objective Number of Goals Type of Objective Number of Goals Even/Odd 1 Even/Odd 0 Place Value 1 Place Value 0 Addition 5 Addition 1 Subtraction 5 Subtraction 0 Multiplication 3 Multiplication 5 Division 0 Division 1 Word Problems 0 Word Problems 2 Time 1 Time 1 Money 3 Money 0 Measurement 1 Measurement 2 Graphs 1 Graphs 0 Shapes 1 Shapes 0 Total 22 Total 12 In the area of language alis, the STRATS teacher took data on 34 objectives compared to 27 objectives in the fomih grade class. Objectives were linked to language alis standards based on sight word knowledge, decoding, fluency, comprehension, and sentence writing. As illustrated in table 8, there was a distinct difference on the academic needs of the students in both classes. In the STRATS class, the majority of objectives focused on sight word knowledge and decoding as compared to the foulih grade class where the emphasis was placed on comprehension. Both classrooms had equal number of objectives addressing fluency and sentence writing. 45 IEP objectives are assessed and measured over a period of one year. Table 9 shows the number of language atis objectives each student had in their IEP, the percentage of those objectives mastered, and their average growth rate over the course of the year. Students in both classes had an average of three objectives in their IEP. Only 6% of the objectives addressed in the fomih grade class were mastered compared to 36% in the STRA TS class. Students in the STRA TS class also had a much larger average growth rate towards mastering their goals than students represented in the fomih grade classroom. This discrepancy in perfmmance directly relates to the level of rigor identified in objectives as demonstrated in the previous table. Table 9. IEP Goals- Language Arts IQ STRATS 0 students with 3 a Student #of goals %Mastered 1 5 40% 3 M 7 4 '~"" '~""' 0% 3.5 38% 3 0% 8 3 0% 14 2 0% 9 3 0% 15 3 10 2 50% 16 2 0% ....... 17 4 50% '"'~"""' 18 3 0% ~ 19 3 33% 0% Average 3 25% Average 3 12% Overall 3.5 36% Overall 3 6% Avera 46 In mathematics, the STRATS teacher assessed 22 objectives compared to 12 objectives in the fourth grade class. Objectives were linked to mathematic standards based on place value, addition/subtraction, multiplication/division, geometry, measurement, and money. As illustrated in table 8, the majority of objectives in the STRATS class petiained to place value and basic addition and subtraction skills where as the objectives in the fomih grade class had a greater emphasis on multiplication/division skills and solving word problems. This is similar to what was observed in the language mis objectives in which there was a contrast in the level of rigor identified in the objectives presented in each class. Table 10. IEP Goals- Math IQ STRATS (10 students with 3 adults) Student #of goals %Mastered 1 3 0% tf') 2 2 0% ..(".!.",.).' 3 2 100% f-; 4 2 100% 5 1 100% Average 2 60% 6 3 66% N 7 2 100% .."(..!".,).' f-; Average 2.5 83% 8 2 50% 9 2 100% 10 3 100% 16 1 100% ~ ""' 17 1 0% ..(.!..,). f-; 18 1 0% 19 2 50% 20 1 0% Average 2 83% 21% Overall 2 75% Average 10% 47 As presented in table 10, students in the STRATS class demonstrated a high level of mastery as 75% meet all oftheir math objectives within the school year. The fourth grade class only had two students who mastered some or all of their goals. However, both classes did perfmm better in math than language arts in their overall average growth and percentage of goals mastered. Although all students made growth towards their IEP objectives, it can be concluded that the strategies implemented in the STRATS class were more effective at helping students master their IEP objectives. This is consistent in both language mis and math in tier one and tier two students. Tier three students were also consistent with mastering their IEP goals in the STRATS class. Curriculum Based Measurements (CBM) To assess student growth over the course of the year, students were administered a placement assessment at the beginning and end of the school year. Ideally, students are given the same assessment to compare growth and identify improvement in a specific skill set. This comparison study was conducted in the fomih grade classroom however was not completed in the STRATS class. As illustrated in table 11, students in the STRATS class were administered a grade level assessment at the beginning of the year but completed a benchmark assessment at their academic level at the end of the year. The rationale behind this decision was to administer an assessment that would project an accurate representation of the student's skill set. When students in the STRATS class were administered the grade level placement assessment at the beginning of the year, an increase in behaviors were observed as students became easily frustrated with the difficulty of the assessment. As a result, students were guessing answers instead of problem solving to identify the correct answer. Although the beginning of the year scores illustrated that students struggled with on grade level concepts, it did not give an accurate representation of which skills sets the 48 students knew or stmggled with. This information is impmiant in identifying students' needs for the upcoming school year and to develop accurate goals for student IEPS. Based on this, it was detmmined that students should receive an end of year placement assessment at their academic level instead of their grade level. Although a comparison could not be conducted in the STRA TS class, the fomih grade class was administered the same assessment at the beginning and end of the year. Unfmiunately, all but two students demonstrated a significant decline on their end of year results. This is in contrast to student perfmmance on the STAR assessments in which most students in the area of math made progress over the course of the year. Table 11. Math Cuniculum Placement Test IQ STRATS (10 students with 3 adults) Grade 7 students with 2 a BOY EOY Student grade ptf2nd Growth Student level grade M 1 50% 73% 23% $.,. ..~.... 2 27% 33% 6% E-; 3 30% 40% 10% 4 40% 50% 10% 5 13% 80% 67% Average 32% 55% 23% 6 27% 67% 40% 11 30% 20% -10% N $.,. 7 30% 53% 17% 12 30% 27% -3% ..~.... E-; 13 37% 22% -15% Average 29% 60% 31% Avera 32% 23% -9% 8 35% 33% -2% 67% 40% -13% 9 43% 93% 50% 60% 11% -49% ,...... 10 13% 80% 67% $.,. ..~.... E-; Average 30% 69% 39% Overall 30% 61% 31% Average Overall 39% 28% -11% 49 Based on observations, student behaviors could have impacted the results of student scores. In addition, it was reported by the teacher that the class did not complete the full curriculum based on the need to instruct new concepts for a longer period of time then allotted in the cuniculum. As a result, information from these assessments is inconclusive in providing an accurate representation of student growth over the course of the year. Discussion Over the course of the study, both classrooms established academic growth but the way students demonstrated their growth was represented differently between the two classrooms. The fourth grade class demonstrated more academic growth on the norm­referenced assessments whereas the STRA TS class had more academic growth on their IEP objectives. This can be explained by the structure of the two classes. The fourth grade class generally taught whole group instruction based on fourth grade standards using differentiation to suppmi the diverse needs in the classroom. This created more exposure to what was being measured on the nmm referenced assessments. Although this was successful, limited time was spent on addressing student's IEP objectives due to the size of the class and limited support. In contrast, the STRATS class limited their whole group instruction and focused more on small group instruction. Having an additional paraprofessional and a smaller class size, allowed for small group instruction to be individualized and a larger emphasis to be placed on addressing IEP objectives. Even though both classrooms were successful in this study, it is important to identify what level of support will contribute most to a student's academic success. As demonstrated in the data presented, there was varying level of success within each of the tiers. However, the majority of students in tier three benefited from the structure of the STRA TS class across all measurements, which may not have occurred if their 50 placement was in the fourth grade class. Academic growth within a tier also differed per student, as there was a direct con·elation between academic growth and subject matter. As illustrated in the STAR assessments and IEP objectives, the study found that a significant increase in academic growth was observed in mathematics compared to language mis. This conelates with Nauret's (2011) study in which children with autism exhibit more activity in the temporal region and less in the frontal cortex. As a result, they are able to identify pattems but stmggle with executive functioning and information processing often associated with comprehension. This also relates to the results presented in students' mastery ofiEP objectives. Students in the fomih grade class had more IEP objectives with a higher level of rigor, requiring them to problem solve and comprehend. In contrast, students in the STRATS class had IEP objectives that require knowledge and recall skills to identify pattems in language arts and mathematics. This presents valuable information in the way content needs to be taught in addition to the appropriateness of IEP objectives to support success towards grade level concepts. 51 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this study is to identify the impact class size and student to teacher ratio has on academic growth and performance on IEP goals using various classroom assessments. Twenty students were compared across two classroom settings to identify if there was a difference in academic growth. Based on the results and classroom observations, it is evident that class size and student to teacher ratio impacted the method used to instmct students, which in tum impacted student outcomes on various assessments. Due to the larger class size and student to teacher ratio in the fomih grade classroom, content was taught using whole group instmction with emphasis on the standards addressed in the grade level curriculum. In contrast, the STRA TS class had fewer students with more staff suppmi, allowing for small group and individualized instmction focusing on IEP goals to be established effectively. Reflecting on the DIBELS assessment administered at the beginning and end of the school year, both classes made similar growth on fluency and retell scores even though students in STRATS generally had lower scores than students in the fourth grade class. In reviewing fluency scores, tier three students were able to make the same amount of growth of five words per minute as tier two students in the same class. This was slightly higher than the performance of tier two students in the fomih grade class, making a growth of only four words per minute. When comparing all groups, tier one students in the STRA TS made the most overall growth over the course of the year, achieving an increase of seventeen words per minute. Based on retell scores, tiers two and three regressed over the course of the year with students in the fomih grade class making the most regression. However, both tier one groups made three to four months growth. This concludes that, although scores 52 were similar, students in STRATS performed better on the DIBELS assessment than students in the fourth grade class. According to grade equivalency scores generated by STAR assessments, students in STRATS did not make as much overall growth as students in the fourth grade class. Based on reading repmis collected for the STRATS class, only tier three students made consistent growth. This is in contrast to observations noted on math repmis in which only students in tiers one and two made academic gains. However, 50% of the class demonstrated academic growth in both content areas. Students in the fomih grade class made more significant gains. Although only 40% of the students made growth in reading, of these students, six months to a year and two months growth was established. In math, 80% of students demonstrated growth ranging from two months to two years and six months. This data correlates with the amount of exposure students have with grade level content. Although it is impmiant to review grade level growth, it is imperative to compare growth among students perfmming at the same academic level. When analyzing student growth percentile (SGP), scores are generated by grouping students who had the same scaled score at the beginning of the year and ranking their yearly growth based on their end of year score. Based on this data, students in the STRATS class did make academic gains in both reading and math. In reading, tier three students performed better than 22% of peers performing at the same academic level nationwide. Tier two students fell within in the 20th percentile and tier one in the 25th percentile. This compares to the fomih grade class' growth falling within the 34th and 36th percentile. In math, tier two and one students in STRATS made more gains than their peers in the fomih grade class ranking in the 3211d 53 and 56th percentile compared to the 25th and 48th percentile. Although the fourth grade class had higher grade equivalency scores this data shows that students in the STRATS class were able to make strong academic gains based their cognitive level. In reviewing IEP data, students in the STRATS class continually made strides towards mastering their IEP goals. In language arts, 36% of goals were mastered and 75% were mastered in math. These results are impmiant in helping bridge the gap between fundamental skills and grade level knowledge. With the intensive suppmis provided in STRATS, students were able to receive daily access to these skills. Once they build these foundations, they will have the skill sets to transition in to a more traditional classroom without falling behind. It is impmiant they receive this intervention now because transitioning to a larger class size, the frequency of focusing on these skills decreases as observed in the fourth grade class in which only 6% of students mastered their IEP goals in reading and 10% in math. Early intervention is key to closing the academic gap and preparing students for grade level content. Recommendations This study poses several implications for the cunent school regarding student placement, classroom structure, and instruction. Based on the results, both the STRA TS class and the fomih grade classroom had a positive effect on students achieving academic growth. However, that growth is very individualized, implying that placement and cmTicula content needs to be as well. It is critical that STRATS remains a permanent structure in the school setting as a resource classroom. Students benefit from small class sizes and additional staff suppmi, especially when addressing individual IEP objectives. However, since the focus of instruction in STRATS is on addressing foundational skills 54 that are needed to build up to grade level content, grade level standards are not addressed on a daily basis. As a result, to comply with least restrictive environment, it is imperative this placement is only selected for students who are perfmming two to three grade levels behind their same aged peers. Educators also need to take into consideration that STRATS may not be the most appropriate placement for students across all academic areas. Flexibility in placement may need to be taken into account allowing a student to be placed in STRATS for one content area and the general classroom for the other. This needs to be determined by student performance and academic level. Placement in this classroom should not look entirely at IQ scores but take into account the student's cunent IEP objectives, classroom work samples, and previous assessments. One data point should never be used to determine a student's placement as many factors can impact student perfmmance. Instead, using a variety of assessment tools provides a holistic representation of a student's strengths and weaknesses. In addition, understanding these elements will ensure appropriate selection of curriculum to bridge IEP objectives and core standards. Incorporating multi-tiered cuniculum will provide the necessary scaffolding for students to access core standards at their instmctionallevel. Students who do not qualify for STRATS placement should remain with their same aged peers. During this study, fifth grade students who were not on grade level transitioned to the fourth grade class for academics. This proved to be difficult not only for the students who "leveled down" but for educators preparing lessons across multiple grade level standards. As a result, students should level within their grade with one classroom supporting students who are on grade level and advanced and the other supporting students on grade level and students who place at a strategic level. This will allot for peer models 55 within each classroom but also provide the differentiation needed to support each student. In addition, with the structure of this model, the strategic level class will be smaller in size due to students transitioning to the STRATS class for language alis and math. This will allow teachers to instruct according to grade level standards while the reduced class size will make IEP data collection manageable and more frequently monitored. Although students will have access to the core standards, it is impoliant that content be modified and fundamental skills be addressed to support the individual needs of each student. This modification to the grade level class will provide all the advantages of a small class size without having to purchase an additional paraprofessional, which is not incorporated in the budget. As identified with the limited IEP data in fomih grade and inconsistent placement assessments in STRATS, it is crucial that educators have professional development opportunities on how to differentiate curriculum. Although the structure of each class is differentiated to suppmi advanced and strategic level students, students will still be perfmming at various levels within the classroom. It is imperative to the academic success of the students that educators know how to modify instruction to meet the needs of the student and bring them up to grade level. Although this study took place m a specialized setting with access to paraprofessionals in each classroom, this model can also be successfully implemented in a traditional school setting. Within each grade, students can level for language arts and mathematics based on their academic needs. This allows students to access curriculum at their academic level. An alternative would be to establish a focus session in which students' level for a short period of time. In this model, students who are struggling with 56 a concept are provided with a review of the lesson and students who have demonstrated mastery of the skill are given an enrichment activity. While class sizes may not be smaller, the gap between academic abilities, often observed in a general education classroom, will be minimized. In addition, when grouping students, educators can discuss their instructional strengths and identify who would provide the greatest impact and academic growth for each group. In both of these models, students are provided with content tailored to their academic needs and are provided with then necessary resources to be successful. Future Investigations The results of this study suggest that students placed within a smaller classroom setting with modified instruction make academic gains over the course of a year. However, the study does not provide conclusive evidence on the effects cu11'iculum and high-quality instruction has on these results. Copies oflesson plans and more frequent observations of instructional practices might deepen our understanding of the instructional methods used to support this population. As stated in Education Week, quantity cannot come at the expense of quality (2011 ). Ensuring educators have proper training and use research-based strategies in the classroom are imperative to positive assessment outcomes for student growth. This study also poses limitations due to the shmi period of time the study was conducted. Early intervention is crucial in suppmiing students' academic performance. By identifying academic gaps early on and providing intensive services to help students master fundamental skills, students are able to have access to and master grade level standards before the academic gap gets too large. Continuing this experimental design and monitoring student academic data over consecutive years will accurately represent the 57 success of this structural change over time. It will also identify at which point it has the greatest impact on student academic growth in hopes that when students reach middle or high school the academic gap continues to close do to the intensive nature of this model. 58 REFERENCES Adelson, J., & Carpenter, B. (2011). Grouping for Achievement Gains: For Whom Does Achievement Grouping Increase Kindergarten Reading Growth? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55( 4), 265-278 Association, A. P. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM-5). American Psychiatric Publishing. Browder, D.M., Karvonen, M., Davis, S., Fallin, K., & Coutiade-Little, G. (2005). The Impact of Teacher Training on State alternate Assessment Scores. Exceptional Children, 71, 267-282. Browder, D.M. & Spooner, F. (2006). Preface. In Browder, D.M. & Spooner, F. (Eds.) Teaching Language Atis, Math, and Science to Students With Significant Cognitive Disabilities Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Castle, S., Deniz, C., & Tmiora, M. (2005). Flexible Grouping and Student Learning in a High-Needs School. Education and Urban Society, 37(2), 139-150. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Autism Spectrum Disorder: Data and Statistics. Retrieved 2015, from Center for Disease Control and Prevention: http:/ /www.cdc. gov /ncbddd/ autism/ data.html Chiang, Hsu-Min, & Lin, Yueh-Hsien. (2007). Reading Comprehension Instruction for Students With Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Review of the Literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 259-267. Clanet, J. (201 0). The relationship between teaching practices and student achievement in first year classes: A comparative study of small size and standard size classes. European Journal of Psychological Education, 25(2), 192-206. 59 Dymond, S., Renzaglia, A., Gilson, C., & Slagor, M. (2007). Defining Access to the General Cun·iculum for High School Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons ·with Severe Disabilities, 32 (1 ), 1-15. Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2011, July 1). Issues A-Z: Class Size. Retrieved 2015, from Education Week: http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/class­size/ Englehart, J. M. (20 11). Why class size effects cannot stand alone: Insights from a qualitative exploration. Learning Environments Research, 109-121. Flores, M. M., & Ganz, J. B. (2009). Effects of Direct Instruction on the Reading Comprehension of Students with Autism and Developmental Disabilities. Education And Training In Developmental Disabilities, 44(1), 39-53 Humphrey, N. (2008). Autistic spectrum and inclusion: Including pupils with autistic spectrum disorders in mainstream schools. Support for Learning, 23(1), 41-47. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9604.2007.00367.x Klein, A. (2015). No Child Left Behind: An Overview. Retrieved May 2015, from Education Week: http:/ /www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left­behind- overview-definition-summary.html Lynch, S., & Adams, P. (2008). Developing Standards-Based Individualized Education Program Objectives for Students with Significant Needs. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40 (3), 36-39. Matthews, M., Ritchotte, J., & McBee, M. (2013). Effects ofschoolwide cluster grouping and within-class ability grouping on elementary school students' academic achievement growth, High Ability Studies, 24:2, 81-97. 60 Moores-Abdool, W. (2010). Included Students with Autism and Access to General Cuniculum: What Is Being Provided? Issues in Teacher Education, 19(2), 153- 169. Nation, K., Clarke, P., Wright, B., & Williams, C. (2006). Patterns of reading ability in children with autism spectrum disorder. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, 36 (7), 911-919. National Education Association. (20 1 0). Research Spotlight on Academic Ability Grouping: NEA Revie-ws of the Research on Best Practices in Education. Retrieved 2015, from National Education Association: http:/ /www.nea.org/tools/16899 .htm Naue1i, R. (2015). Imaging Study Finds Unique Brain Patterns Among Autistic. Retrieved 2015, from PsychCenteral: http:/ /psychcentral.com/news/20 15/0 1/21/imaging-study-finds-unique-brain-patterns- among -autistic/80216 .html Nye, B. (2002). Do Low-Achieving Students Benefit More from Small Classes? Evidence from the Tennessee Class Size Experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 201-217. Office of Communications and Public Liaison. (2015). Autism Spectrum Disorder Fact Sheet. Retrieved 2015, from National Institute ofNeurological Disorders and Stroke: http:/ /www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/autism/detail_ autism.htm Paneque, 0. M., & Rodriguez, D. (2009). Language Use by Bilingual Special Educators of English Language Learners with Disabilities. International Journal Of Special Education, 24(3), 63-69. 61 Pierce, R., Cassady, J., & Adams, C. (2011 ). The Effects of Clustering and Cull'iculum on the Development of Gifted Leamers' Math Achievement. Journal for the Education ofthe Gifted, 34 (4), 569-594. Samson, F., & Mottron, L. (2012). Enhanced visual functioning in autism: An ALE meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping, 33 (7), 1553-1581. Slavin, R. E. (1989). Class Size and Student Achievement: Small Effects of Small Classes. Educational Psychologist, 99-110. Soukup, J., Wehmeyer, M., Bashinski, S., & Boviard, J. (2007). Classroom Variables and Access to the General Cull'iculum for Students with Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74 (10), 101-121 Towles-Reeves, E., & Kleinert, H. (2006). The Impact of One State's Altemate Assessment upon Instruction and IEP Development. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25 (3), 31. U.S Depmiment ofEducation. (2015). Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004. Retrieved February 2015, from http://idea.ed.gov/ U.S. Depmiment of Education. (2006). National Centerfor Education Statistics: Public Elementary/Secondmy School Universe Survey, 1987-88 through 2004-05. Retrieved 2015, from Institute of Education Sciences: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06 060.asp U.S. Depmiment of Education (2008), National Centerfor Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), "Public School Teacher Data File," 2007-08. Retrieved 2015, from Institute of Education Sciences: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708 2009324_t1 s 08.asp 62 U.S. Department of Education (2012), National Centerfor Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), "Public School Teacher Data File," 2011-12. Retrieved 2015, from Institute ofEducation Sciences: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass1112_2013314_tls_007.asp U.S Department of Education. (2013). National Center for Education Statistics: Fast Facts- Students with Disabilities. Retrieved 2015, from Institute of Education Sciences: https :/ /nces.ed. gov /fastfacts/ display .asp ?id=64 U.S Department ofEducation. (2015). National Centerfor Education Statistics: Teachers and Pupil/Teacher Ratios. Retrieved 2015, from Instititute ofEducation Sciences: http:/ /nces.ed. gov /pro grams/ coe/indicator_ clr.asp U.S Department of Education. (201 0). Thirty-Five Years of Progress in Educating Children with Disabilities Through IDEA. Washinton DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Wahlberg, T., & Magliano, J.P. (2004). The Ability of High Functioning Individuals with Autism to Comprehend Written Discourse. Discourse Processes, 38, 119- 144 Whalon, K., & AI Otaiba, S. (2009). Evidence-Based Reading Instruction for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 3-16. Whalon, K., & Hati, J. (2011). Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Literacy Instruction: An Exploratory Study of Elementary Inclusive Settings. Remedial And Special Education , 243-255. 63 APPENDIX: A STRATS: List of IEP Goals Language Arts Mathematl~ CN1 Gto'-'th hr{t'"liit1! Go~r Gro"'H• ~~H~ntJ(I St ... -:~nt tiU!fllt('~ SUtti11j (!".;ti1J: i!."o'(1 M.lh1~u~ or lO:.lk S.ttO•.h:~nt fH..tfflb'-•' )UrHt~t (ntli'li ~ ("'/('I' \~.i>t.t~tt>! ot t_<:oll\ (ii: lr:Hrd y; y; t'< .(U.:O'i. (U lhtod I' t•• J(Ooi.'i iniH) mHh~tflj o'.I£Pl fft.Ut4h~! yr-u '(tH 4 Yh. ~.;~ Wt.. II I f.ijl, 1(.1( •'~~ N s SSY. .!.I'll J4Y. • l ~ t.!Y~ ~~ ll\t. N O'X l 6 >O't.. ;.J~-; S'l, II 401i l Y.t,; '/)i{ 11'11 II 'I ~HI ·H~4 Jlz.. .., v I HI'. ~£l'. Ill'. tl 1 (>';<; 8 ~~ ! ""· ~)'>'. II g Y.lh H:-.. l';, tl 4 $SY. !)1', 1~ PI 1 !>;.;-, tC>:"t.. J'tY- ., l l'*JIJ.'f I s H~. J.S~. llY. II 01\ 1 £.~$-', 8)';<; ll'r'. '( 6 .!!.'Jol. JW, HI II s &~Y. l(.oJ'I. Jl~t '( 4 IC•:<'t. ) ji,Y, i~r!t. 111'. II 6 ~)I'. ~~"' ~II'. ,. l SO)( 4 Y.lll iS~ HI', ' 5 4 !?J:•. 9Sl'. II\', ., !C>:rt. I U'll t.S~ l i'i. II " £)\1, 8!.~ IJY, ' l V./1"'., s~:~t:. "'· II • 1 {>!.\', 8$'i< Ill'. ., W• ~ so~ 4 Y./:1, 6)Y, l}Yt .,. $ $So/. Sti< J\', N 9 HI'. >;y, SlY. • 4 'F.""· ~I'll !)'r:. ., J l{•~ s V.l\', 1.-J'i. 4•J't, . , s WI. 9ll< ll\1 • ., 6 l-Wo .!..;.i'. sw. • 4 HY. liY. 1>1 N g s~~ s 1 J·1"Y. 4!1'. ltY. N itO!\ s Yh. ~it. lll'. ,, 8 Y.lt.. oll<. l!Y. .,. ~ HI<. 8&1< HY, ~ ') !(>)\', 9 6-SY, M-~...-.; ll'l, ' l 4l~"'· ~Y.~ 4lY. ,. l ~ .. ., HY, £\I II l £!':', ~)if, l~Y. ' 4 S.i"ft H'Y, 111'. II 011; !C• l HY. IC>J'I, ~II', y 1Ct;.':.t, s tV h. HY .. l~Y- PI 4 ~!\'. 811'. HI\ i I ;;y, i1\'. l)'r. • 2 U\\ ~~~" H:-. ' 1 7S;.; 1 H~ 14'1. £\1, II 6 Wt, UY. lSY, ,. l 4~1'. 61~ .. 1-i'l'- N ! 2 l•:r:•. 5(t;"'. Jo)\', II 01\ l ts~ 16.~~ ll\1, tl 4 t<:rt. )l\', ll\'. N 1 , ~SY, H'l. ~ lY, II oo.; 6 ].Jt, HY. S$'. II s );\', >w. U\', ,, lC' so.: 6 S.!% Wt. 111 II 64 APPENDIX: B FOURTH GRADE: List of IEP Goals Goo I Cirol'o1M Pf.,cc-nt.:ge CiC<ll GCOJ\~h P<r«M>i:<' Sll:dcnt rt.tmt<r St~rtir.~ lndr.g 0\":t th~ 1/ Mt<r<d «,, .• St•rtln.-c lnd·r<!l ovc• 1/:»t<rod los llst<-0 ofgools 1..: X goo Is "' % ~~-~ gNIS In ILP) v••· m:.tc«:d rr~stN~ (,J:<! ~I% !"l"k lj 11 0!'1 6~~.; 78~ ll:>l u 2Cfh Jell lCt?;:. 14 12 .w,.; 41% "" " ox 5-~~ (,8~ ll" lj ~2:~ ~~% 3:<1 ll 13 Jn< 30'1! 3% tl 0% 6 ]~·,; ~C% 11% ll ~~~( ~!,~ !01'. 14 " 0!\ w.~ W> n:.; lj 4:J~~ 5011 !2'?$ ll I~ ~cr:.; !tC~ 01'. ll ox 6 5@ ~~"' ~':( " ~01'. !J~~ ~s 16 " 0!\ :>01'. ~Cli 101'. ll W>i ICC'i. .w,.; y l:l'h J2)1 r..; ll II ~0-)) .U"h 9~% Jr.( v n:.; JS% 6% ll lllol 46)1 !3:<1 ll 18 6:;~-G 7Cli ~"' ll 0% 5~% 74\ol !97> ll o:r..; (,8)\ ~'S ll 19 4 ;;:ns IJ)\ 301'. ll ]3)1 6>:.; 8t'll lS~~ .,. Jl'h 6~14 l2'h 10 " 0)1 StY.( ~~., 2>'h " 65 STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO DUPLICATE THESIS & DEPOSIT/DISPLAY IN THE INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY Name of Author(s) AsHUY 'VA-MfJ School/Department 'DE?>ARIHcA)r oF EDLJU4TIOA) Title of Thesis 'Dsrr f( NJ 1\))flX.:r •JFtt Ni7bT ffef~oPf21,4Tf_ CJ .. i1ssRcoH sn~t.twRc ·m JAJCRfltSE. lkA-bwtc Crl!ouTI-/ fOR__ 'STVPEJ'-)15 W1 rH fJ-unsH 'PEf<.H::Jf(H;iLJ(J.- T wu VE:/1!2S OR M0r2.[ 'BtHIIUD G-f/..__flbt_ LCIJLL· With permission from the author(s), on the basis of an occasional and individual request, the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College has the right to make a copy of the above named thesis. The Giovale Library staff also has the right to mail or otherwise disseminate a copy to the requesting pmiy and to be reimbursed by the requesting pmiy for the cost of duplicating and mailing the thesis. I hereby give my permission to the staff of the Giovale Librmy of Westminster College to duplicate as described the above named thesis. With permission from the author(s), the staff of the Giovale Librm·y of Westminster College has the right to deposit and display an electronic copy of the above named thesis in its Institutional Repository for educational purposes only. I hereby give my permission to the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College to deposit and display as described the above named thesis. I retain ownership rights to my ·work, including the right to use it in fitture works such as articles or a book. D{ ~I) SignatJ::iZ'tho Ts)9 Date The above duplication and deposit rights may be terminated by the author(s) at any time by notifying the Director of the Giovale Library in writing that pe1mission is withdrawn.