Dr. Christopher D. Chandler, Dean of School of Education at Genesis University | 100% Online Tuition-Free University, presents the study of:

Consequences of Low Expectations For Students with Special Needs.

Introduction
The purpose of this Research Study will be to investigate the consequences of low expectations and wrongful placement of students with learning disabilities and to better understand how Individual Educational Programs (IEP) make decisions regarding the academic placement of students with learning disabilities. The research will focus on the particular case study of Jane Doe, a student with special needs, who was assigned to the wrong academic placement, a VAAP -Virginia Alternate Assessment Program, by her IEP thereby placing her in a self contained class environment depriving her of general classroom inclusion. The research study will show that procedures were not correctly followed in the IEP process, therefore there was a denial of FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education), a denial of educational opportunities, loss of student’s self-esteem, and loss of any opportunity of future educational opportunities including receiving a modified diploma. A qualitative research study will show that Jane Doe’s test scores from the Johnson-Woodcock tests of cognitive ability, the Northern Virginia Public Schools (NVPS) go to test for cognitive abilities, fell from an 85% category in 2006 to a 35% category in reading comprehension in 2010, the three years that she spent in a VAAP assigned placement.
In order to investigate the consequences of low expectations and wrong academic placement of students with learning disabilities, the research will attempt to answer the following three research questions: (1) From the perspective of administrators, special education teachers, and parents of disabled students, how are modified standards supposed to work? (2) From the perspective of administrators, special education teachers, and parents of disabled students, does the major goal of special education enable students with special needs to perform closer to grade level proficiency or to a different level of academic proficiency allowed by their intellectual abilities? and, (3) From the perspective of administrators, special education teachers, and parents of disabled students do school curriculums offer methodologies, strategies, accommodations, and instruction that address the needs of students with learning disabilities and enable them to perform at grade level standards of learning?

Historical Summary
From the point of view of administrators, special education teachers, and parents of disabled students the question most frequently asked is, how are modified standards supposed to work. There are numerous methodologies, strategies, and accommodations offered to special education students that have been thoroughly designed, reviewed, and implemented into educational practice that address the needs of special needs students. Some states have developed alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) to measure the academic achievement of some students with disabilities (Albus, Lazarus, Thurlow, & Cormier, 2009; Lazarus, Thurlow, Christensen, & Cormier, 2007). These assessments measure the same content as the general assessment for a given grade-level, but the AA-MAS may have different expectations of content mastery than the general assessment, according to federal regulations and guidance. The United States Department of Education’s Non-regulatory Guidance (2007b) for AA-MAS states: This assessment is based on modified academic achievement standards that cover the same grade-level content as the general assessment. The expectations of content mastery are modified, not the grade-level content standards themselves. The requirement that modified academic achievement standards be aligned with grade-level content standards is important; in order for these students to have an opportunity to achieve at grade level, they must have access to and instruction in grade-level content (Quenemoen, 2010).
A major goal of special education is to enable students with special needs to perform closer to the level of performance allowed by their intellectual abilities. The reason for this goal is two-fold: (1) to ensure success in school and in life for special needs students, and (2) to enable schools to demonstrate adequate yearly progress as required by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). That is, NCLB and IDEA both stipulate that all students with special needs must make continuous and substantial improvement in reading and math achievement in order for a school to demonstrate adequate yearly progress towards the goal of 100% proficiency in reading and math for all students (IDEA, 2004).
Instructional interventions and strategies including inclusion, behavioral modification, social skills training, problem solving learning, cooperative learning, co-teaching, peer to peer instruction, mentoring, and other methods are currently being administered in special education classrooms and resource rooms to significantly effect the academic achievement of students with special needs (Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin, 2002). Many teachers and researchers within the special education community have called for new methods to help such students make even greater gains in academic achievement, and to ensure transfer of their learning to new contexts. For example studies have argued that the existence of special needs curricula that focus on students’ ability to learn facts encourages students to memorize information rather than use the information in new contexts (Ibler, 1997). As a result, experimental educational research authors write that at risk students with special needs are often caught in a “repetitious cycle of basic skills remediation” (Means & Knapp, 1991, p 235). As such, these students are not able to perform at the higher levels allowed by their intellectual abilities, and thus fail to make the continuous and substantial improvement required by NCLB (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003). Many authors have noted that instructional approaches that involve cooperative learning have the potential to help students with special needs increase their achievement levels (Barley et al., 2002; Gillies & Ashman, 2000; Jenkins et al., 2003; Malmgren, 1998; Slavin & Madden, 1989).
A report by National Center for Educational Outcomes includes information on accommodations for special needs students that have been incorporated into the design of States’ AA-MAS. For this report embedded accommodations are defined as AA-MAS features that would be considered an accommodation on a state’s regular assessment. In other words, if a tool or procedure that is usually considered an accommodation is provided on the AA-MAS (and is available to students participating in the assessment without any IEP documentation), it is considered an embedded accommodation. The research examined accommodations that were allowed on each state’s regular assessment, as well as regular test features that are sometimes considered accommodations and then looked to see whether any of these accommodations

had been integrated into the design of the state’s AA-MAS (Lazarus, 2009). Examples of embedded accommodations are listed below:
• If a State’s AA-MAS used 16-point font size and its regular assessment had 12-point font,
the large print accommodation would be considered to be an embedded accommodation.
• If the calculator was allowed on all sections of a State’s AA-MAS but allowed only on
certain portions of the regular test, the calculator accommodation would be considered an
embedded accommodation.
• If a State’s AA-MAS design included the reading of test questions and items to all participating
students (and the regular assessment does not include this feature), the read aloud
accommodation would be considered an embedded accommodation (Lazarus, 2009).
In the present culture of education, inclusion of students with learning disabilities into a general grade level classrooms is a widely debated and highly resisted accommodation that is frequently used as an intervention by special education teachers in modern classroom settings. The use of inclusion is very distinct and very different from mainstreaming, another widely used intervention in current educational practice. Mainstreaming is defined as integrating children with special needs into the regular classroom with the understanding that there is a resource room or special education class to which they can go to receive assistance. Mainstreaming is still part of a pullout model in which students can go to another class for the help that they need. Inclusion on the other hand, is a movement that was designed to bring special education services into the general classroom. In such settings, children with disabilities are considered as rail members of the classroom community, with their special needs met there (Friend & Bursuck, 1996). This movement is a significant change from the traditional practice of having students ”pulled out” of regular education to receive special services in a resource room or self contained special education classroom (Henley, Ramsey, & Algozzine, 1990). Additionally inclusion programs have a zero rejection philosophy, no one is turned away because of the presence of a disability (Thousand & villa, 1989). Unlike mainstreaming, inclusion maintains an open door to all students regardless of abilities. Instruction is designed around individual strengths and concerns, rather than placement of students in programs in which instruction is based on the type of severity of the students’ disabilities. Inclusion assumes a positive attitude in which all students are accepted as members of the school and classroom environment ( Bradley, King-Sears, & Tessier-Switlick, 1997).
The arguments about the differences between inclusion and mainstreaming includes different opinions about how special education services are offered, how students with disabilities are supported and treated, and how restrictive are the environments where they receive instructions. There are also additional issues of perception of inclusion of special needs students by staff, classroom teachers, special education teachers, instructional assistants, and principals in every school in every school district. Overall most instructors feel positive about inclusion but favor the use of additional services like classroom assistants to facilitate the attention and teaching of students with special needs (Idol, 2006).
Grade level placement and age are the major controversial component of student’s inclusion into general education classrooms because the basis of inclusion lies in ideals, values, and goals and not in the realities of today’s classrooms. Those promoting inclusion assume that the general education classroom will be able to accommodate all students with disabilities, even those with severe disabilities. and those promoting inclusion assume that this group of students can obtain full educational and social benefits from this type of placement. Those who oppose full inclusion argue that although methods of collaborative learning and group instruction are the preferred method of instruction the traditional classroom size, lack of teacher training, and resources are often inadequate for management and accommodation of students with disabilities without producing adverse effects on classrooms as a whole. Exactly the problem that is depicted in the case study, Jane Doe’s experience with the Northern VA Public Schools (Kochhar, 2011).

A recent paper, “Developing and Improving Achievement Level Descriptors: Rational, Procedure, and Tools”, attempted to explain the criteria for states to develop and continuously improve AA-MAS and ALS (academic learning standards). The focus of this article was to define what the indices of qualities that specify how adept or competent a student demonstration must be. There are certain descriptors that define the process of standard setting on standards based instruction and they include the following four components: (1) levels that provide descriptor labels or narrative for student performance (eg… advanced, proficient, etc…), (2) descriptors of what students at each level must demonstrate relative to the task, (3) examples of student work at each level illustrating the range of performance within each level, and (4) cut scores clearly separating each performance level. As stakeholders, test developers, and policymakers worked to improve the quality of their achievement level descriptors (ALDs), they incorporated the following examples: rather than using terms like “cognitive complexity” or “depth of knowledge,” they used categories of “content” (what), “application” (how), and “degree” (how well). Rather than using a term like “scaffolding,” they chose the general category of “context” (Quenemoen, 2010). The author continues to write that there is a way in which the two percent instruction may improve instruction for students in special education. He argues that it is likely that there are a group of students who struggle to make proficiency on the regular assessment, who were placed into AA-AAS by their IEP team, but for whom the alternate achievement standards are inappropriately unchallenging. If a test that is more academically challenging than the AA-AAS, but less challenging than the regular assessment, is available, teachers may raise their expectations for this group of students and provide them instruction that better targets their instructional needs (Quenemoen, 2010).
The entire process of the research study and methodology will be a qualitative research design utilizing a case study approach, Jane Doe’s experiences with the Northern Virginia School System. The study will show that a program of self-contained class instruction was developed for Jane Doe by the IEP assigning her in a VAAP program of 1% of severely disabled students (See appendix C). The case study will show that even facing a mediation process Jane Doe has not yet been provided with compensatory education. It will show a distinct pattern of resistance by the Northern Virginia School System to withhold information from the parents during the IEP process. The case study will reveal that parents were not informed of the consequences of the assignment of Jane Doe to a VAAP placement. The approach is a valid design for the following reason: FAPE, a right of children with disabilities is guaranteed under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. A student must be provided services to enable him/her to continue to participate in the general education curriculum and to progress toward meeting the goals established by the IEP and the IDEA act of 2004 (Federal Register, 2006).

Strategies:
In Jane Doe’s experience with the Northern Virginia School system, data were collected over a period of several years, interviews and conversations with academic experts were scheduled, IEP teams met annually to develop a program of instruction for Jane Doe, and finally a course of action was taken, Jane Doe was assigned and placed in a VAAP program. Ultimately these steps were taken in an attempt to place Jane Doe in the correct Individual Educational Program (IEP). In the course implementing the IEP program, IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act) established procedures for placing students with disabilities into the appropriate grade levels with correct standards of academic achievement were not properly followed. Subsequently, facing mediation and through scheduled meetings, no measures have been taken to provide Jane Doe with compensatory education. This case demonstrates a distinct pattern of neglect and resistance by the Northern Virginia Public School System(NVPSS) in their decision to place Jane into a Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP) without first consulting, informing, and having the parents sign off on this course of action. By not following the stated regulatory measures provided by IDEA the NVSS is clearly in violation of Federal Law. Under the IDEA act of 2004 which concentrates on the IEP process, due process, and the discipline provision, a student must be provided services to enable him/her to continue to participate in the general education curriculum and to progress toward meeting the goals established by the IEP (Federal Register, 2006).Addressing the second of responses by states to develop and implement a modified academic achievement standards, there is a wealth of informative outcomes worth investigating, analyzing, and categorizing in this case study. Beginning with the following facts, Jane Doe is a moderately intellectually disabled child, with an IQ of 51, she also suffers from Dyspraxia. Jane Doe does not qualify as most significant cognitively disabled under Federal requirements and her parents were offered an IEP (Individual Educational Program) by the Northern Virginia Public School System (NVPSS) that would place her in a 7th grade level environment, when she has failed the sixth grade, while she somehow “self-remediates” using new software, and after spending the previous three years on a Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP) track. First, this case study reveals that there was an obvious failure by school system experts to correctly diagnose Jane Doe’s leaning disability. Not only does Jane Doe fit into the category of significantly cognitively disabled due to her Down syndrome but she also suffers from a condition known as Dyspraxia that was never diagnosed or addressed. Second, there was clear evidence of the inability of the school system to properly place Jane Doe in the correct academic achievement standards environment where she would have the chance to thrive and excel in instructional content. In the document “Procedures for Participants of Students with Disabilities in Virginia’s accountability system. “A Guide for Educators and Parents”, the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) describes the specific sequence that IEP Teams are to follow in fulfilling the IDEA requirements that all assessment standards are to be considered in turn starting with the SOL standard and with the parents participating in the step-by-step process (VDOE, 2010).
A clear explanation of the differences between assessments based on grade level academic achievement standards and those based on modified or alternate academic achievement standards must be made. “The IEP Team makes decisions about participation in each of the assessments and the need for and selection of accommodations…. The ramifications of decisions made by the IEP Team must be clearly explained and understood by the student’s parents and student if appropriate” (VDOE, 2010). Only students with significant cognitive disabilities who are eligible under IDEA 2004 and who meet the VAAP guidelines for participation may be assessed through the VAAP. Students will compile a collection of work samples, called a collection of evidence (COE) to demonstrate achievement on the aligned standards of learning (ASOL). Students who participate in the VAAP participate in all content areas; participation decisions are made on an individual basis (VDOE, 2010). To further complicate the issue, Jane Doe’s standard of learning (SOL) scores support the parent’s contention that VAAP was never a proper placement for her. Her reading score was 316 – or 660 on the Lextile scale, which firmly places her at a 4th grade reading level. If the IEP is allowed to be implemented as is, without compensatory education, the parents believe that Jane Doe will likely fail the 7th grade and enter the 8th grade at an even greater disadvantage than she currently is now struggling to assimilate the necessary skills to compete with other students with 7th grade level academic content. Had the NVPSS been compliant with the IEP process then the parents would have directly participated in the examination of the assessment options annually and they would have known that a modified or alternative achievement standard was a possibility for Jane Doe at an earlier point in her education. According to VDOE procedures guide and IDEA, the IEP Team should have examined assessment options for each subject that Jane Doe was studying during each stage of her education, possibly leading to “combination participation” on assessments. This could have in turn led to Jane Doe spending more time in a general education classroom. Finally the parents would have realized that alternative assessments like VAAP would be reserved by IDEA for students with the most significant learning disabilities, and that the law specifically encourages participation of students who are currently assessed based upon alternate academic achievement standards to be assessed based on the more challenging modified academic achievement standards.

Data collection will include interviews with professionals in the Department of Education, family members, and professional educators involved with the case who are asked to answer a series of interview questions (See appendix A) . A narrative description of results of the Woodcock-Johnson test of cognitive ability that are the results of seven tests in the standard battery, and an additional fourteen tests in the extended battery, allow for a considerably detailed analysis of cognitive abilities. The Castell-Horn-Carroll theory factors that this test examines are Keywords: Comprehension-Knowledge, Long-Term Retrieval, Visual-Spatial Thinking, Auditory Processing, Fluid Reasoning,
Processing Speed, Short-Term Memory and Quantitative Knowledge and Reading-Writing Ability. A General Intellectual Ability (GIA) or Brief Intellectual Ability (BIA) may also be obtained. Results from psychological testing will include reports compiled by Clinical Psychologists, Dr. Edwin Carter.
The research for this study will develop open coding to prepare and organize data which will then be organized in transcripts, collected in image data such as photographs, condensed into themes through a process called coding, and sketched into ideas by writing notes in margins of field notes. Representations of data will be accomplished through creating figures, tables, or a discussion. This process is important because it allows the researcher to present a general analysis and gain a definite analytical perspective of the research findings. The research will compare methodology by looking at data, reducing data into meaningful segments, assigning names for the segments, and by drafting summaries of field notes and making metaphors. Codes can be combined into broader themes and categories and by sampling computer programs.

Research bias will be clarified at the outset of the case study and in the narrative process. Member checking will occur by the administration of follow up questionnaires to participants to establish a level of dependability and reliability by identifying four types of validation. (1) Triangulation, having multiple data sources, methods and schemes, (2) Construct validation, recognizing the constructs that exist rather than imposing theories on informants or the context, (3) Face validation a ‘yes of course’ instead of ‘yes but’ experience, and (4) Catalytic validation energizes participants toward knowing reality to transform it (Lather, 1991) (See appendix B). Ethical considerations will determine that participant’s anonymity is protected in the study, which will be conducted with the full approval and consent of IRB. The participants’ safety and physical and mental health will be guarded and protected in the study and the results will be reported in a truthful, trustworthy, and ethical manner. In qualitative research three types of validity can be discussed: (1) Descriptive validity refers to the factual accuracy of the account as reported by the qualitative researcher, (2) Interpretive validity is obtained to the degree that the participants’
viewpoints, thoughts, intentions, and experiences are accurately understood and reported by the qualitative researcher, and (3) Theoretical validity is obtained to the degree that a theory or theoretical explanation developed from a research study fits the data and is, therefore, credible and defensible. Member checking will occur when the researcher solicits participants’ views of the credibility of the research. Peer review in the research study will act as a ‘devil’s advocate’, an individual who keeps the research honest.

Biblical Integration
An epistemological assumption led to my choice of a case study for this research in an attempt to get as close as possible to participants and positions that demonstrate the value of the information gathered in the study. A biblical non-situational worldview helped shape my approach, a viewpoint that involves understanding the dichotomy facing Christian educators of whether to simply comply with existing Federal and State law or to work within the context of the law and model Christian faith, values, morality and ethics. Thomas and Henry Blackaby write about legitimate and illegitimate source of influence affecting educators touching upon moral and ethical implications. For example, regarding illegitimate sources of influence there are (1) Position, the manner of gaining influence through one’s stature. (2) Power, insecurity and the need for affirmation drive people to seek leadership positions through the use of power; and (3) Personality, if influence doesn’t come automatically (position) and if overpowering doesn’t work (power) then one can always turn to charm and (personality) charisma (Blackaby, 2001). Frequently asked questions include: (1) From perspective of participants how are modified standards supposed to work? (2) What are moral and ethical choices facing teachers? (3) Do recipients of modified diplomas face fair treatment concerning future educational opportunities?
The current philosophy in education seems to be rooted in two philosophic movements, Modernism and Post-Modernism. Modernism states that the scientific worldview had superseded all those that preceded it, including the Christian one. Postmodernism denies this claim and that all philosophic
attempts to define reality are just stories that may or may not have any objective value at all (Green, 2007). The philosophic roots of postmodernism lie in the philosophy of Martin Heidegger whose views have been described as anti-humanist. His philosophy denies the idea of a common humanity and says that human beings are no longer at the center. There is no center (Ibid., p.74). Postmodernism does influence public education, and often, tragically, Christian education as well with its emphasis on the rejection of truth as a valid account of the way things have been historically and are today. With the disappearance of truth goes the disappearance of moral principles (Green, 2007).
In Scripture in both the Old and New testaments there are numerous re-occurring themes that address the necessity of education and the merits of teaching and learning. For example; “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Knowledge, only fools despise wisdom and instruction” Proverbs 1:7, This scripture verse from the Old testament cries out to those of us today who are believers that we, as Christian educators, have a responsibility to take the knowledge of Christian ethics, morals, and values that our Lord has allowed us to receive and gain at Liberty University and to carry the message of the Word of God to whomever and where-ever we are called to be of service the Lord. It is our categorical imperative in words of the great philosopher Emanuel Kant that now that we possess knowledge of the truth we are obliged to act upon it and to carry this message to whomever we come into contact with.

Conclusion
The primary limiting consideration in conducting a qualitative research design is that a single case study is observed and a random sample of the population is not conducted. While the results of this case study are not applicable to all situations and participants there is a sufficient amount of evidence observed to argue that the criteria used to place students with disabilities into correct academic content areas in order to meet equal opportunity educational needs was not correctly followed by the NVPSS. Further the observation of the “human” component in this case study alone is worthwhile and productive on many levels. The current Secretary of Education in the Obama administration, Arnie Duncan, in a June 23, 2011 speech discussed amending the existing Federal Law, No Child Left Behind, and spoke about eliminating both the two percent category and the modified academic achievement standard. From his remarks it was not clear what the proposed amendments to NCLB would be, or what replacement of the modified standard of academic achievement would look like. Secretary Duncan said, “move forward with plans to provide additional flexibility to States,” which are looking for greater relief under the NCLB. Since this announcement, the Center on Education Policy began tracking current developments relating to the Federal government’s decision to offer regulatory flexibility from some provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA. 2011).
On June 13, 2011, President Obama formally outlined the administration’s comprehensive ESEA flexibility package, which will grant states waivers from specific provisions of NCLB/ESEA in return for their agreement to implement certain reform measures (ESEA, 2011). If the elimination of the two percent GAP Kids option and the modified academic achievement standards are allowed than what will happen to this group of students with non-significant learning disabilities. Without the existence of a modified academic achievement standards, the less capable disabled students will either be pushed up into competition with grade level students participating in grade level content where they will ultimately be forced into failure or they will be pushed backwards into the one percent alternative academic achievement standard where there is no diploma and no further educational opportunities.
This case study reveals to the reader that educators view the placement of students with learning disabilities as a serious matter that needs careful implementation following the mandates of Federal and State law and well defined assessment procedures. The lives, future educational opportunities, and future work place opportunities for the group of special needs students with most significant disabilities, the two percent gap kids, and the grade level school populations are all at stake. The new legislation that will amend NCLB has the potential to do the right thing and actually give these kids “Accelerated growth toward, and mastery of State-approved grade-level standards which are goals of special education” (Federal Register, 2007, p46, 653). To comply or not to comply with State and Federal government assessment standards is totally without question. The professional educator works diligently to find a way to both comply with the intent of the law and address the task of educating students with and without special needs. There is no longer a decision to comply with existing law or to educate your students but only the reality of how to educate students within the context of the law.
Addressing the question of amending NCLB, the elimination of the two percent GAP Kids, and the removal of the current modified academic achievement standards, both Federal and State governments need to reconsider their positions on these issues and make the correct choice of keeping current special needs provisions as law. Considering the amount of time, money, and effort placed into the creation of these laws, the government needs to look at the benefits that the process of inclusion has created for the two percent GAP kids, the educational system, and communities at large by allowing these special needs programs to continue to manifest, grow, and to ensure special needs students equal opportunity and a chance for academic success. Jane Doe’s experience with the NVPSS is a perfect example of what can go wrong when laws are not followed and mistakes are covered up. The 2007 amendment establishing new rules and a modified standard of academic achievement went one step further by containing a series of safeguards that required students with learning disabilities to be assessed by IEP teams once every year and assessed in each subject. In this case the law was clearly broken, resistance occurred on every school level, from superintendent to teacher, and the student has suffered a lack of educational opportunity and a loss of educational instruction.
From the current research available on the topic of inclusion as a viable intervention to instruct students with special needs, both opponents and proponents of inclusion can find convincing research to support their respective views. Generally speaking, participant teachers in most every teaching situation agree in principle with the concept of inclusion as an instructional tool to teach students with special needs yet they lack confidence, preparedness, and the training to work in inclusive settings. Concern was primarily focused on the lack of appropriate training for teachers in mainstream classrooms, ignorance about inclusion among senior level administrators, lack of funding for resources and training, and a lack of societal awareness regarding the issues they may face during the inclusion process. As the national educational system undergoes a radical period of change, changes in way we educate children with special needs will occur at break neck speed. Since inclusion has become a more frequent strategy used in the educational arena it will be insightful to conduct further research and study of how students with and without disabilities interact with one another in inclusive classroom settings. This is an important study because teaching strategies that utilize peer assistance are an integral part of inclusive environments. It is very clear from the information gathered and from the data collected and analyzed that further research efforts need to be conducted concerning the process of inclusion and its attempt to change the consequences of low expectations for students with learning disabilities and special needs.

References
Aldridge, J., Goldman, R. (2007). Current Issues and Trends in Education, Pearson Education Inc., ISBN: 0-205-48620-7.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC. ISBN: 10:1-4338-0561-8.

Bartholow, B. D., Fabiani, M., Gratton, G., Bettencourt, B.A. (2001). A psychophysiological examination of cognitive processing of affective responses to social expectancy violations. Psychological Sciences, 12, 197-204.

Blackaby, H. & Blackaby, R. (2001). Spiritual leadership: moving people on to God’s agenda. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group. ISBN: 978-0-8054-1845-3.

Federal Register. (2007). Rules and Regulations, Title-1, Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA), assistance to states for education of children with disabilities. V72, n67, p17748.

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2003-4/120903a.html.

Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP Meeting: Perceptions of Parents of Students who Receive Special Education Services.

Preventing School Failure, v53, n1, 8-14. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp.nfpb=true.

Friend, M.P., Bursuck, W. (2002). Including students with special needs: a practical guide for classroom teachers. Allyn and Bacon, ISBN: 978-0-20533-192-5.

Greene, A.E. (1998). Reclaiming the Future of Christian Education, Purposeful Design Publications, ISBN: 978-1-58331-000-7.

Henley, M., Ramsey, R., Algozzine, R. (2008). Characteristics of and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities, Pearson, ISBN: 978-0-20560-838-6.

Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A program evaluation and study of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77-94.

Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in Qualitative Research: The Assessment of Truth. American Occupational Therapy Association, 45(3), 214-222.

http://ajot.aotapress.net/content/45/3/214.short.

Lather, P. (1991). Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy within the Postmodern. Routledge. ISBN: 978-0-41590-378-3.

Lazarus, S., Rogers, C., Cormier, D., & Thurlow, M. (2008). States’ participation guidelines for alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS) in 2008 (Synthesis Report 71). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present and future. In D. Flanagan, & Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues-second edition, p136-202. New York: Guilford Press.  http://www.iqscorner.com/2009/11/cattell-horn-carroll-chc-theory-key.html.

Nistreen, Anati, (2012). The pros and cons of special education inclusion from the perceptions of teachers in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 2 (1), 55-66.

Quenemoen, R., Albus, D., Rogers, C., Lazarus, S. (2010). Developing and improving modified achievement level descriptors: rationale, procedures, and tools. National Center on Educational Outcomes. University of Minnesota.

Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigor: quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of advanced nursing, 53(3), 304-310. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03727.x/abstract.

Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating inclusive classrooms for all: effective and reflective practices (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/ Prentice-Hall.
Whittenmore, R. Chase, S. K. & Mandle, C.L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522-537.

Yuill, H., Oakhill, J. (2010). Children’s problems in text comprehension: An experimental investigation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J., & Parkin, A. (1989). Working memory, comprehension ability and the resolution of text anomaly. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 351-361.

Appendix A: Interview Questions
(1) How would you characterize your race?
(2) What were the test scores form the Johnson-Woodcock test?
(3) Where and when did the IEP team meet?
(4) Were both parents in attendance at each IEP meeting?
(5) How many times did the IEP team meet?
(6) Was the creation of a 2% category of students with special needs, established by New Rules 2007, mentioned during IEP process?
(7) Were the differences between 1% and 2% standards of learning fully explained?
(8) Were you made aware of the existence of a modified diploma and what this means?
(9) Were the parents completely included in all IEP decisions?
(10) What was the response of the school system, administration, and teachers on the subject of classroom inclusion of students with learning disabilities?
(11) Are you surprised at any of the outcomes of the meetings and decisions of the administration?
(12) If so, explain the reaction of the participants to the outcomes and discuss your thoughts about this process.

Appendix B: Consent Form
Are you comfortable providing information as to the ethnicity, gender, and other pertinent information regarding the participants involved in this interview and questionnaire? (Yes or No to proceed).
Sample of Informed Consent Form
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this case study, which will take place from September 2012 to May of 2013. The consent form details the purpose of the case study, a description of the involvement required, and your rights as a participant.
The purpose of this Study:
Describe the process and implementation of IEP meetings and decisions.
Explain content and intent of Federal law specifically the 2007 New Rules, 2% Standard of Learning.
Benefits of this Case Study:
Explain the modified diploma and how it works towards student’s educational needs.
Explain the concept of inclusion and how this benefits all participants.
Methods to meet purpose of Case Study.
One-on-one interviews.
Audio-visual recording of interviews.

Appendix C: Glossary of Acronyms
AA-MAS, Alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards
ALD, Alternative learning disability
ASOL. Aligned standards of learning
AYP, Annual Yearly Progress
COE, Collection of Evidence
ESEA, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965
FAPE, Free appropriate Public Education
FCAT, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test
GMV, Gray matter volume
GPA, Grade Point Average
IDEA, Individuals with Disability Educational Act
IEP, Individual Education Program
LEA, Local Educational Agency
NCLB, No Child Left Behind
NCEO, National Center for Educational Opportunity
NVPS, Northern Virginia Public Schools
SEA, State Educational Agency
SOL, Standard of Learning
VAAP, Virginia Alternative Assessment Program
VDOE, Virginia Department of Education
VGLA, Virginia Grade Level Alternative

Source: by Dr. Christopher D. Chandler | Dean: School of Education of Genesis University