Grading Students with Significant Disabilities in Inclusive Settings: Teacher Perspectives
Year: 2012

The present study describes teacher (K 12) opinions and practices related to grading and providing modified instruction, assignments, and assessments for students with low incidence disabilities in inclusive settings. One hundred and thirty nine teachers working in K 12 inclusive schools in Arizona and California completed an on line survey regarding modifications to the general education curriculum and grading practices. Findings of this study include: (a) general and special education teachers use different practices and have different preferences for grading students with disabilities; (b) General and special educators also reported differences in their level of comfort and training for grading, with special educators feeling more prepared to grade students with disabilities; (c) Elementary teachers were more likely to accept modified work than secondary teachers; and (d) Secondary teachers report using modifications to instruction less frequently than elementary school teachers. Implications and recommendations based on these findings are reported. Recent decades have witnessed a significant increase in the number of children with disabilities being educated in general education, or inclusive, settings (Katsiyannis, Conderman, Franks, 1995; Kochanek Buka, 1999) In fact by 2004, 50% of all students with disabilities were reported to spend 80% or more of their school day in general education classes (U.S. Department of Education, 2005) Furthermore, UNESCO and the Salamanca Conference affirmed the rights of all students to be educated in an inclusive setting (UNESCO, 2009) In short, the placement of students with disabilities in general education is based on empirical, philosophical, and legal grounding. While evidence supports inclusive practices, challenges in the implementation of inclusive education remains for students with significant disabilities. For our purposes here, significant disabilities are those low incidence disabilities such as autism, cerebral palsy, and severe intellectual disabilities. We consider low incidence disabilities to be those that occur in less than 2% of the school population, with students requiring significant supports to meet their educational needs. Both special and general education teachers are often unsure of how to manage the needs and supports of diverse students in general education settings (Carter Hughes, 2006; Dymond, Rengzaglia, Chun, 2008) Yet students with disabilities are to access and participate in the general education curriculum (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004; No Child Left Behind Act, 2001) as well as receive a specially designed education program planned to address their unique needs (Education for All Handicapped Children Act, PL 94 142, 1975) Thus, teachers and students are under the direction of two education processes: the general education curriculum and its associated local and state assessment procedures, and the Individual Education Program (IEP) The IEP is required to specify the goals, services, and specially designed instruction for students with disabilities to enable them to attain maximum success in all areas of identified need. To obtain access to both processes, students receiving special education often have GRADING STUDENTS IN INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS 4 adaptations made to the general education curriculum to allow access and participation in the core curriculum regardless of ability level (Browder Spooner, 2006; Downing, 2008) Adaptations can take many forms, including individualizing learning goals, teaching, and supports (Giangreco, 2007; Janney Snell, 2006; Lee et al. 2006) Adaptations for students with significant disabilities typically alter the product or assessment document, necessitating different grading procedures from other students in the class. For example, an eighth grade history assessment on the causes of the civil war may contain vocabulary and concepts that are not accessible to a student with significant disabilities. This student may take a modified version of the test, with different and/or fewer questions or different output modalities. In addition to curricular adaptations, grading adaptations are also permissible and often necessary (Bursuck, Munk, Olson, 1999) In the above example, teachers grading the adapted assessment would most likely be unable to use a standard rubric to grade the adapted test, and would likely need to adjust questions, acceptable answers, and the weights given to correct responses. Therefore, while grading adaptations are permissible as part of the IEP, teachers are often unsure of how to report student grades on report cards as the student's disability significantly impacts his or her ability to demonstrate grade level progress (Ring Reetz, 2002) Adapted curriculum and adapted grading will often go hand in hand, as it is necessary to have a different grading scheme for students who complete adapted materials. Likewise, it is important to ensure that both general and special education teachers understand the purpose of the adaptations and that the provision of appropriate materials and instruction are in place for students with disabilities. Without appropriate materials and instruction, student grades cannot be seen as a fair and accurate representation of what the student has learned. In short, the availability of an appropriate curriculum with meaningful adaptations and supports is essential to meaningful grading of students with significant disabilities. Research into adaptations and grading of students with disabilities has focused on students GRADING STUDENTS IN INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS 5 with mild disabilities, such as learning disabilities. As a result, parents and teachers of students with low incidence disabilities have little information on how to provide adaptations to class work, tests, and grades. The purpose of this survey study is to expand the literature on grading practices for students with significant disabilities. Specifically, this study sought to determine the practices and preferences held by teachers of modified grading procedures for students with significant disabilities who were included in general education settings. The following research questions were addressed in the present study: (1) What are the beliefs, knowledge, and practices of teachers with regard to how to grade students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings? Do these beliefs, knowledge, and practices differ depending on type of educator (special or general) and level of teaching (elementary or secondary) (2) What are the beliefs, knowledge, and practices of teachers with regard to modifying instruction for students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings? Do these beliefs, knowledge, and practices differ depending on type of educator (special or general) and level of teaching (elementary or secondary) Method Participants An on line, anonymous survey was constructed based on the existing literature on grading practices and sent to 270 teachers in seven school districts who practice inclusive education for students with significant disabilities in California (3 districts) and Arizona (4 districts) School districts were representative of urban, suburban, and rural areas as determined by city population densities, as shown in Table 1. Schools that practice inclusive education within the school district were emailed the surveys. Schools were determined to practice inclusive education based on input from a teacher contact known to at least one of the authors. The teacher contact was either a current or completed graduate student in special education from an accredited university that teaches and promotes inclusive practices. Upon input from the special education teacher contact, the schools were visited by the first two authors to GRADING STUDENTS IN INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS 6 determine that in fact students with significant disabilities participated in general education for at least 80% of the school day. Two hundred and seventy teachers were sent the email survey, with a total of 139 teachers responding, yielding a response rate of 51% A total of 117 general and 22 special education teachers completed the survey (84% and 16% respectively) <Insert Table 1 Here> Procedure The survey was developed based on a review of the grading and adaptations literature for students with significant disabilities. A total of 22 items were included on the survey instrument, including five demographic questions, ten questions related to grading practices and beliefs, and seven questions related to modifications practices and beliefs. The internal consistency of the survey instrument was determined using a split halves method, and a correlation of 0.89 was determined, indicating adequate consistency of the survey. Prior to administering the survey, it was pilot tested with four teachers: one 8th grade English teacher, one 7th grade history teacher, one elementary school special education teacher and one middle school special education teacher. These teachers provided their input regarding the utility and ease of understanding the survey questions. The survey was available for teachers to complete on line for approximately two months (4/29/09 7/1/09) We stopped collecting surveys on July 1 as no teacher had attempted the survey for three weeks, likely because the teachers were on summer break and not checking their emails. Demographic Information. The demographic information collected had two primary purposes: to determine the subject and grade levels taught by the teacher participants, and to determine years of teaching experience and years of teaching specifically in inclusive settings. Grading Information. A review of the literature was completed to determine literature based grading practices and teacher beliefs for students with disabilities in inclusive settings. The following five grading options (Silva et al. 2005) were included in the surve