University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The influence of educational policies on high school students with disabilities

(USC Thesis Other)

The influence of educational policies on high school students with disabilities

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
THE INFLUENCE OF EDUCATIONAL POLICIES ON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
WITH DISABILITIES
by
Bathsheba Brutus
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2016
Copyright © 2016 Bathsheba Brutus
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 2
THE INFLUENCE OF EDUCATIONAL POLICIES ON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
WITH DISABILITIES
by
Bathsheba Brutus
A Dissertation Presented
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2016
APPROVED:
___________________________________
Margo Pensavalle, Ed.D.
Committee Chair
____________________________________
Raymond Gallagher, Ph.D.
Committee Member
_____________________________________
Artineh Samkian, Ph.D.
Committee Member
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 3
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we
stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only that, but we also glory in
tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and
character, hope. Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in
our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
Romans 5:1-5
New King James
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 4
Abstract
This study used Bourdieu’s (1986) Capital Theory to examine how education policies are
designed to support students with disabilities. The purpose of this study was to analyze how
these policies support high school students with disabilities and to understand how parents and
educators perceive these policies. The two research questions guiding this study were: 1) How
are federal and state policies designed to support high school students with disabilities; and
2) What are parent and educator understanding and perceptions of these policies? In California,
Special Education Local Area Plans (SELPAs) offer educational programs and services for
special education students and training for educators and parents. Purposeful sampling or
criterion-based selection was used to recruit participants. Participants included parents and
educators from a large SELPA in Southern California. Qualitative methodology including
content analysis of federal and state educational policies, a focus group, and individual
interviews were used to gather and analyze data. Findings support existing literature that
indicate the importance of federal and state educational policies on the educational experiences
of high school students with disabilities. Findings also point to a continuous need for high-
quality professional development for general and special education teachers, as well as the
administrators who supervise them. Lastly, study findings indicate a need for concerted efforts
on behalf of schools and districts within the SELPA to better educate parents on the special
education process. This study provided support for the recognized need for education for parents
and educators of students with disabilities regarding the special education system.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 5
Acknowledgements
I would first like to thank God for the wonderful life with which I have been Blessed.
His enduring love continuously sustains me, and I can only hope to live a life that is pleasing to
Him.
To my parents Nuzette and Antoine Brutus; everything that I am and ever will be is
because of your enduring love and support. Your endless sacrifices have and continue to inspire
me to live up to my greatest potential. I am also grateful to my family who bring me the deepest
joy and keep me grounded. Their love and encouragement is more than I could ever ask for. I’d
also like to thank the Parish of St. John’s Cathedral in Los Angeles for being my spiritual home
for the last three years.
This study is dedicated to the students, parents, and educators of the New York City
Department of Education. The joys and challenges I experienced as a special educator
continuously motivate me to work for educational equity and equality in school systems
throughout the United States and to be an advocate for social justice. They have taught me the
value of humility, and perseverance in the face of adversities. It is because of them that I began
this program and for that, I will be eternally grateful.
To the parents and educators who participated in this study; thank you for sharing your
stories and helping me to understand your experiences. It is because of you that I was able to
complete this dissertation of which I am proud. I hope that this study will help you continue to
be strong advocates for your children and students.
Lastly, I am grateful for my chairs, Dr. Margo Pensavalle and Dr. Raymond Gallagher for
their support and continuous encouragement. I am also in deep gratitude to Dr. Artineh Samkian
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 6

as my third committee member. Her humility, knowledge, and passion for research has been a
true inspiration as I continue my career.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ...........................................................................................................8
List of Appendices ...................................................................................................9
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .....................................................................10
Background of the Problem .......................................................................11
Statement of the Problem ...........................................................................17
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................18
Significance of the Study ...........................................................................19
Limitations and Delimitations ....................................................................20
Organization of the Study ..........................................................................23
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...........................................................................25
Special Education in the United States ......................................................25
Education as a State Responsibility ...........................................................38
Outcomes for Students with Disabilities....................................................50
Perceptions of Educational Policies ...........................................................56
Theoretical Framework ..............................................................................64
Summary ....................................................................................................68
Chapter Three: Methodology .................................................................................70
Sample and Population ..............................................................................71
Instrumentation and Data Collection .........................................................75
Data Analysis ............................................................................................83
Summary ....................................................................................................85
Chapter Four: Findings ..........................................................................................86
Document Analysis ...................................................................................86
Interviews .................................................................................................100
Summary ..................................................................................................126
Chapter Five: Discussion .....................................................................................128
Summary of Findings ...............................................................................129
Implications for Practice ..........................................................................132
Study Limitations .....................................................................................136
Conclusion ...............................................................................................137
References ............................................................................................................139

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 8

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Definition of Terms .................................................................................21
Table 2: Parent Profiles ..........................................................................................74
Table 3: Educator Profiles .....................................................................................75
Table 4: Research Design Chart ............................................................................76
Table 5: Individual Parent Interviews ....................................................................82
Table 6: Individual Educator Interviews................................................................83
Table 7: Themes from Document Analysis ...........................................................87
Table 8: Themes from Parent Interviews .............................................................101
Table 9: Themes from Educator Focus Group and Interviews ............................109

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 9

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Data Collection Form (Parents) .....................................................150
Appendix B: Data Collection Form (Educators) .................................................151
Appendix C: Informed Consent Form (Parents) ..................................................152
Appendix D: Informed Consent Form (Educators) .............................................156
Appendix E: Demographic Data Form (Parents) .................................................160
Appendix F: Demographic Data Form (Educators) .............................................161
Appendix G: Focus Group Guide (Educators).....................................................162
Appendix H: Interview Protocol (Educators) ......................................................164
Appendix I: Interview Protocol (Parents) ............................................................167

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 10

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The following is an exploratory case study of federal and state policies and students with
disabilities. Specifically, the focus of this study was how these policies are designed to support
high school students with disabilities. Additionally, this study explored the understanding and
perceptions of parents of high school students with disabilities, and educators such as special
education teachers and transition personnel at an educational service agency who worked with
and provided indirect services to this population of students and their families in Southern
California. This study was grounded in the work of Bourdieu’s capital theory and its role in the
special education landscape. More specifically, this perspective addressed how various forms of
capital operate in the lives of stakeholders such as parents, students, and educators (Bourdieu,
1973, 1986; Coleman, 1988).
A qualitative case study approach was used for this study. A document analysis was
conducted to examine educational policy documents such as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004), No Child Left Behind (U.S. Department of
Education, 2002), and the California Education Code (1999-2000) regarding the use of an exit
exam as a graduation requirement. A case study approach was taken to gain an understanding of
how parents and educators perceived these educational policies. Given the qualitative approach,
data was collected through document analysis, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews. It
should be noted that at the time of this study, NCLB was revised and the California exit
examination as a requirement for high school graduation was suspended effective January 1,
2016. However, for the purposes of this study, only the 2001 revision of NCLB and the policy
for the old exit exam for California will be analyzed.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 11

Background of the Problem
This section includes a brief introduction of the historical and present day practices and
legislation regarding the education of students with disabilities in the United States. Federal and
state educational policies have an important role in how students with disabilities are educated.
While federal policies such as IDEIA (2004) and NCLB (2001, U.S. Department of Education,
2002) helped shape how districts and schools provide educational services to students with
disabilities, the education of all students including funding and the creation of various polices
such as those related to educator credentials and graduation requirements are the responsibility of
the state (Augenblick, Myers, & Anderson,1997; McIntosh, 2012). Although policies
surrounding graduation requirements are intended to ensure that students graduating high school
have mastered targeted skills, these policies often have unintended consequences that can limit
post-secondary options for students with disabilities (Holme, Richards, Jimerson, & Cohen,
2010; Katsiyannis, Zhang, Ryan, & Jones, 2007). For example, failure to pass an exit exam
often results in the tracking of students with special needs to receive a non-standard diploma
which is often not recognized by employers and institutions of higher education (Johnson,
Thurlow, & Scheulka, 2012). An understanding of why graduate requirements can have such a
negative influence on students with special needs requires an understanding of how these
students were historically educated in the United States.
The education of students with disabilities reflects the historic segregation of students
based on ability that was evident since the inception of mass education in the United States
(Boers, 2007). Before the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), many
students with special needs were not always educated in classrooms with their non-disabled
peers. In 1974, a congressional investigation revealed that of the 8 million youth (birth to 21
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 12

years old) with special needs required special education and related services, 3.9 million received
a suitable education, while 1.75 million were not educated, and 2.5 million received an
unsuitable education (Senate Report No 94-168, 1975, p. 8).
Realizing that their children deserved and needed to have access to educational
opportunities like those available for non-disabled children, parents formed advocacy groups that
worked to change legislation for how students with disabilities were educated. Important cases
such as Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(PARC) of 1971 and Mills v Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972) worked to spur
the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Public Law 94-142
(Harr, Parrish, & Chambers, 2008). Under this law, students with disabilities were entitled to a
free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) and
funding to receive needed services. Additionally, an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is also
created for students with disabilities to ensure that they receive a personalized education that
meets their needs. Finally, through EAHCA, students are entitled to due process to ensure that
they receive FAPE. EAHCA also outlined the rights of parents as it pertained to the education of
their child in special education. These rights included the right to give consent to all assessments
and evaluation of their child, written notices of their parental rights under the law and of all
meetings, evaluation of their child, the right to participate in the decision-making process
regarding their child, and right to due process (Mead & Paige, 2008). Public Law 94-142 was
reconstituted in 1990 and became known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Subsequent amendments to the law occurred in 1997 and in 2004 as the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004; see also Almazan, 2009; Wakelin, 2008).
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 13

IDEIA (2004) was an important step in holding schools, districts, and states accountable
for the education of students with disabilities. Other federal education policies such as the
NCLB (2001, U.S. Department of Education, 2002) created more formal structures of
accountability to ensure that all student subgroups would reach proficiency in state academic
standards. For example, NCLB required that all schools make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
by ensuring all subgroups of students such as those belonging to various racial and ethnic groups
and students with disabilities meet proficiency standards on annual standardized tests
administrated by each state. Additionally, high school graduation rates must include how many
students graduate within four years (known as the cohort rate) is calculated into a school’s AYP.
Failure of schools to show progress for each subgroup on a yearly basis for two or more
consecutive years resulted in NCLB sanctions (Mathis, 2006).
IDEIA (2004) and NCLB (2001, U.S. Department of Education, 2002) share differences
and similarities in terms of educational accountability and educational supports for students.
One of the biggest differences between the two is that IDEIA focuses specifically on providing
educational supports and detailing the rights and protection for students identified as having a
disability (McLaughlin, 2010). NCLB, however, is a standards-based policy that aims to ensure
that all students reach grade level (Russell & Bray, 2013). Despite this main difference between
the two policies, IDEIA and NCLB share some alignment in that they call for the participation of
students with disabilities in state and local assessments with appropriate accommodations or an
alternative assessment when justified per a student’s IEP (Katsiyannis, Zhang, Ryan et al., 2007).
Additionally, these policies also outline the rights of parents as participants in the educational
decision making of their child and the qualifications of educators who serve students (IDEIA,
2004; NCLB, 2001, U.S. Department of Education, 2002).
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 14

A critical mandate pertaining to high school students with disabilities is the transition
services which they are entitled to before leaving high school. IDEIA (2004) mandates that
schools and districts provide students with disabilities with transition services that usually begin
when the student is 16 years old (CDE, 2008). Transition planning, like IEPs require that parents
of the student, the student, and all educators who work with the student to create a plan for how
the student will transition into adulthood. Typically, these stakeholders meet to create goals that
will help the student work towards their post-secondary endeavors, such as finding viable
employment, enrolling in vocational school, or attendance at a traditional institute of higher
education for example (CDE, 2008; IDEIA, 2004). These services are another important
component to the support systems that federal educational policies aimed to create for students
with disabilities.
State educational policies are also important aspects of the educational lives of students
with disabilities. For example, state policies regarding high school graduation requirements are
ever-evolving (Johnson et al., 2012). High school exit examinations, such as minimum
competency exams (MCEs) are a commonly used assessment to determine students’ mastery of
secondary skills (Holme et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2012; Jones, 2007; Katsiyannis, Zhang,
Ryan et al., 2007). According to Holme et al. (2010), the introduction of exit exams as a
requirement for high school graduation had three goals; 1) to encourage schools to improve the
educational opportunities they provided to poor performing students; 2) give students the
opportunity to enhance their academic efforts and 3) serve as a guarantee that students had
mastered high school skills, thereby enhancing the labor market value of the high school
diploma. Despite these intentions, MCE’s created a myriad of unintended consequences for high
school students, especially those with disabilities. For example, stringent graduate requirements
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 15

may be associated with higher dropout rates for students with special needs, especially when
students are not given the necessary supports to pass the test (Johnson et al., 2012).
As MCEs have been phased out, some states have turned to other types of assessments to
judge the competencies of their high school graduates through end-of-course exams (EOCs), and
comprehensive exams (McIntosh, 2012). States not only vary on the type of tests they require
their secondary students to take, but how these results will be used (i.e. whether tests will result
in a standard diploma), and the options available to general education students who may not pass
these tests the first time. There is also variety among states and their policies regarding students
with special needs who may require different forms of assessments or accommodations as
indicated by their IEP (McIntosh, 2012). For example, since 1999, California established
passage of English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics exams known as the California High
School Exit Examination (CASHEE) beginning with the class of 2004 as requirements for high
school graduation (Becker, Wise, Hardoin, & Watters, 2013; McIntosh, 2012).
Recently however, in the fall of 2015, CASHEE was suspended, effective January 1,
2016 (California Department of Education, CDE, 2016a). According to various news reports,
the exam was suspended until 2017-2018 school year and is retroactive for 2004 school year. It
is reported that lawmakers are looking to update the exam to make it reflect the Common Core
Standards curriculum (Harrington, 2015; Koseff, 2015). All students who have met state and
local graduation requirements are now eligible to get a standard high school diploma without
having to take the CAHSEE. While the initial cancellation created some confusion for
graduating students throughout the state, lawmakers ensured that all students would be able to
get their diploma and pursue their post-secondary endeavors such as higher education (Koseff,
2015).
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 16

Despite the concern over state policy surrounding graduation requirements, it is important
to ensure that students successfully complete all needed coursework and assessments to obtain a
standard high school diploma. Students who graduate with a standard diploma have more
favorable post-secondary outcomes such as better employment options, higher wages, and access
to higher education (Johnson et al., 2012; Schifter, 2011). In addition to the low graduation rates
among students with disabilities as a population, these students are also more likely to graduate
with a nontraditional or nonstandard diploma. This outcome is especially true in states where
students must pass an exit exam to receive a standard diploma (Gaumer-Erickson, Kleinhammer-
Tramill, & Thurlow, 2007). The absence of a standard diploma can limit or potentially eliminate
optimal post-secondary options for students with disabilities such as the ability to enroll in
college, vocational program, or attain viable employment (Katsiyannis, Zhang, Ryan et al., 2007;
Schifter, 2011; Williams-Diehm & Benz, 2008).
The unintended consequences of high school exit exams, especially on vulnerable
populations such as low achieving students, those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and
students with special needs are well documented (Chudowsky, Kober, Gayler, & Hamilton,
2002; Holme et al., 2010). A review of the literature regarding MCEs did not reveal a direct
correlation between their use and increased drop out among high school students. However,
there is concern about the possible adverse and unintentional consequences in states that mandate
such tests, more so for students with disabilities, who on average tend to underachieve on
standardized tests in comparison to their non-disabled peers (Gaumer-Erickson, Kleinhammer-
Tramill et al., 2007). Furthermore, researchers have cautioned against the potential negative
results of making major decisions that alter the course of students’ lives based on one
assessment. This may explain the adoption of EOC’s, comprehensive exams and other forms of
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 17

assessments by various states as policies on high school graduation requirements continue to
evolve nationwide (McIntosh, 2012).
It is important to examine and understand how federal and state education policies
support students with disabilities to ensure their educational success which can include
graduating with a standard high school diploma. It should be noted that because students with
disabilities exhibit great heterogeneity as a group, the successful completion of high school could
look different based on a student’s disability category and the severity of their impairment.
Since education is a state responsibility, the types of policies that are created and practiced can
have direct and indirect adverse consequences for students as documented by researchers
(Chudowsky et al., 2002; Holme et al., 2010). The absence of a standard diploma can hinder
students with disabilities from leading productive lives. The loss of human capital in this manner
can prove detrimental to our society.
Statement of the Problem
The unintended consequences of exit exams on students with special needs are well
known. Students who do not pass exit exams are often tracked on the non-standard diploma
track. Consequently, these students are offered a variety of diploma options as identified and
mandated by their state (Gaumer-Erickson, Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 2007; Johnson et al.,
2012). Such options include an IEP or Special Education diploma, a Certificate of Attendance,
or a Certificate of Achievement to name a few as required by each individual state (Johnson et
al., 2012). Since colleges, and employers generally do not recognize non-traditional high school
diplomas that most students with disabilities acquire, these students are left with limited post-
secondary options upon graduating high school. The lack of options and opportunities can
potentially lead to chronic unemployment, underemployment, and additional consequences
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 18

(Schifter, 2011). Therefore, a critical examination of federal and state educational policies is
important for understanding how these policies support students with disabilities, especially for
those who are working towards obtaining a standard high school diploma. As stakeholders who
are responsible for participating in educational decision-making for their children and for
implementing the mandates as required by educational policies, it is also important to understand
the perspectives of educators and parents of students with disabilities.
Therefore, the following research questions guided this study to address this problem:
1. How are federal and state policies designed to provide educational support to high school
students with disabilities?
2. What are parent and educator understanding and perspectives of these policies?
Purpose of the Study
Educational policy is an important aspect of why and how educational services are
provided to students. In special education, policies such as IDEIA (2004) outline and detail the
rights of students with disabilities in regards to the educational process (Harr et al., 2008; United
States Department of Labor, 2014). However, the language of policy can be ambiguous, often
leaving the interpretation to the audience who is attempting to implement the policy’s mandates.
Furthermore, critical stakeholders such as parents and educators do not always have the access to
information and to those who have knowledge of how the special education system with whom
they can form important relationships thereby growing their social capital. This has important
implications for the success of students with disabilities. Therefore, the purpose of this study is
to understand how educational policies are designed to support high school students with
disabilities. This study also focuses on how these policies are understood by parents and
educators and their perceptions of these policies. Such examination is critical in illuminating
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 19

how stakeholders interpret important laws that influence their lives as parents and practitioners
and that of their children and students.
There are several key concepts explored in this study. They include federal education
policies such as IDEIA (2004), NCLB (2001, U.S. Department of Education, 2002), and state
policies regarding graduation requirements. Other concepts include perceptions of stakeholders,
specifically parents and educators.
Significance of the Study
The success of all students is essential in ensuring that they are able to live productive
lives as contributing members of society. In a knowledge-based economy where higher order
thinking skills, problem solving, and creativity are highly valued, students who lack these
competencies are at a great disadvantage. It is important to acknowledge the influence of
educational policies on students, particularly those with disabilities who are traditionally low-
performing as compared to their non-disabled peers (McIntosh, 2012). For example, there is a
large body of literature that documents the often adverse and unintentional consequences of exit
exams, and the unpredictable nature of graduation requirements (Johnson et al., 2012).
Additionally, Johnson et al. (2012) identified a lack of understanding pertaining to diploma
options as a possible contributing factor to the negative impact of graduation requirements for
students with disabilities. Furthermore, parents and educators are critical stakeholders whose
understanding and perceptions of educational policies are critical to policy implementation and
subsequently student success. This study will, therefore, contribute to the body of literature that
policymakers consult when creating educational policy.
Educational policies such as IDEIA (2004) and NCLB (2001, U.S. Department of
Education, 2002) were created to ensure that students are provided with the education with
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 20

which they are entitled by federal and state mandates. An understanding of how these policies
support students with disabilities, particularly those in high school, is critical to promoting their
success which may include ensuring they complete of secondary education with a standard high
school diploma and achieve their post-secondary goals. It is critical to remember that because
students with disabilities are not a homogenous population, successful completion of high school
will look differently for various students depending on different factors such as their disability
category. In other words, for some students, a nonstandard diploma may be more of a realistic
option than a standard diploma. What is critical, however, is the support that educational
policies outline for students to promote their success as determined by them, their families, and
the educators who work with them. Furthermore, since these policies detail the role of parents
and educators, it is equally important to discover the understanding and perceptions that these
stakeholders have of these policies. In doing so, policymakers can gain a deeper understanding
of how policies are interpreted by the stakeholders for whom they are created. Such knowledge
can spur the evolution and creation of stronger educational policies that not only acknowledge
the struggles of their stakeholders, but reflect data-driven, sustainable regulations that work to
alleviate these difficulties.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are several limitations to this study. First, this was a case study that focused on
one educational agency that provided services to students with disabilities in the Southern
California region. As such, findings cannot be generalized to other educational settings.
Additionally, students with disabilities are a very heterogeneous population. As a result,
different federal and state policies and school-based practices can influence students in different
disability categories in different ways. Despite the dissimilarities between students in different
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 21

disability categories, the majority of research surrounding students with special needs usually
groups and views these students homogenously. The differences in academic outcomes between
students in various disability categories have prompted researchers to encourage the study of
how various educational policies influence different groups of special education students
(Gaumer-Erickson, Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 2007; Schifter, 2011). In doing so, researchers,
practitioners and policymakers will be better positioned to understand the impact of policies on
various groups, thereby pinpointing specific elements that may or may not be conducive to the
educational process of specific students. Therefore, another limitation to this study is the focus
on students with disabilities as an entire group. Table 1 highlights the terms used in this study.

Table 1

Definition of Terms
TERMS DEFINITIONS
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Progress benchmark that schools are required to
make every year on state mandated assessments in
accordance to NCLB (Mathis, 2006).

County Office of Education

Educational Service Agency in California that is
responsible for services and technical assistance to
districts and schools (California Department of
Education, CDE, 2015a).

Education for All Handicapped Children Act
(EAHCA, Public Law 94-142, 1975)
Federal legislation signed into law in 1975
mandating states to provide students with
disabilities with a free and appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment. This
law also ensures due process.

Educational Service Agency “Educational service agencies are public entities
created by state statue, to provide educational
support programs and services to local schools and
school districts within a given geographical area”
(Association of Educational Agencies, AESA, n.d.,
Questions and Answers on ESAs).

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 22

Table 1 (Cont’d.)

TERMS DEFINITIONS
Individual Education Plan (IEP) Legal document created to outline an education
plan that students identified as requiring special
education services will receive

Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA, Public
Law 108-446, 1997)

Reconstitution of the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act (Wakelin, 2008)
Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act
(IDEIA, 2004)
2004 amendment to IDEIA (Morningstar, & Liss,
2008). Requires high schools to provide transition
planning to all students (Williams-Diehm & Benz,
2008).

Minimum Competency Exam High school exams created to assess student
competency in secondary school skills to determine
if they will graduate (Gaumer-Erickson,
Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 2007; Holme, et al.,
2010; Katsiyannis, Zhang, Ryan et al., 2007)

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, U.S.
Department of Education, 2002)
Federal legislation signed into law in 2002 that
mandated states to ensure that every student reach
proficiency in reading and math by 2014 (Ahn &
Vigdor, 2013)

Non-standard Diploma An alternate diploma or certificate that a student
earns due to modified criteria that can be indicated
on the IEP to allow them to graduate (Gaumer-
Erickson, Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 2007;
Johnson et al., 2012)

Special Education Local Plan (SELPA) Each region, known as the Special Education Local
Plan Area (SELPA) created a local plan detailing
how it would provide special education services

SELPAs offer quality educational programs and
services for special education students and
necessary training for educators and parents (CDE,
2016b)

Standard Diploma A high school diploma that a student earns by
successfully passing a mandated high school exit
assessment (Gaumer-Erickson, Kleinhammer-
Tramill et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2012)

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 23

Table 1 (Cont’d.)

TERMS DEFINITIONS
Students with Disabilities (SwDs) Students who have been identified needing special
education services and have an IEP

Transition

‘‘(34) TRANSITION SERVICES.—The term
‘transition services’ means a coordinated set of
activities for a child with a disability that—
‘‘(A) is designed to be within a results-oriented
process, that is focused on improving the academic
and functional achievement of the child with a
disability to facilitate the child’s movement from
school to post-school activities, including post-
secondary education, vocational education,
integrated employment (including supported
employment), continuing and adult education, adult
services, independent living, or community
participation;
(B) is based on the individual child’s needs, taking
into account the child’s strengths, preferences, and
interests; and
(C) includes instruction, related services,
community experiences, the development of
employment and other post-school adult living
objectives, and, when appropriate, acquisition of
daily living skills and functional vocational
evaluation” (IDEIA, 2004, 20 U.S.C 1401 §
602(34)).

Organization of the Study
This study was grounded in the work of Bourdieu surrounding social and cultural capital
and their role in the educational system. More specifically, this perspective addressed how these
forms of capital can influence the educational experiences of students (Bourdieu, 1973;
Coleman, 1988). Document analysis was used to analyze special education policies, specifically
IDEIA (2004), NCLB (2001, U.S. Department of Education, 2002), and the California Education
Code (2008) relating to state graduation requirements with a special focus on modifications
made for students with disabilities. Additionally, a focus group and individual interviews were
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 24

conducted to understand the perceptions and experiences of parents and educators regarding
transition services available to students.
The following study was organized into five chapters, with each chapter serving a
specific purpose. Chapter One consisted of an overview of the study including the background,
purpose and significance of the study, and the guiding research questions. Chapter Two provides
an in-depth literature review discussing special education legislation in the United States, state
policies surrounding high school graduation rates and their impact on high school students with
special needs, and the role of parents and educators in the educational process. Furthermore, this
discussion will help illuminate the role of educational policies in creating or minimizing the
social capital of special education students needed to successful interface with an ever-evolving
and demanding global community. Chapter Three includes a discussion of the methodology
used to conduct the study including the use of document analysis, surveys and interviews to
collect data, the rationale for sampling and instrumentation, and how data was analyzed.
Discussion and analysis of the findings is presented in Chapter Four, while Chapter Five includes
the implications for practice based on the study results and suggestions for future research.

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 25

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This section is an overview of the literature pertaining to special education in the United
States. The review begins with a historical overview of special education in the United States
and how it was influenced by a variety of developments in educating individuals with disabilities
in various European countries. Additionally, the critical role of advocacy, pivotal court
decisions, and inclusion practices are also highlighted to illuminate their role in the development
of special education legislation in the United States. Next, there will be a discussion of three
landmark federal statutes to the special education such as the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act (EAHCA, 1975), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEIA, 2004), and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. These policies are critical to the
types of special education services students with disabilities receive and how those services are
delivered. It should be noted that NCLB is currently under reauthorization. However, analysis
of this policy will focus on the 2001 policy document. Finally, the review will end with the
exiting literature regarding the perceptions of parents and educators regarding special education
policies, graduation requirements and their influences on the post-secondary options for students
with disabilities.
Special Education in the United States
Historical Overview
The history of special education in the United States was influenced by the evolution of
special education globally, specifically in Europe. Additionally, the history of special education
in places like Europe and the United States was influenced by the evolving societal and
philosophical beliefs about how people with disabilities should be treated and educated (Salend
& Duhaney, 2011). Educational developments in European countries such as England, Spain
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 26

and France encouraged people to travel to Europe and learn about how to educate individuals
with special needs. The initial attention to sensory impairments such as deafness and blindness,
promoted the development of strategies for working with and educating individuals with these
disabilities, and eventually spurred the creation of schools focused on the educational needs of
these individuals (Salend & Duhaney, 2011).
There are several examples of educational developments throughout European countries
that were influential to special education in the United States. For example, the Spanish
Benedictine monk, Pedro Ponce de Leone, developed oralism as an alternative to sign language
that emphasizes the use of lip-reading and speech. Jacob Rodrigue Pereire advanced his work,
causing oralism to be the prevailing pedagogical technique among deaf educators from the 1890s
to the 1920s (Burch, & Sutherland, 2006; Winzer, 1998). Seeing the success of education of the
deaf, Valentin Haüy created a system of raised print for books to be used by students who were
blind. He also founded the first school for the blind in Paris in 1786 (Salend & Duhaney, 2011).
As a former student of the school, Louis Braille invented braille in 1829 to help those who were
blind be more fully integrated in the French society (Koestler, 1976). European success with
individuals with special needs was a catalyst for Americans such as Thomas Gallaudet to found
the first school for the deaf in Connecticut and John D. Fisher to establish the New England
Asylum for the Blind in 1829, now referred to as the Perkins School for the Blind (Fleischer, &
Zames, 2001). The shift to cognitive impairments occurred with the work of Jean-Marc-Gaspard
with Victor, known as the wild boy of Aveyron. Gaspard, who worked to develop the language
and cognitive skills of Victor, demonstrating that individuals with disabilities could learn
(Safford & Safford, 1996). The educational developments founded and advanced by these early
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 27

figures spawned the creation of legislation, advocacy groups, and special schools to support
individuals with disabilities in the United States (Salend & Duhaney, 2011).
Advocacy. The work of advocacy groups was critical to the advancement of special
education in the United States, particularly in regards to legislation. These groups included
family members and other professionals who often created partnerships to enhance the lives of
people with special needs by promoting society inclusion and educational opportunities
(Giordnao, 2007; Singer, 2000; Yell, Rodgers, & Rodgers, 1998). For example, the Council for
Exceptional Children founded in 1922 (Salend & Duhaney, 2011). During the first
organizational meeting, the Council identified three main goals including bringing together
individuals who want to address the educational needs of “special children,” focus on the
educational needs of “special children” instead of focusing on the disability, and to create
professional standards for teachers in special education (Kode, 2002). Furthermore, these groups
were crucial to the passage of special education legislation as they often lobbied for policies and
laws that granted individuals with special needs rights, especially educational rights (Salend &
Duhaney, 2011). Individuals such as Dr. Samuel Howe and parents of President John F.
Kennedy were also influential in advocating for the rights of people with special needs.
Dr. Howe lobbied to have those with intellectual disabilities be deinstitutionalized, while the
Kennedys formed a foundation on behalf of their oldest son and to recognize those with mental
impairments including one of their daughters (Ashbaker, 2011).
Landmark Cases. The work of advocates to lobby for the rights of individuals with
disabilities was highly motivated by the civil rights movement which sought to end the racial
segregation and discrimination experienced by African Americans in the United States
(Ashbaker, 2011). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made discrimination in public spaces such as
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 28

employment discrimination illegal. Additionally, it called for schools and other public places to
be racially integrated (Ashbaker, 2011). Realizing that civil rights belonged to all people
regardless of race, gender, and ability status, for example, advocates for those with disabilities
believed that they too could keep fighting to help eradicate the exclusion of and discrimination
against individuals with disabilities in public places, especially schools.
There were many cases that helped pave the way for current special education legislation.
A few of these influential cases included Brown v Board of Education (1954), Pennsylvania
Association for Retarded Citizens v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PARC) of 1971 (Public
Interest Law Center, 1975), and Mills v Board of Education of District of Columbia (Education
Law, 1972). In Brown v Board of Education (1954), the court decided “separate educational
facilities are inherently unequal” (347 U.S. 483 1954, Opinion: Warren, C.J., para. 12) thereby
calling for an end to racial segregation in public schools and other public spaces. This ruling had
special implications for children with disabilities who were often segregated from their non-
disabled peers by being placed in institutions, special classes, or not kept at home and not given
any educational opportunities (Boers, 2007). Specifically, the concept of inclusion or educating
students with special needs in general education classrooms with their non-disabled peers, began
to advance (Salend & Duhaney, 2011).
In the PARC case of 1971 and Mills (1972), the plaintiffs held that since students with
disabilities, specifically those with intellectual disabilities in the PARC case were prohibited
from education in Pennsylvania and District of Columbia public schools, the school districts
violated the equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment of the United States
constitution (Ashbaker, 2011; Weber, 2014). In the PARC case, since the defendants could not
justify their reason for excluding students with intellectual disabilities, the court decided that
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 29

these students were entitled to a free public education and that parents had the right to be
informed of any changes made to their child’s educational program. In the case of Mills, the
school district argued that lack of funds did not allow them to provide services to special needs
students (specifically the behaviorally challenged student for whom the suit was named after).
The courts decided that lack of money was not a reason for not providing educational services in
public schools. Both cases promoted parental rights, and due process to ensure parental
participation in the educational lives of their children (Ashbaker, 2011; Romberg, 2011; Weber,
2014). These landmark cases were pivotal to the inclusion of students with disabilities into the
general education classrooms in American public schools.
Inclusion. Inclusion refers to the integration of special needs students into the general
education classroom with their non-disabled peers. The landmark cases of Brown, PARC, and
Mills were instrumental in addressing the segregation of students based on race as in the case of
Brown and ability status as seen with PARC and Mills. As a result of the latter two cases, in the
1970s and 1980s there was an emphasis on mainstreaming special needs students into the general
education classroom (Ashbaker, 2011; Romberg, 2011; Weber, 2014). However, educators and
advocates for these students stressed the importance of providing personalized and needed
support services for students who needed them (Litton, Rotatori, & Day, 1989). Furthermore,
the work of advocacy groups, improved legislation, and inclusion practices was important to
international education, especially as it related to special education. As a result, in 1994 the
Salamana Statement was created, promoting the practice of inclusion in systems of education
throughout the world (Peters, 2007). This document emphasized the normalcy of human
differences and stressed the importance of accommodating students’ needs instead of forcing
students into pre-established educational processes (Peters, 2007). Approximately 92 countries
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 30

and 25 international organizations adopted the Salamana Statement (Ashbaker, 2011; Peters,
2007). This document was one of many influential international documents focusing on the
rights of students of disabilities (Peters, 2007). The work of advocacy groups, along with court
ruling from landmark cases and the practice of inclusion heavily influenced special education
legislation in the United States. Specially, the passing of the Education for All Handicap
Children Act (EAHCA, 1975) reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Act (1997) and
then the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act (2004) were crucial to ensuring that
students with special needs received a free and appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment.
Federal Legislation
Federal legislation regarding special education was influenced by many of the education
reforms that took place in the United States beginning in the 1950s. In addition to the Brown v.
Board of Education case of 1954 that deemed separate but equal education practices
unconstitutional, reports such as the National Defense Education Act claimed it would help the
United States be on equal par with the Soviet Union after the Sputnik era (Hunt, T. C., 2005). In
1965, Congress created the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, followed by the two
landmark cases of PARC v. Pennsylvania and Mills v. District of Columbia Board of Education
in the 1970s (Hunt, P. F., 2011). In both cases, the courts ruled in the favor of children with
disabilities, and confirmed their rights to be educated in public schools. These political and
legislative changes created the context and conditions in which special education legislation were
created.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Before the enactment of any federally
recognized laws to serve in their interest, many students with disabilities were not educated in
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 31

public schools (Ashbaker, 2011; Boers, 2007). Additionally, many states prohibited the
education of children with special needs in their public schools. For example, in the landmark
PARC case of 1972, the state of Pennsylvania barred children with intellectual disabilities (then
referred to as mental retardation) from being educated in its public schools (Salend & Duhaney,
2011). Many individuals with disabilities were confined to state institutions where providing
education was not the purpose or priority. Instead, institutions served a custodial purpose, where
the goal was to provide only basic necessities and to keep individuals with special needs away
from the general public (Ashbaker, 2011).
In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA),
Public Law 94-142 (EAHCA, 1975). This law was a pivotal milestone in the history of special
education in the United States. Before its passing, many children with special needs did not
receive the education and services that they needed in public schools. For example, in 1970
about one in five children with disabilities in the United States were educated in schools (Butler-
Arkow, 2006). In addition, many states had laws that prohibited children with various special
needs such as deafness, blindness, emotionally disturbance, and intellectually disabled from
attending school. In 1974, a congressional investigation revealed that of the 8 million youth
(birth to 21 years of age) with special needs required special education and related services, 3.9
million received a suitable education, while 1.75 million were not educated, and 2.5 million
receiving an unsuitable education (Senate Report No 94-168, 1975, p. 8).
The purpose of EAHCA was to establish and protect the educational rights of students
with disabilities. Section 3(c) of EAHCA stated:
It is the purpose of this Act to assure that all handicapped children have available to
them, within the time periods specified in section 612(2) ( B ), a free appropriate public
education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their
unique needs, to assure that the rights of handicapped children and their parents or
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 32

guardians are protected, to assist States and localities to provide for the education of all
handicapped children, and to assist and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate
handicapped children. (20 U.S.C 1401 § 3(c), 1975, p. 3)

There were six critical components of EAHC. Under this law, students with disabilities are
entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Therefore, schools are not allowed to
reject a student based on ability status. This provision is known as the zero reject policy.
(18) The term 'free appropriate public education' means special education and related
services which (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and
direction, and without charge, (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency,
(C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the
State involved, and (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education
program required under section 614(a)(5). (20 U.S.C 1401 § 3(c), 1975, p. 3)

Students also have the right to nondiscriminatory identification and evaluation in which materials
used for assessment are culturally and linguistically unbiased. For example, assessments should
be in the child’s native language. An individualized education plan (IEP) is written for students
who have been identified as needing special education services. The IEP is a legally binding
document that details a student’s current level of performance both academically and socially,
results of evaluations usually given by a school psychologist, and social and academic goals as
determined by an IEP team (usually consisting of the child’s special educator, school
psychologist, district representative, parents, general educator, specifically if the child is in an
inclusion classroom). Starting at age 14, the student should also be a participant in the IEP
meeting. At age 16, students must be included in the IEP process providing input into the
transition goals that will become part of the IEP to help prepare them for life after high school.
According to Section 4 (19) of EAHCA,
(19) The term 'individualized education program' means a written statement for each
handicapped child developed in any meeting by a representative of the local educational
agency or an intermediate educational unit who shall be qualified to provide, or supervise
the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of handicapped
children, the teacher, the parents or guardian of such child, and, whenever appropriate,
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 33

such child, which statement shall include (A) a statement of the present levels of
educational performance of such child, (B) a statement of annual goals, including short-
term instructional objectives, (C) a statement of the specific educational services to be
provided to such child, and the extent to which such child will be able to participate in
regular educational programs, (D) the projected date for initiation and anticipated
duration of such services, and (E) appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures
and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether instructional
objectives are being achieved. (20 U.S.C 1401 § 3(c), 1975, p. 4)

Another provision of EAHCA was that students with special needs needed to be educated
in the least restrictive environment (LRE). To the greatest extent possible, students with
disabilities should be allowed access to the general education curriculum in the same classroom
as their non-disabled peers. It should be noted that although this provision seeks to ensure that
students with disabilities are not unjustly segregated from the general education peers, LRE can
look different for a child with disabilities based on the severity of their needs. A final
component of EACHA is due process. Due process allows for accountability and seeks to ensure
that students with special needs are treated fairly. Finally, parents play a crucial role in the
special education system, and this legislation identifies the importance of parent participation in
the educational decision making for their child (Ashbaker, 2011).
SEC. 615. (a) Any State educational agency, any local educational agency, and any
intermediate educational unit which receives assistance under this part shall establish and
maintain procedures in accordance with subsection (b) through subsection (e) of this
section to assure that handicapped children and their parents or guardians are guaranteed
procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of free appropriate public education
by such agencies and units. (20 U.S.C 1415 § 615, p. 16)

EAHCA was critical in ensuring that children with disabilities received the services they
needed and that parents had the right to participate in the educational and programming decisions
for their children. With the increase in state and school accountability, reauthorizations of
EAHCA included the participation of students with disabilities in all state and local assessments
with appropriate accommodations as identified on the student’s IEP (IDEIA, 2004). This
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 34

includes exit exams that high school students must take as part of the state graduate
requirements.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. EAHCA was reauthorized
four times. The 1997 reauthorization of EAHCA became the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA, Public Law 108-446). The most recent reauthorization of IDEA occurred
in 2004, with the amendments referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004; Landmark, Ju, & Zhang, 2010; Landmark, Roberts, & Zhang,
2012). In the United States, IDEIA serves students with disabilities birth to 22. IDEIA (2004)
describes a student with disabilities.
(A) In general The term ‘child with a disability’ means a child—
(i) with mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or
language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious
emotional disturbance (referred to in this title as ‘emotional disturbance’),
orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments,
or specific learning disabilities; and
(ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services. (20 U.S.C
1401 § 602(3)(A)(i)-(ii).

IDEIA is sectioned into five parts; Part A which outlines general provisions for students
with disabilities, Part B which outlines services to all students with disabilities (ages 3-22), Part
C, which outlines services to infants and toddlers, Part D which describes national efforts to
enhance services to students with disabilities, and Part E which describes the establishment and
responsibilities of the National Center for Special Education Research (IDEIA, 2004).
In regards to state and school accountability with the 2004 reauthorization, students with
special needs were now required to participate in all district and state examinations with
appropriate accommodations. Additionally, states are mandated to report the performance of
students with special needs (Harr-Robins et al., 2013; McLaughlin, 2010; Yell, Katsiyannas et
al., 2006). The 2004 amendments require schools to collect post-secondary school outcomes on
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 35

high school graduates with special needs. IDEIA (2004) also mandated transition planning
services for these students staring at age 16. The transition plan must be part of the child’s IEP
and include post-secondary goals in addition to social and academic goals with input from the
child (as they are able to do so) and their parents. Transitions services focus on post-secondary
education, employment and independent living skills (Naugle, Campbell, & Gray, 2010).
612(a)(5).
(34) TRANSITION SERVICES. The term ‘transition services’ means a coordinated set
of activities for a child with a disability that—
(A) is designed to be within a results-oriented process, that is focused on improving the
academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the
child’s movement from school to post-school activities, including post-secondary
education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported
employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or
community participation;
(B) is based on the individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s strengths,
preferences, and interests; and
(C) includes instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of
employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and, when appropriate,
acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation. (20 U.S.C 1401
§ 602(34)

The 2004 amendments helped to keep schools and states accountable for the academic
performance of students with special needs. Other federal policy such as NCLB is, also
influential to students with disabilities.
No Child Left Behind Act. In 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed into law
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, Social Welfare History Project, 2014).
This critical piece of legislation aimed to increase education opportunities for students,
specifically those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds by providing federal grants to
districts serving students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and scholarships for college
students from low income backgrounds. This law also aimed to provide federal grants for text
and library books, special education centers, and grants to state education agencies to improve
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 36

the quality of schools across the K-12 system. ESEA was reauthorized in 1994, and in 2001.
This 2001 reauthorization is known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, Public Law 107-
110, U.S. Department of Education, 2002).
NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) focused on improving student achievement
through school accountability. The purpose of this law was to ‘‘to ensure that all children have a
fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a
minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic
assessments” (U.S. Department of Education, 2004, 20 USC 6301, § 1001, para. 1). Like
preceding federal legislation, NCLB aimed to achieve this goal by ensuring that all students have
access to high quality teachers and curricula, by attending to the educational needs of all students
despite racial, ethnic and socioeconomic background, ability and English Language proficiency,
holding state and local education agencies accountable for student achievement through federal
accountability systems and encouraging parent participation in the educational lives of their
children (NCLB, 2001, U.S. Department of Education, 2002). One of NCLB’s major goals is to
ensure that every public school child reaches 100% proficiency in math and reading by end of
the 2013-2014 school year (Russell, & Bray, 2013; Yell, Katsiyannas et al., 2006).
The history of NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) was rooted in an earlier
reauthorization of ESEA in 1994. The 1994 reauthorization was referred to as the Improving
America’s School Act (IASA, Yell, Katsiyannas et al., 2006). Several of the current NCLB
mandates such as state standards and annual testing originated in IASA. Although this act was
an effort to enhance accountability for student achievement, it did not include the type of
accountability measures as indicated in NCLB (Yell, Katsiyannas et al., 2006). Therefore,
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 37

NCLB is seen as an improvement of IASA. Under NCLB, states have four major responsibilities
for which they are held accountable (Yell, Katsiyannas et al., 2006).
One of the major responsibilities of states under NCLB was the establishment of state
standards for math, reading, and now science (standards for other subjects are not mandated
under NCLB). Secondly, states are required to create and administer annual testing in public
schools between grades 3 and 8 and once a year in high school to monitor student proficiency
towards state standards.
(3) ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Each State plan shall demonstrate that the State educational
agency, in consultation with local educational agencies, has implemented a set of high
quality, yearly student academic assessments that include, at a minimum, academic
assessments in mathematics, reading or language arts, and science that will be used as the
primary means of determining the yearly performance of the State and of each local
educational agency and school in the State in enabling all children to meet the State’s
challenging student academic achievement standards, except that no State shall be
required to meet the requirements of this part relating to science assessments until the
beginning of the 2007–2008 school year. (20 U.S.C 6311 § 1111(3)(A), United States
Code, 2000, p. 836).

States are also mandated to establish proficiency standards and yearly benchmarks which student
test scores are measured against.
Furthermore, NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) required states to report
student scores from which annual yearly progress (AYP) of a school is calculated. AYP data is
calculated for all student groups including students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, racial
and ethnic groups. and English language learners (Yell, Katsiyannas et al., 2006). In order to
make AYP, schools must have 95% of their student body participate in state testing and 95% of
students from each subgroup scoring proficient every year. AYP is also calculated for high
school cohort (four year) graduation and attendance (Schifter, 2011).
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 38

In an increasingly global society, it is important that all students are equipped with the
necessary skills to effectively participate in the global economy. This requires that educational
systems have the mechanisms in place that promote student achievement. Policy plays an
important role in why, and how educational services are provided to school aged children and
youth, including those with disabilities. The following section will provide an overview of
education as a state responsibility, with a focus on systems of accountability.
Education as a State Responsibility
The following section will include a discussion of federal and state accountability
systems. This discussion will begin with a description of school accountability including its
evolution and the rationale behind these systems. Then a description of how NCLB and IDEIA
align to ensure that schools are held accountable for the academic success of students with
special needs. State graduation requirements are explained with an emphasis on their
implications for students with disabilities. Attention was given as to how these requirements
influence students in different disability groups.
Accountability Systems
Accountability is an important component of education in the United States. Figlio and
Loeb (2011) described accountability as a process that includes assessing how a school performs
based on measures of student performance. The concept of school accountability began in the
1990s with individual states. The school accountability systems presently in place are
compatible with the standards-based reform, which aimed at establishing a set of clear and
measureable standards of performance for students in various subjects and to assess students in
determining if they have meet these standards. Furthermore, an important tenant of standards-
based reforms is that schools should also be assessed to determine if they are meeting established
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 39

goals (Figlio & Loeb, 2011). Federal policy such as NCLB played a critical role in school
accountability, especially as the relate to students with disabilities
NCLB and IDEIA
NCLB (2001, U.S. Department of Education, 2002) and IDEIA (2004) are influential
educational policies in the United States and are aligned in a couple of key ways. Both policies
promote inclusive education in which students with disabilities are educated in the same
classroom with their general education peers (Blanton, Pugach, & Florian, 2011). Additionally,
the 1990 reauthorization of EAHCA included transition planning for high school students with
disabilities starting at age 16. The 1997 amendments to IDEA included new accountability
mandates for students with disabilities. Specifically, students with disabilities were now required
to participate in state and district assessments and it was mandated that schools report the
number of students testing and their results (Harr-Robins, et al., 2013). Title I of NCLB
supported this mandate by identifying students with disabilities as a subgroup whose assessment
results were calculated into a school’s AYP (Harr-Robins et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2012).
Despite these similarities, there are also deep differences between the two policies.
Although both policies aim to promote the success of all students despite race, ethnicity,
and ability status, there are inherent differences between the two (McLaughlin, 2010; Russell &
Bray, 2013). While NCLB is a standards-based reform policy, IDEA is strictly a special
education policy measure (McLaughlin, 2010). Russell and Bray (2013) described the innate
differences between the two based on the text of each policy. One of the major differences is
that while NCLB’s major goal is to have all students meet grade level proficiency on established
state standards, IDEIA aimed to provide each child with a disability a free and appropriate
education in the least restrictive environment. In regards to accountability, under NCLB schools
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 40

were responsible for meeting AYP for all students and targeted subgroups. With IDEIA, districts
and educators are responsible for guaranteeing that students with special needs receive FAPE in
LRE (Russell & Bray, 2013).
Since NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) and IDEIA (2004) are federal
policies, every state has to ensure that they have systems in place to adhere to the various
mandates of both policies. Furthermore, every state has created systems of collecting data from
schools about teachers and students (i.e. demographic and performance data). Although this is
required of all states, states vary regarding the structures and systems they have in place to
ensure that districts and schools comply with policy requirements.
Education Agencies
According to the “Association of Educational Service Agencies (AESA) defines ESAs
[educational service agencies] as ‘public entities created by state statue, to provide educational
support programs and services to local schools and school districts within a given geographical
area” (AESA, 2011, Background: ESAs). The concept behind these agencies has existed for
more than a century, and has evolved to reflect the needs of the modern school system in
America. For example, within the last 40 years, the role of educational service agencies (ESA)
has changed from a regulatory role to a service-oriented role. The main function of an ESA is to
provide quality and cost beneficial education and technical services to local schools and districts.
The AESA reports that there are currently 535 ESAs operating in 45 states, including California.
ESAs are governed by state statues and have boards comprised of various stakeholders
including school board members and superintendents from component districts, and elected
representatives. Boards can have as little has five members or be larger depending on the
number of representatives from each member districts. ESAs can be funded through the state,
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 41

local property tax levy or by what they charge for contract fees in exchange for the services they
provide to schools and districts.
ESAs are cost-effective and efficient ways of providing educational services to students
in a district and technical assistance to schools and districts. Pooling financial resources allows
districts to avoid the unnecessary duplication of programming and services between schools,
thereby allowing more resources to be spent in the classroom as needed. Some of the services
provided by an ESA include helping districts collaborate, professional development for teachers
and leaders, providing parent education and technical assistance to schools and districts.
Additionally, through a viable relationship with the United States Department of Education,
ESAs are able to disseminate information to schools and districts regarding changes in federal
and state policies, helping their stakeholder remain compliant with laws and mandates. ESAs
can be referred to by a variety of names depending on the state. In California, they are known as
County Offices of Education.
County Office of Education
In 1849, the position of County Superintendent of Schools was created by the original
California State constitution. Today, there are 58 offices of education that provide services to
school districts. The county superintendents have various responsibilities including providing
districts with quality student services, including services for students with disabilities, academic
and financial accountability, personnel and administrative services, technology and
telecommunication services, and the facilitation of various projects and initiatives. Under the
umbrella of the County Offices of Education lies a body that is responsible for providing schools
and districts educational programming and technical services for students with disabilities.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 42

SELPA. After the passage of various disability laws including the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (PL 93-112) and its amendment, Section 504 in 1992, and EAHCA in 1975, reauthorized as
IDEIA in 2004, the California legislature created the Master Plan for Special Education. This
plan was how the state would ensure that they would comply with the mandates of IDEIA and
was originally implemented in 1980 as a result of Senate Bill 1870 (Legislative Analyst, State of
California, 1982). As part of the California’s Master Plan for Special Education, all school
districts were mandated to create groups in geographical regions of adequate range and size to
address the educational needs to individuals with disabilities. Each of these regions were known
as a SELPA, which created a local plan for how they would provide these services.
Additionally, SELPAs provide training for families and educators regarding various special
education issues (CDE, SELPA, 2016b; Legislative Analyst, State of California. (1982).
Transition planning. Among the many educational and technical supports that SELPAs
offer to schools and districts for students with disabilities, transitions services are especially
important for high school students with disabilities. IDEIA (2004) described transition in the
following way:
(34) TRANSITION SERVICES.—The term ‘transition services’ means a coordinated set
of activities for a child with a disability that—
(A) is designed to be within a results-oriented process, that is focused on improving the
academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the
child’s movement from school to post-school activities, including post-secondary
education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported
employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or
community participation;
(B) is based on the individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s strengths,
preferences, and interests; and
(C) includes instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of
employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and, when appropriate,
acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation. (20 U.S.C
1401 § 602(34)
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 43

The current 2004 revisions of IDEIA mandates that transition services are implemented
by the time a child is 16 (Landmark, Ju et al., 2010). Along with their parents, teachers and other
team members, students are given the opportunity to contribute to a discussion about their post-
secondary endeavors. Working with the student, the IEP team creates post-secondary goals
based on an age-appropriate transition focused on training, education, employment, and
independent living skills. Additionally, the transition plan includes a course of study detailing
how the student will achieve the targeted goals.
Transition services are crucial to the post-secondary success of high school students with
disabilities. Kohler’s (1996) extensive review of the literature regarding transition yielded the
Taxonomy for Transition Programming framework. This framework was based on the
researcher’s evaluation of empirically substantiated transition practices found in the literature
(Kohler, 1996; Landmark, Ju et al., 2010). These practices fall into five main categories; student
focused planning, student development, family involvement, program structure, and interagency
collaboration (Kohler, 1996). Within each of these categories were important practices that help
contribute to the success of students with disabilities. For example, student focused planning
includes IEP development, student participation in the process of developing the IEP, and
planning strategies. Student development includes instruction around life skills and
employment, career and vocational curricula, appropriate assessment, structured work
experiences, and needed support services. Interagency collaboration consists of the framework
used for collaboration and the service delivery model used for collaboration. Finally, family
involvement incudes empowering and teaching the family about their rights and that of their
children, while program structures consisted of resource allocation and program evaluation for
example (Kohler, 1996).
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 44

Early research on transition practices such as Kohler’s (1996) allowed for the
identification of and use of current transition framework. For example, the National Alliance for
Secondary Education and Transition (NASET) is a group of approximately “40 organizations
and advocacy groups representing special education, general education, career and technical
education, youth development, multicultural perspectives, and parents” (NASET, n.d., para. 1)
that has development national standards and quality indicators that inform policy creation and
professional practices locally and statewide. There are five areas of focus that serve as a national
framework for transition services in the United States. These areas include (1) schooling which
refers to school-based academic knowledge and students need to acquire, (2) career and
preparatory experiences that involves early career exploration and assessment, work experience,
and (3) youth development and leadership that consists of promoting leadership and self-
advocacy skills, especially for students with disabilities (CDE, 2008; NASET, n.d.). Area (4),
family involvement, consists of providing families with the appropriate supports so they are able
participate in the lives of their children, while (5) connecting activities refers to interagency
collaboration that allow for services to be provided to students that will enhance the variety of
options upon completing high school (CDE, 2008; NASET, n.d.). These five indicators are
aligned with transition mandates as outlined in IDEIA (2004).
For purposes of accountability, districts and states are held responsible for ensuring that
students with disabilities have quality transition plans based on age-appropriate, measureable
transition goals (CDE, 2008; NCSET, 2007). The USDE has identified 20 compliance indicators
in special education. States are required to report on each of these indicators in their Part B State
Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR). In regards to transitions,
indicators 13 and 14 are particularly important. Indicator 13 requires that states report on the
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 45

percentage of students 16 and older who have a transition plan as part of their IEP, while
indicator 14 requires that states follow up on students with disabilities within a year of high
school graduation (OMB NO: 1820-0624, 2009). The body responsible for this follow up is the
Department of Rehabilitation that works to help individuals with disabilities to gain and maintain
viable employment. For example, in California, a vocational rehabilitation team works with an
individual to ensure that he or she have the resources and support needed to obtain and keep
employment (California Department of Rehabilitation, DOR, 2014).
As part of meeting AYP mandates, high schools are required to report graduation rates
for students of all races and ethnicities, and program i.e. general education, special education and
English Language Learners (Schifter, 2011). In order to better understand graduate rates, it is
important to be knowledgeable of the requirements for obtaining a standard high school diploma
in the United States.
Graduation Requirements
Education is a state responsibility and as such, states are responsible for setting
educational benchmarks, proficiency levels in content areas, criteria for licensure of personnel
working in school buildings and districts and for funding education (Augenblick et al., 1997).
Additionally, states are also responsible for creating policy regarding the requirements for high
school graduation (Holme et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2012; Katsiyannis, Zhang, & Ryan et al.,
2007). One of the main components to these requirements is the successful passing of a high
school exit exam (HSEE; Hyslop, 2014). State policy dictates the use of these exams to gain a
standard high school diploma, and often provide alternate diploma options for students who are
unable to pass the exam (Johnson et al., 2012). Adequate comprehension of how the use of exit
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 46

exams impact the post-secondary options of students with disabilities requires an understanding
of why and how these were developed and have evolved.
During the mid-1970’s, the United States experienced a sluggish economy (Hyslop,
2014) with high unemployment and inflation (Bryan, 2013). At this time, there were many
people such as employers, who criticized the high school diploma, questioning its credibility by
noting the low standards to which students were held (Hyslop, 2014). As a result, states created
a basic skills test and by the 1980s, about 19 states administered minimum competency exams or
MCEs, and made it part of the requirement to graduate (Holme et al., 2010; Hyslop, 2014).
However, with the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 which detailed how American
students and schools were lagging behind compared to other students globally, states redesigned
their tests (Gaumer-Erickson, Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 2007; Hyslop, 2014). Subsequently,
the evolution of minimum competency exams continued to reflect an emphasis on standards-
based which called for an increase in the rigor of these exams (Hyslop, 2014). It should be noted
that the newer, standards-based exit exams are referred to high school exit exams (HSEE;
Hyslop, 2014).
Since their introduction in education, researchers have identified the goals of exit exams
in high school. For one, exit exams sought to establish clear standards for schools and students
(Holme et al., 2010; Hyslop, 2014). In order for schools to prepare students for higher education
and the workforce, they must know, understand, and be able to reach proficiency levels on
specified state benchmarks. In this way, educators would be able to create the type of learning
environments and opportunities that would help students be successful in reaching those
academic goals. Exit exams sought to enhance the post-secondary success of students by
indicating a student’s high level of knowledge and workplace skills to institutions of higher
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 47

education and employers (Holme et al., 2010; Hyslop, 2014). As exit exams continued to
evolve, their use and effectiveness in accomplishing their established goals have been highly
researched, with an emphasis on the impact of these exams on subgroups of students, including
those with disabilities.
Research surrounding exit exams has documented how state policies regarding the use of
these exams have changed, and the influences of these changes on students with disabilities.
According to McIntosh (2012) for the 2011-2012 school year, 25 states mandated students to
pass an exit exam to receive a standard high school diploma, with Rhode Island as a 26th state
administering its exit exam mandate for the 2014 class. It is important to note that there are two
major types of exit exams, comprehensive and end-of-course exams (EOCs). While
comprehensive exams test various subjects in one test and are given at one grade level (Zabala,
Minnici, McMurrer, & Briggs, 2008), EOCs are given to students upon completion of a certain
course to assess their level of knowledge for that particular course (McIntosh, 2012). For
example, until recently, the state of California required high school students to pass a
comprehensive exam in English Language Arts (ELA) and math referred to as the California
High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE, CDE, 2016a). Starting in the 2001-2002 school year,
all students in the 10th grade had to take the CAHSEE (McIntosh, 2012).
Commencing with the 2003-04 school year and each school year thereafter, each pupil
completing grade 12 shall successfully pass the high school exit examination as condition
of receiving a diploma of graduation or a condition of graduation from high school . . . .
Each pupil shall take high school exit examination in grade 10 beginning in the
2001-02 school year and may take the examination during each subsequent
administration, until each section of the examination has been passed. (California
Legislative Information, 2002, § 60851(a)(b)).

Recently however, California suspended the passage of the CASHEE as a requirement
for a standard high school diploma. Policymakers in the state are looking to revise the exam to
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 48

make it more rigorous and aligned with the Common Core Standards. Despite the continuous
use of exit exams in multiple states, various factors have influenced why states are changing their
policies regarding how they use high school exit exams (McIntosh, 2012).
Changes to exit exams range from their elimination to the addition of new exams. With
the adoption of the rigorous Common Core Standards and emphasis on college and career
readiness, states have adopted new exams and cut scores. Additionally, some states have
eliminated the alternate assessments used for high school students with disabilities. Budgetary
issues have lead some states to eradicate some exams, and reduce the opportunities students have
to retake the test (McIntosh, 2012). Such changes in state policies have major implications for
high school students with disabilities and their post-secondary trajectories.
Students with Disabilities
States differ in their policies regarding the diploma options offered to students with
disabilities who do not successfully pass exit exams. As a whole on average, students with
disabilities have a lower passing rate than their non-disabled peers. Consequently, states have
created alternate diploma options for students with special needs who are not able to pass the exit
exam (Gaumer-Erickson, Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 2007; Hyslop, 2014; Johnson et al., 2012).
States vary on the type and amount of non-standard diploma options that they offer to students
(Gaumer-Erickson, Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2012). Some of the
diploma options include honors, standard, IEP/special education, certificates (of attendance, of
achievement, of graduation), occupational, career diploma (Gaumer-Erickson, Kleinhammer-
Tramill et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2012).
For example, in California students with disabilities who are unable to pass the CAHSEE
may request a local waiver (Zhang, 2009). This decision came after the Chapman v California
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 49

Department of Education (as cited in Johnson et al., 2012) in 2002 when the federal courts
mandated that the state allow accommodations for students with special needs when taking the
CASHEE. However in 2007, the California Board of Education required that all students needed
to pass the exit exam. This decision was overturned in 2009 and again in 2011 when students
with disabilities were again allowed to get a waiver (McIntosh, 2012). Despite the plethora of
diploma options a state may offer students who do not pass exit exams, it is important to
understand the limitations that a non-standard diploma creates for students after high school.
Research regarding the impact of exit exams as part of graduate requirements on students
with disabilities reveal a myriad of unintended consequences for this population of students. For
example, students with disabilities are more likely to graduate with a non-standard diploma than
their non-disabled peers, especially in states with high school exit exams (Gaumer-Erickson,
Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 2007). Additionally, researchers have found that disability category
can influence a student’s graduation timeline, whether they graduate within four years (Schifter,
2011), and whether they receive a standard high school diploma (Gaumer-Erickson,
Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 2007). These findings have important implications for the post-
secondary endeavors of students with disabilities. Employers and institutions of higher
education question the credibility of alternate diplomas, with many not recognizing these
diplomas as legitimate high school diplomas (Hemelt, & Marcotte, 2013; Johnson et al., 2012;
McIntosh, 2012). As a result, students with disabilities who graduate with a non-standard
diploma are limited in the options they have after they graduate including chronic unemployment
or underemployment, and difficulty applying to institutions of higher education, and for financial
aid to name a few (Gaumer-Erickson, Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2012).
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 50

Outcomes for Students with Disabilities
The persistent achievement gap between students with disabilities and their non-disabled
peers is well documented (Brand, Valent, & Danielson, 2013; Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, &
Acosta, 2005; Roden, Borgemenke, & Holt, 2013). This achievement gap is seen in a variety of
areas including grade point average (GPA, Newman et al., 2011a), high school graduation rates
(Brand et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2012), and post-secondary completion rates (Brand et al.,
2013; Katsiyannis, Zhang, Landmark, & Reber, 2009), to name a few. The National
Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (NLTS-2, Newman et al., 2011a) provided national data about
high school students with disabilities. NLTS2 provided data over a 10-year study of
characteristics, experiences, and outcomes of youth with disabilities aged 13-16 who received
special education in grade 7 and above. For this study, 501 school districts and 38 special
schools participated, with the participation of 11,280 students. This study was an examination of
high school transcripts collected from 2002 to 2009; district rosters of special education students
also collected complete transcripts obtained from 83% of the sample population or 7,500
students (Newman et al., 2011a).
Specifically, this data focused the curricula offered in typical high schools and the type of
courses students took (Newman et al., 2011a). Information from this study included study data
from a 10-year period with a nationally representative sample of youth with disabilities aged 13-
16. This study focused on the types of classes taken by students with disabilities, the type of
setting they took these courses in, and course completion (i.e. the number of credits and grades
earned by students) collected from high school transcripts.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 51

Academics
On average as a group, the NLTS2 study revealed that students with disabilities showed
lower levels of achievement compared to their non-disabled peers. For example, data collected
between 2001and 2009 revealed several findings (Newman et al., 2011a). For one, researchers
found that on average students with disabilities earned less credits than their non-disabled peers,
22.7 vs. 24.2 credits respectively. In regards to GPA, on averages, students with disabilities had
a 2.3 GPA compared to the 2.7 GPA of general education students (Newman et al., 2011a,
p. xii). More specifically, grade performance differed by disability category. For example,
researchers found that GPAs among their student sample ranged from 2.0 for students with
emotional disturbance to 3.0 for students with autism (Newman et al., 2011a, p. 51). However, it
was noted that student performance can be influenced by a variety of factors such as course type
and instructional setting. Students generally received higher grades in special education courses
than general education courses. Lastly, researchers found that students with disabilities who
completed high school had a higher GPA than those who did not complete it (2.5 vs. 1.5
respectively). As seen, the academic performance of students with disabilities was influential in
high school completion.
In a local context, prior to the suspension of the CAHSEE, students had to take and pass
the exit exam in order to graduate with a standard high school diploma. Since 2000, the state of
California hired an independent firm to conduct yearly evaluation of the CASHEE (Becker et al.,
2013). As part of the evaluation, this firm was responsible for examining the annual test results,
student responses to the questionnaire at the end of the exam, reviewing the fidelity through
which the CASHEE was administered through observations, scoring data for reliability purposes,
and analyzing educational trends from various sources to determine the possible impact of the
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 52

CASHEE on variables such as dropout rates, and graduation for example (Becker et al., 2013).
Among a myriad of results, the most recent results from the 2013 evaluation of the CASHEE
revealed that despite improvement for English Language Learners and students with disabilities,
these student groups continued to exhibit low performance. Additionally, the evaluation found
mixed results for students with disabilities in terms of score improvements but that the options of
an exemption or waiver for taking the exam does influence the number of students passing the
test (Becker et al., 2013).
Graduation Rates
While data gathered on this group of students is often collected and analyzed in the
aggregate, tremendous variability existed between students in the same disability category and
across categories (Gaumer-Erickson, Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 2007; Schifter, 2011). For
example, Gaumer-Erickson, Kleinhammer-Tramill et al. (2007), found that students in specific
disability categories were more likely to receive a certificate upon graduating high school than
students in other categories. Researchers have also noted that despite the increase in graduation
rates among students with disabilities, their rates of graduation continue to lag behind those of
general education students (Brand et al., 2013; Stetser & Stillwell, 2014). According to a report
by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the national graduation rate for students
with disabilities for the 2010-2011 school year was 59% and rose to 61% in the 2011-2012
school year (Stetser & Stillwell, 2014, pp. 7, 9). For the 2013-2014 school year, the cohort
graduation rate for all students in California was 81% with a 62.3 % graduation rate for students
with disabilities (CDE Dataquest, 2015b, p. 1).
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 53

Post-Secondary Outcomes
In 2011, another report from the NLTS2 was published focusing on the post-secondary
outcomes of students with disabilities eight years after high school graduation. Five areas of
post-secondary outcomes where examined: post-secondary, employment, productive engagement
in the community in which students live, house hold circumstances, and social and community
involvement (Newman et al., 2011b). Similar to the NLTS2 study regarding the academic
performance of students with disabilities in the United States, data from this study was collected
from 2001-2009 in five waves and consisted of telephone interviews and mail surveys of
students and parents (Newman et al., 2011b). While 11, 280 students were selected and eligible
to participate in the study, data was collected from about 4, 810 participants (Newman et al.,
2011b, pp. A-3–A-6). For the purposes of this study, only data on post-secondary education,
employment, and engagement in the community will be highlighted.
Post-Secondary Education. There were several findings regarding students with
disabilities and post-secondary education. However, for the purposes of this study, only a few
findings will be highlighted. Data collected indicated that 60% of young adults with disabilities
reported went on to pursue post-secondary education eight years after graduating high school
(Newman, 2011b, 16). More specifically, these students “were more likely to have enrolled in 2-
year or community colleges (44 percent) than in vocational, business, or technical schools (32
percent), or 4-year colleges or universities (19 percent)” (Newman et al., 2011b, p. xv) Data also
indicated that the majority of young adults with disabilities attended school on a “consistent (77
percent), full-time (71 percent) basis” (Newman, 2011b, pp. xv). Another national report by the
NCES (2015) stated students with disabilities represented 11.1% of undergraduates enrolled in
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 54

institutions of higher education compared with 88.9% of students with no disabilities (p. 1,
Table).
Employment. According to Newman et al. (2011b), 67% of young adults with
disabilities were working full time at their current or latest job eight years after graduating high
school (p. xvi). According to the United State Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
as of February 2016, 19.5 thousands of individuals with disabilities (aged 16 and older)
participated in the workforce compared to 68.2 thousands of individuals without disabilities
(p. 17). Additionally, for February 2016, 12.5 thousand individuals with disabilities were
unemployed compared to 4.9 thousand of their non-disabled peers (p. 17).
Engagement in the Community. Engaging with one’s community is important for
building and maintaining social and culture forms of capital. This is especially true for
individuals with disabilities, especially students who may be isolated from their non-disabled
peers for various reasons (Trainor, Morningstar, Murray, & Kim, 2013). According to the
NLTS2 (Newman et al., 2011b), active engagement in the community referred to being
employed, education and/or career training activities after students have graduated high school.
Overall, this study indicated that 94% of young adults with disabilities were engaged in some
type of post-secondary education, employment and/or job training eight years after completing
high school (Newman et al., 2011b, p. xvii). Additionally, 19% of young adults with disabilities
were employed and engaged in other activities such as training for job skills (Newman et al.,
2011b, p. xvii). Thirty percent of these adults had their job as the only vehicle of community
engagement while 3% of them reported post-secondary education as the only way in which they
engaged with the community (Newman et al., 2011b, p. xvii). According to the NLTS2
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 55

(Newman et al., 2011b), active engagement in the community referred to being employed,
education and/or career training activities after students have graduated high school.
It is important to note that post-secondary outcomes differed by disability category. For
example, young adults with sensory impairments such as visual or hearing impairment were
more likely to pursue higher education “(71 percent and 75 percent) [respectively] than those
with emotional disturbances, multiple disabilities, or mental retardation (53 percent, 33 percent,
and 29 percent respectively)” (Newman et al., 2011b, p. xix). In terms of community
engagement, young adults with emotional disturbance were more likely to be involved in the
criminal justice system than those in many other categories. More specifically, it is reported that
about 75% of the young adults from the study were involved in the criminal justice system at one
time or another (Newman et al., 2011b, p. xx). Lastly, young adults with low incidence
disabilities such as intellectual disabilities, multiple disabilities for example, were less likely to
be working during data collection for this study than those in other disability categories such as
speech and language impairment and learning disabilities for example (Newman, et al., 2011b).
Self-Advocacy and Self-Determination
Researchers have described the importance of teaching self-advocacy skills and
promoting self-determination among students with disabilities. The USDE’s National Transition
Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC) identified 17 evidenced-based predictors of post-
secondary success regarding employment, education, and independent living (McFadden,
Daugherty, Lee, Fisher, & Hack, 2015; National Technical Assistance Center on Transition,
NTTACT, n.d.). Self-determination/self-advocacy is identified as one of these predictors. In his
framework describing self-determination, Wehmeyer (1996) described self-determination as the
ability of an individual to be an independent decision-maker in their life. Research regarding
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 56

self-determination among students with disabilities indicated it is an important factor in
promoting student achievement, class participation (Gilberts, Agran, Hughes, & Wehmeyer,
2001), and enhanced satisfaction and quality of life (McDougall, Evans, & Baldwin, 2010),
including employment and independent living (Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2003). As a result,
researchers have advocated the teaching of self-advocacy/self-determination at all grade levels,
beginning in elementary school (Hart & Brehm, 2013).
Perceptions of Educational Policies
Educator Perceptions
Educational policy such as IDEIA (2004) and NCLB (U.S. Department of Education,
2002) have many implications for educators, especially teachers. For example, IDEIA identified
how services are to be delivered to students and under what conditions as indicated by a
student’s IEP, and teacher qualifications. Furthermore, NCLB (2001) described a highly
qualified teacher as one who was earned a bachelor’s degree, has met all state certifications as
defined by each state and has shown competency in their content areas as explained by state
qualifications (U.S. Department of Education, 2002).
(23) HIGHLY QUALIFIED.—The term ‘highly qualified’—
(A) when used with respect to any public elementary school or secondary school teacher
teaching in a State, means that—
(i) the teacher has obtained full State certification as a teacher (including certification
obtained through alternative routes to certification) or passed the State teacher
licensing examination, and holds a license to teach in such State, except that when
used with respect to any teacher teaching in a public charter school, the term
means that the teacher meets the requirements set forth in the State’s public
charter school law; and
(ii) the teacher has not had certification or licensure requirements waived on an
emergency, temporary, or provisional basis;
(B) when used with respect to—
(i) an elementary school teacher who is new to the profession, means that the
teacher—
(I) holds at least a bachelor’s degree; and
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 57

(II) has demonstrated, by passing a rigorous State test, subject knowledge and
teaching skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of the basic
elementary school curriculum (which may consist of passing a State-required
certification or licensing test or tests in reading, writing. (20 U.S.C 7801 §
9101(23)(A)(i)-(ii)(B)(i)(I)-(II)

Educators have perceptions of both educational policies and parent involvement in the
educational lives of special needs children. In their study examining how educators made sense
of standards-based policies, Russell and Bray (2013) found that educators found contradictions
among various components of these policies. More specifically, researchers found that educators
interpreted NCLB and IDEIA as having complementary and opposing components. For
example, educators perceived both policies as having clear definitions of a highly qualified
teacher (Russell & Bray, 2013). Similarly, a study by Vannest, Mahadevan, Mason, and
Temple-Harvey (2009) examined how educators and administrators in Texas perceived the effect
of NCLB on special populations such as students with disabilities. Among their various
findings, researchers found that educators had positive perceptions of NCLB in regards to “high
standards for teachers and paraprofessional qualifications.” (Vannest et al., 2009, p. 156).
Educators from the Russell and Bray’s (2013) study also viewed the concept of inclusion
as a complementary aspect of both policies. Although NCLB (U.S. Department of Education,
2002) or IDEIA (2004) explicitly directs the practice of full inclusion, educators interpreted the
least restrictive environment mandate of IDEIA as a push for inclusion. In regards to
misalignment between the two policies, educators participating in the Russell and Bray (2013)
study interpreted the standardization encouraged by NCLB as contradictory to the
individualization promoted by IDEIA. In other words, while NCLB requires that all students
perform at grade level, IDEIA focused on attending to the individual needs of each child at their
present level of performance. Such contradictions as interpreted by educators often causes
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 58

frustration and confusion as to how to accomplish these goals. Educators from the Vannest et al.
(2009) study also reported negative perceptions of the effect of NCLB. Specifically, educators
indicated negative perceptions regarding the penalties that occur as a result of failing to meet
mandated standards. Although teachers had a positive view of accountability and standards, they
had negative perceptions of the sanctions that failing schools endured as a result of low student
test scores.
Negative perceptions of NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2002), specifically as it
related to standardized tests is not foreign among educators, particularly teachers. A study by
Mertler (2010) found that classroom teachers did not have positive perceptions of NCLB.
Particular, this study examined the responses of over 1,500 K-12 teachers regarding how NCLB
mandates influenced instructional and curricular practices, and stress experienced by teachers
and students (Mertler, 2010). Sixty-nine percent of the teachers in this study reported that NCLB
had negative influence on their school (Mertler, 2010). The findings of the Mertler (2010) study
mirror the findings of other researchers who examined teacher perceptions of NCLB (Abrams,
Pedulla, & Madaus, 2003; Sunderman, Tracey, Kim, & Orfield, 2004).
Parental Perceptions
Parent involvement. Parent advocacy regarding the educational rights of students with
disabilities helped to surge the passing of EAHCA in 1975 (Giordnao, 2007; Singer, 2000; Yell,
Rodgers et al., 1998). This law, now known as IDEIA, guarantees all children with disabilities a
free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment (IDEIA, 2004). NCLB
also mandates parent participation in the educational lives of their children (Landmark, Roberts
et al., 2012). Without the strong participation and advocacy of parents on behalf of their special
needs children, it would probably have been more difficult for these students to get the
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 59

educational services they needed. Despite that, parental involvement and participation in the
educational lives of their children, specifically those with special needs, is very much influenced
by the social, cultural, and economic capital that parents hold (Trainor 2008, 2010a). As a result,
IDEIA entitled parents to certain rights as it relates to the educational opportunities and services
to which their child is entitled.
Procedural Safeguards. Under IDEIA (2004), parents, legal guardians, and surrogate
parents of students with disabilities have specific rights. These rights known as procedural
safeguards, ensure that parents of children with disabilities are full participants in the educational
lives of their children. The following section includes a description of the procedural safeguards
for parents as identified and explained in IDEIA. For the purposes of this study, this discussion
will be limited to parent participation in their child’s educational decisions, prior written notices,
parent consent, access to educational records, and due process rights. Section 615 of the law
identifies such procedural safeguards.
(1) An opportunity for the parents of a child with a disability to examine all records
relating to such child and to participate in meetings with respect to the identification,
evaluation, and educational placement of the child, and the provision of a free
appropriate public education to such child, and to obtain an independent educational
evaluation of the child.
(2)(A) Procedures to protect the rights of the child whenever the parents of the child are
not known, the agency cannot, after reasonable efforts, locate the parents, or the child
is a ward of the State, including the assignment of an individual to act as a surrogate
for the parents, which surrogate shall not be an employee of the State educational
agency, the local educational agency, or any other agency that is involved in the
education or care of the child. (20 U.S.C 1415 § 615(1)(2)(A))
(3) Written prior notice to the parents of the child, in accordance with subsection (c)(1),
whenever the local educational agency—
(A) proposes to initiate or change; or
(B) refuses to initiate or change, the identification, evaluation, or educational
placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to
the child.
(4) Procedures designed to ensure that the notice required by paragraph (3) is in the
native language of the parents, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so.
(5) An opportunity for mediation, in accordance with subsection (e).
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 60

(6) An opportunity for any party to present a complaint. (20 U.S.C 1415 § 615(3)-(5))

Educational Decisions. Federal special educational law requires that parents have the
opportunity to participate in all decision-making meetings about their child’s special education
program (IDEIA, 2004). Such participation includes but is not limited to attending IEP meetings
related to the identification or eligibility of their child to receive special education services,
meetings regarding assessment and the educational placement of their child. Parents also have
the right to attend any other meeting regarding their child’s participation in FAPE. As stated in
20 U.S.C 1415(3),
(3) written prior notice to the parents of the child, in accordance with subsection (c)(1),
whenever such agency—
(A) proposes to initiate or change; or
(B) refuses to initiate or change, the identification, evaluation, or educational
placement of the child or the provision of a free appropriate public education to
the child. (20 U.S.C 1415(3)(A)(B))

Furthermore, parents are entitled to information regarding the availability of FAPE and
all program options, including alternative programming available in public and non-public
schools. Lastly, access to their child’s educational records is an important parental right as
identified in IDEIA.
Prior Written Notice. As indicated by 20 USC 1415(C), this notice is intended to give
parents notice of when a school district or educational agency recommends or refuses to initiate
a change in the eligibility, assessment, or educational placement of a student with special needs
(IDEIA, 2004). Parents must be informed about a proposed evaluation with written notice or an
assessment plan within 15 days of a parent requesting that their child be evaluated. The notice
must include the following:
1. Description of what the district proposes or refuses to do
2. An explanation of why the course of action is taken or not taken
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 61

3. A description to each assessment procedure, record or the report at the district used to
justify their course of action (proposed or refused)
4. A statement indicating that parents of the special needs child have legal protection under
the procedural safeguards
5. People parents could contact to help them better understand the notice
6. Description of alternative options that IEP team considered and why they were not
accepted; and
7. Description of other factors related to the proposed course of action or rejection
Parental Consent. Parental consent refers to the right of parents to have their child
referred for special education services. Parents are required to give written consent before their
child’s initial special education assessment occurs. Parental consent is also needed for services
that students are provided with per their IEP, and any reevaluations for the student.
Due Process. Although IDEIA clearly outlines the right of parents of children with
special needs, these rights are often overlooked, especially when parents lack the social and
economic capital needed to navigate the special education arena. In order for parents to protect
their rights and the educational rights of their children, it is critical that parents know what these
rights are. Lack of knowledge about their rights under IDEIA is a large barrier to parental
participation, and can contribute to the dearth of social and cultural capital that some parents
experience.
Parent Perceptions
Parent perceptions of special education and the services that their child receives are
important to understand. Researchers have documented the experiences and perceptions of
parents of children with special needs. These studies have focused on parental advocacy,
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 62

parental involvement, and perceptions of special education. Specifically, these studies have
focused on the challenges that parents often face in navigating the special education landscape
(Burke, 2013; Trainor, 2010a; Resch et al., 2010; Spann, Kohler, & Soenksen, 2003). The
following section will discuss the literature regarding how parents perceive special education and
the services their children receive.
Parent involvement is important at all levels in the K-12 educational system. Wagner,
Newman, Cameto, Javitz, & Valdes (2012) examined the national patterns of parent participation
among 11-19-year-old students with disabilities regarding IEP and transition meetings. Data
sources came from Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS) and the NLTS2.
SEELS data was gathered from parents and school personnel from 2000-2006, while NLTS2
data was gathered every two years from parents between 2000-2009, from students in 2002 or
2004 and from school personnel from 2002-2004. The researchers analyzed interview, survey
assessment, transcript, and school district roster data.
Although there were a multitude of findings from the Wagner et al. (2012) study, only the
ones relevant to the scope of this study will be highlighted. First, the researchers found that the
majority of parents in both age groups– 90% in 11-14 year old group– and– 87.1% in 15-19 year
old group– indicated that they attended child’s most recent IEP meeting (p. 147). However, less
parents indicated that they attended transition planning meeting– 43% of parents of 14 year olds–
and– 68.6% of 15-19 year olds (p. 147). Parents of older students were more likely to attend a
transition meeting as indicated by these percentages. In regards to older students, 82.9% and
76.1% had attended IEP and transition planning meetings respectively vs. 49.6% of 1-14 year
olds attending more recent IEP and 44.9% of 14 year olds attending their transition planning
meeting (p. 147).
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 63

Wagner et al. (2012) identified five factors that influence parent and student engagement:
(1) disability characteristics or category; (2) student and family demographics; (3) Parent
involvement, expectations, and perceptions; (4) Student educational history; (5) School programs
(p. 143). The level of parent participation in IEP and transition meetings varied based on student
disability category. For instance, data indicated that parents of students with orthopedic
impairment were 64% more likely to have attended the most recent IEP or transition meeting
than parents of students with disabilities (Wagner et al., 2012, p. 147). In regards to student
demographics, researchers found that parents of an African-American student were less likely
than Caucasian parents to have attended the last IEP/transition planning meeting or to have
indicated a satisfactory level of involvement. Family demographics revealed that parents with
annual incomes from $25,001-50,000 and more than $50,000 where more likely to have attended
IEP/Transition planning meetings than parents who had lower incomes (pp. 148-149).
Additionally, parents from both groups were more likely to indicate satisfaction with level of
involvement than parents with $25,000 or lower (Wagner et al., 2012, pp. 148-149).
Furthermore, research has described the implications of capital theory as it relates to
parent understanding and perceptions of special education (Trainor, 2008; 2010a). Parent
involvement and perceptions of special education are often influenced by the amount of capital
they carry. In a study examining different approaches to parent advocacy during home-school
interactions, Trainor (2010a) found that advocacy was influenced by capital that parents held. In
her analysis, Trainor found that the race and ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and the
disability status of their child were interconnected in intricate ways. Although this made it
difficult to completely understand the exact ways in which parents advocated for their special
needs child. Nevertheless, Trainor noted that parents from low socioeconomic backgrounds had
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 64

less access to cultural and social capital compared to those from higher socioeconomic
backgrounds.
Parent perceptions of special education have focused on the experiences that they have
had as they garnered services for child. In studying parent perceptions of students receiving
special education services, Fish (2008) found that in general, parents had a satisfactory
perception of their experiences during IEP meetings. Fish’s 2008 study also found that parents
believed they held a good understanding of the IEP process and legislation surrounding special
education. Similarly, among other findings, Spann et al. (2003) also found that parents believed
they were knowledgeable about the IEP process. However, Fish noted that these perceptions
could be due to knowledge that parents gained from family agencies. Such knowledge is
representative of cultural capital that allows parents to effectively navigate through the special
education field.
Theoretical Framework
Capital Theory
Pierre Bourdieu’s capital theory identifies three main forms of capital: economic,
cultural, and social. Each form of capital contributes to an individual’s status in society, working
together to shape the opportunities and life trajectories of the individual (Bourdieu, 1986;
Coleman, 1988; Tainor, 2008). Although each form of capital has a unique contribution to an
individual’s societal status, it is important to understand the tenants of each. Additionally,
Bourdieu’s discussion of capital theory illustrates how these forms of capital are used to
reproduce societal inequalities. Since little research has focused on how capital theory can
inform the academic and post-secondary experiences of students with disabilities, particularly
those in high school (Trainor, 2008), this study used capital theory as a framework for
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 65

understanding how systems of education, specifically the special education system, can limit the
type and amount of capital students with special needs carry as they navigate through their young
adult lives.
Bourdieu (1986) described capital as “accumulated labor” (p. 83). It can take various
forms such as material (in the case of money) or encompassed form (in the case of culture). In
general, accruing capital takes time, and once obtained is able to bring an individual advantages
that can work to advance their standing in society. Additionally, capital can replicate itself
identically or in various forms. Furthermore, capital operates in fields or contextual settings.
Each field differs as people interact with one another based on the rules and practices of a
particular field. Habitus is the system of structures under which people regularly operate with
one another and the various forms of capital while following implicit rules in their daily lives.
Habitus includes peoples’ value systems, beliefs, and standards that ultimately influence
behavior.
Trainor (2008, 20010a) discussed the concepts of field and habitus as they relate to the
special education system in the United States. In her 2008 study looking at how social and
capital theories can be used to enhance the postsecondary outcomes of high school students with
disabilities and transition models, Trainor referred to special education as the field or contextual
reference of her discussion. In this case, special education is its own field as individuals such as
teachers, school administrators, students, and families operate under the particular set of rules
and guidelines mandated by IDEIA (2004). Field can also refer to the context in which people
interact with one another. In another study focusing on the various ways in which parents can
participate in their child’s education lives, Trainor (2010a) referred to field as home-school
interactions that can occur in a variety of settings including the school building or child’s home.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 66

Similarly, habitus also takes on a unique role as it relates to the special education system.
For example, Trainor (2010a) referred to habitus as the structures guiding formal and informal
IEP meetings, and home-school interactions regarding various special education processes.
Additionally, habitus includes teacher perceptions and behavior as they interact with parents,
their expectations of parents and their own personal mindset and skill set in regards to special
education. Ultimately, habitus influences how teachers interact with students. An understanding
of field and habitus is crucial to understanding how capital is accepted or rejected and exchanged
within the field of special education, perpetuating societal inequalities witnessed in a variety of
ways.
Economic capital is a material or tangible form of capital. This form of capital includes
resources such as money and the myriad of material goods that money can purchase (Klibthong,
2012; Trainor 2008, 2010a). In the educational sphere, economic capital is related to a child’s
socioeconomic status as identified through parental income. Therefore, children whose parents
have lucrative careers have economic capital. A lack of capital (economic, cultural, or social)
can limit the amount and type of advantages that one is afforded. For example, in the case of
education, a lack of economic capital as represented in a low socioeconomic status, can
negatively influence the educational resources they have available to them at home such as books
and a computer.
Unlike the tangible nature of economic capital, cultural capital can exist in various forms.
According to Bourdieu (1986), in the embodied form, cultural capital exists as persistent nature
of the mind and body. In the objectified state, cultural capital exists in the form of cultural
artifacts such as pictures, books, and so on, while in the institutionalized form, it is represented
as objects such as educational qualifications (Klibthong, 2012; Trainor 2008, 2010a).
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 67

Social capital includes the network of relationships that one creates and uses to accrue
other forms of capital, thereby advancing their societal stance (Bourdieu, 1986; Klibthong, 2012;
Trainor 2008, 2010a). For example, membership in a particular group (i.e. a professional
organization) allows an individual to form important relationships and develop networks.
Through these networks, they may find a career position or be promoted in their current position,
thereby enhancing their economic capital. Furthermore, the larger an individual’s networks, the
more capital they accumulate that they can use or exchange within a given field. In regards to
education systems, social capital among parents influences how they are able to operate and
interact with other stakeholders in the special education field. Parents can gain social capital
through economic capital. For example, the higher a parent’s socioeconomic status, the more
likely they are able to garner the services of advocates and lawyers to ensure that their child
receives appropriate special education services. As a result, a parent’s knowledge base of special
education grows as they develop important relationships and networks with others who are more
knowledgeable about the special education system such as teachers, advocates, and lawyers.
Social capital is especially relevant as it relates to students with disabilities and their
families (Trainor, 2008, 2010a, 2010b). Parents of students with disabilities can accrue social
capital that facilitates their successful navigation through the social education field through
formal networks by building relationships with teachers, special education advocates and
lawyers, and through informal networks such as parent groups, and talking to family members
and friends for example (Trainor, 2008, 2010a, 2010b). The social capital that parents hold can
be influential in their student’s educational experiences, particularly as it relates to the quality of
services that students with disabilities receive. Furthermore, social capital also allows parents to
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 68

be able to advocate for their rights as parents and the educational rights of their children. As a
result, this study places particularly emphasis on social capital.
Capital theory plays an important role in understanding how educational policy
influences the educational and social experiences of students with special needs, particularly as it
relates to transition into adult life. Since policy has an impact on how students receive
educational services, and establishes the rules and structures under which students are able to
obtain educational qualifications such as a high school diploma, examining how policy
influences the capital students are able to develop becomes crucial in understanding the
persistent gap in achievement, employment, and post-secondary enrollment in institutions of
higher education.
Summary
This literature review focused on the evolution of special education in the United States.
Special attention was given to the important landmark cases such as Brown v Board of Education
(1954), Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(1971) and Mills v Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972) that were influential to the
passage of special education legislation such as EACHA in 1975 reauthorized as IDEA (1997,
2004) in the United States. These cases ensured that all students regardless of race and ability
status were entitled to education in public schools. With passage of NCLB (U.S. Department of
Education, 2002) , states and schools were not only held accountable to educating students with
special needs, they were also now responsible for ensuring that they meet grade level proficiency
standards as measured by yearly state exams and an exit exam in high school. However, with the
low passage rates of exit exams by students with disabilities, these students are often awarded
non-standard diplomas. Since colleges and employers often do not recognize non-standard
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 69

diplomas, students with disabilities are often left with limited post-secondary options upon
graduating from high school. Furthermore, a lack of parental capital can hinder parents’ ability
to appropriately navigate the field of special education and advocate for their child.
Bourdieu’s (1986) capital theory served as an important research tool for understanding
how educational systems can often reproduce societal inequities. Lack of capital in its economic,
cultural and societal forms can prevent an individual from actively and productively participating
in society and the larger global economy. Due to the influence of educational policy, specifically
education policy on the educational services and options for students with disabilities, it is
important to examine how these policies unintentionally contribute to the inequities that students
with disabilities face in comparison to their non-disabled peers.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 70

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
With the development of a knowledge-based economy, schools in the kindergarten to
college (K-16) educational system are expected to prepare their students to be effective problem
solvers and critical thinkers who are able to engage in a global economy (Brand et al., 2013). At
the secondary level, a crucial aspect of this preparation includes successfully earning a standard
high school diploma. However, such an attainment is not always possible for students with
disabilities, leaving them with limited post-secondary options. Furthermore, these limitations
can often result in a myriad of unfavorable outcomes such as chronic unemployment or
underemployment, various health issues, incarceration, and other negative consequences
(Katsiyannis, Zhang, Ryan et al., 2007; Schifter, 2011; Williams-Diehm & Benz, 2008). These
unintended consequences lead to a loss of human capital, as students are not able to fully
participate in society and the workforce as active, productive citizens, resulting in diminished
social, cultural, and economic capital (Coleman, 1988). Educational policies such as IDEIA
(2004) are especially important in the lives of students with disabilities. Therefore, the purpose
of this study is to understand how federal and state policies actually support these students.
This study was guided by two research questions:
1. How are federal and state policies designed to provide educational support to high school
students with disabilities?
2. What are parent and educator understanding and perspectives of these policies?
Due to the exploratory nature of the research questions, a qualitative case study was
conducted to address them. This study analyzed the Individual with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) as it related to services provided to students with special needs
and the identified role of educators and parents in their students’ educational lives. NCLB
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 71

(2001, U.S. Department of Education, 2002) was examined at it related to roles of parents and
educators in the educational process and how it aligns with IDEIA in regards to students with
disabilities. Additionally, the California policy surrounding graduation requirements,
particularly how it related to students with disabilities was also examined. As public documents,
a document analysis of these policies was conducted in order to better understand these federal
and state policies that guide and influence the educational experiences of students with
disabilities in the United States (Merriam, 2009). A focus group and one-on-one interviews were
conducted to uncover the perceptions of parents and educators of students with disabilities. The
use of multiple data collection methods, known as triangulation, serves to enhance the validity of
data collected (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013).
Sample and Population
The site where the study was conducted and the participants worked, as well as their
demographics, and the criteria and rationale for selecting this group of individuals will be
discussed. The type of sampling procedures used, criteria for the sampling, sampling issues, and
the population from which the sample was taken also will be presented
Purposeful sampling as a type of non-probability sampling used in qualitative research
(Merriam, 2009) was used in this study. Purposeful sampling or criterion-based selection is a
process used for the selection of participants who are appropriate sources of information
(LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Patton, 2002). For the purposes of this study, parents of students
with disabilities were recruited in addition to educators and transition personnel who work with
this specific group of students. Since these personnel are not classroom teachers but are still
responsible for working with students and their families, they are also referred to as educators for
the purposes of this study. Educators and parents were recruited through convenience and
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 72

snowball sampling methods. After speaking to educators, they were able to recommend other
colleagues and parents who would be willing to participate in the study. A data sheet was
created to record the names and contact information of participants. Utilizing these participants
helped to ensure that relevant data would be collected to address the second research question
regarding the perceptions of parents and educators (Merriam, 2009):
What are parent and educator understanding and perspectives of these policies?
Case Study Site
The case study is a common approach in qualitative research. Researchers defined case
study as an in-depth description and examination of a “bounded system” (Merriam, 2009, p. 40).
The case can refer to an individual, an event, program, policy, institution, or other system
(Merriam, 2009; Thomas, 2011) is the object of the study (Lewis, 1978). The aim of the case
study is not to generalize, but to explore and understand a particular phenomenon within a
particular context at a given time (Merriam, 2009; Njie, & Asimiran, 2014; Thomas, 2011;
Stake, 1995). For the purposes of this study, the object of study will be the transition department
of a southern California Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA). Following is a description
of the SELPA and the area that it serves which is the object of this current study.
Site Location. SELPA X is one of three SELPAs that are part of a southern California
county office of education. A county office of education is an education service agency.
According to the Association of Educational Service Agencies (AESA, n.d.), “educational
service agencies (ESA) are public entities created by state statute, to provide educational support
programs and services to local schools and school districts within a given geographical area
(p. 2).” These agencies exist to provide quality educational and technical support programs for
participating local schools and districts that are cost beneficial (AESA, n.d.). In California, these
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 73

ESAs are referred to as County Office of Education (CDE, 2016a). SELPAs are part of the
country office that provides services for individuals with disabilities.
SELPA X is a group of 24 local education agencies (LEAs) in a southern California
county servicing both traditional public school districts and charter schools. It is governed by a
Board of Directors consisting of the superintendent or CEO of each component LEA within the
region. The Board of Directors is chaired by the County Superintendent. In 2014, the county in
which SELPA X was located was home to 2,091,618 residents. In regards to demographics,
51% of residents are Latino, 31% are White, 8% Black or African American, 7% Asian or
Pacific Islander, 2% identify as two or races, less than 1% identify as American Indian/Alaskan
Native, and 0.4% identify as “other” (reference withheld to maintain confidentiality). According
to the United States Census Bureau, data collected from the 2010-2014 report showed the
median household income was $54,100 with a poverty level of 19.5% for the county.
Additionally, there are 7.7% of individuals 65 years and younger with a disability(reference
withheld to maintain confidentiality).
Study Site. SELPA X was selected using a convenience sampling approach. After
learning about SELPA X through a colleague, the researcher contacted the transition coordinator
of the SELPA to establish a working relationship. After providing an overview of the study, the
transition coordinator agreed to participate in the study. The coordinator was able to provide the
contact information of other educators who would be eligible to participate in the study.
Similarly, parents were also recruited using a snowball sampling method. Educators were able to
provide the contact information of eligible parents. This SELPA is one of the few SELPAs in
the state of California of which charter schools are a component member. According to the data
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 74

from the 2014-2015 school year, SELPA X served over 12,000 students from birth to 22 years of
age (reference withheld to maintain confidentiality).
Sample
There are two groups of interest for this study.
Group 1. The first group consists of parents with a child who has been identified with a
disability (see Table 2). Parents were recruited through convenience and snowball sampling
procedures. Parents who work with one of the transition personnel at the SELPA were recruited
through email solicitation. Two parents volunteered and subsequently participated in one
individual interview. The names of parents and their contact information was collected to keep
track of parent participants (see Appendix A).

Table 2

Parent Profiles

Participants

Male or
Female

Age

Occupation

Educational
Background

Annual
Income

Age of
Child
Child
Disability
Category
Parent 1 F 36 Stay at home
Mother (2
years)

Technical
College
N/A 15 Autism
Parent 2 F 40 Teacher’s
Instructional
Assistant

Masters $25,000 14 (ASD)
Autism

Group 2. Educators included in the study were transition personnel and one special
education high school teacher (see Table 3). They were recruited through convenience and
snowball sampling procedures. Two of the educators participated in the focus group and also
volunteered to engage in one-on-one individual interviews. A high school special education
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 75

teacher who works with the transition counselor was later recruited through and participated in a
telephone interview. The names of educators and their contact information was collected to keep
track of educator participants (see Appendix B).

Table 3
Educator Profiles
Educators (E) Male or Female Professional Role Length of Service
E1 F Transition Coordinator

9 years (in current role)
E2 F Social Security Benefits
Technician

22 months
E3 F Special Education Teacher;
Department Chair

13 years

Instrumentation and Data Collection
This section is a discussion of the instrumentation that was used to collect study data.
Also, a discussion of how the research questions relate to the type of and use of each instrument
will be presented (see Table 4). The process of development, including the reliability and
validity of each instrument used, will be described. In this study, data was collected from
various sources. This triangulation of data contributes to the reliability and validity of the data
gathered during the study (Creswell, 2014). The three sources of data that will be used are
document analysis, a focus group, and individual interviews.

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 76

Table 4
Research Design Chart

Research
Questions
Data
Collection
Method
Method of
Analysis Rational Function Implementation
1. How do
federal and
state policies
designed to
support
student with
disabilities
influence their
educational
experiences?

Document
Analysis
Content
Analysis
Foundational
information
needed to address
RQ 1
Historical and
contextual
background of
policies that
impact
students with
disabilities
Federal policies
including IDEIA and
NCLB were
examined with
particular attention to
sections related to
high school students
with disabilities;

California state
policies regarding
graduation
requirements were
examined with
particular attention to
sections related to
high school students
with disabilities
2. How do
parents’ and
educators’
understanding
and
perspectives of
these policies
influence
students’
educational
preparation?

Focus Group

Open ended
questions to
gather
parent and
educator
perceptions

One group
of two
educators

Data
triangulation

Survey and
interview data
collected and
compared
Captured
perceptions of
educators
regarding
educational
policies
Purposeful selection
(criterion-based)

40 minutes in
duration
Interviews Recorded
and
transcribed
with
participant
permission;

Researcher
notes taken
during
interview;

Data
triangulation

Interview data
collected to
compare with
survey data
Analyzed
perceptions of
parents and
educators
regarding
educational
policies
Purposeful selection
(criterion-based)

One-on-one
interviews (semi-
structured)

Two educators (in-
person)

One educator (via
telephone)

Two parents (via
telephone)
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 77

Table 4 (Cont’d.)

Research
Questions
Data
Collection
Method
Method
of
Analysis
Rational Function Implementation
Data coded
for
emerging
them and
connections
made to
existing
research

Three
educators

Two parents
Conducted in
November 2015

25-59 minutes in
duration

Document Analysis
This study included a review of two important federal policies, and one state policy.
First, since IDEIA (2004) is the national federal policy establishing the education rights of
students with special needs in the United States, it was analyzed regarding its content as it related
to services provided to students with special needs and the identified role of parents and
educators in the life of a child identified as having a disability. The No Child Left Behind Act
(U.S. Department of Education, 2002) was also examined as it related to the role of parents and
educators in the educational process and how it aligns with IDEIA in regards to students with
disabilities. Additionally, the California Education Code regarding the high school exit exam as
it relates to students with disabilities was also examined. IDEIA was obtained through
government website (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). NCLB was obtained through the
government website (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Lastly, the policy regarding state
graduation for California was obtained through the California Department of Education (CDE,
California Legislative Information, 2002). These documents were examined using content
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 78

analysis, with a focus on how disability is defined by federal and state governments, how they
specify student and parental rights, and the role of educators such as teachers.
Content analysis is a systemic method for describing social documents (Merriam, 2009).
It is often used in qualitative research to draw conclusions about the meaning of written text such
as responses from interviews and comments from survey participants (Fink, 2012). Stemler,
(2001) described content analysis as a way of discovering “trends and patterns” in a particular
document (p. 2). Identifying words, phrases, and sentences are some ways of finding these
patterns (Fink, 2012). Stemler (2001) referred to these sections as context units. Context units
are coded using a priori or emerging codes that are then grouped to become categories from
which patterns and themes emerge. A codebook was created to track the codes, including a
definition and example of each code (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). For the purposes of
this study, a conventional content analysis which consisted of coding categories originated from
the text was used when analyzing policy documents, survey, and interview data (Lichtman,
2014).
Focus Group
Focus groups are group interviews intended to gather ample amount of data on a
particular topic in a short period of time (Fatemeh Rabiee, 2004; Morgan & Krueger, 1993).
These groups allow individuals to share their thoughts, feelings, and ideas regarding a certain
topic (Fatemeh Rabiee, 2004). Similar to individual interviews, focus groups require purposeful
sampling to ensure that the selected participants will provide the data in which the research is
interested (Merriam, 2009). As a result, it is important for the participants to be homogeneous in
that they share something in common (i.e. they may be within the same age-range, have similar
ethnic backgrounds, work in the same organization, etc.). These commonalities allow
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 79

participants to share and build on each other’s thoughts (Krueger & Casey, 2010). Additionally,
the size of a focus group varies based on the background of the participants, the topic to be
discussed, and the skill of the moderator (Krueger & Casey, 2010).
Before the start of the focus group, participants were given an informed consent form to
sign and provided an explanation of their rights in participating in the study (see Appendix C and
D). Participants also completed a demographic data form that captured general demographic
data such as their age, sex and in the case of educators, the length of service (see Appendices E
and F). For telephone interviews, participants were read the informed consent form after which
the researcher signed their name with their permission. With the permission of participants, the
educator focus group was audio recorded, with additional hand-written notes taken. According
to Weiss (1994), there are disadvantages to both the use of tape recorders and note taking during
the interview process. For example, the use of tape recorders while instructive, may inhibit the
responses of the interviewee and the attention of the interviewer to what the respondent is saying.
This may result in loss of valuable information and lack of understanding to the phenomenon of
interest due to lack of attention on behalf of both parties. Similarly, using only note-taking can
also cause the interviewer to miss important information (Weiss, 1994). As a result, the use of
both methods of gathering information during an interview proves more valuable than using one
alone.
A focus group was used in this study to gather information regarding how educators view
special education, educational policies, and how they influence high school students with
disabilities. This study included one educator focus group. It should be noted that despite an
attempt to secure five educators to participate in the focus group, one educator did not show up
for the group and scheduling difficulties hindered the participation of additional educators.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 80

However, because the two educators whose responses are reported in this study had already
committed to both the focus group and the individual interviews, I decided to conduct the focus
group with them. Furthermore, a lack of parent volunteers to participate in the study made it
difficult to conduct a parent focus group. There were very few parents who went to the parent
meeting that the researcher attended. One of the parents who did volunteer to participate was not
eligible to do so because her child was still in middle school (eighth grade). Following the
meeting, the researcher asked educators to assist in parent recruitment, by emailing the parents of
their students. From these efforts, two parents volunteered to participate in individual, in-depth
interviews.
The educator focus group was approximately 40 minutes in duration. The focus group
protocol for educators consisted of six open-ended questions (see Appendix G). Sample
questions for this focus group included, “How aligned do you think these policies are in regards
to the education of students with special needs?” and “How well do you think educational
policies such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB, U.S. Department of Education, 2002) work to ensure quality educational
opportunities for students with disabilities, particularly at the secondary level?”
One-on-One Interviews
In the interview, the researcher sought to gather relevant information that will help
answer their targeted researcher question(s). Interviews allow the researcher to capture
unobservable phenomena such as an individual’s past experiences, thoughts and perceptions
(Patton, 2002). Furthermore, Patton (2002) discussed three basic qualitative approaches to data
collection using interviews: informal conversational interview, the interview guide, and the
standardized open-ended interview. For the purposes of this research study, semi-structured
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 81

interview guides were used to collect pertinent data form participants. Semi-structured
interviews incorporated pre-determined open-ended questions, appropriate probing questions,
and some direct questions that provided descriptive or demographic data.
Two separate interview protocols and a focus group guide were designed for the purposes
of this study. The focus group guide took 40 minutes to complete with educators. The first
interview guide was completed with three individual interviews with educators and took between
27 and 52 minutes to complete (see Appendix H). The second interview guide was completed
with two individual parent interviews and took between 25 and 59 minutes to complete (see
Appendix I). Both interview protocols were piloted with parents and educators from a southern
California school district to ensure appropriateness of questions. Upon completion of the field
testing, the researcher revised interview protocols to create clearer question items, and to add
additional items. The final interview protocol for parents included 11 open ended questions.
The first question collected demographic information such as their highest level of education,
current occupation, racial/ethnic background and salary range. Questions 2-4 addressed their
general experiences in the special education system, while questions 5-7 addressed their
awareness and knowledge of law in regards to special education. Lastly, questions 8-11 focused
on parents’ expectations for their child after graduation and their thoughts regarding California’s
graduation policies.
Parent interviews were conducted via telephone. Before the start of each individual,
participants were read the informed consent form and provided an explanation of their rights in
participating in the study after which the researcher signed their name with their permission.
Participants were also asked to provide the demographic data that captured their age, sex, and
city of residence. Parent interviews were not audio-recorded; instead, the researcher took
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 82

extensive notes with each interview (see Table 5). Table 6 provides an overview the research
questions and accompanying methodologies.

Table 5

Individual Parent Interviews

Participants
(pseudonyms)
Relevant
Characteristic 1
(Child disability
category)

Relevant
Characteristic 2
(Female or Male)

Length of
Interview
Hayley

Autism F 59 minutes
Sonya Autism F 25 minutes

A second interview protocol was used for educators. After field testing of the protocol,
the researcher added two follow-up questions to help ensure clarity for participants. This
protocol consisted of 12 open-ended questions. Questions 1-2 focused on the professional
learning and role of educators in the special education area, while questions 3-5 focused on their
general knowledge of special education legislation. Finally, questions 6-11 emphasized educator
thoughts about California’s gradation policy in regards to the special education students whom
they serve. The last question was a wrap-up question to allow educators to share any
information that they wanted to share beyond what they had previously shared. The two
educators who participated in the in-person interviews at the SELPA office included the
Transition Coordinator and a SSI Technician. The third educator, who participated in a
telephone interview, was a special education teacher from one of the high schools within the
SELPA. Two of the interviews were audio-recorded with permission of the participants and later
transcribed. Hand-written notes were also taken with each interview. Before the start of each
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 83

individual interview, participants were given an informed consent form to sign and provided an
explanation of their rights in participating in the study. Participants were also asked to provide a
demographic data form that captured general demographic data such as their age, sex, and in the
case of educators, the length of service. For the telephone interview, participants were read the
informed consent form after which the researcher signed their name with their permission.

Table 6

Individual Educator Interviews

Participants
(pseudonyms)

Relevant
Characteristic 1
(Professional Role)
Relevant
Characteristic
2 (Female or
Male)

Relevant
Characteristic 3
(Length of Service)

Length of
Interview
Airel Transition Coordinator

F 9 years (in current role) 27 minutes
Joan Social Security
Benefits Technician

F 22 months (in current
role)
33 minutes
Tina Special Education
Teacher;
Department Chair
F 13 years 52 minutes

Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis was conducted to give meaning to data that was collected during
a study (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Merriam, 2009). A general qualitative approach using thematic
analysis was used to analyze data for this study. Data from policy documents, the focus group,
and interviews were collected and analyzed. Harding (2013) discussed the use of empirical
codes in analyzing qualitative data. This study used empirical codes that emerged from the data
collected (Harding, 2013). A codebook was created to track the codes, including a definition and
example of each code. Each interview transcript was coded in pencil with codes written in the
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 84

margin. This method of coding is referred to as first cycle coding, or an initial way of
condensing sections of data (Miles et al., 2014). First cycle coding allowed for the notation of
commonalities among segments of data, make an interpretation, and label each section
appropriately with a code (Harding, 2013). Second cycle coding, also known as pattern coding,
(Miles et al., 2014), was then used to create categories for initial codes by grouping similar codes
together (Merriam, 2009).
Maxwell (2013) discussed the importance of validity in qualitative research. According
to Creswell (2014), validity in qualitative research refers to the accuracy and plausibility of the
data collected. There are various strategies used for enhancing the validity and credibility of
qualitative data including prolonged engagement in the field, triangulation, the collection of rich,
detailed data, and maximum variation to name a few (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The use
of various data sources or triangulation such as document analysis, focus group, and interviews
helped to promote the validity of the data collected for this study. Triangulation helped in
identifying themes by allowing the researcher to see possible patterns that emerged from their
data sources (Creswell, 2014). Additionally, data was collected during the focus group and
individual interviews to help illuminate parental and educator perceptions of educational policies
and their influence on high school students with disabilities (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
It is important to identify possible threats to validity in this study. Researcher bias is one
such threat. Maxwell (2013) described researcher bias as the subjectivity that a researcher brings
to a study. For example, this subjectivity can include a researcher’s goals and preconceptions
about the topic of interest. As a former special education teacher, I am familiar with the special
education landscape, including the challenges that students, educators, and parents experience in
this system. As a result, it is possible that my prior experiences as an educator working with
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 85

students with disabilities and their families could have influenced how the data was analyzed.
Reactivity, or how the researcher influences participants in a study is another threat to validity
(Maxwell, 2013). Again, my prior experiences as a special educator could have potentially
influenced interactions with study participants. Merriam (2009) identified a variety of strategies
for promoting validity of data collected in qualitative studies. In addition to the triangulation
used as part of this study, rich, thick descriptions of the study location and study site helped to
provide appropriate context. Lastly, it should be noted that the present research questions are the
result of the evolving nature of qualitative research. After analyzing and coding the collected
data, I realized that I had to restructure my research questions to reflect the evidence I had
gathered.
Summary

The purpose of this chapter was to outline the methodology for how this study was
conducted. A qualitative case study approach was used to examine how federal and state
policies influence the post-secondary options of students with disabilities, and the perceptions of
parents and educators regarding these policies. This chapter detailed the sampling procedures,
instrumentation, and data collection and analysis used in this study. Bourdieu’s (1986) theory of
social and cultural capital was used to examine data gathered. Researcher bias and reactivity
were two threats to validity in this study. The use of triangulation using document analysis, a
focus group and individual interviews, and rich descriptions were used to promote validity of
data. Researcher awareness and acknowledgement of personal biases and assumptions was
important in controlling threats to validity.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 86

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine how federal and state policies support high
school students with disabilities. This study also examined how educators and parents perceived
these policies. The first three chapters of this study presented an introduction and background to
the problem, a review of the literature surrounding special education and the methodological
design used to conduct the study. This chapter presents the findings that developed from data
collection and analysis using Bourdieu’s (1986) capital theory as the conceptual framework.
Qualitative data collection methods were used to conduct this study. More specifically, a
case study approach using document analysis, a focus group and individual interviews were used
to collect data to address the research questions. Pseudonyms are used for the location where the
study was conducted and for all participates. Findings will be presented by discussing the
themes that emerged from the data regarding each research question:
1. How are federal and state policies designed to provide educational support to high school
students with disabilities?
2. What are parent and educator understanding and perspectives of these policies?
Document Analysis
For the purposes of this study, a conventional content analysis which consists of coding
categories originated from the text was used when analyzing policy documents (Lichtman,
2014). The following section will describe the emergent themes from three educational policies;
IDEIA (2004), NCLB (2001, U.S. Department of Education, 2002) and the now suspended
California exit exam (CAHSEE) requirement for graduation (see Table 7).
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 87

Table 7
Themes from Document Analysis
Document Themes Example Excepts
Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEIA, 2004)

Student Services Transition Services
(A) is designed to be within a results-oriented
process, that is focused on improving the
academic and functional achievement of the
child with a disability to facilitate the child’s
movement from school to post-school
activities, including post-secondary education,
vocational education, integrated employment
(including supported employment), continuing
and adult education, adult services,
independent living, or community
participation;

(B) is based on the individual child’s needs,
taking into account the child’s strengths,
preferences, and interests; and

(C) includes instruction, related services,
community experiences, the development of
employment and other post-school adult living
objectives, and, when appropriate, acquisition
of daily living skills and functional vocational
Evaluation. (20 U.S.C 1401 § 602(34))

Educator Qualifications Qualifications of special education teachers

(B) REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL
EDUCATION
TEACHERS.—When used with respect to any
public elementary school or secondary school
special education teacher teaching in a State,
such term means that—

(i) the teacher has obtained full State
certification as a special education teacher
(including certification obtained through
alternative routes to certification), or passed
the State special education teacher licensing
examination, and holds a license to teach in
the State as a special education teacher, except

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 88

Table 7 (Cont’d.)

Document Themes Example Excepts
that when used with respect to any teacher
teaching in a public charter school, the term
means that the teacher meets the requirements
set forth in the State’s public charter school
law;

(ii) the teacher has not had special education
certification or licensure requirements waived
on an emergency, temporary, or provisional
basis; and (iii) the teacher holds at least a
bachelor’s degree (20 U.S.C 1401 § 602(B)(i)-
(iii)).

Parental Rights Parental Consent
(3) PARENTAL CONSENT.—Each local
educational agency shall obtain informed
parental consent, in accordance with
subsection (a)(1)(D), prior to conducting any
reevaluation of a child with a disability,
except that such informed parental consent
need not be obtained if the local educational
agency can demonstrate that it had taken
reasonable measures to obtain such consent
and the child’s parent has failed to respond.
(20 U.S.C 1414 § 614(B)(3))

No Child Left Behind (U.S.
Department of Education, 2002)

Educator Qualifications

Teacher Qualifications
(23) HIGHLY QUALIFIED.—The term
‘highly qualified’—
(A) when used with respect to any public
elementary school or secondary school teacher
teaching in a State, means that—

(i) the teacher has obtained full State
certification as a teacher (including
certification obtained through alternative
routes to certification) or passed the State
teacher licensing examination, and holds a
license to teach in such State, except that
when used with respect to any teacher
teaching in a public charter school, the term
means that the teacher meets the requirements
set forth in the State’s public charter school
law; and

(ii) the teacher has not had certification or
license. (20 U.S.C 7801 § 9101(23)(A)(i))

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 89

Table 7 (Cont’d.)

Document Themes Example Excepts
Parental Rights Parental Participation
(4) PARENTAL PARTICIPATION.—Each
local educational agency receiving funds
under this part shall implement an effective
means of outreach to parents of limited
English proficient students to inform the
parents regarding how the parents can be
involved in the education of their children,
and be active participants in assisting their
children to attain English proficiency, achieve
at high levels in core academic subjects, and
meet challenging State academic achievement
standards and State academic content
standards expected of all students, including
holding, and sending notice of opportunities
for, regular meetings for the purpose of
formulating and responding to
recommendations from parents of students
assisted under this part (20 U.S.C 6311 §
1111(A)(i)-(iv))

California Education Code
(Section 60850)
Student Participation Participation of Students with Disabilities

g) The examination shall be offered to
individuals with exceptional needs, as defined
in Section 56026, in accordance with
paragraph (17) of subsection (a) of Section
1412 of Title 20 of the United States Code and
Section 794 and following of Title 29 of the
United States Code. Individuals with
exceptional needs shall be administered the
examination with appropriate
accommodations, where necessary.
(20 U.S.C § 60850 (g)).

Student Services Accommodations for Students with
Disabilities

(1) Accommodations” means any variation in
the assessment environment or process that
does not fundamentally alter what the test
measures or affect the comparability of scores.
“Accommodations” may include variations in
scheduling, setting, aids, equipment, and
presentation format.
(20 U.S.C § 60850 (f)(1))

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 90

Table 7 (Cont’d.)

Document Themes Example Excepts
Waiver from Participation Participation waiver for Students with
Disabilities

. . . A governing board of a school district
may waive the requirement to successfully
pass one or both subject matter parts of the
high school exit examination for a pupil with a
disability if the principal certifies to the
governing board of the school district that the
pupil has all of the following:

(A) An individualized education program
adopted pursuant to the federal Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
Sec. 1400 et seq.) or a plan adopted pursuant
to Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794(a)) in place that
requires the accommodations or modifications
to be provided to the pupil when taking the
high school exit examination.

(B) Sufficient high school level coursework
either satisfactorily completed or in progress
in a high school level curriculum sufficient to
have attained the skills and knowledge
otherwise needed to pass the high school exit
examination.

(C) An individual score report for the pupil
showing that the pupil has received the
equivalent of a passing score on the high
school exit examination while using a
modification that fundamentally alters what
the high school exit examination measures as
determined by the state board.
(20 U.S.C. § 60850 (c)(1)(A)-(C)).

Note. The selected quotes are directly from the policy documents that were analyzed for this study.

Data collected from the document analysis will address the first research question:
How are federal and state policies designed to provide educational support to high school
students with disabilities?
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 91

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEIA, 2004)
IDEIA (2004) was sectioned into five parts: Part A outlined general provisions for
students with disabilities; Part B outlined services available to all students with disabilities (ages
3-22); Part C, outlined services to infants and toddlers; and Part D described national efforts to
enhance services to students with disabilities. Finally, Part E detailed the establishment and
responsibilities of the National Center for Special Education Research (IDEIA, 2004). Part B of
IDEIA was analyzed in regards to the educational rights of students with disabilities aged 3-22
and that of their parents, while Part D was examined for its explanation of educator qualifications
and the supports needed to promote the success of students with disabilities, namely parent
trainings and centers (IDEIA, 2004). Each of these represents a crucial component to the
education of students with disabilities in the United States.
Students Services. IDEIA (2004) identified student services that are crucial to the
success of students with disabilities. IDEIA outlined and described a variety of student rights
under the law. First, Section 612 of Part B identified the type of education students with
disabilities are entitled to, namely a free and appropriate public education or FAPE by stating,
“(A) IN GENERAL.—A free appropriate public education is available to all children with
disabilities residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive, including children with
disabilities who have been suspended or expelled from school” (20 U.S.C 1412 § 612(1)(A)).
Part B also described the environment in which students with disabilities should be
educated: the least restrictive environment (LRE);
(A) IN GENERAL.—To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities,
including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated
with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other
removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs
only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 92

regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved
satisfactorily. (20 U.S.C 1412 § 612(5)(A))

These mandates helped to ensure that students with disabilities are given access to the
educational opportunities that their non-disabled peers are provided with in a public school
setting as appropriate for their needs. Furthermore, in order to be provided special education
services, all students identified as having a disability should have an Individualized Education
Plan (IEP) that guide how these services will be provided. IDEIA (2004) states that, “(A) An
individualized education program, or an individualized family service plan that meets the
requirements of section 636(d), is developed, reviewed, and revised for each child with a
disability in accordance with section 614(d)” (20 U.S.C 1412 § 612(1). The IEP as a legal
document that allows stakeholders such as the student’s teachers, parents and other relevant
service providers to have an understanding of the student’s strengths and areas of challenge, and
how these challenges will be addressed by specified educational services both in and outside of
the classroom. In this way, educators and schools are held accountable to ensuring that students
with disabilities are provided with the services they need to be successful both in and outside of
the classroom.
Furthermore, the 2004 revisions of IDEA mandates that at age 16, schools need to
provide students with disabilities transition services to help them transition into adulthood. Like
mandated assessments, districts and states are also held accountable for these services (CDE,
2008). IDEIA (2004) describes the nature of transition services by describing that transition
services:
(A) is designed to be within a results-oriented process, that is focused on improving the
academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the
child’s movement from school to post-school activities, including post-secondary
education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 93

employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or
community participation;
(B) is based on the individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s strengths,
preferences, and interests; and
(C) includes instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of
employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and, when appropriate,
acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation. (20 U.S.C 1401
§ 602(34)(A)(B)).

Both parents and students are required to participate in transition planning, thereby promoting
parental participation and self-advocacy and self-determination in students. Additionally, the
state’s Department of Rehabilitation is responsibility for following up with students with
disabilities after they graduate and to provide students with the services they need to achieve
their goals, such as those related to employment (CDE, 2008).
Lastly, in order to protect students during the special education process, IDEIA also
includes procedural safeguards. Specifically, Section 615 of Part B outlines and details
numerous procedures to protect the educational rights of students with disabilities and the
parental rights under the law. Some of these procedures include those related to protecting the
rights of students whose parents cannot be located, those who have been placed under the care of
the State and homeless youth. Section 612 provides one example of student rights regarding
assessments, specifically regarding non-discriminatory practices for assessments.
(6) PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Children with disabilities and their parents are afforded the
procedural safeguards required by section 615.
(B) ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.—Procedures to ensure that
testing and evaluation materials and procedures utilized for the purposes of
evaluation and placement of children with disabilities for services under this title
will be selected and administered so as not to be racially or culturally
discriminatory. Such materials or procedures shall be provided and administered
in the child’s native language or mode of communication, unless it clearly is not
feasible to do so, and no single procedure shall be the sole criterion for
determining an appropriate educational program for a child. (20 U.S.C 1412 §
612(6)(A)(B))

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 94

These safeguards work to protect students during educational processes, to help ensure that they
are afforded access to educational opportunities like that of their non-disabled peers.
Furthermore, because assessments are often used to make educational decisions about students
such as educational placement, IDEIA protects students by mandating that local and state
assessments are fairly administered to students with disabilities (including needed modifications
and accommodations as identified by their IEP).
Educators. IDEIA identifies the roles that educators play in the lives of students with
disabilities. More specifically, the law describes the type of qualifications that special education
teachers should have.
(B) REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION
TEACHERS.—When used with respect to any public elementary school or secondary
school special education teacher teaching in a State, such term means that—
(i) the teacher has obtained full State certification as a special education teacher
(including certification obtained through alternative routes to certification), or
passed the State special education teacher licensing examination, and holds a
license to teach in the State as a special education teacher, except that when used
with respect to any teacher teaching in a public charter school, the term means
that the teacher meets the requirements set forth in the State’s public charter
school law;
(ii) the teacher has not had special education certification or licensure requirements
waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis; and
(iii) the teacher holds at least a bachelor’s degree. (20 U.S.C 1401 § 602(B)(i)-(iii))
By indicating educator qualifications, IDEIA (2004) attempted to ensure that special education
teachers had the necessary preparation and credentials needed to attend to the educational needs
of students with disabilities. In this way, the law works to ensure that students with special
needs receive their services from qualified educators who can contribute to their academic
success. Furthermore, by describing the need for LEAs to provide educators with high quality
professional development, the law recognizes the importance of enhancing the skills and
knowledge based of educators to help promote student achievement.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 95

Parents. Parents hold a variety of rights under IDEIA (2004). Mead and Paige’s (2008)
study about how parental rights have evolved with each revision of EAHCA described current
parental rights under the 2004 IDEIA revisions. Overall, these rights cover four broad areas;
consent, notice, participation, and complaints (Mead and Paige, 2008). Consent refers to the
permission that parents give for their child to be evaluated for special education services, and for
those services to be rendered per the IEP. According to IDEIA (2004), parents are able to give
consent for initial evaluations, consent for services, and reevaluations.
(I) CONSENT FOR INITIAL EVALUATION.—The agency proposing to conduct an
initial evaluation to determine if the child qualifies as a child with a disability as
defined in section 602 shall obtain informed consent from the parent of such child
before conducting the evaluation. Parental consent for evaluation shall not be
construed as consent for placement for receipt of special education and related
services. (20 U.S.C 1414 § 614(D)(I))
(II) CONSENT FOR SERVICES.—An agency that is responsible for making a free
appropriate public education available to a child with a disability under this part shall
seek to obtain informed con-sent from the parent of such child before providing
special education and related services to the child. (20 U.S.C 1414 § 614(D)(II))
(3) PARENTAL CONSENT.—Each local educational agency shall obtain informed
parental consent, in accordance with subsection (a)(1)(D), prior to conducting any
reevaluation of a child with a disability, except that such informed parental consent
need not be obtained if the local educational agency can demonstrate that it had taken
reasonable measures to obtain such consent and the child’s parent has failed to
respond. (20 U.S.C 1414 § 614(B)(3))

Consent allows the parent to know both what is happening in regards to special education
services for their child and how the services are being provided.
In regards to notice, parents are entitled to receive prior written notice from their child’s
school about their right as parents under IDEIA, any school evaluations that may be conducted
on their child and changes in their child’s placement (including if the school denies a placement
change (Mead and Paige, 2008).
(b) EVALUATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) NOTICE.—The local educational agency shall provide notice to the parents of a
child with a disability, in accordance with subsections (b)(3), (b)(4), and (c) of
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 96

section 615, that describes any evaluation procedures such agency proposes to
conduct. (20 U.S.C 1414 § 614(B)(b)
(3) Written prior notice to the parents of the child, in accordance with subsection
(c)(1), whenever the local educational agency—
(A) proposes to initiate or change; or
(B) refuses to initiate or change, the identification, evaluation, or educational
placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education
to the child.
(4) Procedures designed to ensure that the notice required by paragraph (3) is in the
native language of the parents, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so. (20 U.S.C
1415 § 615(B)(3)(A)(B)(4)(3)

Finally, parents are entitled to make formal complaints in regards to their child’s
education. As part of the procedural safeguards that protect parental rights, parents are entitled
to due process. Like IDEIA (2004), NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) an important
educational policy highlights the role of educators and parents in the lives of students with
disabilities. Section 614 describes the rights of parents to due process.
(f) IMPARTIAL DUE PROCESS HEARING.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—
(A) HEARING.—Whenever a complaint has been received under subsection
(b)(6) or (k), the parents or the local educational agency involved in such
complaint shall have an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing,
which shall be conducted by the State educational agency or by the local
educational agency, as determined by State law or by the State educational
agency. (20 U.S.C 1415 § 615(f)(1)(A))

During the hearing, parents are able to describe their complaints, the facts behind their
complaint, and if the LEA has been given the chance to rectify the complaint. This mandate
protects parental rights and that of their children by working to ensure that the IEP mandates are
fulfilled appropriately. Since parents are the primary decision-maker in their child’s life, they
have the right to accept or contest suggestions regarding educational programming and services
that are offered to their child by the school or district. If at any point in the educational process a
parent believes that their rights or that of their child has been violated or unfulfilled, they are
entitled to make a complaint against the LEA. As another federal policy aimed at protecting the
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 97

parent and student educational rights, NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) was an
important policy that influences students with disabilities.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001)
Like IDEIA (2004), NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) describes the role of
educators and parents in the lives of students with disabilities. More specifically, in regards to
educators NCLB identifies the qualifications of educators.
(23) HIGHLY QUALIFIED.—The term ‘highly qualified—
(A) when used with respect to any public elementary school or secondary school
teacher teaching in a State, means that—
(i) the teacher has obtained full State certification as a teacher (including
certification obtained through alternative routes to certification) or passed the
State teacher licensing examination, and holds a license to teach in such State,
except that when used with respect to any teacher teaching in a public charter
school, the term means that the teacher meets the requirements set forth in the
State’s public charter school law. (20 U.S.C 7801 § 9101(23)(A)(i))

Similar to IDEIA, NCLB also identified the qualifications of educators to ensure that students
are taught by qualified personal. NCLB also describes the need for professional development to
help ensure that educators are equipped with the knowledge and skills needed to work with
students.
Additionally, like IDEIA (2004), NCLB (2001, U.S. Department of Education, 2002)
also describes the role of parents in the educational lives of their children. NCLB (2001)
described parental rights, including notifications and parental participation. According to NCLB,
parents are entitled to know about teacher qualifications, their child’s performance on state
exams, and when necessary how long their child is taught by a teacher not highly qualified (i.e.
does not have the appropriate credentials and qualifications).
(6) PARENTS RIGHT-TO-KNOW.—
(A) QUALIFICATIONS.—At the beginning of each school year, a local educational
agency that receives funds under this part shall notify the parents of each student
attending any school receiving funds under this part that the parents may request,
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 98

and the agency will provide the parents on request (and in a timely manner),
information regarding the professional qualifications of the student’s classroom
teachers, including, at a minimum, the following:
(i) Whether the teacher has met State qualification and licensing criteria for the
grade levels and subject areas in which the teacher provides instruction.
(ii) Whether the teacher is teaching under emergency or other provisional status
through which State qualification or licensing criteria have been waived.
(iii) The baccalaureate degree major of the teacher and any other graduate
certification or degree held by the teacher, and the field of discipline of the
certification or degree.
(iv) Whether the child is provided services by paraprofessionals and, if so, their
qualification. (20 U.S.C 6311 § 1111(A)(i)-(iv))

By identifying parental rights such as their right to know about the qualifications of their child’s
teachers, NCLB worked to promote parental empowerment when making educational decisions
for their child.
California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE)
Before its recent suspension in the fall of 2015, high school students in California were
required to pass the CASHEE in order to graduate high school with a standard diploma. This
also applied to students with disabilities. According to Chapter 9 of the California Education
Code, the use of the exit exam as a requirement for high school graduation and students with
disabilities are entitled to accommodations, and modifications.
(g) The examination shall be offered to individuals with exceptional needs, as defined in
Section 56026, in accordance with paragraph (17) of subsection (a) of Section 1412
of Title 20 of the United States Code and Section 794 and following of Title 29 of the
United States Code. Individuals with exceptional needs shall be administered the
examination with appropriate accommodations, where necessary. (20 U.S.C § 60850
(g))
(1) ‘Accommodations’ means any variation in the assessment environment or
process that does not fundamentally alter what the test measures or affect the
comparability of scores. ‘Accommodations’ may include variations in
scheduling, setting, aids, equipment, and presentation format. (20 U.S.C § 60850
(f)(1)).
After the Chapman v California Department of Education (as cited in Johnson et al.,
2012) case of 2002 that mandated California allow accommodations for students with disabilities
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 99

while taking the exam, students who were unable to pass the CASHEE were able to request a
local wavier (Johnson et al., 2012). The code described the circumstances under which students
with disabilities are able to waive the exam when requested by a parent.
(c)(1) A governing board of a school district may waive the requirement to successfully
pass one or both subject matter parts of the high school exit examination for a
pupil with a disability if the principal certifies to the governing board of the school
district that the pupil has all of the following:
(A) An individualized education program adopted pursuant to the federal Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C §1400 et seq.) or a plan adopted
pursuant to Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. §
794(a)) in place that requires the accommodations or modifications to be
provided to the pupil when taking the high school exit examination.
(B) Sufficient high school level coursework either satisfactorily completed or in
progress in a high school level curriculum sufficient to have attained the skills
and knowledge otherwise needed to pass the high school exit examination.
(C) An individual score report for the pupil showing that the pupil has received the
equivalent of a passing score on the high school exit examination while using a
modification that fundamentally alters what the high school exit examination
measures as determined by the state board. (20 U.S.C. § 60850 (c)(1)(A)-(C))

The recent suspension of the CASHEE reflects the ever-changing nature of exit exams as
documented by research (Johnson et al., 2012). It is now up to the discretion of LEAs to decide
how they will reach out to students who did not graduate with a standard high school graduation
prior to this year’s suspension. This has important implications for students with disabilities,
whose options after graduation were limited due to the absence of a standard high school
diploma. For example, these students who are now eligible to get a diploma can now do so and
be able to obtain better employment, and explore higher education such as vocational school.
Such options increase the cultural capital (i.e. educational credentials in the form of a standard
diploma) and economic capital as students may be able to acquire better employment with higher
wages.
The first research question asked how federal and state policies that are designed to
provide educational support to students with disabilities. The analysis of policy documents
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 100

reveals similarities between both federal and state policies. IDEIA (2004), NCLB (2001, U.S.
Department of Education, 2002) and the now suspended CAHSEE all mandated the participation
of students with disabilities in local and state assessments. Additionally, as federal policies,
IDEIA (2004) and NCLB detailed student rights and that of their parents in the educational
decision-making process for their children. These federal policies also identified educator
qualifications to ensure that teachers have the credentials needed to meet the educational needs
of students, particularly those with disabilities. These policies both individually and collectively
support students with disabilities by identifying and protecting their educational rights and
fostering parental participation to promote the academic success of students.
Interviews
Interviews allow the researcher to capture unobservable phenomena such as an
individual’s past experiences, thoughts, and perceptions (Patton, 2002). For the purposes of this
research study, semi-structured interview guides were used to collect pertinent data from
participants (Patton, 2002). Semi-structured interviews used open-ended questions that provide
descriptive or demographic data. The following section will describe the themes that emerged
from individual parent interviews (see Table 8), the educator focus groups, and the individual
interviews conducted with each educator and how they connect to the existing literature. Data
from parents are presented followed by data from the educator focus group and individual
interviews which will be presented together to address the second research question:
What are parent and educator understanding and perspectives of these policies?

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 101

Table 8

Themes from Parent Interviews

Theme Evidence
Parents’ Perceived Role in Child’s Life Advocate

“You have to be an advocate . . . I’m the front
runner. If I don’t do anything, he wouldn’t become
anything.”—Sonya

Parental Knowledge of Educational Policies (IDEIA
and Exit Exam)
Familiarity and understanding of federal and state
policies

“An extensive amount. I keep updated. For
example, with transition. I’m in the field. I’m
getting my special education teaching credential.
You have to stay informed as a parent.”—Hayley
(regarding her knowledge of IDEIA)

What’s missing from Special Education Parent Workshops

“There are not parent workshops. I wish they did
that. They just hand you a little paper that comes
with the IEP, in 8-font with no explanation provided.
I feel sorry for parents who may not know what their
rights are. They may agree with things they may not
want.”—Hayley

Training for educators
“Teachers, staff, admin—need more training and
awareness.”

Note. The selected quotes were sample exerts from parent interviews to provide evidence for themes that emerged
from interviews.

Parent Interviews
Research has documented the types of experiences parents of students with disabilities
have had while attempting to navigate the special education system. There were three themes
that emerged from the data collected from parent interviews. They included how parents
perceived their role in their child’s educational life, parental knowledge of educational policies
(IDEIA and state exit exam), and what parents believe is missing from the special education
system based on their experiences.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 102

Theme 1: Perceived role in child’s life. Both parents who participated in the individual
interviews saw themselves as an advocate for their children. They believed that it was their job
to stand up for their children to ensure that their children were getting the services they needed to
be successful. This belief was echoed by Sonya when she said, “You have to be an advocate . . .
I’m the front runner. If I don’t do anything, he wouldn’t become anything.” Both parents also
believed that they had to stand up for themselves to ensure that their children were provided with
the services they needed. When describing who their initial point of contact is when they have
questions about services for their children, both parents described going through a “chain of
command” until their inquiries were addressed. For example, Sonya indicated that the first
person she goes to is her son’s teacher, followed by the district if she doesn’t get the information
that she needs. She noted how parents have to “stand your ground” to ensure that their issues
regarding their child’s services are appropriately addressed. Similarly, Hayley described how
she spoke to the special education director and used informal networks such as other parents and
teachers to get a new case carrier or case manager to conduct her son’s IEP meeting after a bad
experience with a previous carrier.
A study by Wagner et al. (2012) indicated that the majority of parents of students with
disabilities had attended their child’s last IEP meeting. Researchers also found that parents of
students with autism were more likely to attend their meetings than parents of students in other
disability categories (Wagner et al., 2012). Data from the parents interviewed in this study
confirmed the findings from the Wagner et al. (2012) study, as they both were active parents who
attended the most recent ‘last’ IEP meeting for their child (whose children are on the Autism
spectrum). Additionally, Sonya and Hayley reported having positive experiences during their
last IEP meeting. Sonya indicated that she, “felt comfortable. The first IEP meeting I didn’t
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 103

understand. I had to learn quick. The last one we didn’t leave the IEP until we had what we
wanted and got our questions answered.” Hayley was also satisfied with her son’s recent IEP
meeting. In regards to how comfortable she felt asking questions, she said that she felt,
“Extremely comfortable. This is the second year at the school. We knew everyone already;
comfortable level. The demeanor, respectfulness, and attention to parents and my son. It was a
very pleasant experience; organized.” This finding confirms the findings of studies by Fish
(2008) and Spann et al. (2003). In their studies examining parent experiences with special
education, Fish and Spann et al. found that in general, parents of students with disabilities had
agreeable experiences during the IEP meeting.
Doren, Gau and Lindstrom’s 2012 study reported that disability type can influence
parental expectations for post-secondary experiences of students with disabilities. The parents
interviewed for this study helped to confirm this finding. Both parents described the post-
secondary aspirations they held for their sons. Sonya and Hayley would like their sons to receive
some kind of higher education or training after they graduate from high school. It should be
noted that both parents indicated the need for options for their children. Regarding her son who
has Autism but does not have “academic problems,” Sonya said, “No four year; probably vo-tech
college. He’s Autistic, so maybe something like an apprenticeship. He’s not crazy about going
to school. It may be a slower process to transition to adult life, but he has to try.” While both
parents expressed having high expectations for their child, they recognized the needs and
challenges that their child would potentially encounter in pursuing their post-secondary
endeavors.
Hayley believed that her son is “very supported.” He also wants to go on to higher
education like she aspires him to do. Although he wants to attend highly ranked schools (his first
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 104

choice being Stanford and UCLA being his second choice), Hayley would like him to consider
community colleges. “I would like him to try the community college experience. He can have a
higher education plan for transitioning.” She believed that the disability office will be able to
provide her son with the support that he would need at the college level. The role that these
parents believe they have in their child’s educational lives can be influenced by the amount of
information they know regarding special education policy and law.
Evidence from these interviews reveal that parents see themselves as a vital component in
their child’s educational lives. They see themselves as the primary advocates for their child by
ensuring they remain involved and active participants in their child’s life, specifically as it relates
to special education services the children receive. These parents’ abilities to be their child’s
advocate was influenced by the level of knowledge and understanding they have about the
special education system.
Theme 2: Parental knowledge of educational policies. A study by Spann et al. (2003)
found that the majority of parents of children with Autism in their study believed that they had
adequate knowledge of the IEP process. Parents who participated in this study described not
only what they knew about the IEP process but their knowledge about special education policy.
In regards to special education policy such as IDEIA, both parents in this study reported being
knowledgeable about it. Sonya reported more general background knowledge by indicating that
she knows her son is “protected by a lot of laws such as FAPE, and ADA.” Although, she was
also aware of and could describe Section 504 which she knows keeps her son from being
discriminated against, she was not able to independently name the law until prompted by the
researcher. She was also not able to independently name the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEIA) until a prompt was provided for her (i.e. the complete name of the law)
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 105

but had general awareness of the law, and reported that she “holds the school to the laws.”
Sonya also indicated that, “You can always get an attorney or advocate; I consult with lawyers—
makes it a lot easier to get things quicker.” Hayley, on the other hand, reported having deeper
knowledge of special education policy. When asked what she knew about IDEIA, she reported
“An extensive amount. I keep updated. For example, with transition. I’m in the field. I’m
getting my special education teaching credential. You have to stay informed as a parent.”
When the parents were asked how they gained knowledge about special education law,
both indicated that they learned a great deal on their own. Sonya reported learning through “my
own research; internet, and law library. I read law books.” Similarly, Hayley also reported
learning through her own personal search and the classes she is taking as part of her special
education teaching credential. This particular finding is consistent with the findings from the
Spann et al. (2003) study. The researchers from this study found that parents of students with
autism engaged in a great deal of self-education after their children were diagnosed.
Furthermore, Sonya and Hayley also indicated their child’s school did a poor job in educating
parents about special education. When asked how well they thought their child’s school did in
teaching parents about special education, Sonya responded, “They don’t. They hand you a
Privacy Act pamphlet during each IEP meeting. There’s no detail.” Hayley echoed this
sentiment by reporting,
There are not parent workshops. I wish they did that. They just hand you a little paper
that comes with the IEP, in 8-font with no explanation provided. I feel sorry for parents
who may not know what their rights are. They may agree with things they may not want.

The lack of information regarding the special education system can motivate them to seek
information elsewhere, including from more knowledgeable others and by educating themselves.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 106

Lastly, both parents were aware of the exit exam that was formerly required in California
to receive a standard high school diploma. Sonya indicted that her son has “no academic issues.
There are certain classes and credits he has to take and he’s on track.” Hayley reported that he
was “very familiar” with the requirements to graduate with a high school diploma. She was able
to identify that students were either diploma track, meaning they met general education
requirements such as passing the exam and course credits or they could be on track to receive a
certificate of completion.
Unlike the body of literature that describes the limiting nature of exit exams on the post-
secondary options of students with disabilities (Gaumer-Erickson, Kleinhammer-Tramill et al.,
2007; Johnson et al., 2012), the parents interviewed for this study did not believe that their child
would face such limitations. Parents did not believe that exit exams such as the CAHSEE would
limit the options their child would have after graduation, but emphasized the how their social
capital (i.e. support systems for both them and their child) played a critical role in their child’s
academic success. They also recognized that their child would need support as they pursue
higher; they also recognized the importance of support as their child pursues higher education
and the workforce. However, this experience is not necessarily representative of the students-
with-disabilities population. Despite the knowledge that parents had about educational policies,
they identified areas of improvement for the special education system.
Theme 3: What’s missing from special education. Both parents spoke at length about
what they believed was needed in the special education system, specifically at the school level.
For example, both parents spoke to the need for parent workshops that would help all parents
learn about special education system. Sonya provided an example of a possible model for
empowering parents with valuable information.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 107

They should have classes for parents, per district maybe every three or six months.
Maybe every three months in the beginning, then meet every six months. They could
have Parent Partners. They could discuss the IEP process and other issues. People could
come with various resources. They could also have organizations that are advocates for
parents.

Hayley also talked about the lack of support for parents. “Schools should have parent
workshops. They never have newsletters or workshops about services. That’s a big hole.”
Additionally, parents noted the need for more education and training for educators. Hayley
noted, “Teachers, staff, admin—need more training and awareness.” She also noted the need for
better communication between the general and special education systems. Lastly, Hayley saw
the need for better transitions between the different grade levels for students with disabilities by
noting that there is a “breakdown in transition between elementary, middle, and high schools.
Kids are just dropped completely.”
Although not part of the three identified themes, there was a point made by Sonya that
should be noted. In describing her general experience in having her son in the special education
system, Sonya described the difficulty she experienced in trying to get her son into inclusion
classrooms. Her son began receiving services when he was in the first grade. Since she reported
that her son had no academic issues but experienced behavioral challenges, she tried to get him
mainstreamed in grades three and four. She was rejected both times and noted, “Once you’re in
it, you’re in it.” Although special education should be a service and not a placement, all too
often, parents can go through similar experiences as Sonya did when trying to get their child into
inclusion classrooms.
In general, parents in this study were aware of and understood the influence of federal
and state policies on their children. More specifically, parents knew that federal policy such as
IDEIA (2004) was crucial to protecting the educational rights of their disabled child at all levels
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 108

of the educational system. They were also aware of how IDEIA (2004) protected their parental
rights. Both parents acknowledged how state policies regarding graduation requirements (now
suspended in the state of California) influence their child’s current educational programming and
their post-secondary trajectory. Furthermore, they recognized the importance of not only being
knowledgeable of these policies, but how this knowledge allowed them to be better advocates of
their rights as parents and that of their children as students and individuals with disabilities.
The second research question of this study refers to parents’ understanding and
perceptions of educational policies. Overall, parents reported having adequate knowledge of
special education law and state graduation requirements. As a parent who was also an
Instructional Assistant working towards her teaching credentials, Hayley reported having a
deeper level of special education knowledge than Sonya. Engaging in self-education and
learning from more knowledgeable others such as special educators and lawyers for example,
were mechanisms through which parents were able to expand their knowledge base regarding
special education. This breadth of knowledge facilitated parents’ abilities to advocate for their
children to ensure that their parental rights and the educational rights of their children were
protected. Furthermore, parents were able to promote academic and social success for their
special education child.
These findings encompass Bordieu’s (1986) capital theory, specifically social capital. In
the special education system, parents and students gain social capital through the relationships or
networks they form with more knowledgeable others such as educators, special education
advocates and lawyers, family members and friends (Trainor, 2008, 2010a, 2010b). These
networks and the knowledge gained as a result, allow parents to be active participants in their
child’s educational lives and help promote their academic and social success. Furthermore, these
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 109

networks are crucial for high school students with disabilities as they transition into adult life
(Trainor et al., 2013). Specifically, these social networks are beneficial to students as they
engage in the workforce, higher education, and their communities (Trainor et al., 2013).
Educator Interviews
Analysis of the data collected from the educator focus group and individual interviews
revealed five major themes (see Table 9). They include (1) educators’ perception of their role in
the lives of students, (2) student disability category, (3) student and family empowerment,
(4) professional development for educators, and (5) the influence of federal and state policies on
students with disabilities. Each theme will be discussed and include pertinent subcategories were
applicable.

Table 9

Themes from Educator Focus Group and Interviews
Themes Evidence
Educator Perception
of their role in
Students’ Lives
Teaching students to be life-long learners

“Well, I mean, I’m a teacher so it’s really to help guide and facilitate students in the
area of not just math, but then the ability to learn whether it’s math, English, history,
or science. What’s really interesting is not just the success right there on the spot in
the classroom but really teaching them that success is all around you.”-- Tina

Student Disability
Category
Differences in post-secondary options

“ . . . we hired Sally in order to work with our students who are more moderate to
severe, so at this point I’m not working with students who are more moderate to
severe. And are on certificate of completion. I do, just because I’ve worked with
both. I have worked with moderate to severe before we hired Sally and for a student
who doesn’t have the ability to cognitively reason. And to write . . . like I had a
student who had cerebral palsy, bright student, smart, understands what you’re
saying, but he cannot speak, and he’s in a wheelchair bound, and he has cerebral
palsy so his motor function are limited and things like that, he can’t . . . so for him
going to a two-year college, you know . . . is not an option for him. We don’t want
to set people up for failure.”—Joan

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 110

Table 9 (Cont’d.)

Themes Evidence
Empowering
Students and
Families
Providing families with information

“ . . . we have a resource fair every year. we send out over 3,000 invites to students
in grades 10-12 this year. Last couple of years, we may have incorporated ninth so
it can get started a little earlier. But this past year we had almost 40 vendors. The
purpose of the resource fair is to share with them information for students, programs
and services that are available for students in school, and services and programs that
are available when they transition from school to adult life. So vehicles for getting
the information to the parents at the IEP meetings. Resource fairs. Teachers
providing information . . . So there’s a variety of ways that information can be
disseminated to the parents . . . ”—Airel

Teaching students self-advocacy skills

“One of the important things I’m working on right now is working on my passive
students, my passive learning students . . . That was one of my main focuses this
week, and next week is really targeting those passive learners and hopefully getting
them to be active learners . . .
Oh, that is huge, teaching self-advocacy. That really, in special education,
tends to be a three- to four year process. That’s kind of what I love about special
education is if we get to have these students for three- to four years, so by the time
they’re a senior you can see that their self-advocacy skills have increased from that
freshmen year. They know where to go on campus when they have questions or
what to do. I just love to see that growth when they don’t know how to be an
advocate for themselves, what that means.”--Tina

Professional
Development
Need for professional development for educators

“I also think the reason behind it is the general education teachers—they don’t have
the same training that the special education teachers have. And because of that, they
don’t feel comfortable. They don’t feel they have the skill set necessary to provide
the services. We had this discussion yesterday in our program. We meet every
Monday, and the term inclusion came up. And the discussion was about the fact that
we need to train our gen ed teachers. And, even for our kids who are mainstream,
the philosophy is that there’s co-teaching going on with the sped and the general ed
teacher, but you need to teach people how to co-teach, because the definition for a
sped teacher might be very different for the gen ed teacher. And so, getting the gen
ed and sped teachers together and teaching them how to co-teach would be very
helpful. I think it’s also a lack of knowledge and a lack of—the main thing, a lack
of skills.”—Airel

Influence of Federal
and State Policies
Perception of IDEIA

“For me the first thought was our Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which
is a federal law, and my first thought, was freedom [inaudible speech] for public
education, because with IDEIA, the focus behind IDEIA [inaudible speech] is
appropriate public education. That was the whole push behind federal guideline and
that was to protect students with disabilities.”—Airel

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 111

Table 9 (Cont’d.)

Themes Evidence
Perception of Exit Examination

“I really do think it’s too much testing . . . you do all this work for the last four years
in order to fulfill the requirements of graduation only to have to turn around and test
to go to. So that means I could have tested in ninth grade and possibly graduated? I
mean . . . I just think it’s too much . . . if the student has proven himself in the last
four years to be able to pass their grades, or go to summer school, whatever they had
to do in order to fulfill their graduation requirements then let them graduate already.
They already had to do an SAT in order to go into college or to try to be competitive
with other students around the world, or whatever in order to try to get into school or
something like that . . . they have a hundred and fifty credits, just give them the
diploma already.”—Joan

Theme 1: Educator perception of their role in students’ lives. There were five
specific ways in which educators believed they influenced their students’ lives: by providing
encouragement, academic support, enhancing their personal learning, teaching students to be
life-long learners, and assisting with the transition process. In regards to providing students with
encouragement, as a Supplemental Security Income Benefits Technician, Joan, described the
importance of helping students to understand the importance of attitude in school and work
settings. Joan further stated,
. . . my role is to encourage them and kind of help them understand that the same attitude
. . . Because I have a lot of students, ‘Oh I want to work. I want to work.’ But at the
same time sometimes slack off in school. So I try to help them see that you want to have
the same attitude with your schooling as you do . . . Because a lot of those habits that you
start in school are the same habits that you’re going to take to your work place

Educators also believed that they had direct and indirect influence in student’s lives. For
example, Airel, the transition coordinator, believed that she had more of an indirect influence on
students. By providing professional development and resources for teachers, Airel believed that
she was empowering teachers with knowledge they need to provide high quality services to
students.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 112

Well, at this point I’m not really responsible for ensuring the academic success of the
students because I’m not a direct service provider. The teachers obviously in the school
are responsible. I guess the only thing that I can say is with our transition department, we
did purchase a curriculum. It’s called the Career Choices curriculum to make sure that
teachers who participate in our program have the curriculum to assist the students again
with the transition after they graduate from high school. In terms of academic A-G, I’m
not really responsible for that aspect of the students’ learning.

Airel also highlighted the importance of maintaining her own professional learning in
order to ensure that she provides teachers with high quality professional development. She
stated, “ . . . it’s my responsibility to update myself on the changes and then provide training to
the educators regarding the changes.”
Tina, however as a special education teacher at her school, believed she had a more direct
role in the lives of students. For her, teaching students to be life-long learners was an important
aspect of her work.
Well, I mean, I’m a teacher so it’s really to help guide and facilitate students in the area
of not just math, but then the ability to learn whether it’s math, English, history, or
science. What’s really interesting is not just the success right there on the spot in the
classroom but really teaching them that success is all around you.

Tina was also the Chair of the Special Education Department. She believed that it was part of
her job to help teachers gain a better understanding of IDEIA and its importance for students
with disabilities, thereby describing the indirect influence she has on students in her school.
I think sometimes what my role is in the position as Department Chair is sometimes
getting teachers to understand that, and working with general education teachers who
sometimes don’t understand. Well, they get it, IDEIA, but they may just kind of . . . You
have some teachers who are right on board, and then you have some teachers who are
going. ‘I’m not going to do that.’ Well, according to the law this is what we must do. I
don’t want a teacher to feel like, ‘Well, this is the law you must do it,’ but rather, ‘Isn’t
this what we should be doing?’

Similarly, the SSI technician, Joan, also believed she had a direct influence on her students.
Through her interactions with students, she is able to help them through the transition process
and prepare them for life after high school.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 113

Then, I think my role is to prepare them for that. It’s not just, ‘Okay, you’re 18. All
right, transfer.’ I think it’s really preparing that student to takeover those rights, their role
in what that means. Every student’s not going to understand, it’s getting them to . . . It’s
like, ‘Well, what is your importance?’ There is some base. Finding out what is
important to them . . . My role is really getting them to understand that or getting them to
want to transfer out of high school once they’re ready for that; moving forward.

In addition to recognizing the role they played in the educational lives of students, educators also
made note how student characteristics and their disability category influenced their educational
experiences, including the transition process.
Theme 2: Student Disability Category. Researchers have documented how a student’s
disability category can influence their educational experiences such as academic performance
(Newman et al., 2011b), diploma attainment (Gaumer-Erickson, Kleinhammer-Tramill et al.,
2007), and parental expectations (Doren et al., 2012) as previously discussed. Like parents,
educators recognized how students’ disability can influence their educational experiences and
post-secondary trajectory. More specifically, educators alluded to both the academic and work
activities that can be influenced by a student’s disability. In regards to how important school
habits are in the workplace, Joan noted, “ . . . I think for the most part they get it, because again I
work with a lot of more of the mild, moderate students so I think they get it.” She further
described her student population by stating, “The majority of my students I serve are on the
diploma track, because they’re more high functioning.” She went on to provide an example with
one of her students.
. . . we hired Sally in order to work with our students who are more moderate to severe,
so at this point I’m not working with students who are more moderate to severe. And are
on certificate of completion. I do, just because I’ve worked with both. I have worked
with moderate to severe before we hired Sally and for a student who doesn’t have the
ability to cognitively reason. And to write . . . like I had a student who had cerebral
palsy, bright student, smart, understands what you’re saying, but he cannot speak, and
he’s in a wheelchair bound, and he has cerebral palsy so his motor functions are limited
and things like that, he can’t . . . so for him going to a two-year college, you know . . . is
not an option for him. We don’t want to set people up for failure.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 114

Airel echoed similar thoughts in discussing students in the mild to moderate disability category
versus those who are in the moderate to severe category. She first described differences in
course of study for students in different disability categories, followed by working conditions.
So when you talk about the difference, I think the students who have a moderate to severe
disability are going to stay in school longer and the purpose for them is to gain the areas
of deficient but functional skills curriculum.

In regards to differences in working conditions for the two groups of students, Airel
responded,
Well obviously if the students’ capabilities in a moderate to severe range means that
they’re intellectually delayed, they have some cognitive deficient that are more severe
than others. Anyone that has a moderate to severe disability more than likely will require
more assistance. Whether its additional accommodations on the job. I also think a
number of students that have moderate to severe disability . . . some of them receive
supportive employment and then some of them are in the shelter workshops . . . .but the
thought process is that they probably won’t be as successful as someone with a mild to
moderate disability.

When asked the same question regarding how a student’s disability category could
influence post-secondary options, Tina responded,
First of all, it would be completely individual to the student . . . I may start a junior
college level vocational training. Let’s say, usually typically a student who is getting a
certificate of completion may have the skills of a third grader, fourth grader, and it’s a
male student, he may be an amazing auto mechanic. Well, our local college here has an
amazing auto mechanic program that’s a certificate base.

She further went on to describe post-secondary supports students can receive based on their
disability category. Specifically, she described the various agencies such as the Department of
Rehabilitation (DOR ) that provides services to students after they graduate high school.
Oh yeah. Because for example, the . . . students [who] aren’t DOR students. The DOR
students aren’t Regional students. The . . . students are usually the students that are much
lower, and usually those are students you can sometimes visually see a disability, while
DOR , you may not even be aware of that. You can look at the person and go, ‘Really?
How are you getting services through DOR ?’ Their services do look a little different,
although it’s headed in the same direction, which is gainfully employing someone. The
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 115

end result is the same, but the service may look different. While . . . may offer more
hours of job coaching, DOR might not offer that.

Clearly, these educators recognized how a student’s disability type can influence not only a
students’ course of study during high school but their post-secondary options. Both parents and
educators described the role of apprenticeships, supported employment, and community colleges
in helping students with disabilities, particularly those with moderate to severe disabilities,
transition into the adult life. Additionally, educators highlighted the importance of discussing
student options with students and parents as critical in the transition process. This is part of
empowering students and their families to help ensure their success.
Theme 3: Empowering students and families. There were two main ways in which
educators described helping students and families as they navigated through the special
education system, particularly with the transition process. They included disseminating
information to students and families, and encouraging self-advocacy and self-determination
among students. With regards to how information is provided for students and their families,
educators stressed the importance of meaningful interactions with students and parents. Through
these interactions, educators are able to provide not only crucial knowledge and information
about special education and various opportunities that are available to students, educators are
able to provide the necessary supports that students need to be successful and that families need
to help their children, especially during the transition process.
One prominent example of this kind of support provided by educators is through the CAL
Promise Grant. Joan was able to provide some detail about the grant and its purpose for students
with disabilities in California.
The grant approved maybe a few years ago, but we started recruiting and getting students
for the grant last year. And basically, the federal government signed $211 million dollars
nationwide for six states to participate in the grant, and California being one of them,
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 116

received $60 million. And so, with that the grant has been distributed from everywhere
from the Bay Area to San Diego, and all the districts in between.
And so, basically the core purpose of the grant is to take transition services to the
home. So we worked with the student at their home. All of us do go out to their school
[inaudible speech] now, but we basically work out of their home and we also work with
their families as well. So it’s not just providing support to that student, but it’s provide
support to the families. So it’s really awesome when you refer to a family member who’s
been looking for a job to a job fair and they get a job from that. That just happened to me
this week. So that was awesome.

Teaching parents about opportunities such as those provided by the CAL Promise Grant
empowers them, allowing them to be active participants in the lives of their children. This type
of involvement is especially important in the transition process, of which parents must
participate.
Like IEP meetings, parents and students are required to participate in the transition
planning process. During this meeting educators work with parents and students to identify
important post-secondary goals and create a plan that will help students achieve those goals
(IDEIA, 2004). The educators who participated in this study described the importance of
equipping students and parents with the knowledge and skills they need to be active, and
productive participants in the transition process. Airel highlighted this by saying,
Well, transition services have to be in effect by the time the student is 16 years of age.
So, with that being said, the special education teacher or case carrier is responsible for
developing a transition plan. And as a result of that, the family’s brought in, and they
participate in the development of the plan. They’re supposed to.

The transition meeting is a crucial time to inform students and parents what students are
currently doing to prepare for life and high school and of their options post-graduation. Airel
discussed the opportunity that the transition meeting allows for both students and their parents as
it relates to a student’s current academic activities as it relates to their diploma track.
Well hopefully as we talk about yesterday when they are in the process of developing the
transition plans, when the student is 16 and the purpose of their meeting is to develop a
transition plan the students are supposed to be invited. It’s mandatory that’s part of
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 117

IDEIA . . . So at the meeting the first thing that’s discussed is Course of Study. So
hopefully if they’re discussing that, the students will understand that they’re working
towards a certificate of achievement or attendance. That should be the very first thing
that’s discussed prior to going into the development of the transition plan and then that
way they will know and their parents are aware and not surprised that the student has
reached a certain age and getting ready to graduate and they haven’t met the A-G
requirements.

Knowing what track students are on is crucial to the creation and attainment of both
secondary and post-secondary goals. It’s always the IEP team, students, and parents who create
a realistic transition plan that will meet the needs of students and help them achieve those post-
secondary goals. In addition to IEP and transition meetings, there are other ways in which
important information is provided to parents.
Educators identified different ways in which parents can get information about various
education and work opportunities that are available for students. When asked about how
information is transmitted to parents, Airel responded,
. . . we have a resource fair every year. We send out over 3,000 invites to students in
grades 10-12 this year. Last couple of years, we may have incorporated ninth so it can
get started a little earlier. But this past year we had almost 40 vendors. The purpose of
the resource fair is to share with them information for students, programs and services
that are available for students in school, and services and programs that are available
when they transition from school to adult life. So vehicles for getting the information to
the parents at the IEP meetings. Resource fairs. Teachers providing information . . . So
there’s a variety of ways that information can be disseminated to the parents . . .

Airel also talked about how some parents gain information through their children and personal
efforts.
I’m not 100% sure how it’s communicated. I’m sure each school site does it differently.
I know for a fact the counselors call in the students and meet them individually. I know
there are times when parents sit in on meetings with the counselors . . . .I’m quite sure
they give them information and its possible the students are responsible for sharing it
with the parents and/or some parents are . . . they empower themselves by going online
and looking up what the A-G requirements are and then of course following along with
what their student, son or daughter, what classes they’re taking to make sure that they’re
taking what they need prior to graduation.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 118

So I believe information is given to students and students have to share it with
their parents. I think they have some parent nights but I’m not sure what are the
requirements for graduation. I don’t know that that’s happening. I think some parents
have to take on that responsibility of keeping up with that information following along
the credits that the student has earned. That’s my thought.

Similarly, Joan also highlighted the importance of providing vital information to students
and families. More specifically, she described how and why it is important for policymakers to
empower families with valuable information that would help them better support their children.
. . . Empowering the students and their families with knowledge and that’s something
that I wanted to mention yesterday that it’s important for policymakers to know across
the board that they need to find a better way to empower families with knowledge.
Knowledge of especially these work incentives that are available thorough Social
Security Administration. That helps as safety nets for parents so they can understand and
plan accordingly . . . Families want to have a better . . . want their students to have a
better life than what they had.

Joan also mentioned the critical role that the CAL Promise Grant plays in providing parents with
valuable information by providing in-home services as previously mentioned. Joan stated, “So I
think this grant is key in providing families with that information. We’ve done benefits planning
and benefits training with our students so that they can take back their power . . . ” Despite the
educators’ efforts to disseminate information to parents, they still described the lack of
information that some parents experience.
Joan highlighted this lack of information on behalf of parents. Joan mentioned how some
parents simply do not know about various incentives that are available to students.
They don’t know. Right. And especially, we work with students who receive SSI, and
they’re teenagers of 14 and 16. That’s how we have to qualify to be a participant. They
have to be between the ages of 14 and 16 and be receiving SSI. So a lot of it—the main
setup of our parent’s didn’t quite know what the different work incentives are available
through SSI. It was a major eye opener, because you think okay—The major part of this
grant is to try to get someone off SSI eventually. But for no one to really even know that
these work incentives exist for students to be able to have a safety net to transition into
the world of work . . .

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 119

Educators in this study recognized how the lack of information can make it difficult for parents
to support their children, especially during the transition process. As a result, they make an
effort to empower parents with information through various means including IEP and transition
meetings, resource fairs, trainings, and home meetings. Since is it equally important to empower
students, educators also make concerted efforts to provide them with needed information and
promote self-advocacy skills and self-determination.
Special education research described the importance of teaching self-advocacy skills and
fostering self-determination to promote success among students with disabilities (Cho,
Wehmeyer, & Kingston, 2011; Hart & Brehm, 2013; Wehmeyer, 1997). Educators reported
promoting self-advocacy skills and self-determination among students in various ways. In
regards to self-advocacy, Joan described the importance of teaching students their rights,
especially as individuals with disabilities by saying,
So it’s information, it’s just . . . It’s empowering for them to be able to say . . . you know
for what their rights are. So knowing what their rights are, because sometimes I feel that
they’re taken advantage of because they don’t know what their rights are.

As a classroom teacher, Tina described how teaching similar self-advocacy skills to her students.
More specifically, she discussed how she teaches her students to be active learners in the
classroom.
One of the important things I’m working on right now is working on my passive students,
my passive learning students . . . That was one of my main focuses this week, and next
week is really targeting those passive learners and hopefully getting them to be active
learners . . .
Oh, that is huge, teaching self-advocacy. That really, in special education, tends
to be a three- to four-year process. That’s kind of what I love about special education is
if we get to have these students for three- to four years, so by the time they’re a senior
you can see that their self-advocacy skills have increased from that freshmen year. They
know where to go on campus when they have questions or what to do. I just love to see
that growth when they don’t know how to be an advocate for themselves, what that
means.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 120

For Tina, she was able to teach these skills separately and by incorporating them into the existing
transition curriculum provided by SELPA X called Choices. She stated, “It’s both. I do
integrate it into what I’m already teaching . . . ” Additionally, Tina also described how she helps
her students during the transition process, which is not always easy for students. Tina provided a
specific example of how she encouraged independence and self-advocacy in students in various
situations such as standing in line for a particular service or returning phone calls. In responding
to the ease of transitioning for students, Tina reported,
No, it’s not. It’s not always smooth, and the reason why is because there’s lines, which
create anxiety. I will make them stand in line. I will stand next to them. Sometimes I
will take a seat, but I tell them, ‘Hey, you still stand right there in line.’ The nice part is I
have given them the correct line to stand in. It’s frustrating. You have to call this person,
they don’t answer, you leave a message. ‘Such and such didn’t call me back.’ ‘Well, call
them back.’ Teaching them, once again, that self-advocacy and how that works in the
real world. ‘Call them back.’

Educators believed that teaching students their rights and how to advocate for themselves was an
important part of their jobs. Therefore, they used classroom and non-classroom time to promote
these skills among their students. Self-determination was another important skill set that
educators believed was crucial for students to have.
Wehmeyer (1996) stated that self-determination referred to “acting as the primary causal
agent in one’s life and making choices and decisions regarding one’s quality of life free from
undue external influence or interference” (p. 24). Educators in this study described how they
promoted self-determination among their students. For example, Airel discussed the important
role of the CAL Promise Grant in encouraging independence among students by helping them to
get off of SSI and become tax payers. For her, participating in the workforce she believes would
enhance students’ self-worth. Joan mentioned how students want to be in charge of their lives by
saying, “And they want to work, they want to be independent, they want to earn that.”
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 121

Theme 4: Professional development. Jenkins and Yoshimura (2010) discussed the
importance of professional development regarding special education for both general and special
education teachers. Like the parents who were interviewed, educators described the importance
of improving professional development for education professionals such as teachers. There was
specific emphasis providing more training in special education for general education teachers.
Airel described the need for professional learning opportunities for teachers by stating,
I also think the reason behind it is the general education teachers—they don’t have the
same training that the special education teachers have. And because of that, they don’t
feel comfortable. They don’t feel they have the skill set necessary to provide the
services. We had this discussion yesterday in our program. We meet every Monday, and
the term inclusion came up. And the discussion was about the fact that we need to train
our gen ed teachers. And, even for our kids who are mainstream, the philosophy is that
there’s co-teaching going on with the sped and the general ed teacher, but you need to
teach people how to co-teach, because the definition for a sped teacher might be very
different for the gen ed teacher. And so, getting the gen ed and sped teachers together
and teaching them how to co-teach would be very helpful. I think it’s also a lack of
knowledge and a lack of—the main thing, a lack of skills.

As part of the professional development, educators believed that a change was needed
among teachers. This sentiment was voiced by Airel when she said, “You talked about paradigm
shifts. I think the biggest thing too, is getting teachers to understand these are all of our kids.”
The idea that all students are the responsibility of every teacher was an important aspect of
professional development. Additionally, Airel described the type of professional development
available for special education teachers.
And that’s the reason, I provide trainings for the teachers because in all honesty, we
really have to beef up our transition plans. And so, I facilitated a training last Thursday,
and 18 teachers present. And my role was to talk to them about the IDEIA, the laws, that
govern transition plan. The state performance plan indicator that they’re responsible for
implementing.

Educators recognized the need not only for general education teachers to learn about
special education, but for the on-going learning of special education teachers to improve the
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 122

services they provide for students. Despite the efforts to provide quality professional
development for all teachers, there was still an acknowledgement of the lack of preparation for
teachers.
Educators acknowledged that there was a particular lack of preparation regarding special
education law and policy such as IDEIA. Joan noted that she was able to learn about IDEIA
during her Masters program by indicating,
Well, when I was going to get my Masters I was receiving a little bit, but since I haven’t
been in school for that in like a year . . . some of the trainings that I’ve been to are more
of tips and tools on how to assist students so I think those will qualify . . .

Tina also acknowledged the lack of in-house professional development for classroom
teachers in her particular school site. In responding to a question about the type of in-house
professional development she receives, she responded, “Not very good. It’s not much. If you
want to know you have to get out there. You have to be part of self-advocacy groups out there.”
However, she also highlighted the types of training opportunities that are available to teachers
outside of the school building.
It also depends on where you’re at as well. Because I’ve had some amazing training
through other schools for other districts, and then I’ve had some where it’s not. I think
the biggest thing that any special ed teacher can do is connect with their local SELPA
Center . . . Basically they have amazing trainings for special ed teacher or just people . . .
I wish more districts would have more site program specialists that really focus in on
training for special education department and special education staffing.

Despite the trainings that Airel and Tina discussed in their responses, educators
recognized a need for increased professional development, particularly, at local school sites.
Theme 5: Influence of federal and state policies. Educators in this study
acknowledged the influence of federal and state policies on students with disabilities. More
specifically, they discussed how students are protected by the law such as IDEIA (2004), policy
alignment between NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) and IDEIA federal work
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 123

incentives for students. Additionally, educators discussed how they perceived the now
suspended CAHSEE, California’s exit exam required for high school graduation with a standard
diploma.
The first point that educators made regarding special education, is the importance of
IDEIA. During the focus group, Airel stated the first thought that she had when she heard the
term “special education,”
For me the first thought was our Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which is a
federal law, and my first thought, was freedom [inaudible speech] for public education,
because with IDEIA, the focus behind IDEIA [inaudible speech] is appropriate public
education. That was the whole push behind federal guideline and that was to protect
students with disabilities.

Airel also described the various mandates of IDEIA (2004) such as transition planning at
age 16, and student and parent involvement in that planning. Researchers have described the
ways in which educators perceive the alignment and misalignment of IDEIA and NCLB,
specifically, how NCLB impacts students with disabilities (Russell & Bray, 2013; Vannest et al.,
2009). Since NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) is an influential federal policy for all
students, Airel highlighted what she believed to be how the two policies alignment and
contradicted as it relates to students with disabilities.
What areas do I think they are misaligned? I think in their philosophy of No Child is left
behind in the actual principle and methodology that can actually be applied to the people
. . . the policy makers really aren’t aware of again what’s happening in the trenches,
what’s happening in the real world. It’s easy to make policy, to write out regs but not
have a real idea of what’s going on. Since my area of focus is transition, I honestly think
that they’re fairly aligned in this area; I’m not sure about other areas. I think the focus
with both is to provide a free and appropriate education and I think it’s philosophy points
of the policy makers that needs to be aligned with the actual teachers as we indicated;
bringing the teachers in and having real discussion with them to find out what’s really
important and what’s really going on. Then again having the data to back up the changes.

Airiel’s response is consistent with a study by Russell and Bray (2013) that educators
viewed IDEIA (2004) and NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) as having both
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 124

complementary and contradicting components. While Airel believed that IDEIA and NCLB
work to ensure that all students are provided with a free public education, she also described the
need for policymakers to create policy that is reflective of the reality of schools and the
experiences of educational personnel. She also highlighted how NCLB is currently being
rewritten.
In regards to transitions and students with disabilities, Joan discussed the importance of
federal incentives such as the CAL Promise Grant, while Airel talked about the upcoming
Workforce Innovated Opportunity Act (WIOA) mandates. As previously mentioned, Joan
described how the CAL Promise Grant brings transition services into the home, and allows
students with disabilities to participate in the workforce while they are in high school. She also
described other federal incentives for students. She described a
student earned income exclusion that they’re eligible for, that work incentive says as long
as you’re a student in school under the age of 22 you can still go to school, receive all of
your SSI check, and receive all of your paycheck.

Such an incentive is important for students and families who may be struggling financially.
Airel gave a description of WIOA as it relates to individuals with disabilities and the
workforce.
The one thing’s that’s changing with the WIOA regs is that President Obama signed the
WIOA law July 22, 2014. It’s the Workforce Innovated Opportunity Act. So he signed it
into law July 22, 2014; we’re waiting for the regs to come out 2016. Once the regs come
out, they will tell us specifically what we can and cannot do. But at the current time one
thing that we do know with the WIOA regs is that those young adults that are in shelter
workshops where they pay them by the piece.

Educators also briefly mentioned a contract with the Department of Rehabilitation that
allows students to have paid work experience. In describing how IDEIA (2004) protects the
educational rights of students with disabilities, educators recognized the crucial influence of this
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 125

policy and other federal grants and mandates as described on both the secondary experiences and
post-secondary options of students with disabilities.
Lastly, in regards to state policy regarding the now suspended CAHSEE, educators
expressed similar thoughts regarding the exam. Both Airel and Joan expressed negative feelings
towards the CAHSEE. Airel described how the exit exam is a “disservice to at-risk students and
students and disabilities.” She believed that if students meet the A-G requirements, they should
be able to receive their diploma. Joan echoed similar thoughts when she said,
I really do think it’s too much testing . . . you do all this work for the last four years in
order to fulfill the requirements of graduation only to have to turn around and test to go
to. So that means I could have tested in ninth grade and possibly graduated? I mean . . . I
just think it’s too much . . . if the student has proven himself in the last four years to be
able to pass their grades, or go to summer school, whatever they had to do in order to
fulfill their graduation requirements then let them graduate already. They already had to
do a SAT in order to go into college or to try to be competitive with other students around
the world, or whatever in order to try to get into school or something like that . . . they
have a hundred and fifty credits, just give them the diploma already.

As a classroom teacher, Tina saw that it as a “positive” that the CASHEE was suspended
because the current seniors would not have to worry about it. However, because it is only
suspended, she also thought it was important to continue to prepare the freshmen, sophomores
and juniors for when the exam returned.
Evidence from educator interviews helped to address the second research question
regarding educator understanding and perspectives of educational. Similarly, to parents,
educators also saw themselves as advocates for students whom them serve. Their ability to
advocate for students was mediated by their knowledge and understanding of special education
law and state education policy such as graduation requirements. Educators also believed laws
such as IDEIA (2004) protects the educational rights of students to ensure that they are afforded
the educational services to which they are entitled. Furthermore, educators sought to empower
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 126

students, parents, and other educators by speaking with families and providing professional
development for their fellow colleagues. By engaging students and their families in this way, the
educators in this study became vital members in formal networks that contributed to the social
capital of their students and their families to promote their academic and social success.
Summary

This chapter presented the emergent themes from the document analysis, focus group,
and individual interviews that were conducted as part of this qualitative case study. Three policy
documents were reviewed, namely IDEIA (2004), NCLB (2001, U.S. Department of Education,
2002), and California Education Code 60850 regarding the CAHSEE. Documents were analyzed
to discover how they provide educational support for students with disabilities. Additionally, a
focus group of educators and individual interviews with educators and parents were conducted to
understand how these stakeholders perceive these policies. Analysis of data collected from the
document review demonstrated that federal education policies such as IDEIA and NCLB work to
protect the educational rights of students with disabilities, especially IDEIA as one of the major
pieces of special education. These policies also outlined and detailed the rights of parents to
participate in educational decision-making for their children.
Interview data revealed that while parents see themselves as advocates for their children
who are knowledgeable of special education policy, they believe that more efforts need to be
made to educate parents about the special education landscape. Furthermore, data from
educators and parents also revealed the influence of a student’s disability category on their
educational experiences, including their post-secondary options. Parents did not believe that exit
exams such as the CAHSEE would limit the options their child would have after graduation, but
emphasized how their social capital (i.e. support systems for both them and their child) played a
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 127

critical role in their child’s academic success. Additionally, data indicated a need to empower
families and students by teaching self-advocacy skills and promoting self-determination, and
great need for professional development for educators. Lastly, like parents, educators also
recognized how federal and state policies influenced students with disabilities by protecting their
educational rights and the rights of their parents.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 128

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Federal and state educational policies such as IDEIA (2004) and NCLB (2001, U.S.
Department of Education, 2002) are very influential in the educational lives of high school
students with disabilities. IDEIA and NCLB outlined the educational rights of students with
disabilities and their participation in local and state assessments respectively, while policies
regarding exit exams seem to directly influence student degree attainment. Therefore, this study
examined how educational policies support students with disabilities in high school and the
perceptions of parents and educators regarding these policies. A qualitative case study was
conducted to address the following research questions:
1. How are federal and state policies designed to provide educational support to high school
students with disabilities?
2. What are parent and educator understanding and perspectives of these policies?
Data were collected through document analysis, a focus group, and individual interviews.
Pseudonyms were used to protect the identity of the study site and participants. The focus group
and individual educator and parent interviews were recorded with the permission of participants
and transcribed, while notes were taken from individual parent interviews conducted via
telephone. Codebooks were created to track emerging themes from the document analysis and
interviews. This chapter will present a summary of the findings, specifically those that are most
relevant to social capital as the theoretical framework that guided this study, implications for
practice, and study limitations and recommendations for future research. The chapter will
conclude with final thoughts about the study.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 129

Summary of Findings
The findings from this qualitative case study indicated that educational policies play an
important role in the educational lives of high school students with disabilities. A document
analysis of IDEIA (2004) and NCLB (2001, U.S. Department of Education, 2002) revealed that
despite their core differences, both policies aim to support this student population by detailing
their educational rights, ensuring that students are taught by qualified, credentialed educators and
that parental rights, including the right to participate in the decision-making process in their
child’s life are protected. In these ways, policies are critical in helping promote the academic
success of students with disabilities.
Additionally, interviews suggested that both educators and parents recognized the
importance of special education policy such as IDEIA (2004) particularly in protecting the
educational rights of students with disabilities. Findings also revealed that while educators and
parents played a pivotal role in the lives of students with disabilities, the participants recognized
the need for more productive ways of educating parents and educators, especially general
educators and administrators about special education. This lack of knowledge and information
on behalf of both stakeholders can diminish the social capital of parents and subsequently that of
their child as they attempt to navigate the special education landscape and transition into
adulthood. The following section will discuss the possible implications for special education
based on the findings of this study and Bourdieu’s theory.
Bourdieu and Special Education
Bourdieu’s (1986) capital theory offered a critical lens through which special education
in the United States can be examined. Specifically, the theory offered a medium through which
one can understand the special education system and the interactions between the individuals in
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 130

the system. Such an understanding is particularly important to special education students and
their parents, whose struggle in the educational system are well documented (Burke, 2013;
Trainor, 2010a; Resch et al., 2010; Spann et al., 2003). Although cultural and economic forms of
capital also play an important role in the lives of students with disabilities, social capital is
particularly crucial to the success of these students.
Study Findings and Capital Theory
Bourdieu described social capital as the network of relationships that one forms which
allow them to amass other forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Findings from this study revealed
that parents gain social capital formally through the mandates of IDEIA (2004) that specifies
their parental rights through relationships formed with more knowledgeable others such as
educators, special education advocates, and lawyers when needed and informally through
relationships with family members or even friends. What is critical to note however, is that
research has documented that parents’ ability to create these networks is often based on a variety
of factors such as linguistics (i.e. English proficiency), and socioeconomic status for example
(Burke, 2013; Trainor, 2010a, 2010b). A parent’s fluency in English and a high socioeconomic
status can give them access to more knowledgeable others with whom they are able to form
crucial social networks. Through these networks, parents are able to appropriately interact with
others in the field or the special education landscape (Trainor, 2008, 2010a). Parents are then
able to use their accrued social capital to advocate for their children, and to teach them how to
advocate for themselves. Students with disabilities are then able to accumulate social capital
through the support of their parents and the social networks they have formed. Since students
are mandated to be part of the transition planning, this serves as an especially important way in
which students can accrue social capital. The accrued social capital facilitates the attainment of
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 131

educational credentials (a standard high school diploma in this case) or cultural capital as
described by Bourdieu (1973), which then facilitates the attainment of economic capital in the
form of a job or career.
The educational policies examined in this study, particularly IDEIA (2004), aim to
protect parental and student rights in regards to the educational process. In considering
Bourdieu’s (1986) theory, these policies essentially attempt to facilitate the parental and student
attainment of social capital by not only detailing their mandated rights but outlining ways in
which states can assist them in accumulating social capital. For example, IDEIA described how
parents should be educated and informed about special education. The law highlighted how
parent training and information centers should be created and receive funds to educate parents of
students with disabilities. In reflecting on Bourdieu’s theory, this aspect of IDEIA attempted to
help parents gain access to more knowledgeable others with whom they can form informal and
formal relationships. Along the same lines, IDEIA also described how educators should be
provided with high-quality professional development. Again, this law attempted to provide
educators with access to more knowledge others, thereby helping them to accrue the social
capital needed to promote the capital and success of their students with disabilities.
However, study findings pointed to an interesting point to consider. Despite policy
mandates to educate both parents and educators, if and how these regulations are implemented is
another story. In other words, in addition to understanding the mandates of educational policies,
it is equally important to recognize whether they are being followed and if not, to understand
why. For example, both parents and educators highlighted the lack of professional development
and parent education regarding special education. Although compliance and implementation of
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 132

educational policy is beyond the scope of this study, these factors can possibly influence parent
and educator perceptions of these policies.
For instance, if educators get high quality professional development, particularly in
regards to special education and if knowledge is systemically and effectively disseminated to
parents through the mandated parent centers, and school/district attempts, it is possible that these
stakeholders could have more positive perceptions of and experiences in the special education
landscape, which translates into increased social capital. Furthermore, if policy mandates are
implemented to fidelity, their benefit could be experienced by parents and students despite their
linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Therefore, in considering the regulations of
educational policies, specifically IDEIA (2004), study findings, particularly those regarding
parent and educator perceptions of these policies, provide evidence for the continuous need for
parents and educators to receive much needed information regarding special education. Without
the appropriate avenues that facilitate the attainment of knowledge and social capital, it becomes
a struggle for parents and educators to promote social capital among students with disabilities
and foster their secondary and post-secondary successes.
Implications for Practice
Implications for practice as a result of this study’s findings fall under two broad
categories; professional development for teachers and knowledge dissemination to parents. In
regards to professional development, there will be a discussion of relevant literature that support
the need for quality professional decisions for all educators, including school-based
administrators. Similarly, there will also be a discussion of the importance of educating parents
about special education, specifically at the school level and the supporting literature. As a case
study, these points will be discussed as they relate to the educational practices of SELPA X.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 133

Lastly, there will be a discussion of how these findings contribute to the larger field of special
education.
Professional Development for Educators
High-quality professional development is crucial to the success of all students.
Professional development provides educators with opportunities to enhance their professional
practices to promote student achievement (Darling-Hammond, Wei, & Andree, 2010). However,
there is a growing body of research that described the need for increased professional
development for general education teachers (Blanton et al., 2011; Jenkins, & Ornelles; 2007;
Jenkins, & Yoshimura, 2010) and school-based administrators (Lynch, 2012) regarding special
education. This research emphasized the particular need for teacher preparation programs to
provide general education teacher candidates with courses about special education law and
policy and effective strategies for working with special education students. Furthermore,
research also described the need for administrator preparation programs to equip administrator
candidates with courses about special education law and policy, how to be effective instructional
leaders for all teachers, and how to effectively mentor beginning teachers, especially special
education teachers to reduce teacher attrition and promote student achievement. Furthermore,
Part D of IDEIA described the need for high quality professional development for educators
(IDEIA, 2004).
Responses of both educators and parents who participated in this study revealed that
these stakeholders believed that teachers, particularly some general education teachers, had
different attitudes towards special education students. From their experiences, participants
reported that some general education teachers believed that special education students were the
responsibility of special education teachers. These findings contribute to the body of literature
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 134

advocating for changes in teacher and administrator preparation programs to emphasize special
education coursework (Blanton et al., 2011; Billingsley, Griffin, Smith, Kamman, M., & Israel,
2009). Additionally, these findings provide some evidence for the need to create targeted,
professional development especially for general education teachers who are part of the districts
representing SELPA X.
SELPA X may need to perform needs assessments in their districts to gather data
regarding the professional needs to teachers and administrators as it relates to special education
law, policy, and effective instructional strategies. It would be especially important for the
SELPA to create joint professional development sessions in which general and special education
teachers along with school-based administrators are leaning together. In this way, all educators
are provided with vital knowledge of ever-evolving special education policy and with research-
based instructional strategies for working with all students, specifically those with disabilities.
By involving all educators in special education professional development and providing school
and district support, SELPA X will help to promote an inclusive learning environment for both
professionals and students, thereby working to change unproductive teacher and administrator
attitudes towards special education students. Empowering educators by providing high quality
professional development can contribute to the social capital of parents and their children.
Findings from this study indicated that knowledge of educational policies allows educators to
disseminate information to parents, thereby contributing to their social capital. Through this
knowledge sharing, parents are able to build formal networks that they can use as part of a
support system. This is especially important for parents who may not be English speaking, and
those who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 135

Knowledge Dissemination to Parents
Findings from this study also suggested that, while the parents who participated in this
study where knowledgeable about special education law and the IEP process, they acknowledged
a need for schools to do a better job at informing parents about the special education landscape.
Sonya and Hayley reported that their children’s schools did not do a good job of educating them
about the special education process. As a result, they engaged in a great deal of self-education,
which included reading law books, information from the internet, and talking to more
knowledgeable others such as teachers, advocates, and district personnel. In this way, the
parents in this study were able to advocate for their rights and the educational rights of their
children.
Research has documented the challenges that parents often face as they attempt to
navigate the special education landscape. These challenges include, but are not limited to access
to information about special education which can contribute to a lack of understanding about the
special education system, difficulty getting services for their child (Burke, 2013), and financial
and linguistic barriers (Trainor, 2010a). Data from parents and educators who participated in this
study suggest that more effort needs to be made on behalf of SELPA X to engage parents in the
special education process. By working with districts and schools, SELPA X could develop
models of parent engagement to help provide access to information about the special education
landscape. For example, schools and districts could hold monthly special education meetings
during which various special education processes are explained to parents (i.e. IEP process,
transition planning, etc.) and what their rights are as parents in these processes. Such parent
trainings, including parent centers, are also promoted by IDEIA (2004) as a way of supporting
student achievement among students with disabilities (IDEIA, 2004).
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 136

Engaging with more knowledgeable others such as special educators contributes to the
social capital of parents. When educators educate parents about the special education system, it
allows them to form formal networks that become critical components of their social capital.
Informal networks can be formed through interactions with knowledgeable family members,
friends, and parent centers as identified in IDEIA (2004). Both formal and informal networks
are critical components of the social capital of parents. Knowledge about the special education
system can empower parents to become active participants in the educational lives of their
children, thereby promoting their academic and social success.
Study Limitations
There were several limitations in this study. First, although only parents and educators of
students with disabilities were selected to participate in the study, participants in this study were
recruited through convenience and snowball sampling methods. When used as a sole sampling
method, convenience sampling may not yield rich data (Merriam, 2009). Therefore, it was
helpful to have also used the snowballing method. Secondly, there were only two educators in
the focus group. Although they provided rich data, having more educators participate in the
group could have provided a variety of perspectives, thereby enriching the data collected.
Despite an attempt to secure five educators to participate in the focus group, one educator did not
show up for the group and scheduling difficulties hindered the participation of additional
educators. However, because the two educators whose responses were reported in this study had
already committed to both the focus group and the individual interviews, out of respect for their
time and efforts, I decided to conduct the focus group with them.
In regards to parents, difficulty in scheduling made it hard to form a parent focus group.
Again, conducting this focus group could have added to the richness of the data collected by
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 137

providing more variety in parent experiences and perspectives. Additionally, the parents in this
study were Caucasian, English speaking married women, one of whom was a stay at home mom
and the other an educator. These demographics are not particularly representative of the broader
population of parents of students with disabilities. Furthermore, these parents also had a level of
social capital based on their ability to speak English, and access to formal and informal networks
for example, that is often not a shared quality of parents with disabilities (Burke, 2013; Trainor,
2010a, 2010b). Future research should focus on studying the experiences of parents from a
variety of ethnic, linguistic, family structure, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Such research
can help illuminate how capital, particularly social capital, can mediate parent and student
experiences in the special education system. Along the same lines, future research should focus
on how compliance and implementation of educational policies influence the perceptions of
important stakeholders such as parents and educators and even students as those who are most
affected by them.
Furthermore, while research documented the importance of recognizing the heterogeneity
among students with disabilities (Gaumer-Erickson, Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 2007; Schifter,
2011), this study focused on students with disabilities as a whole group. In doing so, it is
possible that important differences in the experiences of parents of students from various
disability categories was missed. As a result, future research should focus on understanding the
experiences of parents of students with various disabilities. Lastly, prolonged time at the study
site would have also contributed to the variety and richness of the data.
Conclusion
This was a qualitative case study examining the influence of federal and state policies on
high school students with disabilities and the perceptions of educators and parents of these
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 138

policies. Data from the document analysis and interviews confirmed the findings of researchers
who have documented the need for quality professional development for all educators regarding
special education knowledge and skills, and the need to empower parents through knowledge
dissemination regarding the special education landscape. By providing parents and educators
with avenues that work to facilitate their attainment of knowledge and social capital they need to
serve and support students with disabilities, they are able to become stronger advocates, who can
enhance the social capital of students with disabilities to promote their immediate and long-term
success. With an increasingly demanding world based on knowledge economy, it is crucial that
policy makers understand the influence of educational policies on various student groups, such as
those with disabilities who have a history of marginalization in educational and work settings. It
is especially important for policymakers to be aware of the experiences of educators who have to
implement policies and parents whose rights are protected by these policies, and to understand
the reasoning behind such experiences. Through this understanding, policymakers will be better
equipped to create stronger policies and the supports needed to ensure districts and schools are
able to implement them to fidelity, and promote success among students with disabilities.

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 139

References
Abrams, L. M., Pedulla, J. J., & Madaus, G. F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers'
opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 18-29.
Ahn, T., & Vigdor, J. (2013). Were all those standardized tests for nothing? The lessons of No
Child Left Behind. A report prepared for the National Research Initiative, American
Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/-
vigdor-and-ahn-nclb-sanctions-paper_15005080098.pdf
Almazan, S. (2009). Inclusive education and implications for policy: The state of the art and the
promise: What the state statistics say about inclusive education. Retrieved from
http://tash.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Inclusive-Education-and-Implications-for-
Policy-1.pdf
Ashbaker, B. Y. (2011). History of legal and legislative acts concerned with special education. In
A. F. Rotatori, F. E. Obiakor, & J. P. Bakken (Eds). History of special education
advances in education (Vol. 21, pp. 21-45). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
Association of Educational Agencies, AESA. (n.d.). About EASA: Questions and Answers on
ESAs. Retrieved from http://www.aesa.us/about/
Association of Educational Service Agencies (AESA). (2011). Background: ESAs. Retrieved
from http://www.isbe.state.il.us/siroec/pdf/char_midwest_ed_agencies_030512.pdf
Augenblick, J. G., Myers, J. L., & Anderson, A. B. (1997). Equity and adequacy in school
funding. The Future of Children, 7(3), 63-78.
Becker, D. E., Wise, L. L., Hardoin, M. M., & Watters, C. (2013). Independent evaluation of the
California High School Exit Examination: 2013 evaluation report. No. 062. Alexandria,
VA: Human Resources Research Organization. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/documents/cahsee13evalrpt.pdf
Billingsley, B. S., Griffin, C. C., Smith, S. J., Kamman, M., & Israel, M. (2009). A review of
teacher induction in special education: research, practice, and technology solutions.
NCIIP Document Number RS-1. Retrieved from
http://ncipp.education.ufl.edu/files_5/NCIPP%20Induction%20Exc%20Summ.pdf.
Blanton, L. P., Pugach, M. C., & Florian, L. (2011). Preparing general education teachers to
improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/11/aacte_ncld_recommendation.pdf
Boers, D. (2007). History of American education: Primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. Retrieved from
https://edu301s2011.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/cultural-reproduction-and-social-
reproduction.pdf
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 140

Bourdieu, P. (1986). Forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood.
Brand, B., Valent, A., & Danielson, L. (2013). Improving college and career readiness for
students with disabilities. College and Career Readiness and Success Center. Retrieved
from
http://www.ccrscenter.org/sites/default/files/Improving%20College%20and%20Career%
20Readiness%20for%20Students%20with%20Disabilities.pdf
Brown v. Board of Education. (1954). Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (No. 1.).
Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/483
Bryan, M. (2013). The great inflation. Retrieved from
http://www.federalreservehistory.org/Events/DetailView/64
Burch, S., & Sutherland, I. (2006). Who’s not here yet? American disability history. Radical
History Review, 94, 127-147.
Burke, M. M. (2013). Improving parental involvement training special education advocates.
Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(4), 225-234.
Butler-Arkow, J. (2006). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004:
Shifting School Districts' Attorneys' Fees to Parents of Children with Disabilities and
Counsel. Willamette Law Review, 42, 527.
California Department of Education. (2008). Transition to adult living: An information and
resource guide. Rohnert Park, CA: California Services for Technical Assistance and
Training.
California Department of Education. (2015a). County offices of education: County offices of
education provide services to school districts statewide. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/co/coes.asp
California Department of Education Dataquest. (2015b). Cohort outcome data for the class of
2013-14: Statewide results. Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/cohortrates/CRByProgram.aspx?cds=00000000000000&T
heYear=2013-14&Agg=T&Topic=Graduates&RC=State&SubGroup=Ethnic/Racial
California Department of Education (CDE). (2016a), California high school exit examination
(CAHSEE). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/
California Department of Education (SELPA). (2016b). California special education local plan
areas. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/as/caselpas.asp
California Department of Rehabilitation (DOR). (2014). What does the DOR do? Retrieved from
http://www.dor.ca.gov/What-Does-DOR-Do.html
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 141

California Education Code §60850-60859. (1999-2000). Education code section 60850-60859.
Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=60001-61000&file=60850-60859
California Legislative Information. (2002). Education Code: Title 2; Division 4; Part 33; Chapter
9. High School Exit Examination § 60850-60859. Retrieved from
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&division
=4.&title=2.&part=33.&chapter=9.&article=
Cho, H. J., Wehmeyer, M., & Kingston, N. (2011). Elementary teachers’ knowledge and use of
interventions and barriers to promoting student self-determination. The Journal of Special
Education,45(3), 149-156.
Chudowsky, N., Kober, N., Gayler, K. S., & Hamilton, M. (2002). State high school exams: A
baseline report. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?DocumentTopicID=7
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., & Andree, A. (2010). How high-achieving countries develop
great teachers. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education ~ Research Brief, 1-
8. Retrieved from https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/how-high-
achieving-countries-develop-great-teachers.pdf
Doren, B., Gau, J. M., & Lindstrom, L. E. (2012). The relationship between parent expectations
and postschool outcomes of adolescents with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 79(1), 7-
23.
Dowrick, P. W., Anderson, J., Heyer, K., & Acosta, J. (2005). Postsecondary education across
the USA: Experiences of adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,
22(1), 41-47.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). (1975). Public Law. No 94-142.
Retrieved from http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/94/142.pdf
Education Law. (1972). Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia. Retrieved from
http://usedulaw.com/438-mills-v-board-of-education-of-the-district-of-columbia.html
Eliot & Associates. (2005). Guidelines for conducting a focus group. Retrieved from
https://assessment.trinity.duke.edu/documents/How_to_Conduct_a_Focus_Group.pdf
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 142

Fatemeh Rabiee (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition
Society, 63, pp 655-660. doi:10.1079/PNS2004399.
Figlio, D., & Loeb, S. (2011). School accountability. In E. A. Hanushek, S. J. Machin, & L.
Woessmann. Handbook of the Economics of Education (Vol. 3, pp. 383-421). St. Louis,
MO: Elsevier.
Fink, A. (2012). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who receive special
education services. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and
Youth, 53(1), 8-14.
Fleischer, D. Z., & Zames, F. (2001). The disability rights movement: From charity to
confrontation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Gaumer-Erickson, A. S. G., Kleinhammer-Tramill, J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2007). An analysis of
the relationship between high school exit exams and diploma options and the impact on
students with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(2), 117-128.
Gilberts, G. H., Agran, M., Hughes, C., & Wehmeyer, M. (2001). The effects of peer delivered
self-monitoring strategies on the participation of students with severe disabilities in
general education classrooms. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 26(1), 25-36.
Giordano, G. (2007). American special education: A history of early political advocacy. New
York, NY: Peter Lang.
Goodman, J. I., Hazelkorn, M., Bucholz, J. L., Duffy, M. L., & Kitta, Y. (2011). Inclusion and
graduation rates: What are the outcomes?. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(4),
241-252.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Harr, J. J., Parrish, T., & Chambers, J. (2008). Special education. In H. Ladd & E.B. Fiske
(Eds.). Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy (pp. 573-590). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Harr-Robins, J., Song, M., Hurlburt, S., Pruce, C., Danielson, L., & Garet, M. (2013). The
inclusion of students with disabilities in school accountability systems: An update.
(NCEE 2013-4017). Retrieved from
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20134017/pdf/20134017.pdf
Harrington, T. (2015). Governor to sign high school exit exam bill. EdSource. Retrieved from
http://edsource.org/2015/state-senate-approves-high-school-exit-exam-exemption/85265
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 143

Hart, J. E., & Brehm, J. (2013). Promoting self-determination: A model for training elementary
students to self-advocate for IEP accommodations. Teaching Exceptional Children,45(5),
40-48.
Hemelt, S. W., & Marcotte, D. E. (2013). High school exit exams and dropout in an era of
increased accountability. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(2), 323-349.
Holme, J. J., Richards, M. P., Jimerson, J. B., & Cohen, R. W. (2010). Assessing the effects of
high school exit examinations. Review of Educational Research 8(4), 476-526.
doi:10.3102/0034654310383147
Hunt, T. C. (2005). Education reforms: Lessons from history. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(1), 84.
Hunt, P. F. (2011). Salamanca statement and IDEA 2004: Possibilities of practice for inclusive
education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(4), 461-476.
Hyslop, A. (2014). The case against exit exams. Retrieved from
https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/the-case-against-exit-exams/
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (1975). Public Law 108-446. Retrieved
from http://www.ldonline.org/features/idea2004
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). (2004). Public Law 19-142.
Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1401
Jenkins, A., & Ornelles, C. (2007). Preservice teachers' confidence in teaching students with
disabilities: Addressing the INTASC principles. Electronic Journal for Inclusive
Education, 2(2), 6.
Jenkins, A. A., & Yoshimura, J. (2010). Not another inservice!: Meeting the special education
professional development needs of elementary general educators. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 42(5), 36.
Johnson, D. R., Thurlow, M., & Schuelka, M. (2012). Diploma options, graduation
requirements, and exit exams for youth with disabilities: 2011 national study. Technical
Report, 62. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational
Outcomes.
Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Landmark, L., & Reber, A. (2009). Postsecondary education for
individuals with disabilities: Legal and practice considerations. Journal of Disability
Policy Studies, 20(1), 35-45. doi:10.1177/1044207308324896
Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Ryan, J. B., & Jones, J. (2007). High-stakes testing and students with
disabilities challenges and promises. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(3), 160-167.
doi:10.1177/10442073070180030701
Klibthong, S. (2012). Re-imagining inclusive education for young children: A kaleidoscope of
Bourdieuian theorisation. International Education Studies, 5(4), 71-79.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 144

Kode, K. (2002). Elizabeth Farrell and the history of special education. Arlington, VA: Council
for Exceptional Children.
Koestler, F. A. (1976). The unseen minority: A social history of blindness in America. New
York, NY: David McKay Co.
Kohler, P. D. (1996). Taxonomy for transition programming: Linking research and practice.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Transition Research Institute, Board of
Trustees of the University of Illinois.
Koseff, A. (2015, September 10). Senate sends high school exit exam suspension to Jerry Brown.
The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved from http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-
government/capitol-alert/article34724463.html marie
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2010). Focus group interviewing. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry,
& K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation. 3rd edition.
(pp. 378-403). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Landmark, L. J., Ju, S., & Zhang, D. (2010). Substantiated best practices in transition: Fifteen
plus years later. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 33(3),
165-176. doi:10.1177/0885728810376410
Landmark, L. J., Roberts, E. L., & Zhang, D. (2012). Educators’ Beliefs and Practices About
Parent Involvement in Transition Planning. Career Development and Transition for
Exceptional Individuals 36(2), 114-123. doi:10.1177/2165143412463047
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (with Tesch, R). (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research (2nd ed). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Legislative Analyst, State of California. (1982). The master plan for special education: A report
on the implementation of SB 1870. Author.
Lichtman, M. (2014). Qualitative research for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Litton, F. W., Rotatori, A. F., & Day, G. (1989). Individuals with low incidence handicaps: An
introduction. In: A. F. Rotatori & R. A. Fox (Eds.), Understanding individuals with low
incidence handicaps: Categorical and noncategorical perspectives (pp. 5– 40).
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Lynch, J. M. (2012). Responsibilities of today's principal: Implications for principal preparation
programs and principal certification policies. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(2),
40.
Mathis, W. J. (2006). The accuracy and effectiveness of adequate yearly progress, NCLB’s
school evaluation system. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University Education Policy
Research Unit. Retrieved from
http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/GLC_AYP_Mathis_FINAL.pdf
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 145

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage Publications.
McDougall, J., Evans, J., & Baldwin, P. (2010). The importance of self-determination to
perceived quality of life for youth and young adults with chronic conditions and
disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 31(4), 252-260.
McFadden, E. S., Daugherty, D. B., Lee, S. E., Fisher, K. W., & Hack, A. (2015). The
graduation cliff: Improving the post-school outcomes of students with disabilities.
Retrieved from
https://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/products/Graduation%20Cliff
%20-%20FULL%20REPORT.pdf
McIntosh, S. (2012). State high school exit exams: A policy in transition. Retrieved from
http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=408
McLaughlin, M. J. (2010). Evolving interpretations of educational equity and students with
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 265-278.
Mead, J. F., & Paige, M. A. (2008). Parents as advocates: Examining the history and evolution of
parents' rights to advocate for children with disabilities under the IDEA. Journal of
Legislation, 34, 123-167.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mertler, C. A. (2010). Teachers' perceptions of the influence of No Child Left Behind on
classroom practices. Current Issues in Education, 13(3).
Miles, M. B., Huberrman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Chapter 11: Drawing and verifying
conclusions. Qualitative Data Analysis: A methods sourcebook (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1993). When to use focus groups and why. Chapter 1. In
D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 3-19).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Morningstar, M. E., & Liss, J. M. (2008). A preliminary investigation of how states are
responding to the transition assessment requirements under IDEIA 2004. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31(1), 48-55.
National Alliance for Secondary Education and Transition (NASET). (n.d.). National standards
& quality indicators for secondary education and transition. Retrieved from
http://www.nasetalliance.org/docs/NASET_8-pager.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Fast facts: Students with disabilities. Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=60
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 146

National Technical Assistance Center on Transition (NTTACT). (n.d.). Effective practices and
predictors matrix predictors of post-school success. Retrieved from
http://transitionta.org/sites/default/files/EPP_Matrix_Preds.pdf
Naugle, K., Campbell, T. A., & Gray, N. D. (2010). Post-secondary transition model for students
with disabilities. Journal of School Counseling, 8(40), 1-31.
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Huang, T., Shaver, D., Knokey, A. M., Yu, J., ... , & Cameto, R.
(2011a). Secondary school programs and performance of students with disabilities: A
special topic report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2
(NLTS2). (NCSER 2012-3000). Retrieved from
https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20123000/pdf/20123000.pdf
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A. M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., & Wei, X.
(2011b). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years
after high school: A report from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2).
(NCSER 2011-3005). Retrieved from
https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf
Njie, B., & Asimiran, S. (2014). Case study as a choice in qualitative methodology. Journal of
Research, & Method in Education, 3(1), 35-40.
OMB NO: 1820-0624. (2009). Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/2008/2partbmeatable081308.pdf
Palmer, S. B., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Promoting self-determination in early elementary
school: Teaching self-regulated problem-solving and goal-setting skills. Remedial and
Special Education, 24(2), 115-126.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Peters, S. J. (2007). “Education for all?” A historical analysis of international inclusive education
policy and individuals with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(2), 98-
108.
Public Interest Law Center. (1975). Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://www.pilcop.org/pennsylvania-
association-for-retarded-citizens-parc-v-commonwealth-of-pennsylvania/
Resch, J. A., Mireles, G., Benz, M. R., Grenwelge, C., Peterson, R., & Zhang, D. (2010). Giving
parents a voice: A qualitative study of the challenges experienced by parents of children
with disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 55(2), 139-150.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 147

Roden, L.S., Borgemenke, A. J., & Holt, W. (2013). Improving the academic achievement of
students with disabilities. National Forum of Special Education Journal, 24(1), 1-7.
Retrieved from
http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Roden,%20Les%20S
usann%20Improving%20the%20Academic%20Achievement%20NFSEJ%20V24%20N1
%202013.pdf
Romberg, J. (2011). Means justify the ends: Structural due process in special education law, The.
Harvard Journal on Legislation, 48, 415-466.
Russell, J. L., & Bray, L. E. (2013). Crafting coherence from complex policy messages:
Educators’ perceptions of special education and standards-based accountability policies.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(12). Retrieved from
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1044
Safford, P. L., & Safford, E. J. (1996). A history of childhood and disability. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Salend, S. J., & Duhaney, L. M. (2011). Historical and philosophical changes in the education of
students with exceptionalities. In A. F. Rotatori, F. E. Obiakor, & J. P. Bakken (Eds.).
Advances in special education: History of special education (Vol 21, pp. 1-20). Bingley,
UK: Emerald Group Publishing, Ltd.
Schifter, L. (2011). High school graduation of students with disabilities: How long does it take?
Exceptional Children, 77(4), 409-422.
Senate Report No 94-168. (1975). Education for all handicapped children: Calendar no. 162,
94th Congress, 1st session, Senate. Report No. 94-168. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED112561.pdf
Singer, G. H. (2000). Special education research agenda in the United States: Sources of
influence. Exceptionality, 8(4), 235-246.
Social Welfare History Project. (2014). Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Retrieved from http://www.socialwelfarehistory.com/programs/education/elementary-
and-secondary-education-act-of-1965/
Spann, S. J., Kohler, F. W., & Soenksen, D. (2003). Examining parents' involvement in and
perceptions of special education services: An interview with families in a parent support
group. Focus on autism and other developmental disabilities, 18(4), 228-237.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, &
Evaluation, 7(17), 137-146. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 148

Stetser, M. C., & Stillwell, R. (2014). Public high school four-year on-time graduation rates and
event dropout rates: School years 2010-11 and 2011-12. First look. (NCES 2014-391).
National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014391.pdf
Sunderman, G. L., Tracey, C. A., Kim, J., & Orfield, G. (2004). Listening to teachers: Classroom
realities and No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from
https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/nclb-title-i/listening-to-
teachers-classroom-realities-and-no-child-left-behind/sunderman-tracey-kim-orfield-
listening-teachers.pdf
Thomas, G. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of
definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 511-521.
Trainor, A. A. (2008). Using cultural and social capital to improve postsecondary outcomes and
expand transition models for youth with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education
42(3), 148-162.
Trainor, A. A. (2010a). Diverse approaches to parent advocacy during special education home—
school interactions identification and use of cultural and social capital. Remedial and
Special Education, 31(1), 34-47.
Trainor, A. A. (2010b). Reexamining the promise of parent participation in special education: An
analysis of cultural and social capital. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 41(3),
245-263.
Trainor, A. A., Morningstar, M., Murray, A., & Kim, H. (2013). Social capital during the
postsecondary transition for young adults with high incidence disabilities. The Prevention
Researcher, 20(2), 7-11.
United States Code. (2000). Titles 12-20: January 2, 2001, to January 19, 2004 (Supplement III).
Washington, DC: Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives.
United States Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy. (n.d.). Disability
Statistics (February 2016). Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/odep/
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Public Law 107-110. No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Title I – Improving the academic achievement of the
disadvantaged. 20 USC 6301, § 1001, para. 1. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004. Retrieved from
http://idea.ed.gov/
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 149

Vannest, K. J., Mahadevan, L., Mason, B. A., & Temple-Harvey, K. K. (2009). Educator and
administrator perceptions of the impact of No Child Left Behind on special populations.
Remedial and Special Education, 30(3), 148-159.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Javitz, H., & Valdes, K. (2012). A national picture of
parent and youth participation in IEP and transition planning meetings. Journal of
Disability Policy Studies, 23(3), 140-155.
Wakelin, M. M. (2008). Challenging disparities in special education: Moving parents from
disempowered team members to ardent advocates. Northwestern Journal of Law & Social
Polity, 3(2), 263-288.
Weber, M. C. (2014). Inclusive education in the United States and internationally: Challenges
and response. Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 3(1, 2), 1-17.
Retrieved from http://www.rds.hawaii.edu/ojs/index.php/journal/article/view/298/923
Wehmeyer, M. L. (1996). Self-determination as an educational outcome: Why is it important to
children, youth and adults with disabilities? In D. J. Sands, & M. L. Wehmeyer.
(Eds.) Self-determination across the life span: Independence and choice for individuals
with disabilities (15-34). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishers.
Wehmeyer, M. (1997). Self-determination as an educational outcome: A definitional framework
and implications for intervention. Journal of Developmental and Physical
Disabilities, 9(3), 175-209.
Weiss, R., S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Williams-Diehm, K. L., & Benz, M. R. (2008). Where are they now? Lessons from a single
district follow-up study. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 30(2), 4-15.
Winzer, M. A. (1998). A tale often told: The early progression of special education. Remedial
and Special Education, 19(4), 212– 218.
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannas, A., & Shiner, J. G. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, adequate
yearly progress, and students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 32-
39.
Yell, M. L., Rodgers, D., & Rodgers, E. L. (1998). The legal history of special education.
Remedial and Special Education, 19, 219– 229.
Zabala, D., Minnici, A., McMurrer, J., & Briggs, L. (2008). State high school exit exams: A
move toward end-of-course exams. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

Zhang, Y. (2009). State high school exit exams: Trends in test programs, alternate pathways, and
pass rates. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 150

Appendix A: Data Collection Form (Parents)

Please print your name and contact information if you are interested in participating in
this study. Please note that your participation is completely voluntary.

Name Contact (Telephone and/or Email)

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 151

Appendix B: Data Collection Form (Educators)

Please print your name and contact information if you are interested in participating in
this study. Please note that your participation is completely voluntary.

Name Contact (Telephone and/or Email)

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 152

Appendix C: Informed Consent Form (Parents)
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
(Federal and State Policy and High School Students with Disabilities)
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Bathsheba Brutus at the
University of Southern California, because you are a parent of a youth with special needs. This
study has been approved by USC and will be conducted as part of a dissertation at the Rossier
School of Education under the direction of Dr. Pensavalle. Your participation is voluntary. You
should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand,
before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent
form. You may also decide to discuss participation with your family or friends. If you decide to
participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to understand how federal and state policy influence the post-
secondary options of high school students with disabilities. Additionally, this study will explore
the perceptions of parents and educators regarding these policies and how they influence high
school students with disabilities post-graduation.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to describe your experience
as a parent of a youth with special needs. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be
asked to describe your experience as a parent of youth with special needs. Both the focus group
and individual interviews will be conducted in a designed room in the school building during or
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 153

after school hours depending on the school schedule. The focus group will be one hour in
duration. As for the individual interviews, three parents from the focus group will be randomly
selected to participate in individual interviews what will last for 45 minutes. With participant
permission, focus groups and individual interviews will be audio recorded.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no potential risks or discomforts anticipated by your participation in this study.
If you do experience this during the interview, please let the researcher know in a manner that is
comfortable for you.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Your participation in this study will help the researcher understand educational policies
influence students with disabilities and parental and educator perceptions of these policies.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
As part of your participation in this study, you will receive a small gift as a thank you for
your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. A report
of study findings will be made to the participating sites, but all data will be presented in
aggregate form such that no individual respondents can be identified. However, if we are
required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members of
the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. The data will be stored by
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 154

the researcher who will have sole access to it. Finally, the information you provide during this
interview will not be published.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss
of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.
EMERGENCY CARE AND COMPENSATION FOR INJURY
If you are injured as a direct result of research procedures you will receive medical
treatment; however, you or your insurance will be responsible for the cost. The University of
Southern California does not provide any monetary compensation for injury.
INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact me at
bbrutus@usc.edu.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant
or the research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to
someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional
Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 155

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions.
My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I
have been given a copy of this form.
AUDIO/VIDEO/PHOTOGRAPHS
□ I agree to be audio/video-recorded /photographed (remove the media not being
used)

□ I do not want to be audio/video-recorded /photographed (remove the media not
being used)
Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.
Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 156

Appendix D: Informed Consent Form (Educators)
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
(Federal and State Policy and High School Students with Disabilities)
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Bathsheba Brutus at the
University of Southern California, because you are an educator of youth with special needs. This
study has been approved by USC and will be conducted as part of a dissertation at the Rossier
School of Education under the direction of Dr. Pensavalle. Your participation is voluntary. You
should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand,
before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent
form. You may also decide to discuss participation with your family or friends. If you decide to
participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to understand how federal and state policy influence the post-
secondary options of high school students with disabilities. Additionally, this study will explore
the perceptions of parents and educators regarding these policies and how they influence high
school students with disabilities post-graduation.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to describe your experience
as an educator of youth with special needs. Both the focus group and individual interviews will
be conducted in a designed room in the school building during or after school hours depending
on the school schedule. The focus group will be one hour in duration. As for the individual
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 157

interviews, three educators from the focus group will be randomly selected to participate in
individual interviews what will last for 45 minutes. With participant permission, focus groups
and individual interviews will be audio recorded.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no potential risks or discomforts anticipated by your participation in this study.
If you do experience this during the interview, please let the researcher know in a manner that is
comfortable for you.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Your participation in this study will help the researcher understand educational policies
influence students with disabilities and parental and educator perceptions of these policies.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
As part of your participation in this study, you will receive a small gift as a thank you for
your cooperation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. A report
of study findings will be made to the participating sites, but all data will be presented in
aggregate form such that no individual respondents can be identified. However, if we are
required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members of
the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. The data will be stored by
the researcher who will have sole access to it. Finally, the information you provide during this
interview will not be published.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 158

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss
of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.
EMERGENCY CARE AND COMPENSATION FOR INJURY
If you are injured as a direct result of research procedures you will receive medical
treatment; however, you or your insurance will be responsible for the cost. The University of
Southern California does not provide any monetary compensation for injury.
INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact me at
bbrutus@usc.edu.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant
or the research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to
someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional
Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions.
My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I
have been given a copy of this form.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 159

AUDIO/VIDEO/PHOTOGRAPHS
□ I agree to be audio/video-recorded /photographed (remove the media not being
used)

□ I do not want to be audio/video-recorded /photographed (remove the media not
being used)
Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.
Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 160

Appendix E: Demographic Data Form (Parents)

University of Southern California | Rossier School of Education
Dear Parent or Guardian,
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this study. Please read and
complete the demographic form.

Background
1. Please indicate your sex by circling M for Male or F for Female M F

2. City of Residence _____________________

3. Your age _____________________

4. Age of child _____________________

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 161

Appendix F: Demographic Data Form (Educators)

University of Southern California | Rossier School of Education
Dear Educator,
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this focus group. Please read
complete the demographic form.

Background
1. Please indicate your sex by circling M for Male or F for Female M F

2. High School/SELPA ________________________

3. Professional Role ________________________

3. Age ________________________

4. Length of Service ________________________

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 162

Appendix G: Focus Group Guide (Educators)

Focus Group Introduction

Welcome
Thank you for being a part of this focus group. Your participation is greatly appreciated.

Introductions
I would like to introduce myself and my assistant. My name is Bathsheba and I am a doctoral
student from the University of Southern California. I will be the moderator for the group. This
is______ and she/he will be the assistant moderator.

Purpose of Focus Group
We are conducting this focus group as part of my dissertation study to find out how educators
particularly, special education teachers, guidance and transition counselors perceive federal and
state policies their influence on high school students with special needs. Your honest thoughts
and opinions are very valuable to us.

Guidelines for Focus Group
The following are some basic guidelines to help ensure the organization and integrity of the
focus group.

1. Full participation is deeply encouraged.
We would like to hear the thoughts and opinions of every participant.

2. Everyone’s experiences, views and perspectives are welcomed and valued.
There are no “correct” or “incorrect” answers.
This is a safe space to share.

3. Everything is confidential.
The views, thoughts and opinions shared in this room will be held in strictest of
confidence and not shared with individuals outside of this room.

4. Mutual Respect is essential.
Please show your group members respect at all times by listening attentively and not
interrupting when someone else is speaking

5. Audio-recording
In order to accurately capture the thoughts and opinions of all participants, this focus
group will be audio-recorded.

Do you have any questions regarding what I have just explained to you?

Adapted from Eliot & Associates 2005 (p. 9)

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 163

Questions for Educator Focus Group

1. When you think of “special education” what are some thoughts that come to your mind?

2. What do you think is the general purpose of special education for students with special needs,
particularly at the secondary level?

I’d like you to think about educational policies, specifically the Individual with Disabilities Act
(NCLB) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

3. How aligned do you think these policies are in regards to the education of students with
special needs?

4. How well do you think educational policies such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) work to ensure quality educational
opportunities for students with disabilities, particularly at the secondary level?

5. How do you feel about California’s graduation requirements as they relate to high school
students with special needs?

6. Is there anything else you would like to mention regarding educational policies and their
influence on secondary students with disabilities?

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 164

Appendix H: Interview Protocol (Educators)

Introduction
Good Afternoon. My name is Bathsheba and I’m a doctoral student at the Rossier School
of Education. For my dissertation, I am conducting a study on how federal and state policies
regarding high school graduation requirements influence the post-secondary options of students
with mild to moderate disabilities. Additionally, I also want to explore how parents and school
personnel such as teachers and counselors perceive the influence of these policies on the post-
secondary options of students. Thank you for allowing me to interview you. Your perspective
and experiences as a student will provide valuable information for my study.
Please know that anything we talk about during this time will be held confidential. I will
be taking some notes to make sure that I capture all the important information you have to share
with me. Would you be comfortable with me recording our conversation so that I can be sure to
accurately capture your perceptions? I’m the only one who will have access to it. If you do
choose to do so but become uncomfortable at any point, you can stop the recording by letting me
know.
Do you have any questions about what I have described to you?
In order to protect your rights as a participant in this study, I have two copies of a consent
form. Please read one and sign it for my records, and keep the second copy. Is there anything
about the study you would like to know before we begin?
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 165

Interview Questions

We are going to begin by talking about your experiences as a professional who provides services
to students with special needs.

1. Thinking generally, how would you describe your professional experiences with students
with special needs at the secondary level?
2. What role do you think you play in promoting the academic success of students with
disabilities, particularly those with mild to moderate disabilities?
Now, let’s discuss education policy, specifically special education policy. I’d like you to think
about what you know about these policies and how they influence students’ academic
experiences.
3. How would you describe your level of knowledge pertaining to Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?
4. What type of in-house professional development do you receive about special education
policy?
a. In what other ways have you learned about special education policy?
5. What role do you play in helping students to understand their educational rights under
IDEA?
I’d like for you to talk about graduation what that process looks like for students with special
needs.
6. How are students with disabilities prepared for the state exit exam?
7. Suppose I was one of your students who is going to receive a non-standard diploma and I
asked you what my post-graduation options were, what would you tell me?
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 166

8. How comfortable do you feel explaining to students the post-graduation options they
have if they are on a non-standard diploma track?
9. How do you think state graduation requirements influence the options of students with
mild to moderate disabilities, specifically those who receive a non-standard diploma?
10. How do you think post-secondary options of students with special needs differ based on
their disability category, if at all?
11. What role do you think school personnel such as yourself have in promoting the post-
secondary success of students with special needs, particularly the students with mild to
moderate disabilities whom you serve?
12. Is there anything else you would like to tell me about the influence of educational
policies on students with special needs, particularly at the high school level?

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 167

Appendix I: Interview Protocol (Parents)

Introduction
Good Afternoon. My name is Bathsheba and I’m a doctoral student at the Rossier School
of Education. For my dissertation, I am conducting a study on how federal and state policies
regarding high school graduation requirements influence the post-secondary options of students
with mild to moderate disabilities. Additionally, I also want to explore how parents and school
personnel such as teachers and counselors perceive the influence of these policies on the post-
secondary options of students. Thank you for allowing me to interview you. Your perspective
and experiences as a student will provide valuable information for my study.
Please know that anything we talk about during this time will be held confidential. I will
be taking some notes to make sure that I capture all the important information you have to share
with me. Would you be comfortable with me recording our conversation so that I can be sure to
accurately capture your perceptions? I’m the only one who will have access to it. If you do
choose to do so but become uncomfortable at any point, you can stop the recording by letting me
know.
Do you have any questions about what I have described to you?
In order to protect your rights as a participant in this study, I have two copies of a consent
form. Please read one and sign it for my records, and keep the second copy. Is there anything
about the study you would like to know before we begin?

POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 168

Interview Questions
We are going to begin by having you describe the experiences you and your child have had in the
special education system.
1. Please share the following as you are comfortable in doing
a. Level of education
b. Current occupation
c. Racial/ethnic identification
d. Salary Range
2. Tell me about your experience with special education.
3. When you have questions about services that your child is receiving, who do you
contact?
a. Why do you contact this person? What are some reasons? Can you give some
examples?
4. Think about the last IEP meeting you attended. How would you describe that experience?
For example, how comfortable did you feel to ask questions or make suggestions?
Now we are going to discuss the law as it relates to special education.
5. Tell me about what you know about special education law. For example, what do you
know about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?
6. Describe how you learned about special education law. For example, who do you go to to
learn about the law regarding special education?
7. How well do you think your child’s school does in teaching you about special education
law?
Let’s take time some time to think about your child and his or her life after high school.
POLICY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 169

8. Tell me what you know about California’s graduation requirements as it pertains to
students with special needs?
9. What expectations do you have of your child after they graduate high school?
10. How would you describe your role in your child’s educational life?
11. Is there anything else you would like to tell me about the effect of educational policies on
children with special needs, particularly at the high school level?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study used Bourdieu’s (1986) Capital Theory to examine how education policies are designed to support students with disabilities. The purpose of this study was to analyze how these policies support high school students with disabilities and to understand how parents and educators perceive these policies. The two research questions guiding this study were: 1) How are federal and state policies designed to support high school students with disabilities

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

An analysis of reflective practices utilized to support the inclusion of K-5 students with disabilities

PDF

The examination of the perceptions of general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel on the inclusion of students with special needs

PDF

Educating students with disabilities in Kenyan primary schools: instructional strategies and teacher preparation

PDF

Enabling dis/abled females

PDF

Exploring how individual transition plans in a school district support special education student employment

PDF

The influence of the historically Black church on the academic achievement of African American students in public schools

PDF

Immigrated Latino/a students' general education teachers' mind frames and pedagogy

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Instructional differentiation and accommodations to support student achievement in SLD and ADHD secondary school populations: an evaluation study

PDF

Meaningful access to the Common Core for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities

PDF

The arc of students with disabilities in California Community College through the lens of the disabled student programs and services coordinators

PDF

Advising strategies to support high graduation rates of transfer students

PDF

Disability disclosure: the lived experiences of medical school students with disabilities

PDF

Key stakeholders' role in implementing special education inclusion program in an urban high school: leadership and school culture

PDF

Faculty perceptions, experiences, and outcomes implementing universal design in higher education

PDF

Self-perceptions of student identity in community college students with disabilities

PDF

Nothing without us: understanding the belongingness of students with disabilities

PDF

A case study about the implied and perceived messages sent by one teacher through instruction for academic and behavioral expectations of students

PDF

Investigating how general education middle school teachers support the social inclusion of students with special needs

Asset Metadata

Creator Brutus, Bathsheba (author)

Core Title The influence of educational policies on high school students with disabilities

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/30/2016

Defense Date 03/30/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag educational policy,high school students with disabilities,idea,No Child Left Behind,OAI-PMH Harvest,SELPA,students with disabilities

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Pensavalle, Margo (committee chair), Gallagher, Raymond (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email bbrutus@usc.edu,educator2016@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-257794

Unique identifier UC11280591

Identifier etd-BrutusBath-4482.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-257794 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BrutusBath-4482.pdf

Dmrecord 257794

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Brutus, Bathsheba

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA