University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A phenomenological study examining experiences of families of students with disabilities in Georgia public schools during the COVID-19 pandemic and looking forward

(USC Thesis Other)

A phenomenological study examining experiences of families of students with disabilities in Georgia public schools during the COVID-19 pandemic and looking forward

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
A Phenomenological Study Examining Experiences of Families of Students With
Disabilities in Georgia Public Schools During the COVID-19 Pandemic
and Looking Forward

Ami Abreu

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2023

© Copyright by Ami Abreu 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Ami Abreu certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Tracy Tambascia
Larry Picus
Cathy Krop, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
The focus of this exploratory study was to examine the experiences of students with disabilities
and their families being serviced through public schools in the state of Georgia and to better
understand parent perceptions of special education services pre-pandemic, during, and as schools
emerge from the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study also explored how parents,
schools and districts can best work together to provide equitable learning experiences to students
with disabilities in the future. This is analyzed through Bronfenbrenner’s human ecology model.
By using this framework, this study intended to create a better understanding of the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on each family with a child with a disability and the effects on every level
of the Human Ecology model. This was a mixed-methods study with qualitative (parent
interviews and open-ended survey questions), and quantitative (Likert scale parent survey
questions). The themes that emerged from the data collection were from an analysis, synthesis
and triangulation of the interviews and surveys. Guided by the research questions, eight findings
emerged from survey and interview data: 1) responsibility of student learning falling on parent;
2) cancellation of school events affecting connection to community; 3) parental discontent with
school administration/leadership 4)satisfaction with teachers/case managers; 5) parental approval
with return to in-person classes; 6) inclusion, equal opportunity, appropriate services and
differentiation in the least restrictive environment; 7) opposition to school closures; and 8)
stakeholder collaboration through transparency and communication. The recommendations for
practice were based on the eight identified findings and how parents, teachers, schools, and
districts can move forward through innovation and communication such as creating legislation
that support recovery, and collaboration with stakeholder groups when designing legislation.
Other recommendations included finding innovative ways that that parents of students with

v
disabilities can feel more connected to the school community, and promoting training in special
education best practices, implementation and laws for school administration and leadership.

Keywords: special education, COVID-19 pandemic, educational equity, students with
disabilities, public school, Georgia

vi
Dedication
To my daughters, who inspire me to be the best I can be. Also, to all my students, past, present,
and future.

vii
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation committee chair, Dr.
Cathy Krop for dedicating her time and expertise to this dissertation. Whenever I felt lost, you
carefully and lovingly guided me toward new light. Your support has been invaluable, and I am
so grateful. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the guidance provided by my committee,
Dr. Tracy Tambascia and Dr. Larry Picus. Your feedback shaped my dissertation to what it is
today, thank you all.
Most importantly I would like to acknowledge my family whose support gives me the
strength to pursue new heights. Much gratitude to my mother, Dr. Maria Pozo-Humphreys, who
would never forget to check in on my progress and provide a few words of affirmation. Thank
you for paving the way. To my dad, Lee Humphreys, for always believing in me and celebrating
all my accomplishment, big or small. Both of my parents helped me recognize the strength I have
within to accomplish important and substantial things. Thank you to my amazing sister, Mia
Humphreys Pozo, who has always been my sounding board and my number one confidant,
throughout this experience and in life. To my two incredible daughters, Mia Valentina and Gia
Daniella, everything I do is for you. Lastly, to my husband, Gibbar Abreu. It is with deep
appreciation that I recognize all the sacrifices you have made in these last few years to support
me along this academic journey. Your support means the world to me. I love you all.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... vii
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ........................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................. 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 5
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 5
Organizational Context ........................................................................................................ 7
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ..................................................... 8
Organization of the Dissertation .......................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ......................................................................................... 11
Students with Disabilities in the United States .................................................................. 11
Special Education Process ................................................................................................. 13
Disproportionate Misidentification of BIPOC .................................................................. 16
Trends and Numbers of Students with Disabilities in the United States ........................... 19
Trends and Numbers by Race ............................................................................................ 24
Equitable Education for Students with Disabilities ........................................................... 26
The Family Experience and Best Practices ....................................................................... 33
Theoretical Frameworks .................................................................................................... 38

ix
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 43
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 44
Organization Overview ..................................................................................................... 45
Population and Sample ...................................................................................................... 46
Survey and Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale for Parents .................................. 46
Instrumentation .................................................................................................................. 47
Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 49
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 50
Trustworthiness & Ethics .................................................................................................. 50
Role of Researcher ............................................................................................................ 51
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 53
Chapter Four: Presentation of Data and Findings ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Overview of Study Participants ......................................................................................... 56
Results and Findings for Research Question 1 .................................................................. 62
Results and Findings for Research Question 2 .................................................................. 70
Results and Findings for Research Question 3 .................................................................. 74
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 82
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 88
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 90
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 100
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 102
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 102
References ................................................................................................................................... 105

x
Appendix A: Parent Survey ......................................................................................................... 111
Appendix B: Interview Questions for Parents ............................................................................. 114
Appendix C: Parent Recruitment Letter for Survey .................................................................... 115

xi
List of Tables

Table 1: Research Questions and Instrument Alignment .............................................................. 56
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Survey Participants (n = 27) ..................................................... 59
Table 3: Interview participants (n = 2) .......................................................................................... 62
Table 4: Survey Questions 2, 3, 6, 7 Frequency Table .................................................................. 63
Table 5: Survey Questions 4, 5, 8 Frequency Table ...................................................................... 71
Table 6: Survey Questions 9 Frequency Table .............................................................................. 74
Table 7: Research Questions and Theme Alignment .................................................................... 83
Table 8: Table of Summary: Recommendations and Findings Alignment ................................... 91

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Percentage Distribution of Students Ages 3–21 Served Under the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act by Disability Type in the United States of America: School Year
2019–20 ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2: Growth in Students with Disabilities by State ............................................................... 21
Figure 3: Children 3 to 21 Served Under IDEA by Type of Disability ........................................ 23
Figure 4: Students With Disabilities Who Spend More Than 80 Percent of Their Day in
General Education Classrooms ...................................................................................................... 25
Figure 5: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory Framework ........................................... 39
Figure 6: Child With Disability Serviced Through Georgia Public School in
Bronfenbrenner’s Human Ecology Diagram ................................................................................. 42
Figure 7: Survey Participants by District ...................................................................................... 58
Figure 8: Word Cloud Created with Parent Answers to Survey Question 1: How would you
define an equitable learning experience for your child? ................................................................ 76
Figure 9: Word Cloud Created with Parent Answers to Survey Question 10 77
Figure 10 Child With Disability Serviced Through Georgia Public School in
Bronfenbrenner’s Human Ecology Diagram ................................................................................. 85

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
The number of students identified with a disability and receiving special education and
related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the United
States of America is growing and has increased in most states from 2000 to 2017 (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2020). In the state of Georgia, there has been an increase of 25%
of students aged 3–21 being served under IDEA, rising to 204,004 students being served, during
this time period (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). As of October 2021, that
number had grown to 224,052 students with disabilities, age 3-21, being serviced by Georgia
public schools (DADoE). As of 2022, there are 181 school districts in Georgia, with over 2,200
schools that employ over 114,800 teachers who service approximately 1.6 million students
(Georgia Department of Education). Over 160,000 of these children have individualized
education programs (IEPs) for students with disabilities. The focus of this exploratory study was
to examine the experiences of students with disabilities and their families being serviced through
public schools in the state of Georgia and to better understand parent perceptions of special
education services pre-pandemic, during, and as schools emerge from the height of the COVID-
19 pandemic. Lastly, the study explored how parents, schools and districts can best work
together to provide equitable learning experiences to students with disabilities in the future.
Background of the Problem
Students with disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable, not just because of their
possible underlying health conditions but because of the social circumstances that they are more
likely to experience. They are more likely to be from socioeconomically disadvantaged
backgrounds, more commonly of minority race, and to have multiple intersecting identities that
are associated with inequities (Hammond, 2014). The cultural stigma of disability engrained in
2

society leads to discrimination, and these stigmas and biases affect individuals with disabilities
and their families. Stigmatization experienced by individuals with disabilities leads to being
excluded from educational, health, social and livelihood opportunities, and other public services,
and full participation in all aspects of society, including decision-making (Lalvani, 2015).
Implicit bias, or the attitudes or stereotypes that affect one’s understanding, actions, and
decisions in an unconscious manner, also plays a significant role in discipline and what is
perceived as behavioral infractions in the school setting. Nationwide, students with disabilities
are more than twice as likely to be suspended as those without disabilities (NCLD, 2021). This
loss of instructional time increases the risk of academic failure and school aversion. This data
suggests that the implicit bias held by school personnel and administration frames their
perception of the behaviors of students with disabilities as a behavior infraction and discipline
issue, as opposed to a result of their disability or condition (NCLD, 2021).
Research regarding Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) students is
conflicting as some studies suggest that students of color are over-identified for special needs,
while others show they are under-identified, but either way this misidentification can limit their
achievement in school and well beyond (Innovate Public Schools, 2018). Usually, the
identification process for students in special education begins with a subjective recommendation
from a teacher that a student be evaluated. While a teacher and school staff’s recommendation
can be a powerful tool to identify when students need specialized support, it is also charged with
human error, and oftentimes bias, including racial bias that affects this process (Innovate Public
Schools, 2018). This subjectivity in the identification and eligibility process can lead to both
over- and under-identification of students. Certain students are disproportionately over-identified
for certain disability types. For example, 2.63% of all Black students, nationally, are identified
3

with an intellectual disability (Innovate Public Schools, 2018). Though this may not be a large
percentage, it is almost two and half times the rate for White students. While 17% of school-age
children are Black, they represent 33% of students identified as having an intellectual disability
(Innovate Public Schools, 2018).
At the same time, research suggests that under-identification is also a problem. Another
study compared Black and Latinx students with White students at similar levels of achievement
and with similar risk factors, such as low family education, low-income and low birth weight
(Morgan & Farkas, 2015). In the analysis, the disproportionality is actually reversed, finding that
Black and Latinx students were less likely to be identified for special education services. Black
students were 58% less likely to be diagnosed for learning disabilities and Latinx students were
29% less likely (Morgan & Farkas, 2015). In both cases, schools deprived BIPOC student of the
services they needed.
Overdiagnosis can also occur because of cultural differences between students of color
and teachers, school psychologists and support staff who are overwhelmingly White. While
BIPOC students make up the majority of all students enrolled in schools across the country, the
teaching workforce remains 80% White (The State of Racial Diversity in The Educator
Workforce, 2016). Certain cultural behavior common in BIPOC households can be
misunderstood by White teachers and support staff, making it more likely that a student of color
be misdiagnosed and/or given the wrong type of support. An incorrect diagnosis can limit a child
to lowered expectations, deprive them of services and supports they need and have long-term
negative effects that persists beyond childhood. The school to prison pipeline already
disproportionately affects students with disabilities and even more intensely targets BIPOC
students with disabilities (Innovate Public Schools, 2018). Thus, racial bias can affect disability
4

diagnoses in opposite ways since both trends can happen at the same time and negatively affect
students.
Further, data have shown that students with disabilities of certain racial and ethnic
backgrounds are more likely to be taught in more restrictive environments, where they miss out
on experiences with their general education peers and are denied rigorous learning opportunities.
While 55% of White students with disabilities spend more than 80% of their school day in a
general education classroom, only a third of Black students with disabilities spend that much
time in a general education classroom (National Education Association, 2007). Latinx and
American Indian students with disabilities are also more likely to be taught in separate
classrooms, compared to their White counterparts (National Education Association, 2007).
The COVID-19 pandemic, and the move to digital learning and virtual delivery of
services, has disproportionately impacted students with disabilities (Houtrow et al., 2020). Due
to the pandemic and the closure of school buildings, these individuals have shifted from
spending 8 hours a day in school with their network and team of providers, to being at home with
their family the entire day. Children with disabilities, who may already have limited social
networks, have been separated from school-based caregivers, educators and therapists, depriving
them of critical support and disrupting their care and education (Houtrow et al., 2020). Given the
rapid closing of school, fulfilling these responsibilities has been a challenge, including the
delivery of services such as speech and language therapy, physical therapy, and occupational
therapy, among others. Also, the collection of IEP data for progress monitoring (which is a major
portion of IDEA) has also been a challenge for teachers (Houtrow et al., 2020). The rising
numbers of students, and BIPOC students in particular, being served under IDEA and the recent
5

pandemic affecting services to these students call for further examining the current experiences
of students with disabilities and their families being serviced.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The focus of this exploratory study was to examine the experiences of families of
students with disabilities being serviced through public schools in the state of Georgia and to
better understand parent perceptions of special education services pre-pandemic, during, and as
schools emerge from the height of the pandemic. Lastly, the study explored how parents, schools
and districts can best work together to provide equitable learning experiences to students with
disabilities in the future.
As such, the following research questions guided this study:
1. How do parents of students receiving special education services in Georgia public
schools perceive their children as having received an equitable learning experience
during the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. How do parents of students receiving special education services in Georgia public
schools perceive their learning experience as schools move beyond the COVID-19
pandemic?
3. What do parents of students receiving special education services believe that the
community (parents, teachers, school leadership, and school district) can do together
to provide equitable learning experiences?
Importance of the Study
The number of students identified with a disability and receiving special education and
related services has grown significantly over time across the United States. Findings from this
study may support the work of school leaders seeking to improve equity for all students with
6

disabilities, including should schools need to be closed again for an extensive period of time in
the future. The number of students served under IDEA has increased in most states from 2000 to
2017. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, during 2015–2017,
approximately one in six children, or 17.8% of children aged 3 to 17, were affected by one or
more disabilities impacting their physical, language, learning, and/or behaviors, which is an
increase from 16.2% in 2009–2011 (Zablotsky et al., 2019).
Research regarding students of color in special education is conflicting as some studies
suggest that students of color are over-identified for special needs while others show they are
under-identified. Both over- and under-identification can limit student achievement in school and
well beyond (Innovate Public Schools, 2018). The students who are misdiagnosed are usually
those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, more commonly of minority race,
and those who have multiple intersecting identities that are associated with inequities (Innovate
Public Schools, 2018). An incorrect diagnosis can limit a child to lowered expectations, deprive
them of services and supports they need and have long-term negative effects that persist beyond
childhood. The school to prison pipeline already disproportionately affects students with
disabilities and even more intensely targets students of color with disabilities (Innovate Public
Schools, 2018).
Certain students are disproportionately over-identified for certain disability types. For
example, in the 2015-16 school year, the percentage of students served under the IDEA was
highest for those who were American Indian/Alaska Native (17 %), followed by those who were
Black (16 %), White (14 %), of two or more races (13 %), Hispanic and Pacific Islander (12 %
each), and Asian (7 %). (National Center for Educational Statistics). While 14% of school-age
children are Black, they represent 37% of students identified as having a specific learning
7

disability (National Center for Educational Statistics). At the same time, research suggests that
under-identification is also a problem. Morgan and Farkas (2015) compared Black and Latinx
students with White students at similar levels of achievement and with similar risk factors, and in
the analysis the disproportionality is actually reversed, finding that Black and Latinx students
were less likely to be identified for special education services. Black students were 58% less
likely to be diagnosed for learning disabilities and Latinx students were 29% less likely to be
diagnosed (Morgan & Farkas, 2015). In both cases, racial bias affected disability diagnosis and
schools deprived students of color of the services they needed.
If equitable learning experiences for students with disabilities is not addressed, the
dropout rate for these students which is 18.1%, nearly three times the rate of all students at 6.5%,
may continue to rise (NCLD, 2017). If equitable learning experiences for students with
disabilities is addressed, there is the potential for these statistics to be turned around and
individuals with disabilities to experience less structural factors impeding their potential.
Organizational Context
As of 2022, there were 181 school districts in the state Georgia, with over 2,200 schools
that employed over 114,800 teachers servicing approximately 1.6 million students (GADoE). In
Georgia, from 2000 to 2017, there was an increase of 25% of students aged 3–21 being served
under IDEA, rising to 204,004 students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). As of
October 2021, that number had grown to 224,052 students with disabilities, age 3-21, being
serviced by Georgia public schools (DADoE). Further, 78,315 children were identified in that
same year with specific learning disabilities (SLD) in Georgia, where they accounted for the
largest (34.95%) of the 13 disability categories covered under special education law (National
Center for Learning Disabilities). The second largest category was other health impairments
8

(OHI) representing 16% of children serviced under IDEA in Georgia. Children are often
classified under the category of OHI when attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the
primary reason they qualify for special education. In Georgia, students identified with SLD or
OHI accounted for 59.4% of students with disabilities who received out-of-school suspensions in
2014–2015 (NCLD)
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study researched the experiences of families of students with disabilities in Georgia
public schools analyzed through Bronfenbrenner’s human ecology model (1996). By using this
framework, this study intended to create a better understanding of the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on each family with a child with a disability and the effects on every level.
Considering the COVID-19 pandemic as a sociohistorical event provides insights into how the
effects have seeped into every layer of a child’s life and how this event had a direct and indirect
impact on a child’s life. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is used as a lens to view the
child with a disability and their family in a complex system of relationships affected by multiple
levels of the surrounding environment, from immediate settings of family and school to broad
cultural values, laws, and customs. According to Bronfenbrenner’s model, the school, the
district, and leadership all represent different concentric circles surrounding the child and their
family. The five systems are interrelated and the influence of one system on a child’s
development depends on its relationship with the others. Therefore, to fully understand a child's
development, one must look not only at the child and their immediate environment, but also at
the interactions found between the other systems as well.
By using this framework and interviewing and surveying parents as an essential
stakeholder group, this study sought to understand of how society categorizes and stigmatizes
9

disability by unpacking and dismantling the unconscious bias that perpetuates norming. The
layers of Bronfenbrenner’s system guided the research questions and data collection instruments
for this study.
Bronfenbrenner developed the ecological systems theory based on the dynamic
interactions that the environments have on the developing child. Bronfenbrenner suggested that
the environment of the child is a nested arrangement of structures, each contained within the
next. He divided the child’s environment into five different systems: the microsystem, the
mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the chronosystem, organizing them in order
of how much of an impact they have on a child. The microsystem is the most influential level of
the ecological systems theory. This is the most immediate environmental settings containing the
developing child, such as family and school. Since the five systems are interrelated, the influence
of one system on a child’s development depends on its relationship with the others and therefore,
to fully understand a child's development, one must look not only at the child and their
immediate environment, but also at the interactions found in environment as well.
Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory has broad implications for educational practice.
This was a mixed-methods study with interpretivism and constructivist epistemologies.
The methodology used was qualitative (parent interviews and open-ended survey questions), and
quantitative (Likert scale parent survey questions). The themes that emerged from the data
collection were from an analysis, synthesis and triangulation of the interviews and surveys.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One shared the focus of the
study, the research questions, a brief description of Georgia public schools, and an overview of
the theoretical framework and methodology. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature
10

and Bronfenbrenner’s framework used to frame the study. Chapter Three describes the
methodology used in the data collection through the interviews and survey, and the process of
analysis. Chapter Four is a narrative of the data and results assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five
provides recommendations based on the findings uncovered through the research, and the
literature.

11

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Chapter Two reviews the current literature surrounding equitable education for students
with disabilities in the United States, specifically Georgia, and the barriers, including the societal
stigma and biases that influence special education decisions, that directly or indirectly affect
individuals with disabilities and their families. The literature reviewed in this study examines the
identification process and misidentification of students, the debate surrounding what equitable
education should look like, current trends in students with disabilities, the evolving roles of
families with a child with a disability, as well as reviews best practices for promoting educational
equity among all students. The framework of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is used
as a lens to view the child with a disability and their development as a complex system of
relationships affected by multiple levels of the surrounding environment, from immediate
settings of family and school to broad cultural values, laws, and customs. In addition to
Bronfenbrenner, the theoretical approaches of critical disability theory and ableism allow for the
understanding of the complexity of disability and how institutions or societies “disable” people
systemically and socially while navigating a system designed for their exclusion.
Students with Disabilities in the United States
Identification of Students With Disabilities
How a child is identified as having a disability is a multi-step process involving various
parties. The IDEA requires public schools to provide special education and related services to
eligible students (Chapman, 2015), but not every child who struggles in school qualifies or is
even identified. The process of identifying students with disabilities is essential in determining
which students among the general population are entitled to unique and specific legal and
educational rights, as well as access to extra resources and services. By identifying students in
specific categories of disability, teachers and support staff can design an IEP specifically for the
12

student that will best meet their educational needs and place them in the most appropriate setting
allowing them to receive the necessary services.
To be covered under IDEA, a child’s performance must be “adversely affected” by a
disability in one of the 13 categories: specific learning disability, other health impairment
(including ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, emotional disturbance, speech or language
impairment, visual impairment, deafness, hearing impairment, deaf-blindness, orthopedic
impairment, intellectual disability, traumatic brain injury, or multiple disabilities (Chapman,
2015). It is important to note that some students have impairments but do not need special
education and related services. The most common category of children identified and served by
the public schools in the United States is SLD. In 2019, 33% of students who qualified for
special education did so under this category (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). The
umbrella term “SLD” covers a specific group of learning challenges that affect a child’s ability
to read, write, listen, speak, reason, or do mathematical computations. Common disabilities in
this category include dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, auditory processing disorder, language
processing disorder, nonverbal learning disability, and visual perceptual/visual motor deficit.
Figure 1 shows the varying types of disabilities by percentage that students aged 3–21 have been
diagnosed with in the United States and serviced under IDEA in the 2019–20 school year.
Specific learning disability is the most prevalent, followed by speech or language impairment,
other health impairment such as ADHD, autism, developmental delay, intellectual disability,
emotional disturbance, multiple disabilities, hearing impairment, and lastly orthopedic
impairment. Children are often classified under the category of OHI when ADHD is the primary
reason they qualify for special education. OHI can cover other health conditions but is a rough
proxy for students receiving special education who have ADHD.
13

Figure 1
Percentage Distribution of Students Ages 3–21 Served Under the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act by Disability Type in the United States of America: School Year 2019–20

Note. From Students With Disabilities by the National Center for Education Statistics, 2020.
(https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp). In the public domain.

Special Education Process
The identification, evaluation, eligibility meeting, and IEP meeting are essential steps in
the special education process for students with disabilities. IEPs are an essential part of IDEA,
the purpose of which is to make a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) available to
every child with a disability. "Appropriate" refers to a personalized education program that is
reasonably designed and calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit and is
procedurally compliant with the procedures of IDEA (Chapman, 2015).
First in the multi-step special education process is that the child is identified as possibly
needing special education and related services, typically through one of two ways. The first way
14

a child can be identified is through Child Find, which is a component of IDEA that requires
states and local education agencies to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities
residing in the state. The state must do this for all children with disabilities, birth to age 21, who
are not in school or who, if in school, are not receiving services but need early intervention,
special education, or related services. To do so, states conduct Child Find activities which
include publishing Child Find notices in local newspapers, distributing notices to daycares,
preschools and pediatric offices, and generally promoting awareness of their services in the
community. If a child is identified through Child Find, parents will be asked if the Child Find
system can evaluate their child, but parents can also initiate this process by calling the Child Find
system and requesting an evaluation. The second most common way a child is identified is
through referral or request for evaluation, where a school professional requests that a child be
assessed to determine if they have a disability. Parents may also contact the child's teacher or
other school personnel to ask that their child be evaluated. Parental consent is always needed
before the child is evaluated and the evaluation must be completed within a reasonable time after
the parent gives consent (Chapman, 2015).
Next, the child is evaluated to assess all areas related to the child's suspected disability.
The evaluation results are used to determine the child's eligibility for special education and
related services and to make decisions about an appropriate educational program for the child. If
the parent(s) disagree with the evaluation, they have the right to request an Independent
Educational Evaluation (IEE) for their child and can ask that the school system pay for this IEE.
In the next step of the special education process, a group of qualified professionals and
the parents look at the child's evaluation results and decide together if the child meets the criteria
of having a disability as defined by IDEA. School services for children with disabilities are
15

developed through an individualized planning process involving parents, educators, and other
professionals. For infants and toddlers this process results in an Individualized Family Service
Plan and for children aged 3–21 that process results in an IEP (Innovate Public Schools, 2018).
Parents may ask for a hearing to challenge the eligibility decision. If the child is found to have a
disability, as defined by IDEA, they are eligible for special education and related services. After
a child is determined eligible, the school system has 30 calendar days to schedule and conduct
the IEP meeting in which the IEP team meets to write an IEP for the child (Chapman, 2015).
At the meeting, the IEP team discusses the child's present levels of performance which
includes their results of the evaluation, strengths and weaknesses, and how this disability may
impact the child's education. The IEP team creates the individualized education program and
outlines the services that will be provided and the delivery methods. Parents and the student
(when appropriate) are part of the IEP team and parents must give consent before the school
system may provide special education and related services to the child. Parents are given a copy
of the IEP and the child begins to receive services as soon as possible after the meeting. The
teacher(s) executes the IEP and a progress report is sent to parents periodically to inform them of
how their child is progressing toward their goals and objectives.
Once a student is eligible for special education, a decision is made about the instruction
and support they will receive, often referred to as a student’s “placement.” IDEA is premised on
the principle that students must be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE), which
means that students with disabilities should be educated in general education and among their
non-disabled peers to the greatest extent possible and appropriate (Innovate Public Schools,
2018). If the parent does not agree with the IEP and placement, they may discuss their concerns
with other members of the IEP team, but if they do not come to a consensus, the school may
16

offer mediation. If the school does not offer it, parents may file a complaint with the state
education agency and may request a due process hearing, at which time mediation must be made
available (Chapman, 2015).
It is important to note that not every student who is struggling has a disability, and not
every student who has a disability may look like they are struggling. As a result, some schools
wait to test students for a learning disability after they have had months or even years of failing
grades or until a student’s annual standardized test shows they are behind grade-level. IDEA
states that school districts are responsible for seeking out students who “may” need to be
assessed, regardless of whether they ultimately qualify for special education or not. By allowing
students to fail before evaluating them for special education services means the students had to
wait far too long to get the support they needed and by the time they are identified it is often too
late to catch up. Teachers and administrators can then misinterpret the students’ academic
struggle as a sign of a disability when the student could simply be in need of academic
intervention or accommodations (Innovate Public Schools, 2018).
Disproportionate Misidentification of BIPOC
Controversy and debate have surrounded issues of identification. By identifying and
labeling a child, they will receive extra services that they would not have been able to receive
otherwise, but this is also a double-edged sword. Some students are misdiagnosed, usually those
that are from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, more commonly of minority race,
and those that have multiple intersecting identities that are associated with inequities (Innovate
Public Schools, 2018). Students with disabilities may experience multiple challenges, but for
BIPOC students with disabilities, racial bias and human judgment can make it even more
17

difficult to get the support they need to succeed or can be erroneously labeled as having a
disability they do not actually have (Hammond, 2014).
Research regarding students of color is conflicting as some studies suggest that students
of color are over-identified for special needs, while others show they are under-identified, but
either way this misidentification can limit their achievement in school and well beyond (Innovate
Public Schools, 2018). Being identified for special education services is a pivotal moment in the
trajectory of a student’s educational career and life and is a decision that can have a positive or a
negative effect on them. If identified appropriately, they can receive the services and
opportunities needed to be successful academically and professionally, something that will affect
their lives positively. If misdiagnosed and erroneously labeled, this can pigeonhole students into
a category they do not belong, locking them into segregated learning environments or depriving
them of the appropriate services and support they actually need (Hammond, 2014).
Some disabilities are easily diagnosed by doctors within the first few years of a child’s
life (i.e., blindness, deafness, orthopedic impairment), but other disabilities are not as easily
noticeable and are not identified until well into the child’s schooling years. The special education
process that decides whether a student should receive special education services relies heavily on
human judgment. Usually, the identification process begins with a subjective recommendation
from a teacher that a student be evaluated. Though assessment tests provide objective data, the
interpretation of the results by district and school staff can also often be subjective. While a
teacher and school staff’s recommendation can be a powerful tool to identify when students need
specialized support, it is also charged with human error, and oftentimes bias, including racial
bias that affects this process (Innovate Public Schools, 2018).
18

This subjectivity in the identification and eligibility process can lead to both over- and
under-identification of students. Certain students are disproportionately over-identified for
certain disability types. For example, 2.63% of all Black students, nationally, are identified with
an intellectual disability (National Research Council, 2002). Though this may not be a large
number, it is almost two and half times the rate for White students. While 17% of school-age
children are Black, they represent 33% of students identified as having an intellectual disability
(Innovate Public Schools, 2018). At the same time, research suggests that under-identification is
also a problem. Another study compared Black and Latinx students with White students at
similar levels of achievement and with similar risk factors, such as low family education, low-
income and low birth weight (Morgan & Farkas, 2015). In the analysis, the disproportionality is
actually reversed, finding that Black and Latinx students were less likely to be identified for
special education services. Black students were 58% less likely to be diagnosed for learning
disabilities and Latinx students were 29% less likely (Morgan & Farkas, 2015). In both cases,
schools deprived students of color of the services they needed.
At times, a higher rate of disability diagnoses for students of color is not over-
identification, but rather the result of environmental circumstances. BIPOC families
disproportionately face worse environmental conditions and are more likely to be born
prematurely which can play a part in the development of a disability in a child (Morgan &
Farkas, 2015). But again, over- and under-identification of students of color with disabilities is
more likely caused by biases and human judgment. Teachers are less likely to believe in a
student of color’s ability to succeed than a White student’s ability to succeed, a problem known
as the “belief gap” (Noonan, 2015). If teachers already have low expectations for their BIPOC
students, they could possibly ignore signs of a learning disability, leading to under-diagnosis.
19

At the same time, overdiagnosis can occur because of cultural differences between
students of color and teachers, school psychologists and support staff who are overwhelmingly
White. While BIPOC students make up the majority of all students enrolled in schools across the
country, the teaching workforce remains 80% White (The State of Racial Diversity in The
Educator Workforce, 2016). Certain cultural behavior common in BIPOC households can be
misunderstood by White teachers and support staff, making it more likely that a student of color
be misdiagnosed and/or given the wrong type of support. An incorrect diagnosis can limit a child
to lowered expectations, deprive them of services and supports they need and have long-term
negative effects that persists beyond childhood. The school to prison pipeline already
disproportionately affects students with disabilities and even more intensely targets students of
color with disabilities (Innovate Public Schools, 2018). More than half, 55%, of young adults
with learning disabilities have been involved with the justice system (NCLD, 2017). Thus, racial
bias can affect disability diagnoses in opposite ways since both trends can happen at the same
time and negatively affect students.
Trends and Numbers of Students with Disabilities in the United States
Trends and Numbers Across All Students in the United States
Across the United States, the number of students identified with a disability and receiving
special education and related services has grown over time. As shown in Figure 2, the number of
students served under IDEA has increased in most states from 2000 to 2017. For example, in
Georgia there has been an increase of 25% of students aged 3–21 being served under IDEA from
2001–2018 (NCES, 2020). Research points to a number of possible reasons for this rise,
including an increase in health care access such as the Affordable Care Act which widened
access to care, especially among minority and lower-income communities, allowing children
20

who were underserved medically to now gaining access to resources, including screenings and
referrals for clinical evaluations (Voelker, 2014). This growth is also due to more efficient tools
for screening and diagnosis, more attention being placed on data collection and identifying red
flags in teacher preparation programs, and possibly even genetic or environmental influences.
Also, the parameters or qualifiers for diagnosis have changed and are more inclusive allowing
for more students to be identified and diagnosed (Voelker, 2014).
Increased public awareness and decreased stigma due to more accurate information being
readily available for both parents and teachers has also contributed to the rise of children being
diagnosed, as well doctors themselves are better trained to recognize symptoms and diagnose
conditions than they were 20 years ago. Research also suggests that there may be an
overdiagnosis of ADHD in the United States (Voelker, 2014). This research concerning
overdiagnosis can also be generalized to other disabilities or disorders, such as autism spectrum
disorder which has experienced an increased in incidents in the United States as well. Since there
is no simple blood test or brain scan to detect many disabilities or disorders, a proper diagnosis
requires a comprehensive evaluation using a number of collaborative sources, including
interviews with both the child and the parent (and potentially the teacher), symptom rating
scales, observation by a doctor, and cognitive or academic assessments. Performing a valid
diagnostic is time consuming and it is possible that clinicians may make a diagnosis too quickly
or based on incomplete information. Many non-specialists, pediatricians for kids and general
practitioners for adults, are confronted with patients seeking a quick diagnosis. It should also be
noted that the data available on diagnoses could contain some "false positives" due to the way it
was conducted, which relied solely on parent interviews rather than medical records or clinical
evaluations (Voelker, 2014).
21

Figure 2
Growth in Students with Disabilities by State

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, recent information suggests
that approximately one in six children, or about 17% of children aged 3 to 17, are affected by one
or more disabilities impacting their physical, language, learning, and/or behaviors (Zablotsky et
al., 2019). There has also been an increase in rates of neurological developmental disabilities,
doubling from 19 cases in 1,000 to 36 cases in 1,000 over a 10-year span. Research suggests that
numbers are up because there is now a clearer understanding of neurological developmental
disabilities, including autism spectrum disorders, and a concise diagnosis in the fifth edition of
22

the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that allows parents, caregivers, and
professionals to identify a possible issue sooner, prompting them to get an official diagnosis.
According to the U.S Department of Education’s 41st Annual Report to Congress on the
Implementation of IDEA from 2019, more than 6.1 million students across the country ages 6 to
21, or 9.2% of all children, were served under IDEA in 2017 (the most recent year for which data
is available) which is an increase from 8.6% of children in 2008. Among students in special
education in 2017, the largest group, 38.2%, had a diagnosis of specific learning disability
followed by speech or language impairment, other health impairment, autism, and intellectual
disability. The report found that the percentage of students identified as having autism spectrum
disorder rose gradually between 2008 and 2017 across all age groups. Figure 3 shows the growth
in each disability category of IDEA from 1976 to 2018. The research is clear and supports that
more and more children are being identified with disabilities across the country, with the most
growth in SLD and autism.

23

Figure 3
Children 3 to 21 Served Under IDEA by Type of Disability

Note. From Digest of Education Statistics: 2019 by the National Center for Education Statistics,
2021. (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/ch_2.asp#top). In the public domain.

While the number of students with disabilities has grown over time, evidence suggests
that graduation rates among special education students are rising. Approximately 70% of
students with an IEP ages 14 to 21 who exited school did so with a regular diploma compared to
just 59% for the 2007–2008 school year (the U.S Department of Education). Also, the number of
students served under IDEA who dropped out-of-school declined from 24.6% to 17.1% over the
same period.
Nearly all students in special education spent some of their day in regular education
classrooms in 2017 and the majority spent at least 80% of their day there. The U.S. Department
of Education (2021) reported that the number of students spending less than 40% of the day in
mainstream environments declined as compared to a decade ago and about half of students with
24

intellectual disabilities or multiple disabilities fell into this category. Being educated in a separate
setting, or in a classroom specifically designed for students with disabilities, is only appropriate
for a small percentage of students. The Every Student Succeeds Act, the nation’s major federal
education law, recognizes that only 1% of the student population, or approximately 10% of
students with disabilities, should be held to alternate academic standards and receive an alternate
assessment based on those academic standards. All other students should be supported in
meeting grade-level standards in general education. In fact, the vast majority of students with
disabilities spend more than half of their day in general education (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2020).
Although these figures and trends show positive movements in special education, such as
more inclusion in the mainstream or general education classroom, higher graduations rates and
less dropouts for students with disabilities, they also show the increase of children being
identified and in need of specialized interventions, services, and accommodations to be
successful in school. Given this growing population of students being identified and serviced
under IDEA, it is more important than ever that schools understand these numbers by race to
ensure equitable education.
Trends and Numbers by Race
Data have shown that students with disabilities of certain racial and ethnic backgrounds
are more likely to be taught in more restrictive environments, where they miss out on
experiences with their general education peers and are denied rigorous learning opportunities. As
shown in Figure 4, while 55% of White students with disabilities spend more than 80% of their
school day in a general education classroom, only a third of Black students with disabilities
spend that much time in a general education classroom (National Education Association, 2007).
25

Latinx and American Indian students with disabilities are also more likely to be taught in
separate classrooms, compared to White students (National Education Association, 2007).

Figure 4
Students With Disabilities Who Spend More Than 80 Percent of Their Day in General Education
Classrooms

Note. From Truth in Labeling: Disproportionality in Special Education by National Education
Association, 2007. Copyright 2007 by National Education Association.

26

Placement decisions that segregate students only work to exacerbate achievement gaps,
as researchers have found that students in general education classrooms have better academic
and employment outcomes than students placed in separate spaces (Schifter et al., 2019). For
example, research on students in Massachusetts found that students with disabilities taught in
fully inclusive environments were five times more likely to graduate on time, compared to other
students with disabilities (Grindal et al., 2019). Another study found that after high school,
students with disabilities who were fully included in general education classrooms were 11
percentage points more likely to be employed (Grindal et al., 2019). Therefore, not only are
BIPOC students disproportionately over- and under-identified for special education and related
services, but they are also disproportionately placed in self-contained classrooms away from the
mainstream student population and out of general education classrooms.
Equitable Education for Students with Disabilities
What is Equitable Education?
Equitable education begins with the understanding that not all individuals start at the
same place and each student is given the services and accommodations needed to be successful,
based on their unique abilities and needs (Chapman, 2015). There is a consensus in the literature
that equitable education means giving students what they need, but there are opposing views on
how this should be put into action. Arguments have escalated in the last 30 years over whether
special education should retain a separate identity or be fused with general education such that it
has no separate mission, budget, or personnel. There are two strong and conflicting schools of
thought and bodies of research on what equitable education for students with disabilities should
look like. One camp generally believes that special education should remain “special” and
therefore placing students in classrooms where their specific and individualized learning needs
can be met by professionals trained in their specific disability (Kauffman et al., 2017). The other
27

camp supports inclusion in the mainstream classroom and curriculum as much as possible,
allowing these students to have equal access to grade-level curriculum, general education
teachers, and meaningful learning experiences. They believe that by not segregating these
students in separate classrooms, they will feel less stigmatized and be exposed to more rigorous
academic opportunities (Hulett, 2009). The relationship between general and special education
has a long history of controversy. General and special education evolved from different premises
(public education of the masses vs. education of an individual with special needs), with different
emphases in teacher preparation (learning to teach subject matter versus learning to teach
individual students) and different research bases to ground their educational practices.
Proponents of merging general and special education argue that such integration is
necessary to provide appropriate education for all students regardless of disability and without
stigma or discrimination. They believe that integration of the two systems would result in a more
flexible and responsive single system that will meet the needs of all students without isolating
any one population. According to thinking, all teachers can and should be prepared to teach all
students, including those with special needs. Opponents argue that special education will not
survive to serve the special needs of exceptional students if it loses its identity, its special budget
allocations, and its unique personnel requirements. They believe that it is neither feasible, nor
desirable, to prepare all teachers to teach all students; special training is required to teach
students who are educationally exceptional (Kauffman et al., 2017).
The very nature of special education involves the providing of something extra or
different to address the specific needs of students it serves. Many believe that general education
teachers are not necessarily equipped to meet the educational needs of students with disabilities
and/or general education teachers are not adequately prepared to deliver a special education to
28

the students with disabilities in their large and diverse classrooms while also teaching 25 other
students, therefore depriving the special education students the personalized attention they need
(Chapman, 2015). The premise of special education is that no child is exactly the same which is
what makes IDEA different from other civil rights legislation; it fights to have students with
disabilities treated differently, given more opportunity, more intensive instruction, more
individually tailored curriculum, and more carefully designed instruction (Kauffman et al.,
2017).
Historically the law’s intent was not to encourage and assist students with disabilities to
achieve their full potentials, but to simply give them equal and sufficient access to a FAPE.
Evidence suggests that many schools simply comply with paperwork requirements for students
with disabilities and provide cookie-cutter services which are not truly individualized (Hulett,
2009). Laws have been created to force schools to meet their obligation under IDEA, and offer
IEPs that are reasonably written to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the
students’ circumstances. With the Supreme Court’s unanimous 8–0, Endrew F. decision of 2017,
a new standard was established requiring schools to demonstrate meaningful progress and
appropriately ambitious goals for students with disabilities (Kauffman et al., 2017).
While general education has embraced “differentiated instruction” to accommodate a
diverse student body, special education is based on intensive, specially designed instruction to
meet an individual student’s specific needs (Kauffman et al., 2017). Local school boards or the
district dictate the curriculum for general education, while the IEP team dictates the curriculum
for a student with a disability (Kauffman et al., 2017). According to Hulett (2009), the IEP is the
most crucial document in special education provision and ensures the legal and educational
rights of every student serviced under IDEA. The quality of the IEP document is directly
29

correlated to the quality of the education and services being provided to a child. Without a
robust, thorough, personalized IEP that is uniquely crafted for a child based on their needs, it will
be difficult to truly create educational equity (Hulett, 2009).
Barriers to Equitable Education for Students with Disabilities
While there are many barriers to equitable education for students with disabilities, two
prominent ones are the society stigma associated with disability, and the unconscious bias that
perpetuates norming in special education decisions. Additionally, with the COVID-19 pandemic,
new barriers to equitable education have been experienced by the students and their families
alike.
Disability, Bias, and Societal Stigmas
Students with disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable, not just because of their
possible underlying health conditions but because of the social circumstances that they are more
likely to experience. They are more likely to be from socioeconomically disadvantaged
backgrounds, more commonly of minority race, and to have multiple intersecting identities that
are associated with inequities (Hammond, 2014). The cultural stigma of disability engrained in
our society leads to discrimination, and these stigmas and biases influence special education
funding decisions that affect individuals with disabilities and their families.
A study conducted with 60 students diagnosed with mild to moderate intellectual
disabilities in their senior year of high school reported experiencing stigmatizing treatment in
their local area of residence (Cooney et al., 2006). Of those 60 students, 28 attended an inclusive,
mainstream school and reported additional stigma at school. The types of stigmatizing behaviors
these children experienced ranged from being ridiculed by peers or teachers, to being ignored or
30

denied help when requested in school, to being called names by local residents and experiencing
physical violence at the hands of locals beyond school time.
Apart from the dangers of the stigmatization experienced by student with disabilities
outlined in the Cooney et al., study (2006), it can also lead to people with disabilities being
excluded from educational, health, social and livelihood opportunities, and other public services,
and full participation in all aspects of society, including decision-making (Lalvani, 2015). Social
stigmas can also be supporting stereotypes about individuals with a cognitive or physical
disability which can be found through blatant discrimination and violence, to more subtle
microaggressions in the educational setting. Although federal legislation (e.g., Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990) protects the inherent rights of individuals with disabilities, that
legislation cannot always protect them from subtle forms of discrimination.
A study including semi-structured interviews about disability and stigma was conducted
to create a student-centered discussion of disability knowledge and awareness of stigma
(Mueller, 2019). This study frames students as the experts on their own identity in contrast to the
stories being written about disability by the non-disabled and the focus on rehabilitation. The
findings were that all students interviewed were aware of the stigma of their disability label,
though each negotiated the stigma differently. The results of the study suggest that student-
centered discussions about disability are not only possible but essential in building understanding
of disability and stigmas and educational policies to mitigate the negative impacts of stigma.
Implicit bias, or the attitudes or stereotypes that affect one’s understanding, actions, and
decisions in an unconscious manner, also plays a significant role in discipline and what is
perceived as behavioral infractions in the school setting. Nationwide, students with disabilities
are more than twice as likely to be suspended as those without disabilities. This loss of
31

instructional time increases the risk of academic failure and school aversion. In Georgia, students
identified with SLD or OHI accounted for 59.4% of students with disabilities who received out-
of-school suspensions in 2014–2015 (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). This data suggests
that the implicit bias held by school personnel and administration frames their perception of the
behaviors of students with disabilities as a behavior infraction and discipline issue, as opposed to
a result of their disability or condition.
COVID 19 Pandemic
While the COVID-19 virus does not discriminate against groups of people, the social
structures and systems in place put some groups more at risk than others. This is true for people
with disabilities for varying reasons; because they often have poorer health outcomes from
underlying conditions, but also due to discrimination and social exclusion (Yates & Dickinson,
2021). In a survey on Australian children with disabilities and their families about the impacts of
the COVID-19 pandemic, respondents expressed that they faced a range of inequities prior to the
pandemic, but the pandemic has further exacerbated them. It was concluded from the study that
people with disabilities and their families are less safe within a pandemic context (Yates &
Dickinson, 2021).
The COVID-19 pandemic and the implication surrounding it has generated new forms of
discussions around what is equitable education for students with disabilities as the delivery of
education changed in such profound ways. The COVID-19 pandemic, and the move to digital
learning and virtual delivery of services, has disproportionately impacted students with
disabilities (Houtrow et al., 2020). Due to the pandemic and the closure of school buildings,
these individuals entire microsystem has shifted from 8 hours a day in school with their network
and team of providers to being at home with family the entire day. Children with disabilities,
who may already have limited social networks, have been separated from school-based
32

caregivers, educators and therapists, depriving them of critical support and disrupting their care
and education. These children also lost access to meals, in-person school-based nursing supports,
mental health counselors, and school-based health centers (Houtrow et al., 2020). Given the
rapid closing of school, fulfilling these responsibilities has been a challenge, including the
delivery of services such as speech and language therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy,
and Applied Behaviors Analysis therapy, among others. Also, the collection of IEP data for
progress monitoring (which is a major portion of IDEA) has also been a challenge for teachers
(Houtrow et al., 2020).
Families are not only advocates for their family member with disabilities, but they are
also their caretaker, medical provider, and educators. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these
roles have become even more essential than ever. One of the greatest challenges for families of
children with disabilities has been the loss of schooling and the supports provided by the
educational system (Yates & Dickinson, 2021). Going digital has created stress for these
families, layered upon financial and emotional distress. These concerns can be exacerbated when
access to technology is limited, a problem disproportionally experienced by families in poverty
(Brandenburg et al., 2020). Virtual learning is difficult, especially if the student is vision or
hearing impaired or lives in rural areas with limited to no access to the internet. Any lack of
access to education increases the learning gap between children with and without disabilities; a
gap that fosters socioeconomic inequity and isolation from society into adulthood (Brandenburg
et al., 2020).
Other issues for families of students with disabilities include the disruption of carefully
developed routines, disintegration of support networks, and parents being required to do a job
without training that even experienced teachers find challenging. During the COVID-19
33

pandemic, parents became responsible for in-person learning for their children. The majority of
students with disabilities have learning disabilities, for which special education teachers have
years of education and training to foster learning for these children. However, many parents are
and continue to be ill equipped for this role as they have no training or education in the
specialized learning plans used in school (Brandenburg et al., 2020). With this abrupt and
unanticipated transition from a usual parent-child relationship to a special education teacher-
student relationship, parents and their children with disabilities reported high levels of anxiety
and depressed moods (Brandenburg et al., 2020). These parents have also experienced a loss of
their general and community support networks, loss of support from education and therapy
specialists, and loss of routine. These losses compounded the stressors that these parents faced
prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many were overwhelmed by the increased demands on them
to provide for their children’s schooling, maintain a home routine, and continue their own work
responsibilities without opportunity for a break (Brandenburg et al., 2020).
The Family Experience and Best Practices
The Evolving Perception of Families of Students with Disabilities
Historically, perceptions of families of children with disabilities has been framed by the
medical model, which views disability as a biological deficit associated with assumptions of
grief, tragedy, and unmitigated hardship (Lalvani & Polvere, 2013). Research typically does not
acknowledge the sociocultural contexts in which the meaning of disability is embedded, or how
deficit-based discourses shape the experience of having a child with a disability, therefore the
perspectives of families of children with disabilities are usually reduced to statistical analyses or
narratives of negative outcomes. Acknowledging the sociocultural context in which the meaning
of disability is embedded allows for a lens to view the phenomenon of disability as a socially
34

constructed concept. The parents' experience of raising a child with a disability is best
understood in the context of the ways in which this experience is culturally interpreted, or the
meaning that parents attach to the birth or diagnosis of a child with a disability (Lalvani &
Polvere, 2013).
With the popularization of critical disability theory, grounded in the stance that multiple
realities exist, the voices of historically disenfranchised groups, included individuals with
disabilities, are more commonly being included in research (Lalvani & Polvere, 2013). Based on
the stance that individuals with disabilities have been denied full access to mainstream life and
have been subjected to discrimination and segregation, critical disability theory argues that
concepts of normality and disability are strongly influenced by those in positions of power and
control, such as members of the medical industry (Lalvani & Polvere, 2013). From a social
model perspective, critical disability theory conceptualizes disability as a sociocultural construct
as opposed to a biological reality. This allows for a shift in the perception and narrative of
families of children with disabilities from one of devastation and hardship, to one of possibility
and empowerment which can address issues with stigma, bias and access (Lalvani, 2015). This
shift in paradigm from the medical lens of defining disability to the sociocultural understanding
of disability has allowed for the creation of various parent advocacy groups and groups headed
by individuals with disabilities themselves (Wright & Taylor, 2014).
Best Practices for Equitable Education for Students with Disabilities
To support school districts’ efforts to improve educational equity, focusing on best
practices and priority areas of equity improvement is necessary. This section will outline the
importance of collaboration between schools and families, the role of leadership, and the
importance of establishing high standards for students with disabilities.
35

School/Parent Collaboration
Collaboration between the school and the parent in the special education decision-making
process is vital. It is imperative that the parents ensure that they are involved with and take an
active role as a member of the IEP team that determines a student's educational path (Chapman,
2015). Family-school partnerships are the way in which family members and schools engage in
intentional and reciprocal decision-making for the student’s benefit. Parents and guardians know
their children better than anyone else and have the most complete understanding of a child's
physical, social, developmental, and family history and this alone places the parent in a crucial
role on the IEP team.
Research suggests that when there is a partnership between family members of students
with disabilities and school personnel, the relationship can be either successful or unproductive
(Miller et al., 2019). Family-school relationships can positively affect a student’s attendance,
academic achievement, and the design of their educational plan. Contrarily, parents, particularly
those from marginalized backgrounds, have reported that school personnel will dismiss their
ideas and label them “difficult to work with” (Lalvani & Hale, 2015). It is common for families
of children with disabilities to feel that school personnel are reluctant to regard them as equal
partners when making educational decisions. Parents have also been labeled as being in denial
about their children's abilities and needs because of disagreements with school personnel about
educational placements (Lalvani, 2015). Best practices include honoring parents’ expertise on
their children and valuing them as partners in the decision-making process. This will assist in
creating and maintaining a positive family-school partnership with families of students with
disabilities and making the most beneficial and equitable decisions with the students’ wellbeing
in mind.
36

The Role of Administration
In special education, administrators must strive to keep up to date with all components of
special education including the varying laws, the multi‐faceted assessment process and the
placement of special education children in the continuum of services (Chapman, 2015). By
demonstrating an active interest in special education, principals can play an important role in the
authorization of resources and supports in the public school environment and should exercise
their full authority to ensure every child receives every resource necessary to be successful. A
principal can move a school from equality to equity by ensuring the proper services,
interventions and accommodations are available for each child.
Several studies have looked at how schools and their leaders can improve the
performance of all students, including students with disabilities. Common features of these
studies include the establishment of common, high expectations for all learners, and
collaboration, both on a small scale and large scale with stakeholders of the school (Crockett et
al., 2019). Also, ensuring that teachers are aligning the standards to instructional practices, as
this plays a role in improving instruction and ultimately student outcomes. The standards provide
the basis for establishing learning expectations and guide curricular and instructional decisions
(Crockett et al., 2019). But it is not enough for curriculum to be aligned to standards, it is also
important that students in special education have access to rigorous content. It is imperative that
leadership ensures that the students with disabilities who will need accessibility features and
accommodations to meaningfully access curriculum and instruction are provided with them and
the resources are available when needed.
According to Crockett et al. (2019), the characteristics of schools and districts where
students with disabilities achieve at higher levels is directly related to standards-based systems.
The practice of what is referred to as “institutionalized parallel play” in public schools or
37

dividing up students by their characteristics or eligibility for support services—for example,
special education, gifted—and therefore defining the curriculum and outcomes differently
depending on those characteristics needs to be stopped. Also, the practice of classroom educators
teaching what they believe should be taught and who should be taught is also an outdated
practice that leads to inequity. It takes leaders at all levels of public education to ensure that all
students are successful, but it takes principled leadership to ensure that no programmatic silos, no
power structures, and no closed classroom doors get in the way of student success (Crockett et
al., 2019).
Understanding theory and style is only one part of the responsibility of a special
education administrator. Knowledge of special education law, case law, and administrative rule,
in addition to the knowledge of the services and interventions that children with disabilities need
to be fully engaged in learning, is equally important in leadership skill development (Cline &
Bateman, 2019). It is also best practice for administrators to include special education workshops
and conferences as part of their annual professional development as special education is dynamic
and what is known will invariably change over time.
Establishing High Standards
Another best practice for equitable education for students with disabilities is for the
school’s stakeholders to maintain high standards and expectations for all students, including
those with disabilities. Having high expectations means believing students should always strive
to achieve their best when given the right supports and accommodations. The goal is to create a
classroom culture of hard work and self-belief. Special education is rooted in the cyclical process
of assess, intervene, instruct, and re-assess. For schools to truly provide equity in education, they
must engage in proactive, high-leverage, research-based best practices and avoid reactionary
practices that fall short of maximizing a student’s true learning capacity and experience
38

(Kauffman et al., 2017). By not having high expectations for a student due to their disability, a
teacher is depriving them of reaching their fullest potential which can have long-term negative
effects that persist beyond childhood (Innovate Public Schools, 2018). This is particularly
problematic for BIPOC students with disabilities as teachers are less likely to believe in a student
of color’s ability to succeed than a White student’s ability to succeed (Noonan, 2015).
Theoretical Frameworks
Two theoretical frameworks were used as lenses into this problem of practice,
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory and critical disability theory. These theories are
being employed because, while they are complementary, each also provides a unique lens, a
different way to view and understand the problem of practice.
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
Urie Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory views child development as a complex
system of relationships affected by multiple levels of the surrounding environment, from
immediate settings of family and school to broad cultural values, laws, and customs
(Bronfenbrenner, 1996). His work looked beyond individual development by taking into account
wider influencing factors and the context (or ecology) of development. Bronfenbrenner
recognized there are multiple aspects of a developing child’s life that interacts with and affects
the child. He proposed the ecological systems theory based on these dynamic interactions that
the environments have on the developing child. According to his theory, to study a child's
development one must look not only at the child and their immediate environment, but also at the
interaction of the larger environment. Bronfenbrenner divided the person's environment into five
different systems: the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the
chronosystem (figure 5). The microsystem is the most influential level of the ecological systems
theory. This is the most immediate environmental settings containing the developing child, such
39

as family, peers, and school. The mesosystem consists of interconnections between the
microsystems, for example between the family and teachers or between the child’s peers and the
family. The exosystem involves links between social settings that do not involve the child, for
example, a child's experience at school may be influenced by their teacher’s experiences at
home. The macrosystem describes the overarching culture, attitudes and ideologies that
influences the developing child, as well as the microsystems and mesosystems embedded in
those cultures. Lastly, the chronosystem consists of the pattern of environmental events and
transitions over time, as well as changing sociohistorical circumstances (Bronfenbrenner, 1996).

Figure 5
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory Framework

Note. From The ecology of human development experiments by nature and design by U.
Bronfenbrenner, 1996.
40

Critical Disability Theory
Critical disability theory aims to analyze disability as a cultural, historical, social, and
political phenomenon (Mladenov, 2015). As a methodology, the theory involves analyzing not
bodily or mental impairments, but the social norms that define attributes as disabilities or
impairments, as well as the social conditions that stigmatize attributes in particular populations.
Rather than observing and explaining a fixed and objective reality, critical disability theory
focuses on power and privilege, seeking to emancipate and challenge oppression and domination.
Critical disability theory argues that concepts of normality and disability are strongly influenced
by those in positions of power and control.
Individuals with disabilities regularly encounter ableism, which is the unfavorable
treatment due to having different abilities than the wider community. This ableism can be
dissected through critical disability theory which looks at how institutions or societies “disable”
people systemically and socially. According to critical disability theory, one must look at
disability as part of one’s identity, much like race, gender, sexuality, and nationality. Disability
frequently signifies what is outside of the “normal” world, making it an important area to explore
critically. Disability studies also intersects other critical schools like gender studies, queer
studies, feminism, critical race studies, and more (Mladenov, 2015).
One approach to disability studies is the social model, a theory that distinguishes between
impairment and disability. “Impairment” refers to a physical limitation, while “disability” refers
to social exclusion. The social model of disability says that it is society which disables impaired
people. For instance, an accident resulting in damage to the eye could cause vision loss which
may be an impairment. However, the inaccessibility in our society to those who are partially or
fully blind is really based on assumptions about what a “normal” body is, not on some universal
truth. The social model claims that we live in a disabling society and that the issue is not people
41

with disabilities but rather the society that has failed to support and protect the diversity of
bodies that exist in the world.
Through the lens of critical disability theory, the lived experience of disability is
inextricably linked with the sociocultural meaning of disability, and with the language and
practices which uphold the privilege of non-disabled people (Lalvani & Polvere, 2013). Focusing
on imbalances in power and systematic oppression, critical disability theory is political and
transformative in nature (Lalvani & Polvere, 2013).
Implications for the Problem of Practice
By using Bronfenbrenner’s system of human ecology, we can view the child with a
disability and their development as a complex system of relationships affected by multiple levels
of the surrounding environment, from immediate settings of family and school to broad cultural
values, laws, and customs. This complex system of relationships is affected by multiple levels of
the surrounding environment which means that at the center of the circle we have the child with
the disability and their family and on an outer ring there is the district that makes decisions that
directly or indirectly affect the family. Also, by objectively viewing the funding and
programming decisions that the district makes, they are inevitably changing each family’s
experience and quality of life of the child with a disability. Looking at this study through
Bronfenbrenner’s human systems ecology lens and critical disability theory’s lens is shown in
Figure 6. Figure 6 shows the student with a disability who is serviced through a public school in
Georgia and their family at the center of the image.
Research Questions 1 and 2 seek to understand how parents of students receiving special
education services in Georgia public schools perceive their children as having received an
equitable learning experience through different stages of the chronosystem, i.e. before, during
and as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. Research Question 3 seeks to understand how
42

parents perceive that the exosystem, or decision makers in Georgia public schools, the
microsystem, or parents, teachers, and school-level leadership, could best work together to
creating a mesosystem that provides equitable learning experiences to students receiving special
education services in the future.
Figure 6
Child With Disability Serviced Through Georgia Public School in Bronfenbrenner’s Human
Ecology Diagram

43

Conclusion
This review of literature imparted an overview of equitable education for students with
disabilities in the United States, and Georgia in particular, and the barriers, including the societal
stigma and biases that influence special education decisions, that directly or indirectly affect
individuals with disabilities and their families. The literature reviewed in this study examined the
identification process and misidentification of students, the debate surrounding what equitable
education should look like, current trends in students with disabilities, the evolving roles of
families with a child with a disability, as well as reviewed best practices for promoting
educational equity among all students. The framework of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems
theory is used as a lens to view the child with a disability and their development as a complex
system of relationships affected by multiple levels of the surrounding environment, from
immediate settings of family and school to broad cultural values, laws, and customs. In addition
to Bronfenbrenner, the theoretical approaches of critical disability theory and ableism allow for
the understanding of the complexity of disability and how institutions or societies “disable”
people systemically and socially while navigating a system designed for their exclusion.
The next chapter, Chapter Three, describes the methodology used in the data collection
through the interviews and survey, and the process of analysis.

44

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of students with disabilities and
their families being serviced through public schools in the state of Georgia and to better
understand parent perceptions of special education services pre-pandemic, during, and as schools
emerge from the height of the pandemic through Bronfenbrenner’s human ecology model. For
the purpose of this study, the child with a disability and their family is at the center of the model
while the school, the district, and leadership all represent concentric circles surrounding the child
and their family. The theories used to guide the research were critical disability theory and
ableism. By employing Bronfenbrenner’s framework, and interviewing and surveying parents,
this study analyzed the direct and indirect interactions between the concentric circles.
Furthermore, this study analyzed how society categorizes and stigmatizes disability by
unpacking and dismantling the unconscious bias that perpetuates norming and explored how
these stigmas and biases influence special education decisions that affect individuals with
disabilities and their families. Lastly, the study explored how parents, schools and districts can
best work together to provide equitable learning experiences to students with disabilities in the
future.
The following research questions guided this study:
1. How do parents of students receiving special education services in Georgia public
schools perceive their children as having received an equitable learning experience
during the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. How do parents of students receiving special education services in Georgia public
schools perceive their learning experience as schools move beyond the COVID-19
pandemic?
45

3. What do parents of students receiving special education services believe that the
community (parents, teachers, school leadership, and school district) can do together
to provide equitable learning experiences?
The data collection instruments used in this study were created to align with my research
questions and used Bronfenbrenner’s human ecology systems as a framework.
Although the methodologies are different, quantitative and qualitative scientific inquiry can
be epistemologically quite similar and both can be pursued rigorously (National Research
Council, 2002). This study included a mixed-methods approach, with interpretivism and
constructivist epistemologies. The methodology used was qualitative (parent interviews and
open-ended survey questions), and quantitative (survey questions).
Research designs are plans and procedures that span from broad assumptions to detailed
methods of data collection and analysis. This includes the worldview assumption the researcher
brings to the study, procedures of inquiry, specific methods of data collection, analysis and
interpretation (Creswell, 2009). Qualitative and quantitative research approaches represent
different ends on a continuum and mixed-methods research resides in the middle because it
incorporates elements of both approaches (Creswell, 2009). This study used a mixed-methods
methodology for a carefully crafted combination of both quantitative and qualitative research
methodologies. This research was conducted through an exploratory sequential model which is
when quantitative data is collected first then builds to qualitative data collection and analysis,
and then they are both interpreted together (Maxwell, 2013).
Organization Overview
As of 2022, there were 181 school districts in the state Georgia, with over 2,200 schools
that employed over 114,800 teachers servicing approximately 1.6 million students (GADoE). In
46

Georgia, from 2000 to 2017, there has been an increase of 25% of students aged 3–21 being
served under IDEA, rising to 204,004 students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020).
As of October 2021, that number had grown to 224,052 students with disabilities, age 3-21,
being serviced by Georgia public schools (DADoE). Further, 78,315 children were identified in
that same year with SLD in Georgia, where they accounted for the largest (34.95%) of the 13
disability categories covered under special education law (NCLD). The second largest category
was OHI representing 16% of children serviced under IDEA in Georgia. Children are often
classified under the category of OHI when ADHD is the primary reason they qualify for special
education. In Georgia, students identified with SLD or OHI accounted for 59.4% of students
with disabilities who received out-of-school suspensions in 2014–2015 (NCLD)
Population and Sample
The stakeholder population for this mixed-methods study was the parents of students with
disabilities attending and serviced through a public school in Georgia. Twenty-seven parents
completed the survey. There was a link at the end of the survey for participants who were
interested in participating in a focus group for deeper discussions. Due to the small response to
the focus group link, the researcher held two parent interviews via Zoom lasting approximately
an hour each.
Survey and Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale for Parents
The following criteria and rationale were applied for recruiting parent participants for the
survey and interview.
Criterion 1
The participants needed to be a parent of a student who was currently receiving special
education services in a public school in the state of Georgia.

47

Criterion 2
The participant needed to be a parent of a student who had been receiving special
education services in Georgia since 2019 or earlier to have fully experience before, during and
emerging from the pandemic.
The researcher posted the parent recruitment letter for the survey (see Appendix C) on
Facebook groups created by and for parents of children with disabilities in Georgia. The letter
asked viewers of the post to forward the post to other parents who meet the criteria described
above, which is an example of snowball sampling (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). 27 parents completed the survey. At the completion of the survey, the participants
were given the opportunity to participate in an optional raffle for a $25 Amazon gift card, an
amount nominal enough to demonstrate gratitude and not coercion. They also had the
opportunity to express interest in participating in a focus group by filling out a link at the end of
the survey. Interviewees were given a $15 Amazon gift card as a token of gratitude for their
time. Only two parents volunteered to participate in the focus groups and, because of the small
number, I interviewed them both individually.
Explanation for Choices
Surveying and interviewing parents provided thorough answers to my research questions.
The survey data provided by the stratified sample could be generalizable, while the smaller
sample for the interviews provided a deeper understanding of two parents’ perceptions of the
district and leadership involved special education.
Instrumentation
This study used two instruments for research: a parent survey and a parent interview
protocol. The survey can be found in Appendix A. The survey included 10 questions regarding
48

the experiences of parents of students with disabilities followed by seven demographic questions.
The survey used a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” as
response options for the survey. By using an even number of response options, the participants
were forced to pick a side, and this challenged the tendency for people to choose the center
option and remain neutral (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Word anchors, or descriptive words,
were included over every point on the scale to avoid assumptions or confusion for the participant
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). The items were also worded as statements, and this was consistent
throughout the survey. Questions 1 and 10 were open-ended questions, prompting the participant
to type in their answer. This allowed for word clouds to be created in the findings, in Chapter
Four, which highlight common themes throughout the parents’ answers. The survey took
approximately 10 minutes to complete.
The next section of the survey asked for demographic information. These questions were
answered by typing in or by selecting from a list of options. For Question 4 in the demographics
section, the disabilities were listed in the same order as they are listed in IDEA to avoid creating
an unintentional hierarchy. For Question 7 in the demographics section, the races and ethnicities
were listed in alphabetical order with a “prefer to not disclose” option and a type-in option to be
as inclusive as possible. The demographics portion was intentionally designed to come last in the
survey to avoid the participant feeling that the designer of the survey believed that their child’s
disability defined them or that their demographic information was more important than their
input and experience as a parent. The survey only asked for demographic information that was
useful in the analysis of the results, such as the age of the student, their primary disability or
exceptionality, household income, primary language spoken at home, and race or ethnicity.
49

The next instrument was the semi-structured interview protocol for parents of student
with disabilities. Each of the two interviews lasted around an hour. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
described a semi-structured approach as one that allows the researcher to provide a structured
protocol while also having the flexibility to respond to the situation at hand. The protocol can be
found in Appendix B. The interview protocol included five questions that aimed to create a
deeper understanding of parents’ perception of their child’s experience in a public school in
Georgia before, during and as we emerge from the pandemic. The open-ended questions were
about parents’ opinions about their child’s specific educational experience.
Data Collection
For the parent survey, the recruitment letter (see Appendix C) was posted on multiple
Facebook groups created by and for parents of children with disabilities in the state of Georgia
from May to August, 2022. Viewers of the post were asked to forward the survey link or post to
other parents who met the criteria of being a parent of a student who was currently receiving
special education services in a public school in the state of Georgia and had been receiving
special education services in Georgia since 2019 or earlier. This is an example of snowball
sampling (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The recruitment letter post was
periodically reposted on the eight Facebook pages until they were taken down in August.
Twenty-seven parents completed the survey. At the completion of the survey, the survey
respondents were offered the opportunity to participate in an optional raffle for a $25 Amazon
gift card, an amount nominal enough to demonstrate gratitude and not coercion, and if they
would like to participate in a focus group. The participants had the option of participating in
either of these options through separate links, maintaining their anonymity. Form bots
compromised the first round of data collection and that data had to be omitted. The researcher
50

had to begin data collection again, this time with a captcha question and a honey pot question
built into the Qualtrics survey to ensure that the participants were human.
The researcher contacted the survey respondents who completed the survey and
expressed interest in participating in a focus group by following the link. The researcher was able
to schedule two interviews over Zoom from the parents who responded. The researcher followed
the focus group protocol for the interviews and recorded the meetings. Each participant gave
permission for the meeting to be recorded which was then be transcribed. Participants were again
made aware that they could refuse to answer any question at any time without penalty.
Data Analysis
Survey Data
The online parent survey was kept open for 3 months to allow time for all interested
parents to complete it. The program used to collect the survey data was Qualtrics.
Interview Data
Each interview was transcribed by a transcription program called Otter and stored in a
locked folder on my laptop. Interviews were recorded through the Zoom video application and
saved in the same locked folder. Following the transcription, an analysis of the content was
conducted in which the qualitative data were organized into themes and core consistencies tied to
the research questions. This was done by color coding the data using priori and empirical codes
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Once the coding was finished, the data were reorganized to draw
out commonalities and discrepancies among interviewees.
Trustworthiness and Ethics
Before beginning research, the primary investigator, myself, submitted the study to the
University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and then, once approved, I
51

conducted the study in strict accordance with the IRB’s rules and guidelines. This is important
for three reasons which are also principles of ethical research (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). The
first being respect for persons, which means allowing participants to make their own choices as
well as protecting those who cannot. The second is beneficence, or to do no harm, or at the very
least to maximize benefits and minimize harm. The last key principle is justice or determining
who can participate in research while not allowing some to benefit from participation while
others are denied the benefit (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). When conducting my research, I
ensured that participants knew that they were free to make their own choices, that participation
was voluntary, and that they could withdraw at any time without penalty. This was stated in the
recruitment letter and was also reiterated during the interviews. Participants’ confidentiality was
also protected, and their data and transcripts were password protected. Participants were also
asked permission prior to being recorded. Themes that emerged throughout the interviews were
supported through the recording and capturing of interviewees’ verbatim responses and whole
quotes. The survey was open to all parents of children receiving special education services
through a public school in the state of Georgia to support the ethical principal of justice. At the
completion of the survey, the participants were given the opportunity to participate in an optional
raffle for a $25 Amazon gift card, an amount nominal enough to demonstrate of gratitude and not
coercion. Lastly, the principle of beneficence was employed by publishing this data which will
hopefully improve the outcomes for students with disabilities in the future.
Role of Researcher
It is important to recognize the potential ethical considerations within this mixed-methods
study. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the researcher is the principal “instrument” for
inquiry and the data are filtered through personal biases. The researcher, therefore, must be
52

aware of their lens and employ discipline subjectivity. According to Maxwell (2013),
epistemology refers to the idea of knowledge construction and centers around what we know and
how we go about knowing. This branch of philosophy is particularly interested in making sense
of the methods and practices used to gain knowledge about social reality. Due to my
undergraduate studies and life experiences, I have always found myself viewing the world
through an anthropological lens, which I believe transferred to my research epistemology. I
adopted a constructivist research paradigm as described by Lochmiller and Lester (2017) when
conducting research since my epistemology and world view has always been that there is not one
absolute truth, but that one’s perception is reality. I used this constructivist approach in the
research, as opposed to the positivist approach that supports the idea of an objective reality
outside of the researcher.
Worldview is a term to refer to a basic set of beliefs that guide action or a general
orientation about the world and the nature of research that researchers hold (Creswell, 2009). The
worldview or epistemology assumption of the quantitative methodological paradigm is a single,
reductionist, and objective reality, while the worldview of the qualitative methodological
paradigm is one of multiple realities. This worldview that I have always subscribed to shaped my
research questions because they are open-ended and call for a story to be explained, as opposed
to only qualitative data to support a relationship between variables.
In qualitative research, objectivity cannot be achieved by maintaining distance between
researcher and participant, but a degree of neutrality toward the data is what qualitative
researchers aim for (Locke, et al., 2010). It was essential that I recognized my own subjectivity
and monitored how it affects the research. The human aspect of the research process demands
that we think carefully about how we interact with each other and the consequences of our
53

actions (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). My human connection and my employment as a special
education teacher in a public school in Georgia inevitably shaped my understanding of the data.
My positionality as an employee of a school district in Georgia inevitably affected how I
understood the data, but I worked to ensure it did not affect how I identified, recruited, and
collected data. The interviewees and I co-constructed and co-created our understanding of the
data and the reality in which it exists. I employed discipline subjectivity and was as objective as
possible to mitigate my personal biases from the identification and collection of data while still
recognizing and honoring the human aspect and connection involved in qualitative research.
Conclusion
This inductive study examined the experiences families of students with disabilities being
serviced through public schools in the state of Georgia to better understand parent perceptions of
special education services pre-pandemic, during, and as schools emerge from the height of the
pandemic, through Bronfenbrenner’s human ecology model. Additionally, the study explored
how parents, schools and districts can best work together to provide equitable learning
experiences to students with disabilities in the future.
The purpose of using this framework to interview and survey parents was to gain a
deeper understanding of how society categorizes and stigmatizes disability by unpacking and
dismantling the unconscious bias that perpetuates norming, and how these stigmas and biases
affect individuals with disabilities and their families. The methodology and instruments were
aligned with the research questions. The instruments were designed to gain a better
understanding of parent perception and satisfaction with the special education experience, which
revealed suggestions to improve parent-district relations and communication, as well as bring
light to any possible issues that were not evident or being addressed by the schools and district.
54

The commitment to ethics and recognition of my role as researcher contributed to the veracity
and trustworthiness of the findings.
55

Chapter Four: Presentation of Data and Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of families of students
receiving special education services in Georgia public schools throughout the COVID-19
pandemic and expectations looking forward. The literature reviewed equity issues in special
education and the current and historical context contributing to the cultural understanding of
disability and special education. Chapter Three outlined the research design and methods used to
collect and analyze data within the study. This chapter first provides a brief review of the study’s
purpose, research questions, and participants. The chapter then discusses findings based on the
analysis and interpretation of the data.
Themes were found by coding and triangulating survey and interview data, guided by the
study’s research questions presented in Table 1 that were aligned with specific survey and
interview questions. The survey and interview questions can be found in Appendixes A and B,
respectively.

56

Table 1
Research Questions and Instrument Alignment
Research questions Survey questions Interview questions
1. How do parents of students receiving
special education services in Georgia
public schools perceive their children as
having received an equitable learning
experience during the COVID-19
pandemic?

2, 3, 6, 7 1, 3
2. How do parents of students receiving
special education services in Georgia
public schools perceive their learning
experience as schools move beyond the
COVID-19 pandemic?

4, 5, 8 1, 4
3. What do parents of students receiving
special education services believe that the
community (parents, teachers, school
leadership, and school district) can do
together to provide equitable learning
experiences?

1, 9, 10 2, 5

This chapter is presented in three comprehensive sections organized by the three research
questions and then broken down further into themes that emerged from the analysis of the data.
Overview of Study Participants
Survey Participants
The stakeholder population for this mixed-methods study was the parents of students with
disabilities attending and serviced through public schools in Georgia. The sampling strategy for
the first portion of the study (the surveying of the parents) was stratified since this study was
focused on hearing the voices of parents of children with a disability who attend a public school
in Georgia (Maxwell, 2013). Twenty-seven parents participated in the survey and, of those, two
57

parents participated in interviews via Zoom. The survey sampling criteria and rationale for the
parent survey was that the participants must be a parent of a student receiving special education
services in a public school in Georgia at the time and had been receiving special education
services in a public school in Georgia since 2019. The researcher posted the parent recruitment
letter for the survey (see Appendix D) on closed Facebook groups created by and for parents of
children with disabilities in Georgia. The researcher also asked viewers of the post to forward the
recruitment letter and survey link to other parents who met the criteria described above, which is
an example of snowball sampling (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As
shown in Figure 7, 27 individuals participated in the survey, most of them parents of students
serviced in a public school in Gwinnett County.

58

Figure 7
Survey Participants by District

The first portion of the survey included 10 questions regarding the experience of parents
of students with disabilities. Survey Questions 2 through 9 used a 4-point Likert scale ranging
from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” as response options for the survey. Question 1 and
10 were open-ended questions, prompting the survey participant to type in their answer. The
participants’ responses to Questions 1 and 10 were used to create the word clouds (Figures 2 and
3) to highlight common themes throughout the parents’ survey answers. The second portion of
the survey asked for the participants’ demographic information which was collected through
multiple choice responses and type-in responses.
The demographics portion asked for the current age of the student, the student’s age at
the time of special education referral, their primary disability or exceptionality, primary language
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Participants n=27
Gwinnett County Public Schools Bleckly County Public Schools
Bibb County Public Schools Atlanta Public Schools
Fulton County Schools Houston County Schools
Effingham County Schools Did not disclose
59

spoken at home, annual household income, and race or ethnicity. Table 1 shows that the majority
of participants, 56%, identified their children as having autism, 63% identified their child as
White, 52% of the households had incomes over $100,00 per year, and 89% of the households’
primary language spoken at home was English. These percentages are not necessarily
representative of students receiving special education services in Georgia public schools, they
simply represent those that participated in the survey. The majority of the survey respondents
resided in a Gwinnett County which has a median household income of $72,787 and 51.9% of
the residents identify as White.

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Survey Participants (n = 27)
Variable Number Percentage
Child’s primary exceptionality/disability

Specific learning disability 3 11.11%
Other health impairment (including ADHD) 4 14.81%
Autism 15 55.55%
Emotional disturbance 0 0.00%
Speech or language impairment 1 3.70%
Visual impairment including blindness 0 0.00%
Deafness 0 0.00%
Hearing impairment 0 0.00%
Deaf-blindness 0 0.00%
Orthopedic impairment 0 0.00%
60

Variable Number Percentage
Intellectual disability 1 3.70%
Traumatic brain injury 1 3.70%
Multiple disabilities 0 0.00%
Significantly developmentally delayed 1 3.70%
Did not disclose 1 3.70%
Primary language spoken at home

English 24 88.88%
English and a dialect 1 3.70%
Non-verbal 1 3.70%
Did not disclose 1 3.70%
Annual household family income

Less than $20,000
0 0.00%
$20,000-$39,999 2
7.40%
$40,000-$59,999 3
11.11%
$60,000-$79,999 4
14.81%
$80,000-$99,000 3
11.11%
$100,000 or more 14
51.85%
Did not disclose 1
3.70%
Race of student

American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0.00%
Asian 0 0.00%
Black or African American 4 14.81%
61

Variable Number Percentage
Hispanic or Latino
0
0.00%
Middle Eastern or North African
1
3.70%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0
0.00%
White
17
62.96%
Black and White, Multiethnic
1
3.70%
Asian and White
1
3.70%
Preferred not to disclose 2 7.40%
Did not disclose
1
3.70%

Interview Participants
At the completion of the survey, the participants were given the opportunity to express
interest in participating in a focus group by filling out a link found at the end of the survey.
Although the goal for the focus group was to have at least five participants, the researcher had
difficulty securing participants through follow up emails to participate in the focus group.
Therefore, the researcher conducted two separate 1:1 semi-structured interviews. The researcher
chose the only two parents who agreed to participate in an interview. The participants, using
pseudonyms, are presented in Table 3. The participants were gifted a $15 Amazon gift card as a
token of appreciation for their time. To maintain confidentiality, all participants provided
pseudonyms to identify themselves and their child.

62

Table 3
Interview Participants (n = 2)
Parent pseudonym Student pseudonym School district
Lisa John Gwinnett County Public Schools
Lynn Jay Bibb County School District

Results and Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 sought to understand how parents of students receiving special
education services in Georgia public schools perceive their children as having received an
equitable learning experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Survey Questions
2, and 3, slightly more than half of parents (n = 15) strongly agreed or agreed that their child
received an equitable learning experience at their school prior to the pandemic, while most
parents (n = 14) strongly disagreed that their child was provided an equitable learning experience
during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020- May 2021). According to Survey
Questions 6 and 7, the majority of parents (n = 16) agreed or strongly agreed that their child was
provided with the appropriate supports outlined in their IEP before the COVID-19 pandemic, and
most parents (n = 21) either disagreed or strongly disagreed that their child was provided with
the appropriate supports outlined in their IEP during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
63

Table 4
Survey Questions 2, 3, 6, 7 Frequency Table
Response 2. My child
received an
equitable
learning
experience at
their school
prior to the
COVID-19
pandemic.
3. My child was
provided an
equitable learning
experience during
the height of the
COVID-19
pandemic (March
2020- May 2021).
6. My child was
provided with
the appropriate
supports
outlined in their
IEP before the
COVID-19
pandemic.

7. My child was
provided with
the appropriate
supports outlined
in their IEP
during the height
of the COVID-
19 pandemic
(March 2020-
May 2021).
Strongly Disagree 6 (22%) 14 (52%) 2 (7%) 11 (41%)
Disagree 6 (22%) 5 (19%) 9 (33%) 10 (37%)
Agree 9 (33%) 5 (19%) 10 (37%) 4 (15%)
Strongly Agree 6 (22%) 3 (11%) 6 (22%) 2 (7%)

Note. This table shows the frequency with which the 27 parents strongly agreed, agreed,
disagreed, or strongly disagreed with these four statements in the survey.

The interviews provided greater depth of understanding to these results. While coding
and analyzing interview data, three themes emerged around how parents perceived their children
as having received an equitable learning experience during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a)
responsibility of student learning falling on parent, (b) cancellation of school events affecting
connection to community, and (c) parental discontent with school administration/leadership.
These three themes emerged from Interview Question 1 and 3.
Interview Question 1: “Tell me about your child’s involvement in special education
services in a Georgia Public school and your journey thus far.”
Interview Question 3: “Has your thinking on what is an equitable learning experience for
your child changed since the beginning of the pandemic? If so, why and in what ways?”
64

Responsibility of Student Learning Falling on Parent
Both interviewees expressed the feeling of having the responsibility of their child’s
learning fall on them during school closures. Lisa and Lynn described the responsibility of
facilitating and navigating digital learning and feeling that they could not meet their child’s
unique needs. Lisa shared,
We had everything, we had the whole setup, we had a desk, we bought, we bought the
laptop, we bought the desk, we had a chart, we had visual timers we had, I mean, we tried
to make the best of it, and do the best we could, even though we knew it wasn't ideal, and
we knew it wasn't good. We were like, Okay, we have to try to do the best we can. So we
tried to create a little school at home… it was really rough trying to do you know,
because we're talking hours a day, hours a day, sitting a kindergarten child with autism in
front of a screen… you have to be like basically behind him or next to him the entire
time, pretty much, not only because we had to navigate and click all the links, you
know… we pretty much had to be like there, but not only for the technology, but to keep
him engaged, he would want to get out his seat or he would lose focus or he would, you
know, not wanting to do the activity or not want to pay attention and the teacher.
Lisa went on to explain that when her son was asked to participate in virtual, synchronous
classes, the teacher would attempt to gain his attention, but she could only do so much through a
screen. Lisa believed that the teacher didn't have the tools and capability to be able to work with
her student through a screen when students were losing focus, so she would coach the parents
and provide tips and strategies to redirect and reengage the students. She expressed that this
responsibility of keeping the students on task fell on the parents.
65

Both Lynn and Lisa described feeling that their children, and other students with
disabilities, were not given an equitable learning experience during the height of the pandemic.
To them, an equitable learning experience was one that met their child’s unique needs, and the
teaching and services provided during the school closures were not meeting these needs as they
were able to during in-person learning. School was a combination of synchronous and recorded
lessons that failed to capture and maintain the attention of their child. Lynn described having to
be with her son constantly to keep him on schedule with the synchronous online classes. She
shared her thinking that not even a neurotypical child in kindergarten or first grade would be able
to navigate online classes and technology, much less her son. Lynn shared,
I honestly don't think they were (given an equitable learning experience) and I don't think
that those who were higher support needs were able to get a fair educate because like,
you cannot tell me that a child who needs one on one care is getting an equitable
education in an online environment like there, there's no way a child who has been
receiving like multiple therapies from various different professionals, and has been in
school and like, even has it set up to where they don't have a summer so that way they
don't get out of their routine. Like, though you cannot tell me that that is an equitable
education and be like, Hey, you're online now. Right yeah. And Jay has needs, but they
are not like high level needs. But even that, like to expect him to, like be able to function
without me helping him through that in it. It was a lot of work. I feel a lot of empathy for
families that couldn't do that.
Both the interview and most survey respondents agreed that their child was not provided
an equitable learning experience during the height of the pandemic nor were they provided with
the appropriate supports outlined in their IEP. Lynn expressed that even though she is college
66

educated, managing Jay’s learning during school closure was a challenge for her, and expressed
empathy for those who have children who demand more attention and services than her own.
Lisa expressed feeling lost with the abrupt closure of schools and the lack of direction and
communication during this time. Lisa was left wondering how she would provide for her child’s
unique learning needs and services such as speech and language pathology, physical therapy,
occupational therapy, and how long schools would be closed for. Due to his disability, John was
not able to sit in front of a computer for hours a day. She acknowledged that this was a foreign
experience for all stakeholders and that therapists and teachers were not prepared when asked to
abruptly move their teaching to online. “It was a mess. It was chaotic for everybody, for the
entire school system,” Lisa said. Lisa was lucky enough to be able to stay with John at home and
do her best to work with him despite the lack of instruction and support from the school but
acknowledges that this is not the case for many families. Lisa stated,
I mean, it was a full time. We couldn't work. Luckily, I had a job where, at that point… I
was working nights, I was doing kind of an on call job working nights. And luckily, the
job that I had, wasn't getting called out every night. And, so… there were sometimes
where… I was rested, and I could get up and I could do the school with him. And so me
and my husband, kind of like both just tag teamed, but he had to have somebody basically
there with him (her son), the entire time.
One of Lisa’s biggest concerns was not being able to work with her son on social
interaction which is a big area of concern given the nature of his disability. She shared,
It's a different environment. I couldn't work with him on the peer-to-peer social
interaction. I couldn't work with him on the… things that he was really trying to work on
67

and develop at school because I can't mimic the school environment at home. No matter
what I do. You just… it's impossible.”
Both Lisa and Lynn did not believe that their children, nor did many other students with
disabilities, receive an equitable learning experience during the height of the pandemic. Due to
school closures, the delivery of teaching and services was severely interrupted and could no
longer meet the unique needs of their children with disabilities. They expressed not only feeling
as though the responsibility of their child’s learning fell upon them during school closures but
expressed empathy for families who were not able to spend time at home with their child to
oversee their learning. Lisa and Lynn also described the lack of social peer interaction for their
children while at home, which due to the nature of their disabilities is an important skill to
practice and maintain.
Cancellation of School Events Affecting Connection to Community
The importance of connection between the family and the school community was
severely disrupted during the closure due to the pandemic. With the cancellation of school events
and parents not being allowed in the school, Lisa felt a disconnect between herself and her son’s
school environment. Lisa shared,
And that's the first time I actually really got to step foot in the school. And I went, it was
the end of the year party, and I went and volunteered because they had just allowed
parents back in to, to the school. So that was the other issue I had is I felt like I was being
shut out like I had no inside like I couldn't, I couldn't reach my child. I didn't know. I had
no idea what his classroom even looked like.
68

Lisa described her frustration of not being able to enter the school to have lunch with her
son, John, and not being allowed to have face-to-face IEP meetings and lack of community
among parents. She shared,
I felt shut completely shut out. We didn't have… face-to-face meetings. We didn't have
any kind of parent events. We didn't have any kind of like extracurricular events, no, like
socials? No, I had no idea. I had no way of connecting with any of the other parents
because they didn't coordinate anything… I felt so disconnected. And another thing was
the IEP meetings, I felt really frustrated about not being able to have in-person IEP
meetings, finally, to the point that I had talked to the principal, and I'm like, This is
enough. And it was April, it was this past April. And I was like, This is enough. Like I, I
need to have an in-person IEP meeting. I'm tired of it.
This loss of school community clearly not only affected the students, but the parents
themselves who lost the sense of bond with their child’s school environment. By physically
keeping them out of the school building even after the students were allowed to return, the
parents felt a loss of community, a loss of a physical common ground where they could be
present together with their child, their child’s educators, and other parents.
Parental Discontent with School Administration/Leadership
Both parents that were interviewed and some survey respondents expressed discontent
with how school administration and leadership handled the school closures and continuity of
their children’s education.
“I mean, it was just a nightmare. And the thing that bothered me was that it's like, they
(administration) weren't acknowledging how much of a nightmare it was. It's like they wanted to
kind of say, well, yeah, we know, it's not ideal. But, you know, it's okay,” Lisa recalls expressing
69

her concerns to administration on multiple occasions that her son’s IEP was not being met
through digital learning.
Both parents interviewed hired parent advocates to assist them in communicating their
concerns to school administration. Lisa’s advocate recommended that she take video of her son
having melt downs to share with the school to support her claim that digital learning was not
conducive to his unique learning needs. Lynn also hired an advocate during the pandemic
because the school was not testing her son, Jay, as quickly as she felt appropriate. Both parents,
Lisa and Lynn, felt as though administration had not supported them as they would have
expected during the pandemic and described feeling their concerns and requests were dismissed.
It is important to acknowledge that school administration was likely operating under a lot
of constraints during the pandemic with school closures, shifting mandates, supporting teachers
with the shift to online learning, and special education screening and processing being at a
standstill. Their lack of provision of services occurred under very complicated, volatile and
unprecedented conditions.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 sought to understand how parents of students receiving special
education services in Georgia public schools perceive their children as having received an
equitable learning experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the survey, most
parents agreed that their child received an equitable learning experience at their school prior to
the pandemic, while most parents strongly disagreed that their child was provided an equitable
learning experience during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020- May 2021).
According to survey, most parents agreed that their child was provided with the appropriate
supports outlined in their IEP before the COVID-19 pandemic, and most parents either disagreed
70

or strongly disagreed that their child was provided with the appropriate supports outlined in their
IEP during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. The two mothers interviewed agreed that
their child received an equitable learning experience at their school prior to the pandemic but that
their child was not provided an equitable learning experience during school closures due to the
pandemic. The interview data supported these findings by providing the three themes that
emerged around how parents perceived their children as having received an equitable learning
experience during the COVID-19 pandemic which were responsibility of student learning falling
on parent, cancellation of school events affecting connection to community, and parental
discontent with school administration/leadership as described above.
Results and Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 sought to understand how parents of students receiving special
education services in Georgia public schools perceive their learning experience as schools move
beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. As shown in Table 5, according to Survey Questions 4, most
parents agreed or strongly agreed (n = 16; 59%) that their child was currently being provided an
equitable learning experience. According to Survey Question 5 most parents (n = 19) also either
agreed or strongly agreed that their child’s IEP was a valid document that accurately represented
their present level of functioning and academic ability. According to Survey Question 8, most
parents, 63%, agreed that their child was currently being provided with the appropriate supports
outlined in their IEP. While these numbers/percentages are considerably higher and more
positive than those expressed during the pandemic (RQ1), there were still a considerable
number/percentage of parents that disagreed or strongly disagreed.

71

Table 5
Survey Questions 4, 5, 8 Frequency Table
Response 4. My child is
currently being
provided an
equitable learning
experience.
5. My child’s
individualized
education program
(IEP) is a valid
document that
accurately represents
their present level of
functioning and
academic ability.
8. My child is
currently being
provided with
the appropriate
supports
outlined in their
IEP.
Strongly Disagree 4 (15%) 1 (4%) 2 (7%)
Disagree 7 (26%) 7 (26%) 8 (30%)
Agree 9 (33%) 11 (41%) 9 (33%)
Strongly Agree 7 (26%) 8 (30%) 8 (30%)

Note. This table shows the frequency with which the 27 parents strongly agreed, agreed,
disagreed, or strongly disagreed with these three statements in the survey.

While coding and analyzing interview data, two themes emerged around how parents of
students perceived their children as receiving an equitable learning experience as their schools
moved beyond the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) satisfaction with teachers/case managers and (b)
parental approval with return to in-person classes. These two themes emerged from Interview
Questions 1 and 4.
Interview Question 1: “Tell me about your child’s involvement in special education
services in a Georgia Public school and your journey thus far.”
Interview Question 4: “Now as we emerge from the pandemic, how would you describe
their current learning experience?”

72

Satisfaction with Teachers/Case Managers
Both parents interviewed, Lynn and Lisa, expressed how happy they were with their
children’s teacher or case manager. Lisa shared,
Thankfully, he had an amazing teacher. That's, that's the saving grace. The kindergarten
teacher he had have been in education for gosh, like 20 plus years. She was amazing. She
had been working with the same para for, like, over 10 years. They were like the, like
dynamic duo. They knew what they were doing. They were amazing. And so when he
finally got back in that classroom, I mean, she hit the ground running. So we were
thankful for her because She was wonderful. And so, I mean, she worked with him hard,
you know.
Lynn also felt that her son’s case manager, who was also a parent of a child with a
disability, was supportive and understood Jay’s needs. She expressed that Jay’s case manager
was instrumental in helping him obtaining the equitable learning experience he was now
receiving post-pandemic. Lynn shared,
Nowadays, he has a really good, his current IEP person, like case manager, the case
manager. She's been his case manager for the last since first grade, and her child is also
autistic, and she is phenomenal. She really like works well with him and tries to make
sure that we're doing the best for him and I've been very impressed with her. She's done
very well as best as she could.
It was a common theme throughout both interviews that the teacher and case manager
were great advocates for the children and seemed to provide what administration was not able to.
According to Lynn and Lisa, once the children were able to return to in-person classes, teachers
and case managers were able to try to make up for lost time and reinstate the services and best
73

practices that met the students’ unique learning needs which was not possible during digital
learning.
Parental Approval with Return to In-Person Classes
Both parents, Lynn and Lisa, expressed relief and approval with the return to in-person
classes. They felt that with the return their child’s needs would be met and the IEP could be
upheld unlike during digital learning. Lisa expressed content when she could finally have an IEP
meeting in-person again and felt that the participants in the meeting could communicate and
connect much more effectively when the meetings are held in-person. Both parents used words
such as “doing really well” and “thriving” to describe their child now that they had returned to
the physical classroom. The parent interviews took place roughly a year after the students
returned to in-person classes.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 sought to understand how parents of students receiving special
education services in Georgia public schools perceive their children as receiving an equitable
learning experience as their schools move beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the
survey, more than half of the parents agreed or strongly agreed that their child was currently
being provided an equitable learning experience and most parents also either agreed or strongly
agreed that their child’s IEP was a valid document that accurately represented their present level
of functioning and academic ability. According to the survey, most parents agreed that their child
was currently being provided with the appropriate supports outlined in their IEP. While these
numbers/percentages are considerably higher and more positive than those expressed during the
pandemic (RQ1), there are still a considerable number/percentage of parents who disagree or
strongly disagree. The two mothers interviewed agreed that as their schools moved beyond the
74

COVID-19 pandemic, their children were currently being provided an equitable learning
experience and that their child’s IEP supported this. The interview data supported these findings
by providing the two themes that emerged around how parents of students perceived their
children as receiving an equitable learning experience as their schools move beyond the COVID-
19 pandemic which were satisfaction with teachers/case managers, and parental approval with
return to in-person classes.
Results and Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 sought to understand what parents of students receiving special
education services believe that the community (parents, teachers, school leadership, and school
district) can do together to provide equitable learning experiences in the future. According to
Survey Question 9, as shown in Table 6, more than half of the parents disagreed or strongly
disagreed (52%), that parents, teachers, leadership, and the district work well together to provide
an equitable learning experience for their child.
Table 6
Survey Questions 9 Frequency Table
Response 9. Parents, teachers, leadership, and the district work well together to
provide an equitable learning experience for my child.
Strongly Disagree 5 (19%)
Disagree 9 (33%)
Agree 8 (30%)
Strongly Agree 5 (19%)

Note. This table shows the frequency with which the 27 parents strongly agreed, agreed,
disagreed, or strongly disagreed with this statement in the survey.

75

Figures 8 and 9 are word clouds created with the themes found in the answers from
Open-Ended Questions 1 and 10 in the survey. The larger the print size of the word in cloud, the
more times the theme emerged in the answers. Figure 8 shows that the main themes to emerge
from Survey Question 1, asking parent how they would define an equitable learning experience
for their child, were the themes of equal opportunity and differentiation which emerged seven
times and six times respectively. Figure 9 shows that the main themes to emerge from Survey
Question 10, asking parents for one suggestion for parents, teachers, leadership, and the district
to best work together to create an equitable learning experience for their child, were the themes
of appropriate services, stakeholder collaboration, and transparency/communication which
emerged five, four, and four times respectively.

76

Figure 8
Word Cloud Created With Parent Answers to Survey Question 1: How Would You Define an
Equitable Learning Experience for Your Child?

Note. This figure shows a word cloud created with the themes found in the answers of the 24
parents who answered the Open-Ended Question 1 in the survey.

77

Figure 9
Word Cloud Created with Parent Answers to Survey Question 10: What is One Suggestion That
You Would Make for Parents, Teachers, Leadership, and the District to Best Work Together to
Create an Equitable Learning Experience for Your Child?

Note. This figure shows a word cloud created with the themes found in the answers of the 26
parents who answered the Open-Ended Question 10 in the survey.

While coding and analyzing interview and qualitative survey data, three themes emerged
around how parents perceive that parents, teachers, school leadership, and the district could best
work together to provide equitable learning experiences to students receiving special education
services in the future: (a) inclusion, equal opportunity, appropriate services and differentiation in
the LRE; (b) no school closures, and (c) stakeholder collaboration through transparency and
communication. Although these themes can be treated as separate and discrete, they overlap and
lend themselves to each other to find solutions. These themes emerged from open-ended Survey
78

Questions 1, 10 and Interview Questions 2 and 5. Interview Question 2: “How would you define
an equitable learning experience for your child?”
Interview Question 5: “Looking ahead, if you could design it, what would it look like for
families, the school, and the district to best work together to provide an equitable learning
experience for students with different needs?”
Inclusion, Equal Opportunity, Appropriate Services, and Differentiation in the LRE
The data showed that many parents surveyed. and both parents interviewed, believed that
inclusionary practices, such as placing their child in the mainstream general education classroom
to the greatest extent appropriate, are beneficial to their child as opposed to keeping them in a
self-contained special education classroom for the entire school day. In an open-ended question
in the survey, one parent said, “There needs to be more emphasis on mixing general ed (students)
with special ed (students).” Another parent wrote, “Inclusion in its fullest capacity.” The theme
of equal opportunity, equality and equity rang strongly through the interviews and open-ended
survey question. In response to Open-Ended Question 1, a parents wrote, “Appropriate
accommodations are made to allow my children to successfully learn the same material as their
general ed peers.”
Parents expressed the sentiment that students with disabilities are short-changed and this
was severely exacerbated during school closures due to the pandemic, and that learning
opportunities that are given to their non-disabled peers are needed for students with disabilities.
Lisa explained how she fought to have her son moved from his self-contained classroom to a
general education classroom with resource supports and saw great improvement in his behavior
when this transition was made. She believed that moving him into a classroom with non-disabled
peers allowed him to observe their behavior as a model to replicate. The theme of LRE was also
79

found in the open-ended survey questions where one parent wrote, “One where my child is in the
least restrictive classroom and her peers are unaware of most of her disabilities.” The theme of
parents wanting their child with a disability to be provided with the appropriate services,
accommodations, and modifications in their LRE was a theme that emerged powerfully through
the interviews and also the open-ended questions of the survey.
The data suggests that parents believe that inclusion is possible, and successful, when
appropriate services are provided in the LRE. This can be accomplished through a special
education teacher pushing into the general education classroom and delivering services to
students with IEPs through a co-teaching, collaborative, or consultative delivery model. In
response to the question about how stakeholders could best work together, one parent said that
there should be more opportunities during the school for special education teachers to work with
students one on one or in small groups in the general education classroom. In response to the
question about how parents would define an equitable learning experience, another parent said,
“Appropriate accommodations are made to allow my children to successfully learn the same
material as their general ed peers. Expectations to measure success are also appropriately
modified when necessary.” Another parent made a call for differentiation by envisioning the
“school supporting my child's different learning abilities. Supporting and encouraging their
strengths and providing support and resources to help improve their weaknesses.” Another
parents said, “One in which my child is provided the individualized resources and assistance she
needs to succeed and thrive.”
Opposition to School Closures
Although parents understood and recognized the health risks of sending their children
back to the classroom as soon as the school reopened, some, including Lisa, opted for in-person
80

learning because they felt that the risks to their child’s emotional developmental and academic
growth outweighed the risks of contracting COVID-19. Both parents interviewed, Lynn and
Lisa, believed that their children were still recovering from the learning loss due to school
closures. In the survey, one parent asked for no more digital days so that their child could get
support on all school days since, in their opinion, speech intervention cannot happen remotely.
Lisa expressed that if schools should ever close again, there needs to be a plan in place to
ensure that IEPs are upheld and that students with disabilities are receiving their services. She
stated,
Well, they definitely need to have a plan in place because this digital, you know, learning
model as they had, it does not work for most special needs students, they need to figure
out how they can implement the IEPs, through a, through a pandemic. So I mean, how
can the students still get the services they need, if were that to happen again, so create a
plan for speech, create a plan for OT (occupational therapy), create a plan for, you know,
all this stuff. You know, how can you reach these students through through this, and not
just expect to sit them in front of a screen and do assignments, because, you know, let's
be real, that's not, that's not what they needed… but what they really need to do is take
the IEPs, and modify the IEPs. And kind of have maybe like a… pandemic version… a
secondary plan, you know, were the schools to shut down again… I think it really just
comes down to, I don't think they have the resources. But however, they could do better
and could have done much better.
Creating a back-up plan, or a pandemic version of an IEP in the case of future school
closures, was a suggestion made by Lisa and echoed by Lynn as well who felt that the digital
learning model did not meet her son’s unique learning needs. She also stated that due to his
81

attention issues and constant need for movement, she ended up making the decision to medicate
her son so that he could participate in digital learning.
Recently some school districts have built digital learning days into their school calendar
where students stay home a few days a year, and teachers provide both synchronous and
asynchronous lessons and independent work online. This is in part an effort designed by the
district to better prepare students and teachers to engage in meaningful learning through online
platforms should there ever be an abrupt transition to digital learning again. Parents expressed in
the survey and in the interviews that digital learning days were lost days for their child receiving
special education and related services because these services could not be delivered effectively
online.
Stakeholder Collaboration Through Transparency/Communication
The data suggests that parents believe that better collaboration between parents, teachers,
school leadership, and the district is necessary to provide equitable learning experiences to
students receiving special education services. Stakeholder collaboration was a theme that
emerged four times in the open-ended questions of the survey and was echoed in the interviews with Lisa
and Lynn. One parent said, “LISTEN to parents. You shouldn’t have to make parents practically
threaten to sue to get the supports in place their child needs. ALLOW parents to be involved.” Another
parent said, “Listen to the ones involved directly with the child, truly listen.”
Parents believed that stakeholder collaboration could and should be accomplished
through better communication and transparency, as one parent wrote, “Timely and detailed
communication so everyone is on the same page.” The most effective way to enable
collaboration is to create reoccurring and ample opportunities for communication among all
82

stakeholders. This can be done, as one parent suggests, “Hold town halls; have liaisons; have an
update at every board meeting.”
Stakeholder collaboration or more effective collaboration between parents, teachers,
school leadership, and the district is imperative to provide quality, equitable learning experiences
to students receiving special education services.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 sought to understand how parents perceived that parents, teachers,
school leadership, and the district could best work together to provide equitable learning
experiences to students receiving special education services in the future. According to the
survey, more than half of the parents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that
parents, teachers, leadership, and the district work well together to provide an equitable learning
experience for their child. The interview data and data from the open-ended survey questions
provided three themes that suggested how these stakeholders could best work together that
included: the need for inclusion, equal opportunity, appropriate services and differentiation in the
LRE, opposition to school closures, and stakeholder collaboration through transparency and
communication. Parents expressed a need for communication and transparency going forward,
should that be during a pandemic or during non-pandemic times. Parents also asked for a plan to
be in place should school closures ever happen again.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of families of students
receiving special education services in Georgia public schools throughout the COVID-19
pandemic and expectations looking forward. This chapter first provided a brief review of the
study’s purpose, research questions, and participants. The chapter then discussed findings based
83

on the analysis and interpretation of the data. Themes were found by coding and triangulating
survey and interview data and were aligned with each research question, as presented in the
Table 7. Chapter Five will provide recommendations for practice based on these identified
themes.
Table 7
Research Questions and Theme Alignment
Research questions Themes
1. How do parents of students receiving
special education services in Georgia
public schools perceive their children as
having received an equitable learning
experience during the COVID-19
pandemic?

1) Responsibility of student learning
falling on parent

2) Cancellation of school events affecting
connection to community

3) Parental discontent with school
administration/leadership.

2. How do parents of students receiving
special education services in Georgia
public schools perceive their learning
experience as schools move beyond the
COVID-19 pandemic?

1) Satisfaction with teachers/case
managers

2) Parental approval with return to in-
person classes
3. What do parents of students receiving
special education services believe that the
community (parents, teachers, school
leadership, and school district) can do
together to provide equitable learning
experiences?

1) Inclusion, equal opportunity,
appropriate services and differentiation in
the least restrictive environment

2) Opposition to school closures

3) Stakeholder collaboration through
transparency and communication

84

Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations for Practice
The number of students identified with a disability and receiving special education and
related services under the IDEA in the United States of America is growing and has increased in
most states from 2000 to 2017 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). In the state of
Georgia, there has been an increase of 25% of students aged 3–21 being served under IDEA,
rising to 204,004 students being served, during this time period (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2020). As of October 2021, that number had grown to 224,052 students with
disabilities, age 3-21, being serviced by Georgia public schools (DADoE). The focus of this
exploratory study was to examine the experiences of students with disabilities and their families
being serviced through public schools in the state of Georgia and to better understand parent
perceptions of special education services pre-pandemic, during, and as schools emerge from the
height of the pandemic. Lastly, the study explored how parents, schools and districts can best
work together to provide equitable learning experiences to students with disabilities in the future.
Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1996) offers a
theoretical framework to understand how a child develops within, and experiences, their
environment. This theory places importance on the many environmental and societal influences
that play a role in a child’s life. The systems identified in Bronfrenbrenner’s theory include the
microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the chronosystem. The five
systems are interrelated and the influence of one system on a child’s development depends on its
relationship with the others. Therefore, to fully understand a child's development, one must look
not only at the child and their immediate environment, but also at the interactions found between
the other systems as well. Using Bronfenbrenner’s theory as a lens for thinking about the impact
of the COVID-19 pandemic on each family with a child with a disability can help begin to
85

understand the effects on every level. Considering the COVID-19 pandemic as a sociohistorical
event provides insights into how the effects have seeped into every layer of a child’s life and
how this event had a direct and indirect impact on a child’s life. The layers of Bronfenbrenner’s
system guided the research questions and data collection instruments for this study.

Figure 9
Child With Disability Serviced Through Georgia Public School in Bronfenbrenner’s Human
Ecology Diagram

The following research questions guided this study:
1. How do parents of students receiving special education services in Georgia public
schools perceive their children as having received an equitable learning experience
during the COVID-19 pandemic?
86

2. How do parents of students receiving special education services in Georgia public
schools perceive their children as receiving an equitable learning experience as their
schools move beyond the COVID-19 pandemic?
3. How do parents perceive parents, teachers, school leadership, and the district could
best work together to provide equitable learning experiences to students receiving
special education services in the future.
Research Questions 1 and 2 sought to understand how parents of students receiving
special education services in Georgia public schools perceived their children as having received
an equitable learning experience through different stages of the chronosystem, i.e. before, during
and as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. Research Question 3 sought to understand
how parents perceived that the exosystem, or decision makers in Georgia public schools, the
microsystem, or parents, teachers, and school-level leadership, could best work together to create
a mesosystem that provides equitable learning experiences to students receiving special
education services in the future.
Guided by the research questions, eight findings emerged from survey and interview
data: (a) responsibility of student learning falling on parent; (b) cancellation of school events
affecting connection to community; (c) parental discontent with school administration/leadership
(d) satisfaction with teachers/case managers; (e) parental approval with return to in-person
classes; (f) inclusion, equal opportunity, appropriate services and differentiation in the LRE; (g)
opposition to school closures; and (h) stakeholder collaboration through transparency and
communication.
When considering these findings through Bronfenbrenner’s theory as a lens, the
interactions and breakdown of interactions of the interrelated systems becomes apparent. The
87

finding that the cancellation of school events affected connection to community is evidence of a
breakdown of the mesosystem. With the school, or microsystem, being inaccessible, there is a
barrier between the student’s family and the exosystem creating a disconnect between the
student’s family and the larger community. Another two findings, which were the parental
discontent with school administration/leadership and parental satisfaction with teachers/case
managers, shows how the family at the center of the model can perceive different elements of the
microsystem in a positive and a negative way simultaneously. The findings that parents want
more stakeholder collaboration through transparency and communication is a request for a more
developed mesosystem to exemplify greater collaboration and communication between the
family, the microsystem and the exosystem. It would be remis to not mention that the
macrosystem, although not directly mentioned by the parents, indirectly affects every level of the
system in the model and shapes how the student and their family perceive and experience every
interaction or lack thereof. By strengthening the mesosystem, or the collaboration between the
family, the microsystem, and the exosystem, through allowing stakeholders input when creating
policy surrounding and effecting special education, the macrosystem will also be ultimately
influenced and affected. Students with disabilities are more likely to be from socioeconomically
disadvantaged backgrounds, more commonly of minority race, and to have multiple intersecting
identities that are associated with inequities (Hammond, 2014). The cultural stigma of disability
engrained in society leads to discrimination, and these stigmas and biases affect individuals with
disabilities and their families. The creation of policy that promotes equity for students with
disabilities and their families will influence how society will perceive and ultimately treat
individuals with disabilities.
88

Discussion of Findings
These eight findings identified in this study are sentiments and suggestions that emerged
from the parent interviews and surveys that allowed for better understand of parent perceptions
of special education services pre-pandemic, during, and emerging from the height of the
pandemic, as well as suggestions on how parents, schools and districts can best work together to
provide equitable learning experiences to students with disabilities in the future.
Regarding Research Question 1, the study found that parents felt the responsibility of
student learning falling on them during the pandemic, the cancellation of school events affected
connection to community and discontent with school administration/leadership. In regard to RQ
2, parents expressed satisfaction with teachers/case managers and approval with return to in-
person classes. The data pertaining to RQ 3 showed that parents expressed a greater need for
equal opportunity and differentiation in their children’s learning environment along with a desire
for appropriate services for their children in the LRE, stakeholder collaboration, and
transparency/communication among stakeholders.
These findings are supported by the literature found in Chapter Two and are not
surprising since the COVID-19 pandemic, and the move to digital learning and virtual delivery
of services, disproportionately impacted students with disabilities (Houtrow et al., 2020). Due to
the pandemic and the closure of school buildings, students with disabilities shifted from spending
eight hours a day in school with their network and team of providers to being at home with their
family the entire day. Children with disabilities, who may already have limited social networks,
were separated from school-based caregivers, educators and therapists, depriving them of critical
support and disrupting their care and education (Houtrow et al., 2020). Given the rapid closing of
school, fulfilling these responsibilities was a challenge, including the delivery of services such as
89

speech and language therapy, physical therapy, and OT, among others. Although study
participants expressed angst toward schools and districts for not serving their children effectively
during the pandemic, it is important to recognize that schools and districts were also struggling to
provide services with their doors closed.
The literature also supports the theme of a need for equal opportunity and inclusion in the
LRE that emerged from the parents. By not segregating students with disabilities in separate
classrooms, they will feel less stigmatized and be exposed to more rigorous academic
opportunities (Hulett, 2009). Research supports inclusion in the mainstream classroom and
curriculum as much as possible, allowing students with disabilities to have equal access to grade-
level curriculum, general education teachers, and meaningful learning experiences (Hulett,
2009).
The parents expressed a need for stakeholder collaboration and
transparency/communication among stakeholders. Research supports that collaboration between
the school and parents in the special education decision-making process is vital (Chapman,
2015). It is imperative that the parents ensure that they are involved with and take an active role
as a member of the IEP team that determines a student's educational path. Family-school
partnerships are the way in which family members and schools engage in intentional and
reciprocal decision-making for the student’s benefit (Chapman, 2015). Parents and guardians
know their children better than anyone else and have the most complete understanding of a
child's physical, social, developmental, and family history and this alone places the parent in a
crucial role on the IEP team.
90

Recommendations
The rising numbers of students, and BIPOC students in particular, being served under
IDEA and the recent pandemic affecting services to these students call for innovative solutions to
improve school, district and family relations to move forward. The driving goal of these
recommendations is to find innovative ways that all stakeholders can work together and move
forward emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic. When looking at what can be done to support
recovery, or takeaways from the pandemic, support and collaboration between all stakeholders is
imperative. The suggested recommendations are aligned with the RQs and the findings that
emerged from the data collection.

91

Table 8
Table of Summary: Recommendations and Findings Alignment
Recommendation Findings
1. Creating state level legislation that supports
compensatory education based on New Jersey bills.
• Responsibility of student learning
falling on parent
• Opposition to school closure

2. Finding innovative and creative ways that parents
of students with disabilities can feel more connected
to the school community.
• Cancellation of school events
affecting connection to community
• Opposition to school closures

3. School administration and leadership need more
training and development around Special Education
best practices, implementation, and laws.
• Parental discontent with school
administration/leadership
• Inclusion, equal opportunity,
appropriate services, and
differentiation in the LRE

4. Creating more attractive recruitment and retention
incentives for all teachers, but specifically Special
Education teachers and related personnel.
• Satisfaction with teachers/case
managers
• Parental approval with return to in-
person classes

5. Special Education teachers and parents should
have a say when education policy surrounding and
effecting Special Education is being created.

• Stakeholder collaboration through
transparency and communication

Recommendation 1: Create Legislation that Supports Compensatory Education for
Student With Disabilities for Learning Loss and Disruption of Services Due to School
Closures During the Covid-19 Pandemic
On March 3, 2022, Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey signed into law S905/A1281, a
bill to protect the rights of students with disabilities to compensatory education arising from
COVID-19 school closures. Compensatory education is a judicial remedy under the IDEA to
ensure that students receive make-up services when their IEPs are either not implemented or are
implemented in a manner that deprives students a FAPE under IDEA. The original legislation
92

required school districts to hold IEP meetings and make determinations about pandemic-related
compensatory education due to New Jersey students with disabilities by no later than December
31, 2022, or sooner if requested by a parent or guardian. The law recently extended the deadline
for filing due process hearings to September 1, 2023, on claims dating back to March 18, 2020,
the date schools were closed in New Jersey due to the pandemic.
The idea of compensatory services due to the pandemic is not created to blame the school
but to recognize that the school was closed and these children with disabilities were not able to
benefit from virtual learning. The goal of compensatory education is to place the child in the
position they would have been had they received those services. To decide if a student qualifies
for compensatory services, an IEP meeting is called and the student’s present level of
performance is compared to their previous rates of progress. A decision is then made on whether
compensatory education is needed to put them back in a place they would have been had the
school closure never occurred. The types of services considered with compensatory education
are after-school services, Extended School Year, additional services throughout the day, or
extend their schooling beyond the age of 21 when students age out of special education services.
In addition to law S905/A1281, Governor Murphy signed pandemic relief legislation,
known as S3434, requiring schools to offer up to one year of additional or compensatory special
education for impacted students in the 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023 school years, if a
determination is made by the student’s IEP team that the student requires such services.
Additionally, Governor Murphy and the department of education allocated nearly $18 million in
federal American Rescue Plan State Fiscal Recovery Funds to reimburse local educational
agencies for additional special education services provided to students who were impacted by
COVID-19 related school disruptions. This allows districts to access their state special education
93

dollars for a child with disabilities who is going to get compensatory services past the age of 21,
when students age out of special education services. This is significant because then it does not
penalize the school districts but gives schools the ability to draw funds from the state to finance
these additional years of school or additional services. This recommendation aligns with the
themes found in Chapter Four, responsibility of student learning falling on parent and opposition
to school closures.
The legislation is the first of its kind in the United States and could serve as a model for
other states. Even if this law is not passed in a state, school districts could be reaching out
proactively to discuss learning loss, interruption of services and possible compensatory education
instead of waiting for parents to request a meeting or take legal action. Building relationships
between schools and families can help establish the trust and positive rapport needed to support
effective and equitable engagement over time (Gerdes et al., 2015). Families will be more
receptive to understanding and working with the school if the school takes the initiative to
address learning loss due to the pandemic and acknowledges that despite schools’ and teachers’
best efforts, not all students with disabilities were able to benefit from remote or digital learning.
This conversation makes the student the priority and focus of the conversation instead of finger
pointing or placing blame.
Additional meetings will need to be scheduled and supporting data will need to be
collected and analyzed to support the decisions about compensatory education. These IEP
meetings should be scheduled within 60 days of this law being passed in the state and the
meetings should be held within 6 months. These meetings can be held in conjunction with the
student’s IEP or re-evaluation meeting to not overwhelm the parents or the teaching and support
staff. The main challenge to implementing this recommendation would be finding the time to
94

hold these extra meetings. A possible solution is that many of these meetings could be held in
conjunction with the students’ annual IEP meeting or re-evaluation meeting if it falls within the
6-month time frame.
Recommendation 2: Find Innovative and Creative Ways that Parents of Students With
Disabilities Can Feel More Connected to the School Community
Equitable family engagement focuses on meaningful engagement activities and systems
between schools and families that do not treat specific parent groups as deficient in their level of
engagement or approach to education (Day, 2013). This includes specific practices or approaches
that reflect the values of a group of families, as well as systems that foster tailored supports,
flexible engagement options, and coordination between families and schools (Jacques &
Villegas, 2018).
By making a clear and transparent commitment to equitable family engagement in both
public communications and leadership activities, school leadership can encourage school staff
and families to build and strengthen communication and engagement systems (Jacques &
Villegas, 2018). This can include practices such as establishing family engagement standards and
holding staff accountable for meeting these standards, supporting staff in developing new
mindsets, skills, and practices related to equitable family engagement and examining and
modifying policies, as appropriate, that affect family engagement.
Building relationships between schools and families can help establish the trust and
positive rapport needed to support effective and equitable engagement (Jacques & Villegas,
2018). Engaging family members and community members in ongoing and recurring efforts. For
families that have not yet built trust and communication with school staff, it can be challenging
or intimidating to become more involved. Schools and districts can partner with family or
95

community members to help bridge the divide, using trusted members of the community to help
share key messages and support effective communication. Schools and districts can also create
formal structures, such as a family-led advisory committee, to help school staff learn more about
how to best create a shared understanding and system of support between the school and the
community (Moodie & Ramos, 2014). For example, Gwinnett County Public Schools offers
monthly workshops facilitated by a group called Parent Mentors designed to help provide parents
of students with disabilities information, guidance, and resources to support students at home,
school and in their communities. The group collaborates with school administrators and teachers,
supporting educators in their efforts to help families and students plan for and achieve their
educational and post-secondary goals.
Recommendation 3: School Administration and Leadership Need More Training and
Development Around Special Education Best Practices, Implementation, and Laws
For students with disabilities to receive an equitable and appropriate education,
administrators and leadership should be knowledgeable in special education law, best practices,
and implementation. Some of the themes that emerged from the study were parental discontent
with school administration/leadership and the need for inclusion, equal opportunity, appropriate
services, and differentiation in the LRE. For leadership to make educated decisions that are in the
students’ best interests, it is imperative that they are well versed in special education law and
have a thorough understanding of the programs, delivery models, classroom environments,
classroom and testing accommodations and modifications. To uphold equity and ensure
appropriate services and differentiation in the LRE, leadership should be knowledgeable in best
practices and special education compliance so that they can contribute meaningfully during IEP
meetings and when school-level policies or decisions are being made. This knowledge is also
96

imperative when observing and evaluating special education teachers on their performance.
Administrators need to be able to assess a teacher’s performance from a place of knowledge,
allowing them to understand the reasoning behind the teacher’s practices.
In special education, administrators must strive to keep up to date with all components of
special education including the multi‐faceted assessment process and the placement of special
education children in the continuum of services (Chapman, 2015). By demonstrating an active
interest in special education, principals can play an important role in the authorization of
resources and supports in the public school environment and exercise their full authority to
ensure every child receives every resource necessary to be successful. A well trainer leader or
administrator can move a school from equality to equity by ensuring the proper services,
interventions and accommodations are available for each child. It is imperative that leadership
ensures that the students with disabilities who will need accessibility features and
accommodations to meaningfully access curriculum and instruction are provided with them and
the resources are available when needed.
Understanding theory and style is only one part of the responsibility of a special education
administrator. Knowledge of special education law, case law, and administrative rule, in addition
to the knowledge of the services and interventions that children with disabilities need to be fully
engaged in learning, is equally important in leadership skill development (Cline & Bateman,
2019). It is also best practice for administrators to include special education workshops and
conferences as part of their annual professional development as special education is dynamic and
what is known will invariably change over time. It takes leaders at all levels of public education
to ensure that all students are successful, but it takes principled leadership to ensure that no
97

programmatic silos, no power structures, and no closed classroom doors get in the way of student
success (Crockett et al., 2019).
It would be beneficial for administrators and leadership overseeing or working directly
with the special education department and students to participate in professional development
specific to special education law, best practices, and knowledge of services, programs and
interventions. If administrators and leadership overseeing special education departments or
programs are not certified in special education or have special education classroom experience,
they might lack crucial knowledge necessary to make decisions that support equity in this highly
specialized area. By take the state mandated courses, or professional development equivalent, for
the state’s special education teacher certification leadership will be better equipped to make
educated decisions that are in the students’ best interests. The school district can incentivize this
by paying for these courses or professional development for administration and providing a
stipend or some sort of financial compensation if they are taking extra time to attend classes
outside of their work schedule. The challenges are for administration to find time to
meaningfully engage in courses or professional development in an already strained schedule and
environment. Administration and leadership already have numerous duties and responsibilities
therefore this recommendation might be met with opposition.
Recommendation 4: Creating More Attractive Recruitment and Retention Incentives for
All Teachers, But Specifically Special Education Teachers and Related Personnel
Fewer teachers entering the workforce choose to work in special education than general
education, and special education teachers continue to have lower retention rates than teachers in
other areas (Andrews & Brown, 2015). Being a teacher in the field of special education has long
been perceived as a more difficult profession than the general education field, and it is thought to
98

require a certain type of individual or extraordinary levels of patience and empathy. With these
challenges, states and districts should provide more attractive recruitment and retention
incentives for teachers and other personnel in the field of special education. This
recommendation aligns with the themes of satisfaction with teachers/case managers and parental
approval with return to in-person classes.
Paraprofessionals are integral members of the special education team as they support
instruction, implement behavior intervention plans, collect data, among other duties. They also
support special education students in the general education or co-taught classroom setting so that
the students can be educated in a less restrictive environment (Carter et al., 2009). Schools are
struggling to find enough special education teachers and paraprofessionals alike.
Paraprofessionals are also paid significantly less, making it even more of a challenge to retain
people in those positions. States and school districts could offer financial incentives such as loan
forgiveness or bonuses or provide incentives for general education teachers to add special
education certification to their teaching certificate. These are immediate solutions to dealing with
staffing shortages in special education.
A longer-term solution would be for states and school districts to create comprehensive
recruitment strategies focused on identifying and developing local talent. Attrition plays a part in
the teacher and paraprofessional shortage problem, and efforts to improve retention must be
informed by an understanding of the factors that contribute to attrition (Billingsley, 2004). It
would be beneficial to research the specific reasons for special education attrition in a school
county or district and create specific and innovative solutions to retain special education staff and
personnel. Also, creating high-quality induction and mentoring programs based on these findings
could potentially lower attrition rates.
99

Recommendation 5: Special Education Teachers and Parents Should Have a Say When
Education Policy Surrounding and Effecting Special Education Is Being Created
Collaboration between the school, parents and teachers in the special education decision-
making process is vital. It is imperative that the parents ensure that they are involved with and
take an active role as a member of the IEP team that determines a student's educational path
(Chapman, 2015). Family-school partnerships are the way in which family members and schools
engage in intentional and reciprocal decision-making for the student’s benefit. Parents and
guardians know their children better than anyone else and have the most complete understanding
of a child's physical, social, developmental, and family history and this alone places the parent in
a crucial role on the IEP team. Teachers are the experts in best practices and understand the
implementation of these practices in their classroom environment. It is the collaboration between
these three stakeholders, school leadership/administration, parents and teachers, that can
facilitate student success and make equity possible.
Research suggests that when there is a partnership between family members of students
with disabilities and school personnel, the relationship can be either successful or unproductive
(Miller et al., 2019). Family-school relationships can positively affect a student’s attendance,
academic achievement, and the design of their educational plan. Contrarily, parents, particularly
those from marginalized backgrounds, have reported that school personnel will dismiss their
ideas and label them “difficult to work with” (Lalvani & Hale, 2015). It is common for families
of children with disabilities to feel that school personnel are reluctant to regard them as equal
partners when making educational decisions. Best practices include honoring parents’ expertise
on their children and valuing them as partners in the decision-making process (Chapman, 2015).
This will assist in creating and maintaining a positive family-school partnership with families of
100

students with disabilities and making the most beneficial and equitable decisions with the
students’ wellbeing in mind.
By allowing parents to have a seat at the table when deciding and creating policy, and
allowing schools and teachers to share what they have learned from families and sharing it with
policy makers ensures that the systems are working for the children and families for whom they
are intended. This recommendation aligns with the theme of stakeholder collaboration through
transparency and communication found in chapter 4.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are factors out of the control of the researcher that affect the veracity of the
findings and the generalizability of the study, and delimitations are the limits or boundaries set
by the researcher that need to be addressed (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). One of the limitations
of this study was the need to change the focus from one specific school district in Georgia and
interview leadership at the district level, to include the whole state of Georgia. This change was
due to the study being denied by the original county’s Institutional Research Board. Further, the
study originally planned on analyzing parent experience with the added layer of school district
leadership interviews, but this was not possible with the lack of IRB approval and, therefore, the
study focused solely on the stakeholder group of parents.
Another limitation was that form bots compromised the first round of data collection and
that data had to be omitted. The researcher then had to begin data collection again with an
already limiting the time frame for data collection, this time with a captcha question and a honey
pot question built into the Qualtrics survey to ensure that the participants were human. Also,
after multiple attempts to recruit participants, only 27 parents participated in the survey and only
two parents were willing and able to attend an interview. Due to the pandemic, interviews were
101

conducted virtually, which could have been one of the factors affecting parents’ willingness to
participate. Another factor possibly affecting parents’ willingness to participate in the study was
that the survey was distributed during summer vacation for students. Due to families traveling or
the added stress of having children at home all day, parents may have had limited time to
participate in other activities, such as this study. In addition, the study is limited by the narratives
of the parents who chose to participate and the truthfulness of their responses. The parents who
participated may have different views than those who did not choose to participate and cannot
represent the entire stakeholder group. Another limitation is that I, as the researcher, may have
my own biases as a teacher of special education.
The last limitation is that not all parents agreed on the definition of the word “equity” that
was used throughout the survey and interview. The data suggest that the parents who stated that
they were not interested in equity for their child understood the term equity as “trying to force
the same set of outcomes for students,” which is different from understanding equity as giving all
students equal opportunity to succeed. The use of the word “equity” throughout the questions
prompted parents to explain their personal understanding of the word and how they felt that the
words “equality” or “equal opportunity” better expressed their goals for their child. This could
have caused confusion for the parents and affected the veracity of the survey results. Thus, the
smaller sample size of participants, the limited perspectives, the researcher’s own biases, and the
misperceptions surrounding the word “equity” limit the generalizability and veracity of this
study.
My focus and interests also delimited the study. There are many private schools in
Georgia, but I chose to focus only on public schools. Another delimitation was the finite amount
102

of time I had to collect the data. Had I had more time, I might have been able to capture more
data.
Recommendations for Future Research
The lack of information in the literature specific to parent perception of special education
in Georgia public schools throughout the COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity for future
research. This study interviewed two parents from two school districts and surveyed 27 parents
from seven school districts. While this is an important group to study, the results found cannot be
seen as exhaustive considering there are 181 school districts in the state of Georgia. The
interview questions used to gather data could be used to gather data in additional school districts.
It would also be meaningful to expand the data collection to include the perceptions of
stakeholders such as leadership, at the school and district level, as well as teachers, and if
possible, the students themselves.
Conclusions
The number of students identified with a disability and receiving special education and
related services has grown significantly over time across the United States and the number of
students served under IDEA has increased in most states from 2000 to 2017. According to the
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, during 2015–2017, approximately one in six
children, or 17.8% of children aged 3 to 17, were affected by one or more disabilities impacting
their physical, language, learning, and/or behaviors, which is an increase from 16.2% in 2009–
2011 (Zablotsky et al., 2019). The COVID-19 pandemic, and the move to digital learning and
virtual delivery of services, disproportionately impacted students with disabilities (Houtrow et
al., 2020). The rising numbers of students, and BIPOC students in particular, being served under
103

IDEA and the recent pandemic affecting services to these students called for further examining
of the current experiences of students with disabilities and their families being serviced.
The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences and perceptions of families of
students receiving special education services in Georgia public schools throughout the COVID-
19 pandemic and expectations looking forward by using Bronfenbrenner’s human ecology
system as a framework. Chapter One outlined the problem of practice and why equity for
students with disabilities is an issue and how the pandemic exacerbated it. In Chapter Two, the
literature reviewed equity issues in special education and the current and historical context
contributing to the cultural understanding of disability and special education. Chapter Three
outlined the research design and methods used to analyze the data collected from 27 parent
survey respondents and two parent interviews. Chapter Four discussed the findings based on the
analysis and interpretation of the data. Themes were found by coding and triangulating survey
and interview data, guided by the study’s research questions.
These themes emerged and shed light on issues such as a greater need for inclusion, equal
opportunity, appropriate services, and differentiation in the LRE in schools, and the importance
of stakeholder collaboration through transparency and communication. Chapter Five provided
recommendations for practice based on the eight identified findings and how parents, teachers,
schools, and districts can move forward through innovation and communication such as creating
legislation that support recovery, and collaboration with stakeholder groups when designing
legislation. Other recommendations included finding innovative ways that that parents of
students with disabilities can feel more connected to the school community, and promoting
training in special education best practices, implementation and laws for school administration
and leadership. The driving goal of these recommendations was to find innovative and realistic
104

ways that all stakeholders can work together and move forward as we emerge from the Covid-19
pandemic. Although this study is not exhaustive and future research would be valuable, the
findings from this study can support the work of school leaders seeking to improve equity for all
students with disabilities, including should schools need to be closed again for an extensive
period of time in the future.

105

References
Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. (2012). Developing equitable education
systems. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203818077
Andrews, A., & Brown, J. L. (2015). Discrepancies in the ideal perceptions and the current
experiences of special education teachers. Journal of Education and Training
Studies, 3(6), 126–131.
Billingsley, B. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of
the research literature. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 39–55.
Brandenburg, J. E., Holman, L. K., Apkon, S. D., Houtrow, A. J., Rinaldi, R., & Sholas, M. G.
(2020). School reopening during COVID-19 pandemic: Considering students with
disabilities. Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine, (Preprint), 1–7.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1996). The ecology of human development experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Carter, E., O'Rourke, L., Sisco, L. G., & Pelsue, D. (2009). Knowledge, responsibilities, and
training needs of paraprofessionals in elementary and secondary schools. Remedial and
Special Education, 30(6), 344-359.
Chapman, R. (2015). The everyday guide to special education law: A handbook for parents,
teachers and other professionals (3rd ed.). Disability Law Colorado.
Cline, J., & Bateman, D. (2019). Special education leadership: Building effective programming
in schools. Routledge.
Cook, B. G., & Schirmer, B. R. (2003). What is special about special education? Overview and
analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 200–205.
106

Cooney, G., Jahoda, A., Gumley, A., & Knott, F. (2006). Young people with intellectual
disabilities attending mainstream and segregated schooling: Perceived stigma, social
comparison and future aspirations. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research; J Intellect
Disabil Res, 50(6), 432-444. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00789.x
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
Crockett, J. B., Billingsley, B., & Boscardin, M. L. (2019). Handbook of leadership and
administration for special education (2nd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315226378
Day, S. (2013). “Terms of engagement” not “hard to reach parents.” Educational
Psychology in Practice, 29, 1, 36–53.
Gerdes, A. C., Kapke, T. L., Lawton, K. E., Grace, M., & Dieguez Hurtado, G. (2015).
Culturally adapting parent training for Latino youth with ADHD: Development and pilot.
Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 3(2), 71.
Grindal, T., Hehir, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A
summary of the research evidence on inclusive education.
Hammond, Z. L. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic
engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Thousand
Oaks: Corwin Press.
Houtrow, A., Harris, D., Molinero, A., Levin-Decanini, T., & Robichaud, C. (2020). Children
with disabilities in the united states and the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Pediatric
Rehabilitation Medicine, 13(3), 415–424. https://doi.org/10.3233/PRM-200769
107

Hulett, K. (2009) The legal aspects of special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Innovate Public Schools. (2018). An advocate’s guide to transforming special education:
Creating schools where all students can thrive.
Jacques, C., & Villegas, A. (2018). Strategies for equitable family engagement. State Support
Network.
Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., & Pullen, P. C. (2017). Handbook of special education (2nd
ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315517698
Lalvani, P. (2015). Disability, stigma and otherness: Perspectives of parents and teachers.
International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 62(4), 379–393.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2015.1029877
Lalvani, P., & Hale, C. (2015). Squeaky wheels, mothers from hell, and CEOs of the IEP:
Parents, privilege, and the “fight” for inclusive education. Understanding and
Dismantling Privilege, 5(2), 21–41.
Lalvani, P., & Polvere, L. (2013). Historical perspectives on studying families of children with
disabilities: A case for critical research. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(3)
https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v33i3.3209
Lochmiller, C. R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2010). Reading and understanding research
(3rd ed.). Sage.
108

Mason-Williams, L. (2015). Unequal opportunities: A profile of the distribution of special
education teachers. Exceptional Children, 81(2), 247–262.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10.1177/0014402914551737
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.
Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miller, A. L., Love, H. R., Kurth, J. A., & Zagona, A. L. (2019). Parent identity and family-
school partnerships: Animating diverse enactments for (special) education decision
making. Inclusion, 7(2), 92–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/10.1352/2326-6988-7.2.92
Mladenov, T. (2015). Critical theory and disability : A phenomenological approach.
Bloomsbury Academic.
Moodie, S., & Ramos, M. (2014). Culture counts: Engaging Black and Latino parents of young
children in family support programs. Child Trends, (October).
Morgan, P. L., & Farkas, G. (2015, June 24). Is special education racist? The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/opinion/is-special-education-racist.html
Mueller, C. (2019). Adolescent understandings of disability labels and social stigma in school.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 32(3), 263–281.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10.1080/09518398.2019.1576940
National Education Association. (2007). Truth in labeling: Disproportionality in special
education (1st ed.). NEA Professional Library.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Students with disabilities. The condition of
education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp
109

National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. The
National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10128/minority-students-in-
special-and- gifted-education
Noonan, J. M. (2015, March 24). To close the belief gap [Blog post].
https://scholar.harvard.edu/jmnoonan/blog/close-belief-gap
Schifter, L., Grindal, T., Schwartz, G., & Hehir, T. (2019). Students from low-income families
and special education. https://tcf.org/content/report/students-low-income-families-
special-education/
The State of Racial Diversity in The Educator Workforce, 2016.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Digest of
Education Statistics, 2019 (NCES 2021-009), Chapter 2.
Voelker, R. (2014). Steep increase in ADHD diagnoses. JAMA : The Journal of the American
Medical Association, 311(6), 565. https://doi.org/10.1080/10.1001/jama.2014.244
Wright, A. C., & Taylor, S. (2014). Advocacy by parents of young children with special needs:
Activities, processes, and perceived effectiveness. Journal of Social Service Research,
40(5), 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/10.1080/01488376.2014.896850
Yates, S., & Dickinson, H. (2021). Navigating complexity in a global pandemic: The effects of
COVID‐19 on children and young people with disability and their families in Australia.
Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1192–1196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10.1111/puar.13352
Zablotsky, B., Black, L. I., Maenner, M. J., Schieve, L. A., Danielson, M. L., Bitsko, R. H.,
Blumberg, S. J., Kogan, M. D., & Boyle, C. A. (2019). Prevalence and trends of
110

developmental disabilities among children in the United States: 2009–2017. Pediatrics,
144(4).

111

Appendix A: Parent Survey
Please answer the questions below. For Questions 2-9 please indicate how much you
agree or disagree with the statement using the scales provided.

(If you have multiple children receiving special education services, choose one child
and answer the questions below with that particular child in mind.)

1. How would you define an equitable learning experience for your child?
____________________________________________________________________________
2. My child received an equitable learning experience at their school prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
3.

My child was provided an equitable learning experience during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic
(March 2020- May 2021).
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
4. My child is currently being provided an equitable learning experience.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
5. My child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) is a valid document that accurately represents their
present level of functioning and academic ability.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
6. My child was provided with the appropriate supports outlined in their IEP before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
112

9. Parents, teachers, leadership, and the district work well together to provide an equitable learning experience
for my child.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
10. What is one suggestion that you would make for parents, teachers, leadership, and the district to best work
together to create an equitable learning experience for your child?
__________________________________________________________________________

7.
My child was provided with the appropriate supports outlined in their IEP during the height of the COVID-
19 pandemic (March 2020- May 2021).
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
8.
My child is currently being provided with the appropriate supports outlined in their IEP.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
113

Please answer the following questions.
1. In which school district does your child
receive Special Education services?
Drop-down menu
2. Child’s age
3. Child’s age at time of referral for special
education and related services

4. Child’s primary exceptionality/disability

Specific learning disability

Other health impairment (including
ADHD)

Autism

Emotional disturbance

Speech or language impairment

Visual impairment including blindness

Deafness

Hearing impairment

Deaf-blindness

Orthopedic impairment

Intellectual disability

Traumatic brain injury

Multiple disabilities

Significantly developmentally delayed

5. Primary language spoken at home
6. Annual household family income ranges

Less than $20,000

$20,000–$39,999

$40,000–$59,999

$60,000–$79,000

$80,000–$99,999

$100,000 or more

7. The following categories apply to my child.
Select all that apply.

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian

Black or African American

Hispanic, Latino/x or Spanish Origin

Middle Eastern or North African

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander

White

Multiethnic

Prefer not to disclose

Other: _______________________

114

Appendix B: Interview Questions for Parents

1. Tell me about your child’s involvement in special education services in a Georgia Public
school and your journey thus far.

2. How would you define an equitable learning experience for your child?

3. Has your thinking on what is an equitable learning experience for your child changed
since the beginning of the pandemic? If so, why and in what ways?
a. Probe: To what extent do you think your child received an equitable learning
experience during the COVID-19 pandemic?

4. Now as we emerge from the pandemic, how would you describe their current learning
experience?
a. Probe: To what extent do you perceive your child as receiving an equitable
learning experience now as their schools move beyond the COVID-19 pandemic?

5. Looking ahead, if you could design it, what would it look like for families, the school,
and the district to best work together to provide an equitable learning experience for
students with different needs?

115

Appendix C: Parent Recruitment Letter for Survey
Dear parents,

You are invited to participate in an online research survey to better understand equitable learning
experiences for students receiving special education services in public schools in
Georgia. This research study is being conducted by myself, Ami Abreu, a Doctoral candidate at
the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California.

Your participation in this study will help me better understand parent perceptions of special
education services pre-pandemic, during, and as we emerge from the height of the pandemic, and
how parents, schools and districts can best work together to provide equitable learning
experiences to students with different needs in the future. To participate, you must be a parent
of a student who is currently receiving special education services in a public school in the
state of Georgia and has been receiving special education services in Georgia since 2019 or
earlier. I would appreciate it if you would forward this survey to other parents of students
receiving special education services in Georgia since 2019 or earlier.

This survey should take no more than 10 minutes to complete, and you will be given the
opportunity to enter a raffle for a $25 Amazon gift card when completed. Participation
is voluntary and will be kept completely anonymous. The link to participate in the optional
raffle will appear after the survey is completed and will direct you to a separate form so that your
survey responses remain anonymous. There will also be an opportunity to participate in an
optional focus group, this is also voluntary and the link to participate will appear after the survey
116

is completed so that your information will not be attached to your survey response. Focus group
participants will receive a $15 Amazon gift card.

If you are willing to participate in the survey, please click on this link. Or copy and paste this
URL into your web browser.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

If you have any comments or questions, please contact Ami Abreu at ami.abreu@usc.edu.

Sincerely,
Ami Abreu, MAT

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The exploration of lived experiences of Black women directors in student affairs who led others during COVID-19

PDF

School connectedness for Latinx English learners

PDF

Understanding teacher burnout through a lens of hope in high-poverty schools

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Teaching in the time of COVID-19: secondary educators’ experiences during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Increasing the number of petroleum engineering students in the United Arab Emirates: an improvement model

PDF

Defining and designing a new grammar of school with design thinking: a promising practice study

PDF

Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Qatari elementary school principals' attitudes toward inclusion programs: implementation challenges, solution and resources

PDF

Chinese students’ preparedness for university studies in the United States

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

The impact of COVID-19 and how teachers can intervene to improve student learning

PDF

Building national capacity in student affairs at a local university in Qatar: A gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Abreu (), Ami (author)

Core Title A phenomenological study examining experiences of families of students with disabilities in Georgia public schools during the COVID-19 pandemic and looking forward

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 04/20/2023

Defense Date 01/09/2023

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

Tag COVID-19 pandemic,educational equity,Georgia,OAI-PMH Harvest,Public school,Special Education,students with disabilities

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Krop, Cathy (committee chair), Picus, Larry (committee member), Tambascia, Tracy (committee member)

Creator Email abreu.ami@gmail.com,amiabreu@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113056658

Unique identifier UC113056658

Identifier etd-AbreuAmi-11665.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-AbreuAmi-11665

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Abreu, Ami

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230420-usctheses-batch-1026 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu