Special Education Teachers’ Perspectives on Interventions for Adolescents with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

1. Special Education Teachers’ Perspectives on Interventions for Adolescents with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders Carl E. Paternite, Ph.D. Stephen P. Becker, M.A. Center for School-Based Mental Health Programs Miami University 5th Annual IES Research Conference, June 30, 2010 Center for Adolescent Research in Schools Moving Youth Toward Success

2. Purpose • Examine issues related to the identification, educational placement, and intervention services for middle/high school age students with Emotional Disturbance (ED), from the perspective of educators who work with students with emotional/behavioral problems • Including factors related to placement of students in highly restrictive educational settings

3. Prior Relevant Research • Morse, W.C., Cutler, R.L., & Fink, A.H. (1964). Public school classes for the emotionally handicapped: A research analysis. Washington, DC: Council for Exceptional Children. • Grosenick, J.K., George, M.P., & George, N.L. (1987). A profile of school programs for the behaviorally handicapped: Twenty years after Morse, Cutler, and Fink. Behavioral Disorders, 12(3), 159-168.

4. Method • A national online confidential survey with educators who work with middle/high school age students with ED • With assistance of Market Data Retrieval (MDR) Education Universe 2009/2010 data base (n=9,119) • Participants recruited through both e-mail (n=6,263) and postal mail (n=2,856) • Initial contact and two follow-ups • Gift card drawings as incentive for participation

5. Sample • 1246 respondents from 47 states • Participation rate: 58% (of those who opened correspondence) 14% (of those contacted) • Current preliminary analyses: 1025 respondents working in high schools (N=573) or middle schools (N=452); Excludes those in K-12 buildings; 97% working directly with students classified with ED

6. Respondents by Population Density

7. School Enrollment by Type p<.001 Mean school enrollment for full sample =1045 (S.D. = 636)

8. % of Students with an IEP by Density U > all other groups RS > S Total sample M = 16% (S.D. = 8%)

9. Percent of Students Classified with ED p<.01

10. Social Maladjustment: Adherence to the Exclusionary Clause?

11. Educational Placement Settings

12. Significant Placement Differences Between High Schools and Middle Schools p < .02 p < .02

13. How Often Do Various Persons Initiate ED Evaluations? Counselor Mental Health Provider Special Ed. Teacher Psychologist Student 0 1 2 4 5 3 Always Never Nurse Classroom Teacher Parent(s) Social Worker Principal/Administrator Special Ed. Coordinator

14. How Active a Role is Played in Placement Decision-Making? Counselor/Social Worker Parent(s) Psychologist 0 1 2 4 5 3 No Active Role Very Active Role Student Administrator Mental Health Provider Teacher(s)

15. Students p < .000 p < .000

16. Teachers P < .002 p < .000

17. Parents ns p < .000

18. Who makes the final placement decision when there is a disagreement?

19. How Relevant are Each of the Following Factors for ED Eligibility? 0 = not relevant, 5 = very relevant

20. How Well are Domains Addressed for Students with ED? 0 = very poorly, 5 = very well

21. How Often are Various Factors Used in Determining Degree of Restrictiveness? 0 = never, 5 = always

22. Factors Determining Restrictiveness: Differences between High Schools and Middle Schools p<.05 p<.05 p<.05 0 = never, 5 = often

23. Importance of factors in considering a specific highly restrictive placement 0 = not important, 5 = very important

24. How seriously are various alternative placements considered? 0 = not seriously, 5 = very seriously

25. Restrictive Placement Options: Differences between High Schools and Middle Schools p < .01 p < .05 p < .001

26. For students in restrictive alternative placements, how much contact is there between alternative placement teachers/staff and teachers/staff in your school? 0 1 2 4 5 3 No Contact Daily Contact M = 2.3 (S.D. = 1.5)

27. For students in restrictive alternative placements, what is the extent of involvement of teachers/staff in your school in monitoring students’ continued success? 0 1 2 4 5 3 Not Involved Extremely Involved M = 2.3 (S.D. = 1.6)

28. Are Placements Viewed as Permanent or Temporary?

29. What percentage of students actually return to your school from restrictive alternative placements?

30. When students return to your school, how often are they monitored?

31. What is the importance of various outcomes in judging placement effectiveness for students with ED?

32. Effectiveness of Placement Outcomes: Differences between High Schools and Middle Schools p < .001 p < .01 P < .001

33. Discussion Questions and Follow-up Analyses • Examination of response variability • Teacher, student, and school profile/cluster analyses to examine ED identification, educational placement, and intervention service practices in more depth • Understanding of, adherence to, and implications of social maladjustment exclusion • Perspectives/practices/roles of middle vs. high school teachers; Differences in educational experiences for middle vs. high school students with ED • Identification threshold issues: externalizing/international problems and academic deficits • Permanence of highly restrictive placement assignments • Qualitative data

34. Next Studies • National survey of district level directors of special education services • Key informant interview study with front line educators and decision makers