small paper

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 3, 2020 | 109

Special Education Students in Public High Schools During COVID-19 in the USA Matthew Nelson and Elizabeth Murakami

Abstract: The world, nation, and states have never experienced a pandemic that would affect us all at the same time. This article examines unprecedented changes and instructional delivery challenges under the COVID-19 health crisis. For USA students, school closures during the crisis jeopardised especially those underserved and with special needs, in their ability to receive equitable opportunities. In this article we exemplify how the pandemic exacerbated unequal and inequitable outcomes, with key leadership considerations focused on high school students with special needs.

Keywords: School district leadership, COVID-19, special education, pandemic

Introduction Peter is a 12th grade student (senior) in a rural high school in Texas and diagnosed with autism. With accommodations and supports from special education and general teachers, he has been very successful. He has forged strong relationships with his special education case manager and his Foreign Language teacher. During his senior year, Peter was maintaining high grades (A’s and B’s). Although he struggled with some social skills, he was a capable and accomplished student.

Peter struggled when working with groups or presenting in front of peers, but his case manager reported tremendous growth since he began high school. Just before the COVID-19 outbreak, Peter was participating in group learning and was a leader in his German class. He was on track to finishing high school successfully. Peter aspired to go to college, demonstrating interest in cinematography. His special education case manager researched college programmes of interest to Peter. He was meeting the GPA minimum required for admission at New York University (NYU) (3.69) and was but a few points away from meeting the GPA requirement at University of Southern California (USC) (3.73).

110 | ISEA • Volume 48, Number 3, 2020

On March 23, 2020, Texas mandated school closures due to COVID-19. The district organised measures for at-home online learning, provided tablets/laptops for students as well as WiFi strategically located across the schools’ vicinities. However, once the at-home learning began, Peter did not log into class meetings or check in with his teachers. Attempts to contact him were futile. Due to the loss of the supportive campus environment and loss of positive teacher interactions, Peter was in real danger of failing courses.

The school diagnostician finally reached Peter’s father. He reported that he worked 12+ hours daily and as a result, was unable to assist Peter with school. Peter was at home alone for the better part of most days and did not have access to internet. Peter was unable to access the school’s WiFi due to distance and his father’s schedule. The father reported that Peter was depressed and did not want to get out of the bed: ‘I am at a loss. I don’t know how to help my son.’

Peter exemplifies the reality of many students. Prior to COVID-19, educational opportunities for students in the USA were already uneven with a number of variables impacting academic performance, including a lack of family structure, behavioural and/or cognitive limitations among students, language learners, socioeconomic disparities and racial discrimination (Spring 2018). During COVID-19 these variables were magnified, jeopardising students’ ability to earn high academic achievement. If students like Peter struggled to perform in school, these extraordinary times further limited his chances of success. They were robbed of the opportunity for equitable outcomes when compared to non-disabled students with greater resources.

Peter’s example in a public school in the state of Texas allow us to share how unprecedented changes during the pandemic impacted students in need of special services. Here, we examine how adaptations were addressed in relation to unequal or inequitable outcomes during COVID-19. This paper was developed during the pandemic, between March and July 2020, when national and state mandates closed schools and while schools puzzled through decisions to reopen in August. We used pseudonyms for the student’s story and school district, with the intent of providing context to this case, and transferability to similar settings.

Rationale The Texas Education Agency (TEA) is the state’s entity that oversees education for more than five million students, distributing federal and state funding, administering curriculum, instructional materials, assessment and accountability, and support for specific student populations. Half a million of these students, or 9.6 percent, received special education services (TEA 2020b). For a student to receive special education services within public schools in Texas, the student must meet eligibility requirements.

Once a student has met eligibility through an evaluation process (sometimes through an initial teacher referral, or from specialists outside of school), an Admission, Review and Dismissal (ARD) committee convenes to determine the need and degree of supports and

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 3, 2020 | 111

services. With parental participation, the committee reviews medical and academic evaluations, results of any State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) (TEA 2020c), as well as behavioural and physical needs (Navigate Life Texas 2020). If the ARD committee determines that the student will receive special education services, the student is supported by trained case managers, behaviour, speech, or other specialists, and special education teachers. These professionals supervise the educational placement, needed curricular modifications and other accommodations. These services are documented and reported to parents throughout the year. Progress is closely monitored. If a student fails to make progress, the committee is required to meet again to determine the reason(s) for the lack of progress and adjustments to the student’s educational plan are made.

Important to consider in reporting on Peter’s story is that in 2018, federal investigations found Texas failed to provide adequate services for these students. In order to control the enrolment of students for special education programmes, TEA was found operating under a policy limiting the percentage of students receiving services (Ayala 2018). This policy resulted in an artificial decline of special education services while the overall population of students grew by more than a million during the same period. That same year, the US Department of Education required Texas to put into place a corrective action plan. Through the plan, the state attempted to address the lack of appropriate services for students. Although some progress was made before the pandemic, support for these students was still disproportionate and was further aggravated by the pandemic.

Special Education During COVID-19 Peter exemplifies how high school can be a testing time for students. Yager-Elorriaga and McWhirter (2014) recognised that today’s ‘young people are facing huge amounts of distress, especially from body image issues, substance abuse, behaviors, lack of confidence or security, not fitting in, or not performing well enough’ (p. 31). While confronting these issues, Peter needed to follow a rigorous coursework programme, prepare for state and course assessments, and pursue college admissions. A concern for special education students in high school relates to how successful they will be when transitioning to college. Gil (2007) confirmed that ‘the more preparation they have prior to beginning their journey to postsecondary education, the greater the likelihood of a smooth transition’ (p. 12). Nonetheless, school districts never anticipated the life-altering measures and the uncertainty generated by school closures.

As schools closed during the pandemic, TEA (2020a) required school districts to report on each student using the following terms: (a) engaged (when students completed assignments), or (b) contactable (when students were responsive to teachers). The report showed that one in ten students (11.3%) disengaged or were not contactable during the crisis. One school district with 489,000 students in a metropolitan area in the state, in fact, lost contact with 9,300 students in the initial weeks after the school closures (Phillips 2020). Economically

112 | ISEA • Volume 48, Number 3, 2020

disadvantaged students showed a higher degree of disengagement, and special education students were among the ones with the higher needs of adjustments in communication, modified instructional resources, and specialised services when schools moved to online delivery. Teachers were pressed to generate materials and activities in one week, and adjustments for students in special education required longer adjustments.

Out of 254 counties (municipalities), 172 counties in Texas are rural, with many students having limited access to WiFi (Texas Health and Human Services 2020). The delivery of education was not limited to online access, when transitioning from school to the home in March 2020. Teachers trying to reach students by phone were unable to locate families in districts, especially where the turnover of students was high. Not all parents came to schools to pick up laptops or materials prepared for students. Some small rural districts distributed breakfast and lunch using the school buses.

School Leadership in COVID-19 Times District superintendents and principals seemed to be challenged by three main concerns, including teachers’ skillset for remote delivery, access and delivery platform, and home environment, as follows:

Teachers’ Skillset. For the first time across the nation, educators were required to transition their curriculum to at-home learning on a large scale. Huerta, Shafer, Barbour, Miron and Gulosino (2015), considered that ‘[w]hile a great deal of research has focused on defining teacher quality in traditional settings, little is known about what constitutes teacher quality in virtual schools’ (p. 20). Principals and teachers poured their energies into developing learning comparable with on-campus opportunities. Nonetheless, Smith, Basham, Rice and Carter (2016) observed how online learning models ‘for well-designed courses and assessments are likely to be scarce in the newness’ (p. 176).

Delivery Platform. Overnight, students lost both resources and supports. Even though it may be assumed that all households have WiFi, not all students had high speed internet and stable environments for learning at home. While some students enjoyed home routines, meals, and family interactions to support their learning – some equally proficient students proved to not have comparable opportunities, hence Peter’s example. Yager-Elorriaga and McWhirter (2014) warned that without supports, students ‘are given the responsibility to teach themselves, placing them at the mercy of their individual differences such as family background, innate ability, and socioeconomic status’ (p. 33). Parents also needed to learn how to use technology and educational platforms set by schools.

Home Environment. A high number of students at risk of failing are found in the poorest or rural areas of the state. There were noticeable differences in student outcomes, where some students earned better marks due to being in an advantaged home (i.e. with stay-at-home parents, with a college education). Those in less advantaged homes were unable to sustain the same academic achievement on their own, despite the teachers’ best efforts online. At

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 3, 2020 | 113

school, Peter received multiple supports like adaptations, teachers and counsellors’ supervision, and specialised services. These supports were lost when schools shut down and at-home learning began. Many students had parents that were considered essential workers (i.e. construction, transportation, medical personnel, etc.) and were unable to supervise their children’s school work.

Not included in the three areas of concern was the leadership to generate important accommodations for special education students. Special Education directors were key personnel in a district’s office helping schools in facilitating the transition to online services. TEA (2020b) emphasised that, to the greatest extent possible, school districts were to continue providing special education services to students. To that end, TEA provided general guidelines and support to districts regarding continued services for these students. These guidelines were an important first step as districts navigated an uncharted territory. In instances when neither parents nor teachers were skilled to provide specialised academic delivery, districts provided additional support to both the adults and students. Instructional videos, equipment like speech devices, or one-on-one therapy were prepared for each child. Additionally, some districts relied on out of the box thinking and began providing services through teletherapy, virtual meetings with parents to provide support and resources and special education staff attending virtual class meetings to provide support for students. For school leaders, it was important to ask parents to keep an accurate record of documented challenges and student difficulties at home, since these students would be eligible to receive extra professional help once schools are open again (Swaby 2020).

Final Thoughts Peter transitioned to at-home learning on March 23, 2020. Most parents in different districts received technology and online guidelines, materials, schedules, and assignments. At the same time, parents were impacted with changed lifestyles, where some were deemed non- essential workers and could work from home supporting their children’s academics. Parents deemed essential workers continued working away from home, with restricted capacity to support children with at-home learning. While some had more stable home environments, many were from less stable homes. Some students benefitted from one (if not two) supportive parents while others would have no support and/or preparedness for special education needs. As an essential worker, Peter’s father was working long hours and could not make sure his son was even out of bed.

As schools prepare to reopen in the Fall, we are reminded that USA’s education goals have been controversial, where Spring (2018) affirmed that ‘equality of opportunity refers to everyone having the same chance to pursue wealth. It does not mean that everyone will have equal status or income, but just an equal chance to economically succeed’ (p. 5). COVID-19 produced massive shockwaves, intensifying unequal and inequitable outcomes among students. TEA (2020b) recognised that when focusing on the priorities of special education

114 | ISEA • Volume 48, Number 3, 2020

students, ‘[t]here is no defined or correct method to adequately and equitably meet the needs of all students in an unprecedented event such as the current COVID-19 pandemic response’ (p. 1). Nonetheless, the agency confirmed that students with disabilities should have equal access to the same opportunities as when schools were open.

In terms of leadership, Starratt (1991) considered that ‘educational administrators have a moral responsibility to be proactive about creating an ethical environment for the conduct of education’ (p. 187). Principals and teachers had to make swift decisions about what would be a true representation of students’ abilities in the academic work submitted by parents. Schools and their leaders could not guarantee that every child’s at-home learning environment was equal and equitable, especially when students required specialists and accommodations beyond those able to be offered through a virtual learning environment. The next challenge when reopening schools in the Fall is to increase the support for those who have had their academic achievement compromised due to the limited educational services during the pandemic.

School districts cannot ignore how the pandemic revealed how school leaders, teachers, students and families are less prepared for specialised educational delivery. Unchanged, educational practices often assumed home environments to be equal and alike. Such a viewpoint would be ‘blind to [the] socioeconomic and cultural differences’ (Allen, English & Papa 2014: 141). Modifications are warranted in order to address students’ learning, beyond the crisis, when we cannot be indifferent to the needs of students both in schools and at-home, considering their backgrounds, context, and differences.

Peter struggled with at-home learning and fell into a group of students who were hard to reach following the schools’ shutdown. After the diagnostician connected with Peter’s father, they strategised and employed strategies to reengage Peter in his academic activities. Peter interacted weekly with his teachers by phone and goals were met. School personnel hand- delivered printed packets to Peter’s home. He received assistance by phone. He was back on track to complete high school with a GPA that would enable him to attend college. Peter’s experience ended as a success story. But for every Peter, there were likely more students across the state and around the world who got lost in the transition from school closures to at-home learning. Educational leaders must be vigilant to safeguard learning in ways that best promote equal and equitable outcomes for all students.

References Allen, T. G., English, F. W., & Papa, R. (2014). A Philosophical Deconstruction of Leadership and Social Justice Associated with the High-Stakes Testing and Accountability System. In A. H. Normore & J. S. Brooks (Eds.), Educational Leadership for Ethics and Social Justice: Views from the social sciences (pp. 135-158). Charlotte, NC: IAP.

Ayala, E.-M. (2018). Texas Broke Special Education Laws and Denied Services, Federal Investigation Finds (retrieved from https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2018/01/11/texas-broke-special-edu cation-laws-and-denied-services-federal-investigation-finds/).

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 3, 2020 | 115

Gil, L. A. (2007). Bridging the transition gap from high school to college; preparing students with disabilities for a successful postsecondary experience. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(2), 12-15.

Huerta, L., Shafer, S. R., Barbour, M. K., Miron, G., & Gulosino, C. (2015). Virtual Schools in the US 2015: Politics, performance, policy, and research evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center (retrieved 4/19/2020 from http://nepc.colorado.edu /publication/virtual-schools-annual-2015).

Navigate Life Texas. (2020). Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) Process (retrieved from https://www.navigatelifetexas.org/en/education-schools/ard-process).

Philliips, C. (2020). San Antonio ISD Has Lost Contact With 25% of Its Elementary Students Since Spring Break. Texas Public Radio (retrieved from https://www.tpr.org/post/san-antonio-isd-has-lost-contact-25- its-elementary-students-spring-break).

Smith, S. J., Basham, J., Rice, M. F., & Carter, R. A. (2016). Preparing special educators for the K–12 online learning environment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31(3), 170-178.

Spring, J. (2018). American Education (18th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Starratt, R. J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 185-202.

Swaby, A. (2020). Special Education Students Fall Behind As Texas Schools Scramble To Adapt. The Texas Tribune, April 10, 2020 (retrieved from https://www.texastribune.org/ 2020/ 04/10/texas- schools-closed- coronavirus-struggling-special-education/).

Texas Education Agency (TEA). (2020a). Summary of Student Engagement in Virtual Learning in School Year 2019-2020 (retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/covid/covid19-Student-Engage ment.pdf).

Texas Education Agency (TEA). (2020b). COVID-19 FAQ: Special Education in Texas, May 27, 2020 (retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/covid/covid19_special_ed_qa_updated_may_7.p df).

Texas Education Agency (TEA). (2020c). STAAR Resources (retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/ student- assessment/testing/staar/staar-resources).

Texas Health and Human Services. (2020). Texas Department of State Health Services: Definitions of county designations (retrieved from https://www.dshs.texas.gov/chs /hprc/counties.shtm).

Yager-Elorriaga, D., & McWhirter, P. T. (2014). Positive Psychology as a Foundation for Social Justice Leadership. In A. H. Normore & J. S. Brooks (Eds.), Educational Leadership for Ethics and Social Justice: Views from the social sciences (pp. 23-42). Charlotte, NC: IAP. Author Details

Matthew W. Nelson Snyder Independent School District Email: mnelson@snyderisd.net

Elizabeth Murakami University of North Texas Emails: elizabeth.murakami@unt.edu elizabeth.murakami@gmail.com

Copyright of International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)) is the property of Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.