Running Head: CREATING A DIVERSITY PORTRAIT

Creating a Diversity Portait

Laura A. Krcelic

American College of Education

CREATING A DIVERSITY PORTRAIT 2

School buildings a very diverse ecosystems, consisting of students and teachers that are

culturally and academically unique. When analyzing data for these diverse groups, we are able to

compare scores of students of different races, genders, and academic ability, such as

gifted/talented or special needs. The unfortunate reality for when we are analyzing this data is

noticing the gaps in achievement that exist. As administrators, it is vital to analyze these

achievement gaps that are occurring in your school building to determine the cause and remedy

to begin closing the gap. However, it is also necessary to look at comparisons not simply within

the individual school building or district but also in relation to the other districts throughout the

state. According to Reardon (2011), “the achievement gap between children from high- and low-

income families is roughly 30 to 40 percent larger among children born in 2001 than among

those born 25 years earlier” (page 91). Therefore, it is essential that as an education community

we also assess the growing gap that exists among schools of different family income levels.

Part 1: Data Collection

Below is data collected for the Jefferson pK-8 building in the Warren City School

district. This data shows achievement levels for the school compared to the average for the state

of Ohio. The state test performance numbers are based off of the Performance Index on the

school districts report card. There will be a further analysis of at risk student groups. The dropout

rate was not included because the data is specific for the Jefferson pK-8 building that holds only

students up until their 8th grade year.

School: Jefferson pK-8 (Warren City Schools)

Student Group African White Multi- Economic Students
American racial Disadvantage with
Disabilities
Percent of Total Student 52.4 26.8 16.3 100.0 20.7
Population
CREATING A DIVERSITY PORTRAIT 3

School Average State Average

AA W MR Eco D SWD
State Test Performance: 69.1 64.6 73.7 68.1 59.1 83.8
English Language Arts
(Reading/Writing)
State Test Performance: 56.9 58.9 59.8 57.8 49.5 84.2
Mathematic
Attendance Rate 92.8 89.5 91.2 91.6 90.1 N/A
Other: Chronic 29.6 N/A
Absenteeism
Dropout Rate N/A
Other: Mobility (Students 10.3 26.4 13.4 15.8 20.3 N/A
moving into and out of
Jefferson pK-8)
Table is broken apart to compare five subgroups found at Jefferson pK-8. These sub-

groups are African American, White, Multi-racial, Economic Disadvantage, and Students with

Disabilities. The lowest performing group at Jefferson for both state performance assessments in

math and English language arts were the Students with Disabilities, with a performance index of

49.5% in mathematics and 59.1% in English-language arts. The sub-group, Students with

Disabilities, composes 20.7% of the student population at Jefferson pK-8. This sub-group also

has one of the highest mobility rates for the school as well, meaning that these students move

into or out of the district at high frequency. Even though this sub-group as an attendance rate of

90.1%, the mobility rate could affect the content students are retaining from school to school.

The change in educational setting creates an inconsistent environment for students to learn.

Students that are within this sub-group are on an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and

could be in either an inclusive setting or within a self-contained classroom depending on their

needs. Students could be placed on an IEP for a variety of reasons including limited abilities in

mathematics, reading, communication, etc. It is also important to note that all the student sub-

groups fall into the category of Economic Disadvantage since it composes 100% of the Jefferson

pK-8 student population, therefore, this includes the sub-group Students with Disabilities.
CREATING A DIVERSITY PORTRAIT 4

Achievement Gap: School versus State Averages

It is important to not only analyze the data based on sub-groups for the school but also to

compare the performance of the students in your school to other districts throughout the state.

The greatest achievement gap that is occurring at Jefferson pK-8 is the sub-group, Students with

Disabilities, with a performance index that is approximately 5% below the next lowest

performing group in both mathematics and English-language arts. The average student for the

state of Ohio fell into a performance index of approximately 83.8% in English-language arts and

84.2% in mathematics. This Ohio state average is 24.7% higher in the performance index for

English-language arts and 34.7% greater than Jefferson’s Students with Disabilities sub-group in

mathematics showing an evident achievement gap between this sub-group compared to other

students throughout the state. The overall student population at Jefferson pK-8 is currently not

meeting the state performance index standard; however the focus will be on the lowest

performing group for further analysis and research which is the Students with Disabilities sub-

group. This sub-group was selected because of the vast achievement gap not only when

compared to peers at Jefferson but is especially evident when compared to other students in the

state of Ohio. It is also important to note that on the Warren City Schools Ohio Improvement 3-

Year Plan for the years 2014-2017 a goal was to reduce achievement gap for the Students with

Disabilities by 1/3 of its size. Since this was a goal of the overall district that Jefferson pK-8 is a

part of, the achievement gap for this sub-group needs to be further addressed since in 2018 it is

still very evident.

CREATING A DIVERSITY PORTRAIT 5

Part 2: Historical Perspective

The Students with Learning disabilities sub-group has been a key part of discussion in the

education community for years. Debating topics of whether students should be a part of an

inclusive classroom setting, the benefits and disadvantages of the inclusion setting, in addition to

different policies that are ever changing in our government regarding these students. The

Students with Disabilities sub-group is a very diverse group of students within itself. According

to McDonnell, McLaughlin, and Morison (1997), “the enormous variation among students with

disabilities makes generalizations nearly impossible, and approaches to their fuller participation

in standards-based reforms will need to take this diversity into account” (page 1). The variations

among the sub-group cause the controversy on how to best educate students found within this

sub-group. It is also important to recognize that students within this group are also apart of other

sub-groups that may add to the adversity they face in their educational career. For instance, at

Jefferson pK-8 in Warren, Ohio, all of the students that are classified within the Students with

Disabilities sub-group are considered to also be economically disadvantaged and many identify

as African-America or Multiracial.

The majority of the students that hold Individualized Education Programs (IEP) at

Jefferson pK-8 are a part of the inclusion classroom. According to Jobe, Rust, and Brissie

(1996), when discussing what inclusion is defined it as “all students, regardless of disability, are

educated in the integrated, general education class. Regular teachers are asked to provide

experiences that are appropriate for all of their students. The special education teacher provides

support in the regular classroom” (page 1). Therefore, in the inclusion environment, the general

education teacher focuses on developing lessons that are content relevant and engaging to

students within their students age group. From there the Intervention Specialist (IST) is
CREATING A DIVERSITY PORTRAIT 6

responsible to providing accommodations to students to help the students understand the content

and achieve the grade level goal. The idea of having a classroom that was inclusive for all

students regardless of ability began in New Zealand, England, and Canada before spreading to

other countries throughout the world, including the United States, to fully implement the

inclusive setting. Research has shown in the past that students that remained in a self-contained

classroom or were pulled out of regular education courses for certain periods did not have any

higher of achievement than their grade level peers in the regular education classroom. By

removing and isolating students in these settings, students are being taken away from

opportunities to develop socially as well as academically alongside their peers.

However, there are some arguments against the idea of an inclusive classroom. The main

argument against an inclusive environment pertains to the 1990 Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA). According to Jobe, Rust, and Brissie (1996), the IDEA states “that a free

and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment based on the individual

needs of the students be provided to individuals with disabilities” (page 2). All students have a

right to an appropriate education where they are best able to achieve success. Some believe that

an inclusive environment may not be the most ideal for all students that are considered to have a

disability. The classroom setting needs to be effective planned out along with the lessons and

strategies utilized in order to best educate all of the students. In some circumstances, challenges

in education students with disabilities may persist based on students that need accommodations

to be successful are in a large class size that has only the general education teacher without an

intervention specialist (IST) could hinder the success of some students with IEP’s. It is vital that

teachers consider the needs of all students when creating their lessons and even if the IST is not

in a co-teaching environment for that specific course, they are still utilized as a resource by the
CREATING A DIVERSITY PORTRAIT 7

teacher to help students be successful through sharing strategies and best practices for providing

accommodations.

Conclusion

Many teachers attitudes towards having students with disabilities in their classroom could

affect the effectiveness of the learning strategies being used. A negative outlook for providing

services to students with disabilities is developed from a lack of understanding and further

learning by the teachers. The teachers that have the negative outlook may view providing these

services as more work being added to their already full plate. However, it is not a matter of

adding more work onto teachers but rather changing teaching strategies in the classroom to

provide best practices that meets the needs of all students that walk through their door.

According to Chenowith (2014), “as educators in a pluralistic society, it is necessary that

teachers be adaptive, culturally aware, and sensitive to the challenges of teaching students who

may not share the same ethnic and cultural heritages” (page 35). It is important for members of

the educational community to recognize diversity as being more than cultural differences that are

based on ethnicity and heritage but also the role of learning needs. Therefore, taking what

Chenowith said about teachers being flexible and willing to understand the mentality students

bring to the classroom needs to be applied to our students with special needs as well. The more

educated we are as teachers and administrators on topics, such as strategies for teaching students

with disabilities in an inclusive classroom, is the best way to develop a positive attitude from

staff about inclusion. Once this is developed, there should be an evident deduction in the

achievement gap for students with disabilities.

CREATING A DIVERSITY PORTRAIT 8

References

Chenowith, N. H. (2014). Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and Cultural Scaffolding in Literacy

Education. The Ohio Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 35. Retrieved November 21,

2018.

Jobe, D., Rust, J. O., & Brissie, J. (1996). Teacher Attitudes Toward Inclusion of Students with

Disabilties into Regular Classrooms. Education. Retrieved November 21, 2018.

McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (1997). Educating One and All: Students

with Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press.

Ohio Department of Education. (n.d.). Ohio School Report Cards: Jefferson pK-8. Retrieved

November 21, 2018, from https://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/school/overview/009112

Reardon, S. F. (2011). The Widening Achievement Gap Between the Rich and the Poor: New

Evidence and Possible Explanations. In Whither Opportunity? Rise Inequalities, Schools

and Children's Life Chances (p. 91). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Warren City Schools OIP 3-Year Plan 2014-2017 [SMART Goals for Warren City Schools].

(2014). Warren.