Although this article focuses on leaders at all lev-els of education, particularly those overseeing multiple schools or school districts, werecognize the direct influence of principals on social justice issues
I would like to know more about the experiences of teachers, students and families who were affected by these caps, and about the resistance at the institutional level.
irst, we encourage individual faculty ineducational leadership and policy preparation programs to emphasize through course-work both basic data analytic techniques, such as those presented here, and basicquantitative research concepts. We describe specific examples of quantitative researchconcepts below. Second, more broadly, we suggest faculty in preparation programsconsider, at the programmatic level, how quantitative data analyses can inform educa-tional equity and the public good
This links to critical pedagogy - students and instructors critically examine systems and structures and challenge status quo. This reminds me of the podcast episode with Prof. Gloria Ladson-Billings in which she speaks about the connection between critical pedagogy and social justice - and how race continues to impact educational outcomes and access.
Texas is one of only threestates in which the relationship between the percent of low-income students and thepercent of students in special education is negative and significant. In other words, asdemonstrated in Figure 2, higher poverty districts in Texas tend to have lower rates ofstudents enrolled in special education
This negative relationship should have raised serious concerns (if investigated before) that the system was not granting equitable access to services.
Parents notified local media outlets about their experiences failing to securespecial education services for their children. Ultimately, the Houston Chronicle pub-lished an investigative report on the topic and forwarded the findings to the ED, whichtriggered a subsequent investigation.
Yes for organized advocacy!
The Officeof Special Education Programs concluded that the PBMAS rating system effectivelyplaced “caps” on the number of students that districts could identify as needing specialeducation service
This was really surprising because it is illegal to place such caps. Special education services are determined by individual needs, rather than a random percentage. I wonder how federal oversight ensures that states and districts comply with the law.
districts in Texas were misusing and misinterpreting a TEAspecial education accountability system to reduce the number of students identified aschildren with disabilities
A sad example of how political motives can manipulate data-driven decisions in ways that harm community members who need services.