ProPullout programs

• Allows for the individualization of instruction many students need in order to be successful in school

• Allows staff with specializations in various areas to provide intense instruction with students in a setting with a small number of students

ConPullout Program

• Classroom teacher is held accountable for learning but many children are missing valuable instructional time because of pullout programs

• Fragmentation of student’s instructional day

• Disruptive to whole-class teaching• Missed instructional time• Create teacher frustration and

friction between staff members• Students are believed to suffer

academically

What does the research show about the value of pullout programs?

Let’s Look Back

• Affleck, J., Madge, S., Adams, A., & Lowenraun, S. (1988). Integrated classroom versus resource model: academic viability and effectiveness. Exceptional Children, 54, 339-349.

Summary• University of Washington and the

Issaquah, Washington School District developed a service delivery model for educating students with mild disabilities in integrated classrooms

• Administered jointly by regular and special education personnel

Summary• Conducted 2 studies over the

course of 3 years – Academic Achievement of Special Education Students and Academic Achievement of Regular Education Students

Definition of Integrated Classroom

• Regular curriculum and materials are used

• Students with disabilities (LD, MR, ED) are educated in regular classrooms

• Teachers have all had successful prior experience

• Aides are assigned for 1 ½ - 3 hours per day.

Method for Spec. Ed.• 3 year study• All students with LD, ED, or MR were

assigned to the Integrated Classroom Model (ICM) classes

• Only LD included in this study because of insufficient numbers of students with other types of disabilities

Method• Contrast group composed of special

education groups in the same district who were enrolled in a resource room

• Students pulled out from 30 to 150 minutes daily

• Same instructional materials and methods for basic skill instruction are used in resource room as ICM classrooms

Method• Nonequivalent control group design was used• Age percentile scores of three subtests were

converted to normal curve equivalent scores to allow a more appropriate statistical analysis

• ANCOVA was applied using the pretest scores as the covariate for the posttest scores

• Trait-treatment-interactional analysis was used to determine further effects of treatment

Sample for Spec. Ed• All students in both groups were

Caucasian• Both groups had equal socioeconomic

status as determined by reduced school lunch data

• Teachers in ICM and resource room model had similar experience and background

• Teachers from both models participated in staff development activities during the 3 years

Instruments for Spec. Ed.

• Reading, math, and language subtests of Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery was administered in October and May of each year

Results for Spec. Ed.• No significant differences between groups

during all 3 years in reading or language• One significant difference in math during Year

1, in which the adjusted mean for the integrated students was significantly higher than for resource students

• Trait Treatment Analysis shows more gains than losses in each subject in each program by at least 2:1.

• No significant difference in gains/losses between the two programs

Method for Reg. Ed.• Subjects were placed in ICM during

Year 1 of the study and a regular classroom the following year.

• Contrast group was randomly selected from each corresponding grade level at the same building

Sample for Reg. Ed.• 39 regular education students in

grades 3 and 4 from one building, and grade 5 from another building.

Instrument for Reg. Ed.• California Achievement Test Battery

was group-administered in the fall of Year 1 (pretest) and Year 2 (posttest)

• Battery percentile scores were converted to NCE scores

• ANOVA was used on pre, post, and gain scores.

Results for Reg. Ed.• No significant differences between

the two groups

Discussion• Cost-benefit

– Savings of $13,500 in ICM classroom compared to resource

– Savings of $41,250 for regular education in a school that converts from resource model to ICM because special education funds part of teachers salaries.

Conclusion for Study 1• Results of Study 1 support ICM as

an alternative service delivery model for students with LD.

• ICM is not a more favorable program, just comparable

Conclusion for Study 2• Support ICM as an effective

program for regular education students as there were no distinguishable differences in achievement between students in ICM classroom and in a classroom with students with no disabilities

Additional Limitations• Only addresses students with LD – what about when

classrooms that have students with other types of disabilities

• Can’t generalize to urban, rural, or culturally diverse settings (all Caucasian students in the study)

• Working in a school system that was already using integrative instruction

• Study conducted by University of Washington. They have been working with this school system on this model. Perhaps biased because they want to prove this model is effective in order to continue their work

Benefits• No pullout

– Possibly reduces stigma– Eliminates scheduling problems– Eliminates coordination of curriculum in two

settings– Support LRE– ICM is co-funded– Less space needed

A Comparison Study of the Ohio Proficiency Test Results between

Fourth-Grade String Pullout Students and Those of Matched

Ability

• Wallick,M. Journal of Research in Music Education, Summer 1998, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 239-247.

Summary• Examine the effects of a pullout

string program on student achievement in the writing, reading, math, and citizenship sections of the Ohio Proficiency Test

Method• Two-group static-group comparison design• A two-sample independent t-test analysis

was used to determine if there was a significant difference between the achievement scores of the string students who were excused from class twice a week for 30 minutes and the matched group of nonstring students who remained in class.

Method cont.• T-test, mean, SD, and p value of

each matched group were calculated and compared

• .05 was the level of significance used

Sample• 148 fourth-grade string students

and 148 fourth-grade nonstring students from a southwestern Ohio city school district

• Ability-matched according to their performance on the verbal section of the Cognitive Abilities test

Sample cont.• Hamilton, Ohio school system serves

9,900 students from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds

• 296 students in this study were drawn from 12 of the 13 elementary buildings (one building doesn’t have strings in the 4th grade)

Instruments• Cognitive Abilities Test to match

students• Ohio Proficiency Test to measure

student achievement

Results• Significant difference in favor of

the string students’ achievement in reading and citizenship

• No significant difference between the two matched groups in the writing and math sections of the Ohio Proficiency Test

Proficiency section

Mean SD t Prob.

Writing

SS 5.05 1.43

NS 4.85 1.29 1.270 .20512

Reading

SS 229.5 23.73

NS 223.2 26.22 2.127* .03429*

Mathematics

SS 214.8 24.83

NS 211.8 27.34 0.998 .31907

Citizenship

SS 231.3 23.71

NS 224.8 31.59 2.003* .04604*

SS = string students who were excused from class 30 minutes twice a week.

NS = matched-ability nonstring students who remained in the classroom.

OPT = Ohio Proficiency Test

Discussion• One explanation for string students’

scoring significantly higher in reading and citizenship could be that both sections require good reading comprehension and critical thinking skills

• Reading music involves interpreting abstract symbols and translating them similar to reading text.

Discussion cont.• Authors suggest that string

students aren’t losing instruction because they are learning new concepts like understanding fractions (1/4 note, ½ note) and manipulating rhythm

Conclusion• There were no negative effects to

the pullout program

Limitations• Study was conducted by music

teachers – perhaps biased• Inability to assess the impact of

different classroom teachers and school atmospheres on string students’ learning (in schools where strings participation is encouraged – students may have less difficulty because of cooperating teachers)

Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout

programs

• Rea, P., McLaughlin, V. & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Exceptional Children, 68, 203-223.

Summary• Investigated the relationship

between placement in inclusive and pullout special education programs and academic and behavior outcomes for students with learning disabilities (LD)

Method• Descriptive investigation which used

quantitative and qualitative methods• Explored relationship between

placement of students with LD and achievement, behavior, and attendance

• Archival data was used• Significance was established at .05

Method• Objective data relating to number of

accommodations and amount of special education services were collected from a review of students’ IEP.

• Doctoral students analyzed the data and interrater reliability was established.

Sample• Students in the 8th grade in two middle

schools in a suburban school district in the southeast

• Students with LD who had not been enrolled in their assigned school program for at least 2 years were removed from the sample

• Sample size was 58 students• Majority of students were Caucasian• 12.1 percent received free/reduced lunch

Instruments• Final course grades in language

arts, math, science, and social studies

• Iowa Test of Basic Skills – standard scores on reading, math, science and social studies

• State Literacy Passport Test• Student attendance records

Results• The two programs differed significantly• Students in inclusive classrooms:

– Earned higher grades– Achieved higher or comparable scores on

standardized tests– Committed no more behavioral infractions– Attended more days of school

Results cont.• IEP’s for students in inclusive settings h

ad 3.22 number of goals compared to 2.50 number of goals for students in pullout program

• Goals inclusive settings – focused on general ed. curriculum

• Goals pullout programs – focused on deficit areas and remedial skills

Results cont.• Statistically different patterns of

implementation for classroom accommodations (instruction, assessment, & behavior)– Inclusion – avg. of 14.8 accommodations– Pullout – avg. of 5.6 accommodations

• Time– Inclusion – avg. of 740 minutes per week– Pullout – avg. of 252 minutes per week

Results cont.• Students in inclusive classrooms earned

significantly higher grades in all four areas of academic instruction

• Statistical analysis of data on performance on the reading, math, and writing subtest of the state proficiency test revealed no significant differences between students who received inclusion vs. pullout services

Results cont.• Statistical analyses of data from Iowa

Test of Basic Skills showed students with LD receiving inclusive services achieved higher standard scores on language and math than students receiving pullout services

• Both groups had similar mean scores on reading comprehension, science, and social studies subtests

Results cont.• Statistical analyses of data indicated no

significant differences between the two groups relative to behaviors that warranted in-school or out-of-school suspensions.

• Attendance data showed that students in inclusive classrooms attended significantly more days of school than students in pullout programs.

Discussion• Five key findings:• 1. Students in inclusive settings

received higher course grades suggesting that programs that provide a strong focus on the standard school curriculum is beneficial for students with LD

Discussion2. Since students with LD in

inclusive settings scored higher on language and math subtests of ITBS, the assumption that small group instruction results in improved scores on standardized tests should be questioned

Discussion3. Students in both settings had

comparable scores on the state proficiency test. Authors state that the standard curriculum focus and accommodations for LD are factors in positive school outcomes.

Discussion4. Since students in inclusive

classrooms did not have more in-school or out-of-school suspension, the increased demands of full-time general education placement did not appear to result in more acting-out behavior.

Discussion5. Since students in the inclusive

program attended more days of school, this may indicate greater student satisfaction with inclusive services. Also increased opportunities for quality instruction and social experiences may have positive influence.

Conclusion• Results suggest that with

adequate adaptations, individualized programs, and sufficient support, students with disabilities can achieve academic and social success in general education classrooms.

Limitations• Authors are pro inclusion models so the

study may be biased• Authors state that the standard curricul

um focus and accommodations for LD are factors in positive school outcomes. This statement doesn’t match their previous comments that students in pullout programs are mainly receiving remedial instruction

Limitations• Sample size• Archival data from 1994-1996 was used

but study was written in 2002• Only students with LD were studied so

can’t generalize to any other disability group

• Convenience sample – not random sample

• One author references herself 5 times in this article so her beliefs are well-known

Are pullout programs sabotaging classroom

community in our elementary schools?

• Brandts, L. (1999). Primary Voices, 7, 9-16.

Summary• Teacher Researcher collects

quantitative and qualitative data to support her opinion that pullout programs may have a negative effect on the community of learners that may affect learning.

Method• Kept anecdotal records regarding:

– Loss of time-travel– Sense of disengagement– Lack of connection– Not understanding what was going on

when they reentered the classroom– What they missed while out of the room

Method cont.• Halfway through the year shifted

to “no-pullout” classroom. • Reading specialist worked each

day with the children in the classroom

• Kept field notes, videotapes, and interviews

Sample• 2 students in 2nd grade class who

left to attend reading pullout program

Instruments• Observation/Anecdotal records• Student questionnaire• Woodcock Reading Mastery• San Diego Quick Informal Word

I.D.• Stanford Diagnostic

Results• By end of year, one student had g

ained two years in reading and was recommended to be dropped from the program

• Other student was making steady progress

Results cont.• Receiving support did not impede

their growth as a reader and enhanced self-confidence (opinion)

Discussion• Teacher-researcher with the Santa

Barbara Classroom Discourse Group caused her to focus on what was happening to the pullout segment of her classroom.

• Encourages school districts to review the way specialized instruction is delivered.

Conclusion• Feels that pullout programs may

retard social interaction• Supports learner remaining in the

classroom

Limitations• Extremely small sample size• Biased because person collecting

the research was frustrated with pullout

• Made generalizations that weren’t based on data

Parents’ attitudes to inclusion of their children

with special needs

• Elkins, J., van Kraayenoord, C., & Jobling, A. (2003). Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 3, 122-129.

Summary• Investigated the attitudes of 354

Australian parents who have a child with a disability and who attends a state school in Queensland. Students were receiving a continuum of services. Many parents favored inclusion and a small group favored special placement.

Method• Coding schemes were devised to

record the responses• Data was analyzed to generate the

frequencies, means and standard deviations.

• Responses to open-ended questions were transcribed.

Sample• 100 preschools, 150 primary schools,

and 150 secondary schools were randomly selected from lists in the database of Education Queensland schools.

• 2 parents of students with disabilities were selected by the principal to complete the Parent Survey

• Tried to get equal number of parents from each disability group

Instrument• Survey of Parents’ Attitudes and

Opinions About their Children with Special Needs and their Support was adapted by the researchers from the Survey of Teacher Attitudes and Opinions about Students with Special Needs and the Types of Support for Integration/Inclusion used in the collaborative project with the Korea Institute for Special Education

Results• 354 parents responded• Almost all parents were strongly or

moderately supportive of the benefits of inclusion for children with special needs in general.

• 50 percent favored special classes when it came to their own child

Discussion• Most salient benefits of inclusion were:

– Social interaction– Greater independence– Greater understanding and tolerance by

peers– Friendship with non-disabled peers– Imitating behaviors of peers

Conclusion• 70 percent of parents regarded their child

as requiring more patient teachers, extensive change in regular classroom procedures, and substantial additional training for regular teachers but regarded special class placement as causing slower social and emotional development.

• Catch 22 – do you want academic or social growth?

Limitations• Principal selected participants• Validity and reliability of

instrument is questionable since researchers changed the instrument

Implications for Policy Change in Public

Schools• Does the school staff support pullout

programs? If not, other options need to be explored.

• Examine scheduling carefully. What do students who attend pullout programs miss in the classroom?

• Is it feasible for the pullout teacher to work with the classroom teacher in the classroom?

Policy concerns - schools

• Heterogeneous classes are those classes that are structured to include students from some or all of the following: different ethnic and cultural groups, high and low achievers, students with challenging behaviors, students identified as gifted and talented, students with special needs, English as a Second Language learners, and students with social/emotional difficulties. While teachers do the best they can, how are they supposed to meet the needs of all of these students? School administrators and teachers will have to carefully examine current policy and determine if they are adequately meeting the needs of the heterogeneous class.

Policy concerns – schools

• If general education classrooms are going to support heterogeneous groups, then differentiation of instruction will be imperative. Do all teachers know how to provide differentiated instruction?

Implications for Policy Changes in Higher Education

– Changing roles for classroom teachers and specialists need to be addressed

– Preservice teachers need to develop effective instructional and interpersonal skills to work with colleagues

– Classroom management skills are key for differing service delivery models

– Today's teachers must deal, as never before, with heterogeneity in their classrooms

Is pullout an effective way to help students who are weak in

particular subjects?

• The research articles found do not support pullout as being any more effective than leaving students in classrooms.

• Music students were leaving for a different reason and being out of the classroom did not negatively impact their scores on statewide tests.

Is there sufficient evidence to reach consensus on this matter?

• Most of the evidence suggests that students do just as well or better when they are not pulled out.

• However, in the area of students with disabilities, this evidence is for students with mild disabilities (usually LD)

• In the area of pullout for music students, they actually performed better on statewide tests in certain subjects and the same in others

What evidence is missing and what research might be done to

fill the gaps?

• Evidence for students with ED, Autism, Mild and Moderate Retardation is missing. Research with other disability types is needed.

• Do students in MS and HS benefit as much from a more inclusive approach because the gap often becomes wider. When team teaching, can individual skills really be addressed? Research with older students would be beneficial.

• Impact of pullout programs is a very hard thing to measure because there are too many other variables.