| Abstract: |
COVID-19 school closures disrupted special education (SpEd) in numerous ways. During the summer of 2020, district leaders across the U.S. designed reopening plans; these plans addressed SpEd and a constellation of other elements of schooling (e.g., remote learning schedules, device distribution, face mask protocols). In Fall 2020, district leaders sought to reopen schools and continue serving students with disabilities. Throughout this period, district reopening documents carried messages on policies’ explicit and implicit meanings (Hill, 2006; Yanow, 1993). These documents, or policy texts, matter because they reflect and contribute to actors’ discourse plus their implementation activities (Spillane et al., 2019).
This study uses document data from the U.S.’ 25 largest public school districts to answer questions about district-level messaging on SpEd for the unprecedented 2020-2021 school year. In total, the 25 districts serve approximately 800,000 students with disabilities (SWDs) across 12 states. We systematically reviewed district documents (e.g., district reopening plans submitted to the state department of education, memos from the district’s SpEd department website) containing messages about SpEd. We engaged in interpretive policy analysis, assessing the nature and foci of 520 special education frames.
This paper describes districts’ tactics for complying with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), adapting SpEd related services, and including SWDs to reach equity-oriented goals. We highlight how districts, as organizations, frame problems and solutions associated with SpEd. We reveal differences in how districts attended to various SpEd models (i.e., compliance, intervention, equity) amid the COVID crisis.
Districts tended to foreground technical details on the compliance and intervention models of special education but devoted less attention to the equity model. Across districts, 35% of SpEd policy frames reflected the compliance model of special education. These frames articulated solutions, such as new protocols for online IEP meetings, how to revise services listed within IEPs to align with the remote learning format/environment, and declarations regarding how the district would remain compliant with IDEA during the pandemic. Our analyses also revealed there was variability among districts in the proportion of policy frames aligning to the equity model. Strikingly, in 6 of the sampled districts, less than 15% of frames aligned to the equity model of SpEd.
The paper discusses potential consequences of these patterns in district level messaging on how to serve students with disabilities. It also offers recommendations for research and practice on SpEd implementation throughout phases of the pandemic. For example, to address stark inequalities, district administrators should shift resources, planning, and framing to increase attention toward the equity model. This could involve allocating American Rescue Plan funding to promote change aligned to the equity model. These shifts in organizational structures and practices could assist with moving beyond complying with regulations and delivering interventions to equitably serve SWDs.
|