• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

The Status of Special Education Services in Catholic High Schools: Attributes, Challenges, and Needs

Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2006, 06:00 CDT

By Bello, Denise A

ABSTRACT:

This study investigated issues that Catholic high schools encounter in their efforts to develop and implement special education services for students with disabilities. Results are based on survey responses from a stratified random sample of 300 Catholic high schools. Survey instruments were developed based on inclusion factors that were identified by the Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices. Schools responded based on the following options: (a) having no special education services, (b) being in the process of planning services, or (c) providing special education services. Demographic information on students with disabilities is reported for all schools. A description of services and major challenges are reported for Catholic high schools providing special education services. These challenges are compared with those reported by schools not providing services.

No formalized system for students with special needs currently exists within Catholic schools. Unlike public schools, Catholic schools are not legally required to meet the need of every child (Pitasky, 1999; Shaughnessy, 1998). Moreover, Catholic schools and Catholic secondary schools in particular, have traditionally excluded students with special needs due to the nature of the schools' limited academic curriculum and college preparatory focus (Shokraii, 1997). Although a number of past studies have asserted that Catholic schools were successful in meeting the needs of specific socioeconomically "at risk" populations (Byrk, Lee, & Holland, 1993; Convey, 1992; Greeley 1989; Keith & Page, 1985; Shokraii; Wilms, 1985), the distinctive features that have been equated with their instructional effectiveness, such as rigorous curriculum, strict disciplinary code, and controlled communal atmosphere (Jacobs, 1997), have also been viewed as exclusionary rather than inclusionaiy.

However, in 1962, with the convening of the second Vatican Council (Vatican II), a paradigm shift began to evolve. Vatican II, an ecclesial, theological, and ecumenical congress invoked by Pope John XXIII and held from 1962 through 1965, was the impetus for institutional change in Church doctrine (Flannery, 1996). A central message that emerged from this convocation of over 2,000 church leaders was that the Catholic Church must no longer operate as a separate entity "but must become profoundly engaged with the reality of the world's experiences" (McDade, 1991, p. 422 ). This theme also had an impact on Catholic education, and a subsequent statement on schooling was issued through the Decfaration on Christian Education (Vatican II, 1965), calling for a new, more humane environment, characterized by freedom and charity (Byrk et al., 1993; Shimabukuro, 1998).

This new social consciousness provided momentum for Catholic schools to re-address their purpose. In 1982, the National Catholic Office of Persons with Disabilities was established. Programs for a wide range of students with disabilities began to emerge and the parameters of this reformation continued to be explored for another decade (Congregation for Catholic Education, 1997; Hastings, 1991; Hunt, Joseph, & Nuzzi, 2002; National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1990; National Congress of Catholic Schools, 1991; Nuzzi, 1996). Beyond confirming the ministry of Catholic schools as a communal source of societal service, discussions centered around critical changes for the 21st century that emphasized the inclusion of all children (McDermott, 1997). At the National Conference of Bishops held in 1990, the right of all baptized children to Catholic/ Christian education was underscored and a commitment was made to ensure that Catholic schools become available for all Catholic parents who wish to send their children to them. Furthermore, the uniqueness of each child was recognized and an emphasis was placed on teachers to respond to individual differences among students (McDermott). This moral imperative brought the issue of including special needs students within Catholic schools to the forefront. Catholic educational policymakers at the national level, along with parish and diocesan leaders, and Catholic school principals began to address this key issue of reformation as it pertained to children with disabilities (Kealey, 1998).

Despite this longstanding, moral call to action, no framework has evolved within the Catholic system of education that could direct and unify the efforts of individual schools, parishes, or dioceses in establishing effective, inclusive practices and programs for students with disabilities. This is particularly compelling since, in the post-Reauthorization era, local education agencies are now less obligated to provide financial support or services to parentally placed private school students with disabilities (Pitasky, 1999). Although a growing number of Catholic schools across the country are offering services for students with special needs, there are still Catholic schools that close their doors to this population. For those that do offer services, there is a wide variation in the type and level of services and programs that are offered (Hunt et al., 2002; Owen, 1997).

The inclusion of students with special needs presents a unique educational challenge for Catholic schools, and specifically for Catholic high schools. With limited fiscal resources and no official governing body to authorize and coordinate educational support and services for students with disabilities, inclusion efforts have often been hampered, inconsistent, and for the most part, without evaluation (Hunt et al., 2002; Owen, 1997). Although there are some data to suggest that students with disabilities are represented in Catholic elementary schools, the percentage is considerably less at the secondary level (Hunt et al.). The departmental structure of high schools, the strong emphasis on curricular standards (McCory- Cole & McLesky, 1997), and the "above-average" expectancy of high school student performance (Hunt et al.; Kealey, 1998) all contribute to the specific difficulties of restructuring Catholic high schools to become more inclusive. Given these perspectives, the purpose of this study was to investigate the issues facing Catholic high schools in their efforts to include students with disabilities.

METHOD

INSTRUMENTATION

The survey utilized in this study was specifically constructed to gather data relevant to inclusion practices in Catholic high schools. Three survey options, a cover letter, and directions for completion were provided in each mailing: Survey A: Catholic schools not providing services for students with disabilities, Survey B: Catholic schools in the planning phase of developing services for students with disabilities, and Survey C: Catholic schools providing services for students with disabilities. The section about service attributes found in Survey C was predicated on an assessment instrument generated by the Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices (1996) that addressed six major policy areas currently associated with educational reform (Strieker, Salisbury & Roach, 2001).

Instrument validity and reliability, as well as each survey's construction quality, organization, and readability were assessed through an expert panel review in order to minimize both random and bias measurement error. Fifteen expert panel members were selected based on their knowledge and experience with inclusion practices in general, as well as their knowledge and/or experience with Catholic secondary schools.

SAMPLE AND POPULATION

The National Catholic Education Association (NCEA) provided a random stratified cluster sample of 300 high schools selected from the population of the existing 1,228 Catholic high schools. A stratified random cluster sampling was used and yielded a 50% response rate between April and November 2003. The final n (150) reflected die population distribution across NCEAs demographically defined areas: (a) source of sponsorship (parish, n = 14, 9.5%; interparish, n = 7, 4.8%; diocesan, n = 59, 39.9%; private, n = 67, 45%); (b) school location (urban, n = 62, 41%; inner-city, n = 14, 10%; suburban, n = 52, 36%; rural n = 20, 13/5%); (c) region (New England, n = 15, 10.2%; Mideast, n = 42, 28.6%; Great Lakes, n = 30, 21%; West/Far West, n = 24, 16.3%; Southeast, n = 19, 13.5%; Plains n = 16, 10.9%); and (d) gender (single gender, male, n = 22, 14.3%, female, n = 39, 26.1% vs. co-ed population, n = 88, 59.1%).

The demographic characteristics of survey respondents indicated that most were (a) administrators (n = 95, 63.3%), (b) educators with over 20 years of experience (n = 109, 72.7%), and (c) almost half (n = 74, 49.3%) reported no formal preparation in special education. Most schools (59.3%) reported neither enrolling, nor having services; 36% reported enrolling students with disabilities and offering some type of service; and 4.7% indicated they were in the planning phase of developing services. The following reports on the findings from 54 schools providing services.

RESULTS

SPECIFIC DISABILITIES AND TYPES OF SERVICES AND PROGRAMS

Respondents indicated identified disabilities of currently enrolled students \based on IDEA categories. The majority served students with learning disabilities (94.4%) and other health impairments, which included students with attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorders (ADHD; 79.6%). A small percentage enrolled students with emotional disabilities (27.8%), autism (9.3%), traumatic brain injury (9.3%), and moderate and severe disabilities (5.6%). The size of special education enrollment ranged from 2 to 150 students (X = 36.8, SD = 34.3).

The majority of schools reported having special education services (63%), as opposed to a structured special education program (14.8%) or special education department (22.2%). This was moderately associated with the size of the special education enrollment (Cramer's V = .304, .W = .430). Fifteen types of services (Table 1) were reported with most schools providing supplemental services for students with disabilities who were enrolled in regular education classes.

In schools with resource room assistance, the support staff varied and was comprised of either a special education teacher (53.8%); a combination of professionals, including special and regular education teachers, counselors, and volunteers (19.2%); regular education teachers (15.4%); or other personnel such as a reading teacher or a study skills teacher (11.5%). In the majority of schools with either full-time (31.4%) or part-time (27.4%) special education teachers that provide services for students with learning disabilities (94.4%), team-taught classes were seldom an option (17.6% and 28.5%, respectively).

TABLE 1

Types of Services for Students With Disabilities Reported by School Respondents

TYPES OF EDUCATIONAL PROFESSIONALS WORKING WITH STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

A content analysis revealed that the majority of schools (90.7%) employed full- and/or part-time professionals to support students with disabilities, with almost half (44%) having either a full(31 1.5%) or part-time (13%) special education director. A number of schools also reported employing full-time (31.5%) and/or part-time (25.9%) special education teachers to provide services. Although the majority of all these special education employees were certified in their field, very few schools reported having the additional support of a clinical specialist, such as social workers (11.2%) or psychologists (4.2%). Totally absent from the list of reported professionals were physical therapists, full-time occupational therapists, and full-time volunteers.

The only professionals that appeared underrepresented were speech and language clinicians. Only slightly more than one third of the schools (36%) where students with speech and language impairments were enrolled (46%) had speech and language therapists on staff (part time, 20%; full time, 4%), or had access to this service through the public school (12%).

Although a majority of schools (n = 37, 68.5%) reported offering counseling services for their students with disabilities, only 5 (9.3%) of these reported using full- or part-time counselors. Moreover, respondents highlighted the fact that these counselors were part of the guidance department staff, and not solely dedicated to serving these students. It was unclear, based on how the data were reported, what other type of professionals might be delivering this service.

DURATION OF SERVICES AND CHANGES IN POPULATION, SERVICES, AND STAFF

Special education services were not a new offering for most of the schools. In schools with longstanding services (70.4%), the majority reported an increase in student population (65.8%), services (57.9%), and staff (50%). This pattern was somewhat similar in the majority of schools overall, in that most reported increases in both student population (68.5%) and services (55.6%). Although, some schools also reported an increase in staff (44.4%), a slight majority reported that the number of staff who was providing services for their students with disabilities had remained the same (51.9%), even in cases where population had increased (48.6%). Only a small percentage reported a decrease in enrollment (3.7%), services (9.3%), or staff (3.7%).

TABLE 2

Curricular Challenges

ATTRIBUTES OF SERVICES OR PROGRAMS

Respondents answered survey questions about each of the six attributes of inclusionary programming (curriculum, assessment, accountability, professional development, funding, and governance) by choosing one of the following responses: (1) none implemented; (2) considered, but not yet implemented; (3) somewhat implemented; or (4) fully implemented. Following this, each respondent ranked challenges they perceived to be most associated with each attribute.

Attribute I: Curriculum. A majority indicated implementing curricular efforts to address the needs of students with disabilities. Most respondents (87%, X = 3.2) said that their schools provided, to a full (44.4%), or partial extent (42.6%), opportunities for students with disabilities to access the core curriculum in a way that considers individual learning needs. In addition, a majority (83.3%, x = 3.0) indicated either partially (57.4%), or fully implementing (25.9%), ways for instructionally supportive materials to be available to their students with disabilities.

Although there were fewer schools with guidelines to specifically address the curricular needs of students with disabilities, a majority (75.9%, x = 2.8) reported implementing this practice to some (59.3%), or full extent (16.7%). In addition to these general guidelines, 31 (57.4%, X = 2.8) schools said that they had, to some extent, developed more specific guidelines and/or policies on how to use instructional adaptations in the regular education classroom, with 12 (22.2%) schools reporting fully implementing this practice.

Attribute 1: Curricular Challenges. One of the foundational characteristics of Catholic high schools is a core curriculum that all students are expected to complete, and is typically one that prepares students for college (Convey, 1992; Heft, Groome, & Lund, 1997; McLaughlin, O'Keefe & O'Keefe, 1996). While some Catholic educators, scholars, and policymakers emphasize that the subject of Catholic schooling is the student, not a specified curriculum (Jacobs, 1997; Kealey, 1991), and that "diversity is central to all components of developmentally appropriate (classroom) practice" (Hunt et al., 2002, p. 142), the literature on Catholic high schools is replete with the conviction "that a traditional academic program is appropriate for most adolescents" (Byrk et al., 1993, p. 105).

Table 2 displays respondents' rankings of curricular challenges. All 54 respondents highlighted a limitation that was a primary challenge to developing curriculum methods and strategies for students with disabilities. A majority also selected a second and third ranked challenge. However, only half o'F the respondents ranked a fourth challenge and less than 25% ranked a fifth challenge. This may be attributed to the fact that, for some of these schools, not all of the listed limitations posed a curricular challenge.

Survey Comments. Twenty-one respondents provided comments related to their school's curricillar challenges. Three themes were evident. The first theme related to the "college prep" orientation that certain schools readily endorsed. Tefl schools that enrolled and provided services for students with learning disabilities and other health impairments commented that as "college prep" schools, the nature of their curriculum rriade it particularly challenging to accept and accommodate students with disabilities. The second theme highlighted the notion of general versus individually oriented accommodations. Four respondents stated that developing general curricular guidelines for their students with disabilities proposed a complex challenge in that such action required concentrated time and expertise, as well as infringed on the individual teacher's decision-making power in the classroom. Subsequently, these schools tried to provide accommodations and modifications on a more individual basis, with one schobl noting that if a policy seemed particularly detrimental to too many of the students, they would make ah effort to revise it. The third obstacle focused on the current issue of standards. Several respondents noted that curricular modifications were particularly difficult in light of the demands of state testing standards and diploma requirements to which their schools adhered.

In a note of contrast, citing that the initial years of their program had been challenging (with services provided in a nearby motel by the local public school), a school in its 12th year of delivering special education services was now expanding its curricular options to include career services, an endeavor supported by local businesses.

Attribute 2: Assessment. The majority (n = 44, 81.4%, x = 3.1) of schools reported that large scale assessments for their entire student population were either fully utilized (n = 26, 48.1%), or utilized to some extent (n = 18, 33.3%). Of those that fully utilized large scale assessments, the majority (x = 23, 88.4%, X = 2.9) had either fully implemented (x = 17, 65.3%) or somewhat implemented (n = 6, 23%) written guidelines or policies for the participation of students with disabilities. A large majority of these schools (n = 39, 88.6%, x = 2.9) also reported either fully (n = 24, 54.5%) or to some extent (n = 15, 34%), implementing guidelines and/or policies on how to accommodate the special education students who participate in these types of assessments. Of the 44 (81.4%) schools that used some type of large-scale assessments, almost half (n = .20, 45.4%, X = 2.1) did not utilize any type of alternative evaluations for their nonparticipating students with disabilities, although three (5.6%) of these schools were considering doing so.

However, in the classroom, the majority (n = 40, 74%, x = 2.7) of scliools reported either implementing to so\me extent (n = 33, 61.1%), or to a full extent (n = 7, 13%), various assessment methods to support students with disabilities, and slightly more than half (n = 30, 55.5%, x = 2.3) reported having partially (n = 24, 44.4%), or fully implementing (n = 6, 11.1%) specific grading and reporting policies that address the needs of students with disabilities. It is interesting that respondents ranked grading and reporting as the least important consideration in the planning phase. Although this slight majority reported that they had developed such policies to support their students with disabilities, almost half of the schools (n = 24, 44.4%) reported that they had either not implemented any type of grading and reporting policies specific to the needs of their special education students (n = 18, 33.3%), or were considering them, but were not as yet implementing the practice (n = 6, 11.1%).

Attribute 2: Assessment Challenges. Not much has been published about specific assessment practices in Catholic high schools; however, NCEA has designated assessment as a research agenda topic, citing the need for specific review of authentic and performance assessment in order to explore more "real world techniques" (Hunt et al., 2002, p. 145). This new research focus is fueled by the recognition that if Catholic high schools are to stay competitive with public school education they must respond to an educational climate that is very different from the one that influenced their formation decades ago (Youniss & Convey, 2000).

TABLE 3

Assessment Challenges

Table 3 displays respondents' rankings of assessment challenges. The majority highlighted a primary challenge in relation to students with disabilities. However, two respondents specifically noted that their schools did not have any challenges in this area and the majority indicated that not all the listed limitations posed a specific challenge.

Although respondents indicated that limited faculty and staff interest presented more of an assessment challenge than a curricular one (n = 27, 50%), a similar majority noted that limited knowledge and skills on the part of administration and/or faculty presented a primary challenge to both curricular (n; = 46, 85.1%) and assessment (n = 45, 83.3%) efforts.

Survey Comments. Ten respondents commented on assessment challenges. Several schools indicated challenges particular to assessment accommodations, with two themes evidenced: (a) the obstacles presented by diploma standards and high-stakes testing, and (b) the need for-more professional development for faculty to help them to better understand that testing accommodations for students with disabilities were not an unfair advantage. In addition, four schools commented that the only assessment accommodation provided to students with disabilities was extended time due to limited expertise and resources.

Attribute 3: Accountability. Slightly more than half of the respondents (n = 30, 55%, x = 2.5) reported that either to some extent (n = 21, 38.9%), or to a full extent (x = 9, 16.7%), their special education services were considered in their strategic planning. A slightly larger majority (n = 29, 53.7%, x = 2.3) reported that they did not, or as of yet did not have any type of evaluation plan for monitoring and/or assessing their special education services. However, of those schools that did have an evaluation plan (n = 25, 46.2%), most (n = 20, 80%) indicated communicating the information to stakeholders.

Monitoring special education personnel appeared to be slightly less challenging. Of the schools that employed either full-time (n = 17, 31.4%) or part-dine (n = 7, 12.9%) directors, a large majority (a = 14, 82.3%; w = 5, 71.4%) indicated that they used some type of personnel evaluation for them. Similarly, most schools that employed full-time teachers (n = 17, 31.4%) used some method to evaluate them (n = 14, 70.5%), and at least half (n = 7, 50%) of the schools that employed part-time special education teachers (n = 14, 25.9%) did so as well. The majority of schools that employed more specialised staff, such as speech language therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, and social workers reported not consistently utilizing evaluation methods for these professionals.

TABLE 4

Accountability Challenges

Attribute 3: Accountability Challenges. Catholic schools arc not held to federal standards of accountability. For Catholic schools, the procedure and process of accountability is a complex issue that is fundamentally related to governance and administrative structure. Youniss and Convey (2000) describe this administrative structure as a "criss-cross pattern of authority" (p. 5) that is comprised of dioceses, parishes, interparishcs, and religious orders.

The respondents' ranking of accountability challenges are reported in !able 4. All of the respondents (n = 54) highlighted a limitation that was a primary challenge to developing accountability methods for students with disabilities; however, not all respondents indicated that each of the listed limitations posed a challenge for their schools in this area. Yet, the majority did indicate that limited resources and time, as well as the limited knowledge of administration and faculty, were primary challenges, more so than limited faculty or administrative interest, in developing accountability strategies for their special education services and staff.

Survey Comments. Only seven respondents provided comments about their school's accountability challenges. The tew respondents who indicated that, despite the "consistent need to explain the program clearly and the strong support from the administration and our governing board," time constraints were the biggest obstacle to addressing accountability strategies. In contrast, one school that had been implementing services for a period of more than 5 years reported establishing a special education task force that included goal setting and timelines.

Attribute 4: Professional Development. Although limited resources and time were indicated as primary challenges to offering special education related professional development, most respondents (n = 43, 79.7%, x = 2.8) indicated that their schools have, to some (n = 38, 70.4%) or full extent (n = 5, 9.3%), implemented a variety of professional development opportunities for staff, administrators, and stakeholders. A slight majority (n = 32, 59.2%, x = 2.4) also indicated that their school provided, to some extent (n = 26, 48.1%), or to a full extent (n = 6, 11.1%), opportunities for staff to collaborate and share expertise regarding the needs of special education students.

When asked if there were ways for special education staff to support regular education teachers who were working with students with disabilities, the majority of schools that had full-time special education staff were able to provide this support to a greater extent than those with part-time staff. In addition, the majority of respondents (n = 37, 68.5%, x = 2.6) reported that full- time and parttime special education staff were, to some (n = 24, 44.4%) or full extent (n = 13, 24.4%), included in schoolwide staff development activities. A very slight majority (n = 28, 51.9%, x = 2.2) reported that, to either some extent (n = 23, 42.6%), or full extent (n = 5, 9.3%), such opportunities were provided for parents and other stakeholders.

Attribute 4: Professional Development Challenges. The informing literature on Catholic high schools indicates that, in comparison to public schools, Catholic school teachers have fewer professional requirements and less opportunities for professional development (Youniss & Convey, 2000). Moreover, such opportunities in Catholic high schools are determined at the local level and typically, are limited by budgetary considerations.

The respondent's rankings of professional development challenges are reported in Table 5. All of the respondents (n = 54) highlighted a limitation that was a primary challenge to developing and implementing professional development that specifically addressed the needs of students with disabilities; however, not all respondents indicated that each of the listed limitations posed a challenge for their schools in this area. Yet, a larger majority did cite limited resources and time as a more primary challenge than any of the other limitations. Limited administrative interest was the least cited.

Survey Comments. Several schools noted that the challenge of providing appropriate professional development was perhaps their biggest obstacle to developing and implementing a range of services and accommodations. Three schools offered their solutions which included (a) using professional development resources (e.g., Richard Lavoie tapes); (b) assigning regular education teachers to the resource room for one period a day "to help them better understand the students' needs and accommodations"; and (c) using a learning consultant (supplied by the diocese) in order to provide training and support directly to classroom teachers.

Attribute 4: Related Professional Development Topics Ranked Most Beneficial. Table 5 displays respondents' rankings of their top three professional development topics from a list of eight choices. It is also of interest that team teaching was not a highly selected topic, considering how few schools offered this as a service provision. All 54 respondents ranked their top three choices, with a large majority of respondents indicating that having more information about learning strategies and differentiating instruction would be the most helpful to their school's efforts in meeting the needs of students with disabilities. The other top two choices, based on frequency and percentage, were alternative assessments and grading practices, and curriculum development and instructional resources.

It is interesting that topics related to curriculum strategies and assessment practices were ra\nked most helpful and were selected by a far larger percentage of respondents than topics less directly related to classroom instruction, such as legal issues and parent communication. It is also of interest that, considering how few schools offered team teaching as a service provision for their students with disabilities, not more chose this as a topic of interest in helping to facilitate this practice.

Attribute 5: Funding, A slight majority of schools (n = 32, 59.3%) reported using regular tuition to fund their special education services. Ten schools (18.5%) reported receiving funds from private donations; 10 (18.5%) received their funding from multiple sources, including tuition, private donations, and grants; and 1 (1.9%) reported charging special fees to fund their special education services. Only 1 (1.9%) school indicated no funding designated for their special education services, and this school had a special education enrollment of 20 special education students and a part-time reading teacher who supported their resource room.

TABLE 5

Professional Development Challenges

Professional Development Topics Considered Most Helpful in Meeting the Needs of Students With Disabilities

As might be expected, the majority (n = 52, 96.2%) indicated that to some level, the lack of financial and/or professional resources was a primary challenge in developing and implementing funding structures to support their special education services. The majority of schools (n = 34, 63%, x = 2.0) did not incorporate the cost of special education funding into their school's operating budget or had not developed any funding structures to address their various special education costs (n = 34, 63%, x = 1.7). Although of these, a small number were considering how to accomplish each of these tasks (n = 6, 11.1%; n = 5, 9.3%, respectively). Moreover, a slightly larger majority (n = 41, 75.9%, x = 1.6) had not implemented methods for analyzing their special education costs.

TABLE 6

Funding Challenges

It is surprising that there was not a strong association with how a school funded its special education services and the various funding attributes that a school had in place. However, as might be expected, there was a strong, positive association between the extent to Which a school had developed funding structures to address their various special education costs and the extent to which they analyzed these costs (ρ = .791). The extent of cost analysis was strongly associated with the extent to which a school included special education costs in their operating budget (ρ = .633).

Attribute 5: Funding Challenges. It is commonly acknowledged that the Catholic school system suffers significant underfinancing and numerous, fiscally related pressures (Byrk et al., 1993; Hunt et al., 2002; McLaughlin et al., 1996). For the most pan, Catholic secondary schools are financially responsible for generating their own income (Byrk et al.), with the primary expenditures going to teacher and staff salaries (Hunt et al.).

Table 6 displays respondents' rankings of funding challenges. Fifty-three respondents highlighted a limitation that was a primary challenge in implementing funding structures to meet the needs of students with disabilities. One respondent said that their school received special education services from the public school. Limited resources were cited rriost by a large majority. However, not all respondents indicated that each of the listed limitations posed a fuhding challenge. Only one respondent, whose school's special education services were provided by the public school, cited no funding challenges.

Survey Comments. Ten respondents provided comments. Several highlighted funding as their major challenge and oxriimemed on how costly it was to not only provide services outlined in students' individualized education programs (IEPs), but also to address the extensive paperwork required for accountability. A few respondents noted that if it were not for the support from parents and parish gifts, they would not be able to offer the services that had been developed. Some were seeking additional grants to help their program continue, but noted that limited time and resources were obstacles to this endeavor.

TABLE 7

School Governance Challenges

Attribute 6: School Governance. Despite highlighting a number of challenges in developing governance structures to support the needs of students with disabilities, all respondents (n = 54, 100%, x = 3.11) reported that to a varying extent (minimum n = 6, 11.1%; some n = 36, 66.7%; sufficient n = 12, 22.2%), the administration was familiar enough with the needs of their students with disabilities to make decisions regarding student-specific issues if necessary. A large majority (n = 52, 96.2, x = 3.09) indicated that to a varying extent (minimum n = 7, 13%; some 29 = 53.7%; sufficient n = 16, 29.6), the administrative staff had knowledge of their special education services, such that they could make supportive programmatic decisions if necessary.

The majority of schools (n = 49, 90.7%, x = 3.09) also implemented (minimum 3, 5.6%; some n = 28, 51.9%; sufficient n = 18, 33.3%) communications systems such that all responsible decision makers had access to important information related to their students with disabilities. Furthermore, the large majority of schools with both full-time and part-time special education staff reported that this staff was represented on their schoolwide and governance- related committees.

Attribute 6: School Governance Challenges. One of the fundamental characteristics of Catholic schools is decentralized governance, which in essence suggests an autonomous and site based management orientation (Heft et al., 1997). As a result, there is a large degree of variation in the governance structures of Catholic schools based on the type of school (parish, interparish, diocesan, or private); the orientation of the school's religious order; the preference of individual diocesan bishops; and the degree and type of authority relegated to the school board, advisory committee, or board of trustees, if one has been established (Byrk et al., 1993; Hunt et al., 2002). This assortment of governance systems does not lend itself readily to an organizational chart, but results in a "very loose federation ... of decentralized, school-site autonomy" (Mclaughlin et al., 1996, chap. 2, p. 31), with Catholic mission and service being the one common thread (Byrk et al.; Hunt et al.; Youniss & Convey, 2000). For Catholic high schools, there is also another common attribute of this site-based autonomy structure-the significant role of the principal. In Catholic secondary schools, although there may be administrative support from the school's affiliated religious order, diocese, or governing board, the school principal is responsible for virtually all decisions related to school operations (Byrk et al.; Hunt et al.).

Table 7 displays respondents' rankings of school governance challenges. All of the respondents (n = 54) highlighted a limitation that was a primary challenge to developing and implementing governance structures to support the needs of students with disabilities. However, not all respondents indicated that each of the listed limitations posed a challenge for their schools in this area. Again, limited resources and time appeared to be the limitations cited most by respondents.

Survey Comments. The three respondent comments appeared to support the rankings, in that although each reported that the administration was very supportive of their individual school's efforts regarding students with disabilities, the lack of both resources and time were cited as major barriers to developing more extensive administrative resources and structures.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

Most schools reported that, within the context of the six policy attributes, they had to some extent, implemented practices to support their students with disabilities. However certain practices were less prevalent. For example, a lesser number of schools reported that they had developed alternative large-scale assessments or had implemented grading and reporting systems specific to the needs of their students with disabilities. Moreover, fewer respondents reported that their schools had developed an evaluation plan to monitor the effectiveness of their special education services or programs. In addition, and not surprisingly, the majority of schools noted that they did not have specific funding structures in place that specifically addressed special education costs.

When asked to consider the primary challenges to implementing these inclusive practices, most respondents cited issues of limited resources (either financial or professional), limited knowledge/ skills on the part of administration/faculty, and limited time. Moreover, with the exception of assessment development, the majority of respondents did not view limited interest on the part of either faculty or administration as a primary challenge to these efforts.

CHALLENGES CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOLS FACE IN DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING INCLUSION

Respondents across all three surveys were asked to rank the three most challenging factors and the three most desired types of assistance based on the six attributes of inclusionary programming. Results are displayed on Table 8 and Table 9 respectively.

There was a slight difference in what respondents highlighted as most challenging and beneficial. Although funding assistance and professional development were ranked among the top choices, a slightly larger majority indicated that assistance in developing curriculum, adaptations, and modifications would be most helpful to their schools. As in the challenge rankings, few respondents ranked assistance in structuring an accountability process, or help in developing supportive administrative structures, as efforts that would be of primary benefit to th\eir schools.

DISCUSSION

This study provides the first detailed description of special education enrollment, services, and related needs of Catholic high schools. Although the data indicate that students with disabilities are enrolling in Catholic high schools regardless of regional location, setting, type of governance, or school gender (co-ed vs. single sex), the type of disability may be a mitigating factor in the enrollment decision. The majority of schools reported educating students with high incidence disabilities. While there was evidence that students with more demanding learning challenges (e.g., emotional disabilities, mental retardation, vision and/or hearing impairments, autism, and traumatic brain injury) were also enrolling, these instances were in the minority. These findings tend to support the most recent national survey conducted by NCEA, which reported that of the 187 Catholic high schools surveyed, the majority (n = 167, 89%) "are accepting students with diagnosed learning differences" (Hudson, 2002, p. 39). It is important to note that this term was defined as "students who have been formally evaluated with a resulting diagnosis" (Hudson, p. 86), and specifically eliminated students with any type of physical impairment. Additionally, not all of these students were reported to have IEPs, possibly indicating less severe disabilities.

TABLE 8

Rankings of Factors That Challenge School's Ability to Support Students With Disabilities

TABLE 9

Rankings of Factors That Would Be Most Helpful to Schools in Their Efforts to Support Students with Disabilities

The predominant type of service delivery was in the form of classroom accommodations and consultative support to the classroom teacher. At first glance, these services may appear to be an endorsement of the more radical inclusion literature that suggests all children, regardless of the nature of their disabilities, should be full participants in the regular education environment. However, upon closer investigation, the propensity to use this type of support, rather than resource rooms or team teaching, is most likely due to the limited professional and financial resources noted by the majority of these respondents. Because of these limited resources, approximately one half of the schools attempted to mitigate these factors by seeking and receiving support from their local public schools. This support was typically in the form of supplemental personnel services. Although a few of the respondents commented that their school's restricted authority over this service led to its discontinuation, it might be important to gain a more comprehensive understanding of those public school partnerships that were working, particularly in light of the resource challenges highlighted by these Catholic schools.

THE CHALLENGES AND NEEDS

The majority of respondents indicated that one of the most challenging factors in addressing the learning needs of students with disabilities was implementing a curriculum that was broad enough to support the needs of all students. This is not surprising given the traditional curricular structure of Catholic high schools and the strong "college prep" focus highlighted by many respondents. Such an orientation certainly challenges the ability of Catholic high schools to address the needs of students with more severe learning needs. From this perspective, their choice not to enroll such students, or their limitations in implementing a wider range of alternative instructional practices is understandable.

Relevant professional development was identified as the primary way to improve services. The identification of "learning strategies and differentiating instruction" as the most desired professional development topic indicates that a more flexible curriculum may be needed. Supportive professional development appears to be a viable way to address the need for curricular accommodations and modifications within the traditions of Catholic high schools Furthermore, knowing that effective professional development costs money (Guskey, 2003; Kelleher, 2003), the budgetary constraints of Catholic high schools make the need for assistance in developing such efforts quite evident.

Although the majority of all respondents recognized that implementing an appropriate curriculum, offering supportive professional development, and designing more flexible funding structures were of primary consideration in addressing the needs of students with disabilities, it is not surprising that approximately half of all respondents also indicated the need to develop alternative assessment strategies. Most researchers concur that holistic assessment practice with varied approaches is essential to measure meaningful learning and to inform inclusive curriculum development (Bauer & Brown, 2001; Fisher, Sax, & Pumpian, 1999). Moreover, even though little has been published about specific assessment practices in Catholic high schools, the need to develop alternative assessment strategies conforms to one of NCEA's recent agenda topics that calls for research on authentic and performance assessment (Hunt et al., 2002).

Finally, the majority of schools did not indicate accountability and school governance issues to be primary challenges. This finding is not surprising given that Catholic schools are not held to federal accountability standards. Although Catholic educators have expressed a desire to provide an integrated, cohesive account of their educational practices in order to demonstrate their schools' effectiveness within the context of the national educational community, the lack of a unified accountability system inhibits these efforts. Beyond the fact that most respondents were school administrators who may have been less inclined to highlight such challenges, it may also be difficult for individual schools to fully realize how this lack of a unified accountability effort impacts their particular attempts to implement inclusive practices. However, if the effects of their specific teaching and learning processes are not held to clear standards, the question of whether or not such processes address the needs of all students, including those with disabilities, will continue to go unanswered.

Similarly, one of the foundational characteristics of Catholic schools is decentralized governance, which suggests an autonomous and site-based management orientation (Heft et al., 1997). The result of such an orientation is a large degree of variation in school governance structures, with school principals being responsible for virtually all decisions related to school operations (Byrk et al., 1993; Hunt et al., 2002). Other than the additional burden that inclusion places on these principals, this variation in governance structures makes it difficult to generalize how school governance issues might impact decision making that is relevant to inclusive practices. Although, from a broader perspective, the lack of a central decision-making body makes the prospect of developing formalized inclusive policies and structures far less plausible.

COMPARING CATHOLIC SCHOOLS TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS

The results from this study provide a number of points of comparison between Catholic and public schools' provision of services for students with disabilities. Although findings from this study do not offer specifics on the percentage of time students with disabilities spend in regular education classrooms, it is clear from the types of services reported that only a small minority of Catholic high schools offer self-contained special education classes for either part or all of the school day. In comparison, according to the recent national Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of IDEA (SLIIDRA), slightly more than half of all public school students with IEPs spend 80% or more of their school day in regular education classrooms (Abt Associates, 2005), although additional data reported directly by the states indicate that inclusion in regular education classes does lessen at the secondary level (ED, 2002).

In support of inclusive efforts, both Catholic and public schools overwhelmingly report employing interventions that are aimed at modified or adapted instructional strategies (98% in the SLIIDEA and 92.6% in this study). Moreover, both rely on special-regular education collaborative planning (74.6% SLlIDEA and 51.9% this study). However, the limits of this collaboration are indicated by the number of respondents reporting special-regular education team teaching (43% SLIIDEA and 13% this study), with Catholic schools rarely engaging in such a collaborative arrangement. One marked difference in services provided is the provision of speech and language services (96.3% SLIIDEA and 13% this study). This difference again points to the limited personnel available for specialized services in most Catholic schools.

Findings from both this research and the SLIIDEA study indicate professional development as a major strategy for providing teachers with the expertise needed to successfully educate students with disabilities in the regular education classroom. In a slight contrast, the latter study reports that access, collaboration, and teaming were the focus of district and state professional development efforts, while Catholic high schools indicated a need for a more comprehensive understanding of learning strategies and alternative assessment and grading practices. In greater contrast, public systems report a variety of professional development supports in the form of state, district, and privately allocated funds, while 90.7% of the respondents in this study indicated limited financial and/or professional resources as a challenge to offering professional development.

OVERCOMING THE CHALLENGE

Results from this study indicate that the primary challenges to serving students with disabilities in Catholic high schools are related to limited financial and/or professi\onal resources, limited time, and limited knowledge and skills on the pan of administration and/or faculty. Issues related to limited time and resources, often characterized as unintentional, institutional barriers, are highly resistant to change (Bauer of Brown, 2001; Pivak, McComas, & Laflamme, 2002). Yet, in order to create effective inclusive pracrices, a well conceptualized model that is systematically implemented must reconsider all facets of the educational process- from beliefs and values about teaching and learning, to logistical operations and financial resources (Doyle, 2001; McLaughlin, 1995; Sage & Burello, 1994). Moreover, maintaining such practices is in part, dependent on allocated budgetary support and the removal of competing priorities, so that professionals involved are not threatened by an overload of responsibilities (Doyle; Pivak et al.). Unless educators have the knowledge, skills, and confidence to implement effective inclusionary practices on a consistent basis, the probability that these interventions will be invariably and effectively used is unlikely (Schumm, Vaughn, Gordon, & Rothlein, 1994).

In light of these noted challenges, it was interesting that the majority of respondents did not highlight limited administrative and/ or faculty interest as a primary barrier to furthering their school's inclusive practices. Research suggests that teacher investment in inclusion may be hampered by factors such as lack of sufficient planning time, inadequate resources, and limited expertise (Pugach & Johnson, 1995; Ysseldyke, 2001). Because these schools did not indicate a high degree of diminished interest in view of these very obstacles, we may infer a genuine commitment to inclusion which is the foundation for successful programming.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Building and maintaining an inclusive culture is a challenging task for any school, whether public, private, or parochial. There have been widespread efforts to restructure schools for inclusion, yet the capacity to not only create, but sustain inclusive educational communities has yet to be consistently realized (Bauer & Brown, 2001; Lipsky & Gunner, 1998; Ysseldyke, 2001). Although many educators, parents, and other stakeholders assert that school programs need to be more inclusionary, the real message is that such an effort is not just about a place, a structure, or a method of instruction, but rather a philosophy about the very culture of schools (Stainback & Stainback, 1992; Villa & Thousand, 1999). The unique ecology and culture of Catholic schools makes this effort all the more complex.

Establishing a Guiding Framework for Planning, Implementing, and Evaluating Inclusion. This study supports previous research (Guerra, 1998; Hudson, 2002; Hunt et al., 2002; Owen, 1997; Pitasky, 1999) that has documented the intent and effort of Catholic schools to include students with special needs. It also corroborates the fact that there is no formalized system in place in order to support this effort. Furthermore, with no official governing body to authorize and coordinate these educational supports and services, these efforts toward inclusion will continue to be inconsistent, and for the most part, without evaluation (Hunt et al.; Owen). Given this situation, in addition to some of the other documented challenges Catholic high schools face, the development of some type of policy framework would serve to increase the prospect of more and effective practice. Although there is no specific model or blueprint for inclusion even within the public school arena, there are certain guidelines and principles that establish expectations of how inclusion should be developed and implemented. These guidelines and principles in turn, influence the educational outcomes for included students with disabilities (Bauer & Brown, 2001; Gartner & Lipsky, 2002; Lipsky & Gartner, 1998; Roach, Salisbury, & McGregor, 2002).

However, given their complex, decentralized governance structure, organizing relevant information into a framework that is useful for Catholic high schools is a challenging endeavor. A centrally coordinated approach that is managed by a well-reputed, educational organization, such as the NCEA, would appear to be an appropriate commission.

Creating Professional Development Opportunities, The recommendation to develop such a framework should not be misconstrued as a proposal for an overly prescriptive model with set parameters. Such an inference would underestimate the complexity of schools and directly conflict with what we know about effective change. Regardless of the specific initiative or reform effort, time must be dedicated to the creation of a "learning process whereby people's beliefs, ways of seeing the world and ultimately, their skills and capabilities change" (O'Neil, 1995, p. 23). In developing and implementing inclusive practices, where the key participants are the teachers and administrators, success depends on whether these individuals have the knowledge, skills, and supports necessary to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population.

In this study, Catholic high schools indicated a need for more ongoing learning opportunities in order to increase their knowledge and skills. Professional development that focuses on such topics as differentiating instruction, learning strategies, and alternative assessment, was seen as one way that this could be accomplished. Although there is criticism about how professional development is often designed and implemented and perhaps more importantly, how we as educa? tors evaluate it, there is little debate about the connection between ongoing learning opportunities and effective teaching (Kelleher, 2003). According to the Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices (CISP; 1996), professional development that supports inclusive practices is represented by a comprehensive system of professional training that supports and encourages the involvement of all personnel in addressing the learning needs of students with the full range of abilities and disabilities. Ultimately this type of approach becomes the way in which teachers acquire the needed knowledge and skills that lead to school improvement (CISP).

Public School Collaboration. Approximately half of the schools that participated in this study and slightly more than half that responded to the most recent NCEA survey (Hudson, 2002) indicated that they were receiving some type of supplemental support from their local public school. Knowing that federal regulations do not require a school district to spend any of its state or local funds on parentally enrojled private school students, and moreover, that private schools' access to a state's federal monies is still extremely limited (Pitasky, 1999), it would be very useful to gain a better understanding of these particular partnerships. In light of the significant financial burdens Catholic high schools face, and the obvious costs associated with inclusion, examining how these collaborative efforts were established and maintained might lead more Catholic schools to benefit from this type of support.

CONCLUSION

Although this study begins to characterize Catholic high school inclusion, further investigation of these practices is clearly needed. For example, in addition to gleaning more information about the represented range of disabilities, it would be beneficial to acquire a more comprehensive understanding of their instructional/ professional services. This, along with a more accurate appreciation of current schoolwide inclusion practices, would support future planning. Such continued investigatipn of these isgues is essential to determine how Catholic schools can "broaden the range of student abilities and learning needs based on the various disabilities which may be present in the student population" (Hudson, 2002, p. 39). Perhaps, even more importantly, this investigative effort can help Catholic educators formulate a vision for educating students with disabilities and in turn, support the broader mission of ensuring that their schools become available for all Catholic parents who wish to send their children to them.

The inclusion of students with special needs presents a unique educational challenge for Catholic schools, and specifically for Catholic high schools.

. . . the primary challenges to serving students with disabilities in Catholic high schools are related to limited financial and/or professional resources, limited time, and limited knowledge and skills on the part of administration and/or faculty.

REFERENCES

Abt Associates. (2005, March). The study of state and local implementation and impact of the Individual With Disabilities Education Act: Final 2nd interim report (2002-2003 school year). Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates.

Bauer, A. M., & Brown, G. M. (2001). Adolescents and inclusion: Transforming secondary schools. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Byrk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Holland, P. B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Congregation for Catholic Education. (1997). The Catholic school on the threshold of the third millennium. Rome: Author.

Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices. (1996). A framework for evaluating state and local policies for inclusion. (Issue Brief No. 1). Washington, DC: CISP Publications and Resources, U.S. Department of Education: Author.

Convey, J. (1992). Catholic schools make a difference: Twenty- five years of research. Washington, DC: National Catholic Education Association.

Doyle, L. H. (2001, April). Leadership and inclusion: Reculturing for reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Fisher, D., Sax, C, & Pumpian, I. (1999). Inclusive high schools: Learning from contemporary classrooms. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Flannery, A. (Ed.). (1996). Vatican Council II: The basic sixteen documents: Cons\titutions, decrees, declarations: A completely revised translation in inclusive language. Northport, NY: Costello.

Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (2002). Inclusion: A service, not a place. Port Chester, NY: National Professional Resources.

Greeley, A. M. (1989). My research on Catholic schools. Chicago Studies, 28, 245-263.

Guerra, M. J. (1998). CHS 2000: A first look. Washington, DC: National Catholic Education Association.

Guskey, T. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748-750.

Hastings, A. (Ed.). (1991). Catholic history from Vatican I to John Paul II. Modern Catholicism: Vatican II and after. New York: Oxford University Press.

Heft, J., Groome, T., & Lund, L. (1997). Patterns and possibilities: Exploring religious education in the Catholic school. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Hudson, W. J. (2002). Window on mission: A CHS 2000 report on academic and co-curricular programs and services and religious education and formation. Washington, DC: National Catholic Education Association.

Hunt, T. C., Joseph, E. A., & Nuzzi, R. J. (2002). Catholic schools still make a difference: Ten years of research 1991-2000. Washington, DC: National Catholic Education Association.

Jacobs, R. M. (1997). The grammar of Catholic schooling. The NCEA Catholic Educational Monograph Series. Washington, DC: National Catholic Education Association.

Kealey, R. J. (Ed.). (1991). Curriculum in the Catholic school. Washington, DC: National Catholic Education Association.

Kealey, R. J. (Ed.). (1998). American Catholic schools for the 21st century: Reflections on the future of American elementary school: Vol. 2. Washington, DC: National Catholic Education Association.

Keith, T. Z., & Page, E. B. (1985). Do Catholic schools improve minority student achievement? American Educational Research Journal, 22, 337-349.

Kelleher, J. (2003). A model for assessment-driven professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 751-756.

Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1998). Taking inclusion into the future. Educational Leadership, 56(2), 78-81.

McCory-Cole, C., & McLesky, J. (1997). secondary inclusion programs for students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(6), 1-15.

McDade, J. (1991). Catholic theology in the post-conciliar period. In A. Hastings (Ed.), Modern Catholicism: Vatican II and after (pp. 422). New York: Oxford University Press.

McDermott, E. J. (1997). Distinctive qualities of the Catholic school. Washington, DC: National Catholic Education Association.

McLaughlin, M. J. (1995). Consolidated special education funding and services: A local perspective. Washington, DC: The Center for Special Education Finance, Office of Special Education, US Department of Education.

McLaughlin, T, O'Keefe, J., & O'Keefe, B. (Eds.). (1996). The contemporary Catholic school: Context, identity and diversity. Bristol, PA: Palmer Press.

National Conference of Catholic Bishops. (1991). In support of Catholic elementary and secondary schools. Washington DC: United States Catholic Conference: Author.

National Congress of Catholic Schools for the 21st Century: Executive Summary. (1991). Washington, DC: National Catholic Education Association: Author.

Nuzzi, R. (1996). Gifts of the spirit: Multiple intelligences in religious education. Washington, DC: National Catholic Education Association.

O'Neil, J. (1995). On schools as learning organizations. Educational Leadership, 53(2), 20-23.

Owen, M. J. (1997). Inclusion, the millennium and Catholic education. Momentum, August/September. 48-50.

Pitasky, V. M. (1999). Serving private school students under the new IDEA. Horsham, PA: LRP.

Pivak, J., McComas, J., & Laflamme, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education. Exceptional Children, 69, 97- 107.

Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (1995). Unlocking expertise among classroom teachers through structured dialogue: Extending research on peer collaboration. Exceptional Children, 62, 101-110.

Roach, V., Salisbury, C., & McGregor. (2002). Applications of policy framework to evaluate and promote large scale change. Exceptional Children, 68, 451-464.

Sage, D., & Burello, L. C. (1994). Leadership in educational reform: An administrator's guide to changes in special education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Gordon, J., & Rothlein, L. (1994). General education teachers' beliefs, skills, and practices in planning for mainsueamed students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(1), 23-37.

Shaughnessy, M. A. (1998). Selected legal issues in Catholic schools. Washington, DC: National Catholic Education Association.

Shimabukuro, G. (1998). A call to reflection: The teacher's guide to Catholic identity for the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Catholic Educational Association, Department of Elementary Schools.

Shokraii, N. H. (1997). Why Catholic schools spell success for America's inner city children. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.

Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1992). Controversial issues confronting special education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Strieker, T., Salisbury, C, & Roach, V. (2001). Determining policy support for inclusive schools. Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to congress on the Implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: ED.

Vatican II Council. (1965). Declaration of Christian Education. Boston: The Daughters of St. Paul: Author

Villa, R. A., & Thousand, J. S. (1999). Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzle together. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Wilms, J. D. (1985). Catholic-school effects on academic achievement: New evidence from the high school and beyond follow-u

Source: Exceptional Children

More News in this Category