View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Examining the Relationship between Receipt of Extended School Year Services and Educator Roles

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Examining the Relationship between Receipt of Extended School Year Services and Educator Roles
Language: English
Authors: Lucy Barnard-Brak, Marissa J. Filderman
Source: Preventing School Failure. 2025 69(3):237-244.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 8
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Descriptors: Extended School Year, Teacher Role, Incidence, Teacher Attitudes, Referral, Specialists, Self Contained Classrooms, Inclusion, Resource Room Programs, Special Education Teachers, Student Placement, Eligibility
DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2024.2429135
ISSN: 1045-988X
1940-4387
Abstract: The current study examined educator-reported frequency of Extended School Year (ESY) services recommendation and receipt and the variation in educator perceptions as to the recommendation and receipt of ESY services. Findings suggest that educator roles are associated with differences in the perceived receipt of ESY services. Self-contained teachers and specialists reported higher percentages of students who were recommended for ESY services that subsequently received those services as compared to inclusion and resource teachers. Results also indicated that self-contained teachers were more likely to perceive that students outside of a self-contained setting received ESY services while resource teachers were more likely to perceive these students as not receiving ESY services outside of a self-contained setting. It is posited that educational placement should not dictate the receipt of ESY services but it appears that this may be inadvertently occurring.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1494391
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFU0ooRy81b2OFhCMDBduvwAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNPvs40scfjYHFLAwwIBEICBm1-lx-tEMg2CmGbxFtLjpOjtUSMxV1BNCbmlu7DAwy3uPIChzCUPFv0DRmoB6Y2rGKsqFjak7Q1cx3_t65e1NrsTmDGhJIcsUPN_Cc-bdAb5D9dW4XheuJnscJ8ygkGKT1ywYjRmuLFMnbtJoWMT17r7fBuxzI5NPStMWEPqdezTffronbeeKPTYv9bemyjzZNcdXOktWN4GI1I5
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186284243;psf01jul.25;2025Jul02.03:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186284243-1">Examining the relationship between receipt of Extended School Year services and educator roles </title> <p>The current study examined educator-reported frequency of Extended School Year (ESY) services recommendation and receipt and the variation in educator perceptions as to the recommendation and receipt of ESY services. Findings suggest that educator roles are associated with differences in the perceived receipt of ESY services. Self-contained teachers and specialists reported higher percentages of students who were recommended for ESY services that subsequently received those services as compared to inclusion and resource teachers. Results also indicated that self-contained teachers were more likely to perceive that students outside of a self-contained setting received ESY services while resource teachers were more likely to perceive these students as not receiving ESY services outside of a self-contained setting. It is posited that educational placement should not dictate the receipt of ESY services but it appears that this may be inadvertently occurring.</p> <p>Keywords: extended school year services; extended year services; self-contained; teacher</p> <p>The continuation of special education services during lengthy breaks from regular schooling known as Extended School Year (ESY) services must be considered for all students who receive special education services under an Individualized Education Program (IEP) (Queenan, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref1">24</reflink>]). The learning opportunities provided through ESY services can take many forms ranging from more formal, traditional learning to more informal, interactive learning (Brewer et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref2">7</reflink>]; Johnson & Barker, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref4">19</reflink>]; Kuhfeld et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref5">22</reflink>]). The most frequently reported types of ESY services have been (in order): academic interventions; speech therapy; life skills; occupational therapy; behavioral interventions; physical therapy; occupational therapy; workplace skills; credit recovery; orientation and mobility services; and social skills interventions (Barnard-Brak et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref6">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>ESY services are differentiated from summer school, summer day camp (Cooc & Quinn, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref7">13</reflink>]) and year-round school (Jones, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref8">21</reflink>]), in that all of the latter: (a) may or may not include instruction or services provided by qualified personnel (e.g. certified teachers, speech language pathologists, physical therapists); and (b) may or may not serve the specific needs of students receiving special education services under an IEP. However, we should note that summer program personnel may be qualified depending upon the context (i.e. credit recovery as an ESY service may be delivered by a general educator), and summer day camp programs may accommodate students with special education needs but may not be able to support their unique learning needs beyond being generally accessible and compliant with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.</p> <p>The types of ESY services delivered can take several forms (Barnard-Brak [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref9">5</reflink>]). When ranking the most frequently reported types of ESY services,: academic interventions has been the most frequently reported followed by: speech therapy; life skills; occupation therapy; behavioral interventions; physical therapy; occupational therapy; workplace skills; credit recovery; orientation and mobility services; social skills interventions (Barnard-Brak et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>]). The frequency of different types of ESY services has been difficult to interpret as it can simply reflect the incidence of some disabilities (i.e. orientation and mobility services for visual impairment as a low incidence population) or just reflect the resources of local education agencies. In determining who typically receives ESY services, students in self-contained classrooms have been more likely to be recommended to receive ESY services than students in more inclusive settings (Barnard-Brak et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]). The students who tend to be in self-contained settings are typically students with intellectual and developmental disabilities along with students with more severe emotional and behavioral disabilities (Causton-Theoharis et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>]). Thus, it appears that ESY services tend to be considered more by placement than by the individual student.</p> <hd id="AN0186284243-2">Eligibility for ESY services</hd> <p>Eligibility for ESY services varies considerably by state (Barnard-Brak et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]; Johnson & Barker, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref14">19</reflink>]). Most states use the regression-recoupment standard in whole or in part (Queenan, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref15">24</reflink>]). Barnard-Brak et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>]) found that approximately 73% of school districts use the regression-recoupment standard as at least one criterion of many in determining eligibility for ESY services. The regression-recoupment standard states that students must experience substantial regression over a break that would be not readily recouped in order to be eligible for ESY services (Queenan, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref17">24</reflink>]). Defining the term of substantial regression and what is meant by the phrase 'readily recouped' has revealed much variation between and within states. In general, readily recouped typically means within the first six weeks or whatever the length of first grading period may be (Queenan, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref18">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>The term 'substantial regression' appears to vary even more considerably with values ranging between and within states again (Barnard-Brak et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref19">5</reflink>]). However, IDEA does not require states to use the regression-recoupment standard, though many states use it at least in part. In determining eligibility for ESY services, IDEA (34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.106) primarily focuses on delimiting what states cannot do stating that:</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>) In implementing the requirements of this section, a public agency may not—</p> <p>(i) Limit extended school year services to particular categories of disability; or</p> <p>(ii) Unilaterally limit the type, amount, or duration of those services</p> <p>As a result, case law outlines those criteria beyond the regression-recoupment standard, providing more guidance beyond IDEA, which provides simply what states cannot do. Most notably, in Johnson <emph>v.</emph> Independent School District No. 4 (1994, 10_SP_th_sp_ Cir.), several criteria were offered as determining eligibility for ESY services including but not limited to:</p> <p>the degree of impairment, the degree of regression suffered by the child, the recovery time from this regression, the ability of the child's parents to provide the educational structure at home, the child's rate of progress, the child's behavioral and physical problems, the availability of alternative resources, the ability of the child to interact with non-handicapped children, the areas of the child's curriculum which need continuous attention, the child's vocational needs, and whether the requested service is extraordinary for the child's condition, as opposed to an integral part of a program for those with the child's condition. (921 F.2d 1022)</p> <p>Case law appears to provide more guidance on criteria for determining ESY services than IDEA, which would appear to require families to have certain resources to access legal representation to pursue ESY services depending upon their state and local education agency. For instance, the <emph>Johnson</emph> case was adjudicated in the 10<sups>th</sups> circuit, which means that these criteria for ESY services are only mandated in states under the 10<sups>th</sups> circuit court of appeals (e.g. Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming). Other states and LEAs can and do choose to apply these criteria but are not required to do so as of yet. Queenan ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref21">24</reflink>]) further discusses the patchwork of case law concerning eligibility for ESY services and the corresponding implications. Thus, as there are many criteria for determining eligibility for ESY services across local education agencies, and the interpretation of these criteria can vary, there are many factors that can influence the decision-making of multidisciplinary teams.</p> <p>These criteria not even yet account for the impact of external factors. For example, the resources of local education agencies generally may impact the types of services they are able to provide. Incidence of disability may also factor into decision-making even though it is not an explicit criterion. For example, some lower incidence disabilities (e.g. visual impairment) may have fewer available options for services needed (e.g. orientation and mobility services) if education agencies need to focus their resources on more high incidence needs. Evidence supports this idea of disability impacting ESY recommendation. For instance, research suggests that students in self-contained classrooms have been more likely to be recommended to receive ESY services than students in more inclusive settings (Barnard-Braket et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>]). Again, the students who tend to be in self-contained settings are typically students with intellectual and developmental disabilities along with students with more severe emotional and behavioral disabilities (Causton-Theoharis et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref23">10</reflink>]). Each of these factors makes the determination of eligibility for ESY services quite nuanced.</p> <hd id="AN0186284243-3">Factors impacting receipt of ESY services</hd> <p>An estimated 6% (Barnard-Braket et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>]) to 8% (Barnard-Brak et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref25">4</reflink>]) of students with IEPs receive ESY services. This estimate does not reflect the number of students who are recommended to receive ESY services who may or may not subsequently receive these services for a variety of reasons. For instance, Barnard-Brak et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>]) found that barriers to ESY services ranged from parent cooperation, transportation to not being able to find qualified personnel. The number of students who are recommended to ESY services should be somewhat larger than the number of students who subsequently receive ESY services for each of these reasons; however, the overall percentage of students who subsequently receive ESY services after being recommended for ESY services is unknown.</p> <hd id="AN0186284243-4">Differences by educator roles</hd> <p>Typically, the IEP documentation process has one or more questions regarding the possibility for ESY services depending upon the student's local education agency and state. While no one person determines whether a student should receive ESY services, individuals including special educators and allied professionals can make recommendations as part of the IEP process in their role on the multidisciplinary IEP team. This multidisciplinary team hasdiscretion in making ESY decisions (Cooc & Quinn, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref27">13</reflink>]), which should be individualized and made on a case-by-case basis (Burgin et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref28">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, all educators operate within a context that can subsequently influence their degree of advocacy and the resultant decision-making process for ESY services. Educators with different roles have different experiences in the multidisciplinary team process (e.g. Beck & DeSutter, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref29">6</reflink>]; Dale & Bray, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref30">14</reflink>]; Dillon et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref31">16</reflink>]; Zagona, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref32">27</reflink>]), which could ostensibly influence their recommendations about ESY services. As a result, educators may have different perceptions of who typically receives and should receive ESY services as well depending upon their role. Educator roles and experiences in making these recommendations as part of the IEP process should therefore be examined.</p> <hd id="AN0186284243-5">Purpose of the present study</hd> <p>The potential for ESY services to maintain and promote skill acquisition remains largely unexamined as a mechanism for the continuation of special education services. However, there is some preliminary evidence that ESY services have been associated with positive academic (Barnard-Brak et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>]; Gershenson & Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref34">17</reflink>]) and better behavioral outcomes (i.e. better ability to transition; Barnard-Brak et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref35">5</reflink>]). Given the interruptions in learning that have occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic, ESY services could ostensibly provide many of our most vulnerable learners with opportunities to maintain skills acquired over the school year during the summer break. As such, the receipt of ESY services is an area worthy of investigation.</p> <p>The purpose of the current study was twofold: (a) to examine frequency of ESY services recommendation and receipt as reported by educators, and (b) to examine variation in educator experiences with the recommendation and receipt of ESY services. To achieve this purpose, we examined three research questions.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What is the relationship between educator role (i.e., inclusion, resource, self-contained, specialist) and the frequency of ESY recommendation?</item> <p></p> <item> What is the relationship between educator role and the frequency of ESY receipt?</item> <p></p> <item> What is the relationship between educator role and the restrictiveness of setting for ESY services provided?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186284243-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186284243-7">Sample</hd> <p>The sample consisted of 274 educators and related service professionals in special education across 18 states who volunteered to complete our online survey. One thousand email addresses were randomly selected from a sampling frame of 67,085 email addresses of educators and related professionals in special education obtained <emph>via</emph> public record requests from school districts over the course of the previous year. We weighted survey responses to balance out the unequal probability of selection across the states as some states are simply more populous and have more educators who were thus able to self-select to participate in the survey. A weight (<emph>w</emph>) was created as the inverse of the probability of selection (<emph>p</emph>), which in the current study may be represented as:</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>w</mi><mo>=</mo><mrow><mfrac><mrow><mn>1</mn></mrow><mrow><mi>p</mi></mrow></mfrac></mrow><mo>=</mo><mrow><mfrac><mrow><mn>1</mn></mrow><mrow><mrow><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>n</mi></mrow><mrow><mtext mathvariant="italic">state</mtext></mrow></msub></mrow></mrow><mo>/</mo><mrow><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>N</mi></mrow><mrow><mtext mathvariant="italic">total</mtext></mrow></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow></mrow></mfrac></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>The probability of selection (<emph>p</emph>) for each state was calculated by dividing the number of respondents for that state by the total of respondents (<emph>N<subs>total</subs></emph> = 274). This weight value was normalized by dividing by the average weight value resulting in frequencies equaling the total sample frequency.</p> <p>The demographic characteristics of the sample are provided in Table 1. Teachers self-identified as to their role as related to serving students with disabilities as being either a resource teacher, a self-contained teacher, an inclusion teacher, or a specialist. A resource teacher was a special education teacher who provides additional special education support to students who receive the majority of their instruction in a general education setting with a general education teacher. A self-contained teacher was a special education teacher who provides the instruction across all academic areas in one setting consisting of students with disabilities. An inclusion teacher was a special education teacher who teaches in a class with at least one student with a disability. A specialist refers to any of the non-teacher, service provider involved with serving students with disabilities ranging from speech therapists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, school counselors, and school psychologists. The types of ESY services recommended would vary given their interactions with students with disabilities. Specialists would ostensibly recommend services in their area as ESY services while special education teachers across roles would focus on general academic and behavioral areas. The average number of years of experience in education was 16.46 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 8.83). The average number of years of experience in special education was 14.06 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 10.85).</p> <p>Table 1. Demographic characteristics for sample.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Percentages and Frequencies by Variable</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Race/Ethnicity</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Female</td><td char=".">77% (<italic>n</italic> = 210)</td><td>African American</td><td char=".">28% (<italic>n</italic> = 76)</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td char=".">20% (<italic>n</italic> = 56)</td><td>Asian American</td><td char=".">2% (<italic>n</italic> = 5)</td></tr><tr><td>Neither Did not respond</td><td char=".">1% (<italic>n</italic> = 3) 2% (<italic>n</italic> = 5)</td><td>Hispanic or Latino Native American</td><td char=".">6% (<italic>n</italic> = 17) 1% (<italic>n</italic> = 4)</td></tr><tr><td>Role</td><td>White</td><td char=".">66% (<italic>n</italic> = 181)</td></tr><tr><td>Resource Teacher</td><td char=".">45% (<italic>n</italic> = 123)</td><td>Locale</td></tr><tr><td>Self-contained Teacher</td><td char=".">37% (<italic>n</italic> = 102)</td><td>Urban</td><td char=".">48% (<italic>n</italic> = 130)</td></tr><tr><td>Inclusion Teacher</td><td char=".">7% (<italic>n</italic> = 19)</td><td>Suburban</td><td char=".">45% (<italic>n</italic> = 122)</td></tr><tr><td>Specialist</td><td char=".">11% (<italic>n</italic> = 30)</td><td>Rural</td><td char=".">7% (<italic>n</italic> = 19)</td></tr><tr><td>Census Region</td><td>Did not respond</td><td char=".">1% (<italic>n</italic> = 4)</td></tr><tr><td>Northeast</td><td char=".">5% (<italic>n</italic> = 14)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Midwest</td><td char=".">27% (<italic>n</italic> = 73)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>South</td><td char=".">39% (<italic>n</italic> = 106)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>West Did not respond</td><td char=".">28% (<italic>n</italic> = 76) 2% (<italic>n</italic> = 5)</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0186284243-8">Measures</hd> <p>Participants first responded as to whether they ever recommended a student for ESY services. Approximately 83% (<emph>n</emph> = 227) responded as having ever recommended a student for ESY services while 17% (<emph>n</emph> = 47) reported as having not ever recommended a student for ESY services. Participants were then asked what percentage of students subsequently received ESY services after being recommended. On average, 90% (<emph>SD</emph> = 22.21) of students were reported as having received ESY services after being recommended. Participants were asked if students outside of a self-contained classroom received ESY services. Overall, approximately 75% (<emph>n</emph> = 205) of educators reported that students outside of a self-contained classroom received ESY services while 25% (<emph>n</emph> = 69) reported that students outside of a self-contained classroom did not receive ESY services.</p> <hd id="AN0186284243-9">Analyses</hd> <p>To answer the first and third research questions, we performed a chi-square (χ<sups>2</sups>) goodness of fit analysis. A Phi (Φ) coefficient was reported to indicate the degree of association. Values of 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 or greater can be considered small, medium, and large respectively (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref36">11</reflink>]). To evaluate the statistical significance of individual cells for the chi-square (χ<sups>2</sups>) analysis, a significance level of 0.05 or less was selected, with a positive or negative valence indicating the directionality. To answer the second research question, we performed a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). Cohen's <emph>f</emph> statistic was used as the omnibus measure of effect size with values of 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 or greater indicating small, medium, and large effects respectively (2016). We evaluated the assumption of homogeneity of variances according to the Levene's <emph>F</emph> statistic, in which a statistically significant result would indicate the assumption was not tenable. In the current study, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was not tenable, Levene's <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>, 223) = 32.34, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001. Therefore, the Games-Howell procedure was used for <emph>post hoc</emph> analyses to account for the violation of this assumption. For the <emph>post hoc</emph> comparisons, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> was calculated as the measure of effect size, with values of 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 or greater indicating small, medium, and large effects respectively (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref38">12</reflink>]). A Bonferroni adjustment to the alpha level was applied due to the increased likelihood of committing at least one Type I error resulting in α = 0.004 (i.e. 0.05 divided by 12 = 0.004) for <emph>post hoc</emph> comparisons.</p> <hd id="AN0186284243-10">Results</hd> <p>Research Question #1: What is the relationship between educator role (i.e. inclusion, resource, self-contained, specialist) and the frequency of ESY recommendation?</p> <p>There was not a statistically significant association between educator role and having ever recommended a student for ESY services, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref39">3</reflink>) = 7.32, <emph>p</emph> = 0.06. Table 2 provides the frequencies and standardized residuals for each cell examining the association of role and the recommendation of ESY services.</p> <p>Table 2. Frequencies and standardized residuals for role and ever recommended ESY services.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Ever recommended a student for ESY services?</td></tr><tr><td>Role</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Resource</td><td char=".">94 (-0.8)</td><td char=".">29 (1.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Self-Contained</td><td char=".">88 (0.4)</td><td char=".">14 (-0.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Inclusion</td><td char=".">17 (0.3)</td><td char=".">2 (-0.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Specialist</td><td char=".">28 (0.6)</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>(-1.4)</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Research Question #2: What is the relationship between educator role and the frequency of ESY receipt?</p> <p>Among those who had recommended students for ESY services before (<emph>n</emph> = 227), there were statistically significant differences in the receipt of ESY services depending upon the educator role, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>, 223) = 7.99, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, Cohen's <emph>f</emph> = 0.30. Resource teachers reported a significantly lower percentage of recommended students receiving ESY services than self-contained teachers (<emph>p</emph> = 0.002, <emph>d</emph> = 0.54) and specialists (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001, <emph>d</emph> = 0.63). Inclusion teachers also reported a lower percentage of recommended students receiving ESY services than self-contained teachers (<emph>p</emph> = 0.142, <emph>d</emph> = 0.75) and specialists (<emph>p</emph> = 0.112, <emph>d</emph> = 0.82) but these differences were not statistically significant due to the small number of inclusion teachers who responded (<emph>n</emph> = 17). There was no difference between resource teachers and inclusion teachers (<emph>p</emph> = 0.733), or between specialists and self-contained teachers (<emph>p</emph> = 0.826). Table 3 provides the descriptive statistics for each role.</p> <p>Table 3. Descriptive statistics by role.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Role</td><td>Mean</td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>N</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Resource</td><td char=".">84.69%</td><td char=".">30.35</td><td char=".">94</td></tr><tr><td>Self-Contained</td><td char=".">97.07%</td><td char=".">11.31</td><td char=".">88</td></tr><tr><td>Inclusion</td><td char=".">73.72%</td><td char=".">42.22</td><td char=".">17</td></tr><tr><td>Specialist</td><td char=".">98.39%</td><td char=".">5.02</td><td char=".">28</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">90.35</td><td char=".">24.87</td><td char=".">227</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Research Question #3: What is the relationship between educator role and the restrictiveness of setting for ESY services provided?</p> <p>There were statistically significant differences in the association between educator role and reporting whether students outside of self-contained classroom received ESY services, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref41">3</reflink>) = 48.32, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, Φ = 0.39. This value of the phi (Φ) coefficient indicates a moderate degree of association. Self-contained teachers were more likely to report students outside of a self-contained classroom received ESY services while resource teachers were more likely to report students outside of a self-contained classroom not receiving ESY services. Table 4 provides the frequencies and standardized residuals for each cell examining the association of role and whether ESY services were provided outside a self-contained classroom.</p> <p>Table 4. Frequencies and standardized residuals by role and ESY services outside a classroom.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>ESY services outside of a self-contained classroom?</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Role</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Resource</td><td char=".">112 (2.1)</td><td char=".">10 (-3.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Self-Contained</td><td char=".">53 (-2.6)</td><td char=".">48 (4.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Inclusion</td><td char=".">13 (-0.3)</td><td char=".">6 (0.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Specialist</td><td char=".">26 (0.7)</td><td char=".">4 (-1.3)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0186284243-11">Discussion</hd> <p>As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring that students retain academic progress throughout long breaks from school has become increasingly important. Weexamined educator experiences with the recommendation and receipt of ESY services. We first explored the relationship between educator role and their recommendation of students for ESY services. Next, we examined the relationship between the subsequent receipt of ESY service among those recommended for services and educator role. Last, we examined the relationship of the receipt of ESY services outside of a self-contained classroom and educator role.</p> <p>Findings related to our first research question suggest that there is not a relationship between educator role and their recommendation for ESY services; however, findings related to our second research question indicate that there <emph>is</emph> a significant relationship between educator role and the receipt of those services. Specifically, resource teachers reported a significantly lower percentage of students who were recommended for ESY having received services compared to self-contained teachers and specialist service providers. Inclusion teachers followed the same trend, although the difference was not significant due to a small sample of inclusion teachers represented in respondents to the survey.</p> <p>The finding that students of resource and inclusion teachers receive recommended ESY services at a lower rate than students of inclusion teachers and specialists has substantial implications for students, in particular for students with high-incidence disabilities (e.g. other health impairments, specific learning disabilities) who are served most frequently by educators in these less restrictive settings (Agran et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref42">1</reflink>]). That is—students served by resource and inclusion teachers (i.e. less restrictive settings) are still being recommended for ESY according to eligibility criteria but are not receiving the services at similar rates to students served by specialist service providers or self-contained teachers. This discrepancy could lead to inequitable outcomes for students, and thus reasons for these differences must be explored.</p> <p>One reason students may not receive the recommended ESY services are the financial and logistical burdens associated with the delivery of ESY services. Prior research suggests that students from higher socioeconomic areas tend to have more access to, and correspondingly receive instruction in more inclusive settings (Kurth et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref43">23</reflink>]). This result suggests that districts tend to make decisions on students' least restrictive environment, at least in part, based on resources available (Agran et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>]). The idea that socioeconomic status and access may inform decisions on placement may be extended to the provision of ESY services. For example, to provide ESY services, schools require certified special education teachers, space within the school, other support staff and personnel available, and hiring and onboarding of new summer faculty and staff. Some districts have designated schools where students can receive services outside of their home school; this may require students to be bussed to the new school. Students' progress should be marked on their IEP; this requires multiple personnel to keep track of the students' progress, with the home school ultimately responsible for the receipt of services and progress reported. Each of these financial and logistical constraints may act as barriers to the provision of ESY services (Barnard-Brak et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref45">2</reflink>]), affecting students differentially based on their teachers' role.</p> <p>Another reason there may be differences among receipt of ESY services are parent perceptions of ESY, capacity to comply with ESY services, and communications surrounding ESY services (Barnard-Brak et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>]). Although evidence suggests that parents of students with disabilities value summer programs (Griffin & Galassi, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref47">18</reflink>]), ESY services differ from other summer programs in several fundamental ways. For instance, parents may be held accountable if their child does not attend ESY services compared to typical summer school. There are also different needs related to ESY services for students with more severe behavioral or intellectual impairments (e.g. IDD, ASD; Taylor & Hill, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref48">26</reflink>]). As such, parents of students with less severe disabilities may see less need and benefit of ESY services, particularly in light of being held accountable for their students' attendance during the break. Parental choice could therefore potentially impact the receipt of summer services of students with higher incidence disabilities even though they are determined to be eligible for such services.</p> <p>Last, it is well documented that educator perceptions of students vary based on disability category (e.g. Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref49">9</reflink>]; Daniel & Cooc, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref50">15</reflink>]). These perceptions have been shown to play a role in placement of students according to their least restrictive environment (Segall & Campbell, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref51">25</reflink>]). We posit that it is therefore possible that perceptions of student disabilities may also play a role in the provision of ESY services. For instance, teachers more often recommend that students with IDD be placed in more restrictive settings potentially due to the perceived severity of the disability (Agran et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>]). Educators likewise may more often move forward with ESY for students who have more perceived severe disabilities, correspondingly not moving forward with the recommendation for disabilities perceived to be less severe (i.e. high incidence disabilities).</p> <p>Findings related to our third research question indicated that self-contained teachers were more likely to report that students outside of a self-contained classroom received ESY services while resource teachers were more likely to report that students outside of a self-contained classroom as not receiving ESY services. Although it is important for students to receive services in their least restrictive environment, student placement should not dictate the receipt of ESY services. Despite this, Barnard-Brak et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref53">4</reflink>]) found that almost two out of three of special education directors reported that students receiving services outside of the general education setting did not receive ESY services in their school district. This trend does not appear to be by design but perhaps due to a tendency to view that services should be directed to those with the most severe disabilities (e.g. Agran et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Further research is needed to support education professionals based on the findings and implications of the current investigation. First, as there are differences based on educator role, and students are served by teachers and other service providers based on their needs, research is needed related to recommendation and receipt of ESY services based on student factors such as disability status and achievement levels. Second, research is needed to explore ways to improve the logistical constraints associated with ESY services. Third, research is needed to understand parent perceptions of ESY services, as well as barriers parents face in ensuring their eligible student receives the recommended services.</p> <hd id="AN0186284243-12">Limitations</hd> <p>Several limitations may be applied to the current study. First, there was great diversity in the roles of specialists in schools, including behavior analysts, physical therapists, speech therapists, school counselors, and school psychologists. Because of the diverse roles included in the specialist category, we limit our discussion of findings related to receipt of ESY based on specialist roles. Second, while the sample was randomly selected from a larger sampling frame, educator-participants volunteered themselves to complete the survey. There is still some degree of self-selection bias such that educators more interested in ESY services may be over-represented in the sample. Approximately 4% (<emph>n</emph> = 11) of educators reported that zero percent of the students who were recommended subsequently received ESY services and the distribution was slightly skewed toward higher values closer to 100% rather than zero. Thus, the current study is not highlighting the overall mean for the percent of students reported to receive ESY services after being recommended. Rather, the current study examined the relative differences in this percent according to educator role. Despite the small, self-selected sample, the current study found differences in ESY related to educator role that are worthy of further investigation. Third, there was a limited number of educators who reported being located in predominantly rural settings (<emph>n</emph> = 19), thus the magnitude of differences would have to be sufficiently large to achieve statistical significance. Preliminary analyses indicate statistical non-significance according to locale, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref55">2</reflink>, 226) = 2.189, <emph>p</emph> = 0.115 despite having statistical power for these analyses, 1 - β = 0.91. There was a similarly small sample of inclusion teachers (<emph>n</emph> = 17) but the magnitude of the effect was sufficiently large enough to retain statistical power. Again, the current study indicates that further exploration of teacher roles related to their perception of receipt of ESY services is much needed.</p> <hd id="AN0186284243-13">Implications for practice and future research</hd> <p>Findings from the current study have important implications for practice and further research. For practice, inclusion and resource teachers perceive that significantly fewer of their students receive ESY services compared to how many are recommended. Teachers who fall under these areas may need to further advocate for their students to receive the services as recommended. To successfully advocate for their students, teachers may need to engage in data-based decision making to support their recommendations and further sway other members of the multidisciplinary team. Inclusion and resource teachers should refer IEP team members to results of the current stud indicating that students served by these educators have been reported to be less likely to be considered for ESY services and that those determinations should be made on a case-by-case basis per the spirit of the IEP under IDEA. Research such as the current study intends to empower educators to advocate for their students. Ultimately, IEP teams may be bound by the eligibility criteria for ESY services established by their local education agency, state, and even the circuit court of appeals to which their state belongs (i.e. states in the 10<sups>th</sups> circuit court of appeals obliged to follow Johnson <emph>v.</emph> Independent School District No. 4 (1994, 10_SP_th_sp_ Cir.)). While the selection of eligibility criteria for ESY services may be beyond the authority of any individual IEP team, IEP teams can ensure that the interpretation of ESY eligibility criteria take into account the views of all team member regardless of role as well as considering existing summer resources that could be modified (so not just specialized services), and ensure that educational setting is not being used as determinative in ESY service eligibility. Educational setting as determining eligibility for ESY services would be considered as unilaterally limiting services under IDEA (34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.106). To help address these issues in view of the results of the current study, we have developed a re-check checklist for IEP teams to implement after reviewing materials. Table 5 provides the items for this recheck checklist for ESY services. Questions require the IEP team to reevaluate how their determination as to whether a student should have received ESY services.</p> <p>Table 5. ESY Re-check checklist.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Please circle the appropriate response to each question. </td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Is there <italic>any</italic> team member who thinks the student should be considered for ESY services? If yes, please further discuss and make sure perspectives of all roles have been considered. </td><td>Yes </td><td>No </td></tr><tr><td>Are there existing summer programs for general education by the district that could be modified to include the student as part of ESY services? If yes, please further discuss how this may be achieved. </td><td>Yes </td><td>No </td></tr><tr><td>If student was in a self-contained classroom, would student be recommended for ESY services? If yes, please discuss further as setting should not be used to determine eligibility.</td><td>Yes </td><td>No </td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We recommend that educators recommend IEP teams to use the ESY re-check checklist to help address typical trouble spots or challenging areas in determining the eligibility of students for ESY services. In this way, we can facilitate the advocacy of all IEP team members while considering all resources of the school district as well as considering all students regardless of educational placement for ESY services. From the ESY re-check checklist on Table 5, the first question purposely includes the word, any to ensure that all members of the IEP team have been included in the discussion of ESY services. At which point, an IEP team member would have another opportunity to advocate for the student to receive ESY services. The first item then reminds the IEP team that the perspectives of educators from all roles should be considered. For the second question of the ESY re-check checklist (Table 5), the IEP team is asked to consider any existing summer programming by the school district to ensure the inclusion of more students with disabilities.</p> <p>The second item of the ESY re-check checklist (Table 5) requires IEP team members to recall other school district programs that may be offered over the summer break that could be made more accessible to students with disabilities. This practice should be already in place when designing these programs at local school districts in order to comply with federal law but IEP teams can help facilitate this. IEP teams can make special efforts to facilitate the linking of existing programs over the summer break to be incorporated as part of ESY services for students with disabilities. The second item also prompts IEP team members to consider services that are not offered exclusively to students with disabilities such as speech therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, orientation and mobility services. In sum, this second item is about connecting and optimizing existing resources that the school district already offers over the summer break. The third item of the ESY recheck checklist (Table 5) focuses on whether the student would be recommended for ESY services if they were in a self-contained classroom. This item prompts IEP team members to more deliberately consider students who may not be in a self-contained classroom for ESY services. Prior research has indicated that students in self-contained classrooms are more likely to be recommended for ESY services (Barnard-Braket et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref56">4</reflink>]) and results of the current study indicate that teachers in self-contained classrooms report having a higher percentage of students who receive ESY services as well. In this way, the ESY re-check checklist addresses the three areas that appear to inhibit the recommendation of ESY services for students as evidenced by the literature and results of the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0186284243-14">Conclusion</hd> <p>In conclusion, the results of the current study suggest that educator roles are associated with differences in perceived ESY service receipt. Self-contained teachers and specialists reported higher percentages of students who were recommended for ESY services subsequently receiving those services as compared to inclusion and resource teachers. Self-contained teachers were more likely to perceive that students outside of a self-contained setting received ESY services while resource teachers were more likely to perceive these students as not receiving ESY services outside of a self-contained setting. Educational placement should not dictate the receipt of ESY services but it appears that this may be inadvertently occurring due to students with more severe disabilities being in the self-contained setting. Severity of disability, however, may be considered as only one of many factors in determining eligibility for ESY services as such determinations should be individuated.</p> <hd id="AN0186284243-15">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0186284243-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref42" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Agran, M., Jackson, L., Kurth, J. A., Ryndak, D., Burnette, K., Jameson, M., Zagona, A., Fitzpatrick, H., & Wehmeyer, M. (2020). Why aren't students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms: Examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45 (1), 4 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919878134</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref26" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barnard-Brak, L., Stevens, T., & Valenzuela, E. (2018). Barriers to providing extended school year services to students with disabilities: An exploratory study of special education directors. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37 (4), 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870518772308</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref20" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barnard-Brak, L., & Stevens, T. (2019). Association of summer extended school year services and academic regression. The School Psychologist, 73 (1), 3 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barnard-Brak, L., & Stevens, T. (2021). Criteria for determining eligibility for extended school year services. The Journal of Special Education, 55 (1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920911468</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref6" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barnard-Brak, L., Filderman, M. J., Brewer, A. T., & Kudesey, C. (2022). Evidence for transition-related behaviors as an explicit criterion for extended school year services eligibility. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 40 (8), 968–984. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829221110405</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref29" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, S. J., & DeSutter, K. (2020). An examination of group facilitator challenges and problem-solving techniques during IEP team meetings. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 43 (2), 127 – 143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419839766</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref2" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brewer, B. N., Riggs, L. A., Courtade, G., & Landrum, T. J. (2022). Using caregiver support to promote efficacy of nontraditional instruction provided to students with extensive support needs. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 41 (1), 39 – 47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419839766</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref28" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Burgin, X. D., Van Laarhoven, T., Pinter, E., & DeSpain, S. (2020). Comparing cost effectiveness of video-based instruction versus extended school year for maintaining vocational skills of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 52 (3), 239 – 249. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-201074</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref49" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Carter, E. W., Trainor, A., Owens, L., Sweden, B., & Sun, Y. (2010). Self-determination prospects of youth with high-incidence disabilities: Divergent perspectives and related factors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18 (2), 67 – 81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426609332605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Causton-Theoharis, J., Theoharis, G., Orsati, F., & Cosier, M. (2011). Does self-contained special education deliver on its promises? A critical inquiry into research and practice. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24 (2), 61 – 78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513485448</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (2016). A power primer. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (pp. 279 – 284). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooc, N., & Quinn, D. M. (2022). A seasonal analysis of disparities in academic skills for early elementary school children with disabilities. The Elementary School Journal, 122 (4), 502 – 533. https://doi.org/10.1086/719508</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dale, B. A., & Bray, M. A. (2022). Collaborative approaches to autism spectrum disorder assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 59 (7), 1263 – 1266. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22727</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniel, J. R., & Cooc, N. (2018). Teachers' perceptions of academic intrinsic motivation for students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 52 (2), 101 – 112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918765276</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dillon, S., Armstrong, E., Goudy, L., Reynolds, H., & Scurry, S. (2021). Improving special education service delivery through interdisciplinary collaboration. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 54 (1), 36 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599211029671</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gershenson, S., & Hayes, M. S. (2017). The summer learning of exceptional students. American Journal of Education, 123 (3), 447 – 473. https://doi.org/10.1086/691226</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffin, D., & Galassi, J. P. (2010). Parent perceptions of barriers to academic success in a rural middle school. Professional School Counseling, 14 (1), 2156759X1001400109. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X1001400109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, A., & Barker, E. (2023). Understanding differential growth during school years and summers for students in special education. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 28 (2), 179 – 203. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2022.2051145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, A., Barker, E. (2021). Understanding differential growth during school years and summers for students in special education. The Center for School and Student Progress at NWEA Research Brief. https://<ulink href="http://www.nwea.org/uploads/2021/05/Understanding-differential-growth-during-school-years-and-summers-for-students-in-special-education%5fNWEA%5fResearch-Brief%5fCenter-for-School-and-Student-Progress.pdf">www.nwea.org/uploads/2021/05/Understanding-differential-growth-during-school-years-and-summers-for-students-in-special-education%5fNWEA%5fResearch-Brief%5fCenter-for-School-and-Student-Progress.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, D. A. (2024). Views on modifying the traditional school calendar for a post-covid world: Could a balanced calendar model mitigate covid-19 slide? Journal of Education, 204 (1), 230 – 240. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574221112626</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Liu, J. (2020). Projecting the potential impact of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement. Educational Researcher, 49 (8), 549 – 565. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20965918</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurth, J. A., Mastergeorge, A. M., & Paschall, K. (2016). Economic and demographic factors impacting placement of students with autism. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 51 (1), 3 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357614547891</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Queenan, R. (2015). School's out for summer. But should it be? Journal of Law & Education, 44, 165 – 197. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2499730</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Segall, M. J., & Campbell, J. M. (2014). Factors influencing the educational placement of students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8 (1), 31 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.10.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, J. C., & Hill, D. (2017). Using daily behavior report cards during extended school year services for young students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 40 (4), 525 – 546. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2017.0023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zagona, A. (2022). Collaborate with colleagues to increase student success. In High leverage practices and students with extensive support needs (pp. 4 – 13). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003175735-2</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lucy Barnard-Brak and Marissa J. Filderman</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Lucy Barnard-Brak is a Professor of Special Education at the University of Alabama. Her research interests pivot on examining the educational experiences and outcomes of students with disabilities.</p> <p>Marissa J. Filderman is an Assistant Professor of Special Education at the University of Alabama. Her research interests center on data-based decision-making as aligned with the science of reading.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref51"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1494391
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Examining the Relationship between Receipt of Extended School Year Services and Educator Roles
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lucy+Barnard-Brak%22">Lucy Barnard-Brak</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marissa+J%2E+Filderman%22">Marissa J. Filderman</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Preventing+School+Failure%22"><i>Preventing School Failure</i></searchLink>. 2025 69(3):237-244.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 8
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Extended+School+Year%22">Extended School Year</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Role%22">Teacher Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Incidence%22">Incidence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Referral%22">Referral</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Specialists%22">Specialists</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Contained+Classrooms%22">Self Contained Classrooms</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Resource+Room+Programs%22">Resource Room Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education+Teachers%22">Special Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Placement%22">Student Placement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Eligibility%22">Eligibility</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1045988X.2024.2429135
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1045-988X<br />1940-4387
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The current study examined educator-reported frequency of Extended School Year (ESY) services recommendation and receipt and the variation in educator perceptions as to the recommendation and receipt of ESY services. Findings suggest that educator roles are associated with differences in the perceived receipt of ESY services. Self-contained teachers and specialists reported higher percentages of students who were recommended for ESY services that subsequently received those services as compared to inclusion and resource teachers. Results also indicated that self-contained teachers were more likely to perceive that students outside of a self-contained setting received ESY services while resource teachers were more likely to perceive these students as not receiving ESY services outside of a self-contained setting. It is posited that educational placement should not dictate the receipt of ESY services but it appears that this may be inadvertently occurring.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1494391
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1494391
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1045988X.2024.2429135
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 237
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Extended School Year
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Incidence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Referral
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Specialists
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Contained Classrooms
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Resource Room Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Placement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Eligibility
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Examining the Relationship between Receipt of Extended School Year Services and Educator Roles
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lucy Barnard-Brak
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marissa J. Filderman
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1045-988X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1940-4387
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 69
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Preventing School Failure
              Type: main
ResultId 1