Child Find Practices in Christian Schools

Journal of Research on Christian Education

ISSN: 1065-6219 (Print) 1934-4945 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urce20

Child Find Practices in Christian Schools Julie M. Lane & David R. Jones To cite this article: Julie M. Lane & David R. Jones (2015) Child Find Practices in Christian Schools, Journal of Research on Christian Education, 24:3, 212-223, DOI: 10.1080/10656219.2015.1100566 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10656219.2015.1100566

Published online: 14 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 38

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urce20 Download by: [David Jones]

Date: 20 April 2016, At: 21:06

Journal of Research on Christian Education, 24:212–223, 2015 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC and Andrews University ISSN: 1065-6219 print=1934-4945 online DOI: 10.1080/10656219.2015.1100566

RESEARCH ON SPECIAL EDUCATION Child Find Practices in Christian Schools JULIE M. LANE and DAVID R. JONES

Downloaded by [David Jones] at 21:06 20 April 2016

School of Education, Fresno Pacific University, Fresno, California, USA

The 1997 Amendments of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) states that children placed in private schools by their parents are no longer afforded the right to special education services. However, IDEA does state that child find activities between public school representatives and private schools are to remain intact. This study used an open-ended questionnaire design in order to understand Christian school representatives’ perspectives regarding current child find practices.

INTRODUCTION Public school agencies are no longer required to provide special education services to children placed in private schools (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. x 300.220). However, parents of children with special needs continue to enroll their children in Christian schools (Bacon & Erickson, 2010; Bello, 2006; DeFiore, 2006; Eigenbrood, 2005, 2010; Lane, 2011; Taylor, 2003, 2005). The rationale for this enrollment can be noted in Ji and Boyatt (2007), who state parents are seeking private school enrollment due to: (1) a low view of public schools, (2) academic quality, (3) a safer environment, and (4) religious and spiritual environment (p. 171). Most Christian schools, if not all, do not supplant public school special education programs and services. However, identified Christian school practices include: (1) minimal formal services, (2) additional tuition for access to formal services, (3) private services at parent expense, and (4) minimal consultation services from the public school (Bello, 2006; DeFiore, 2006; Eigenbrood, 2005; Lane, 2011; Taylor, 2003, 2005). Christian schools note an increase of inquiry and enrollment of children with Address correspondence to Julie M. Lane, School of Education, Fresno Pacific University, 1717 S. Chestnut Avenue, Fresno, CA 93702, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 212

Child Find in Christian Schools

213

disabilities (Bacon & Erickson, 2010; Eigenbrood, 2005, 2010). For the purposes of this article, Christian schools are viewed as private schools.

SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING AND SERVICES


The passing of P.L. 94–142 in 1975 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act) assured that all children with disabilities would receive a free and appropriate public education. When it was finally implemented in 1977, P.L. 94–142 mandated that children with special needs be provided with the services to provide the opportunity for children to reach their full potential. Since the law’s conception, there have been several amendments including renaming the law the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The demands of the programs and specialized instruction for special education services have continued to grow and change.

Reauthorization 1997 The Aguilar v. Felton 473 U.S. 402 (1985) ruling challenged the provision of services in religiously affiliated schools. Based upon the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, private schools lost funding under Title 1, a title intended to improve the academic achievement of children who are disadvantaged (Aguilar v. Felton 473 U.S. 402, 1985). The ruling indicated an entanglement of church and state and violated the Establishment Clause as public school teachers were providing special education services in a parochial school. As a result of the ruling, the federal government began to question delivery of special education services in religiously affiliated schools. The inquiry obligated districts to provide services at a neutral location (Osborne, Russo, & DiMattia, 2000, p. 224). The ruling of Aguilar v Felton 473 U.S. 402 (1985) was supported by Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District 509 U.S. 1. (1993). Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District 509 U.S. 1. (1993) case surrounded the parental request for a deaf interpreter in a Roman Catholic High School. The district had been providing an interpreter during James Zobrest’s kindergarten through eighth grade (K-8) public education. When the parents elected to enroll James in a Roman Catholic High School, the district decided to no longer provide interpreter services because it would violate the Establishment Clause. The parents disagreed indicating that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the district to provide an interpreter. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling stating the conduit for religious instruction could not be done through public school resources. In Agostini v. Felton 521 U.S. 203 (1997), however, the court overturned Aguilar v. Felton 473 U.S. 402 (1985). A New York parochial school board, students, and parents, challenged the District Court Ruling of Aguilar v. Felton (1985) which prohibited public school teachers from teaching in parochial schools. The new ruling demonstrated that the entanglement of public school teachers


214

J. M. Lane and D. R. Jones

and parochial schools did not necessarily provide an incentive to the parochial school nor violate the Establishment Clause (Agostini v. Felton 521 U.S. 203, 1997). The provision of services by public schools to parochial schools must be examined on a case-by-case basis. The amendments of IDEA in 1997 removed the requirement for public schools to serve children who are placed in private school by their parents. Yet, the reauthorization of IDEA obligates collaborative and consultative child find activities between public and private schools. Child find as defined under IDEA is the responsibility of each state to identify, locate, and evaluate children who have or are suspected as having a disability. Regardless of the amendments of IDEA, each state is responsible for child find activities in the private schools which reside within the public school district (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. x 300.220). However, children with special needs who had been placed in private schools by their parents do not have the right to special education services. Public schools may provide services but no longer face an obligation to do so. Consequently, parents are now saddled with the decision to return their child to the public school in order to obtain a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) or remain in the private school with limited-to-no services. Local education agencies (LEA) are the school districts and county schools within each state responsible for child find activities and the determination as to whether or not services shall be provided to a child placed in a private school by their parents (Yell, 2012). Across districts and states, the decision to provide services or not varies greatly. Some districts elected to discontinue services immediately following the 1997 amendment to IDEA, while other districts continue to provide minimal to full services. LEAs must practice child find activities in the private schools located within their service area [34 CFR 300.131(a)] [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(10)(A)(i)(II)]. Private school children retained the right to be identified and states must demonstrate an on-going effort to execute child find activities in private schools. Once the LEA has identified a child with special needs, LEAs must make an offer of FAPE. By offering FAPE, districts afford each child the opportunity to participate fully in special education programs. If the parents elect to maintain their child’s enrollment in a private school, services fall into jeopardy. The district retains the right to determine whether or not it will provide services (Eigenbrood, 2010). To assist in facilitating child find activities, LEAs meet with private school representatives on an annual basis. During these child find meetings, LEAs collect data regarding the number of currently identified students within the private school and their disability category, and consult regarding possible services the LEA may deliver to the private school during the upcoming year [34 CFR 300.134] [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(10)(A)(iii)]. Through the child find process, public and private school representatives have the opportunity to develop a relationship of trust and respect. When trust and respect are established, the evaluation process for the parents can more likely be a positive experience.



215

The child find process must be completed in a time period that is comparable with that for students attending public schools in the LEA [34 CFR 300.131(e)] [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(10)(A)(ii)(V). To initiate the process, a parent must submit to the LEA a written request for an evaluation. Upon receipt, the LEA must hold a pre-assessment meeting to determine if the assessment is warranted and to gather additional information from the parents. This process must be completed within 15 days of receipt of the request. Once it is determined that an assessment is warranted, an evaluation and the reporting of the results must occur within 60 days of the signed assessment plan as defined under IDEA. It is important to note that some states have a shorter timeframe to evaluate and report on the assessment findings. The reporting of the results occurs in an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meeting. If the child qualifies for special education services the public school must offer FAPE. If the parent elects to maintain their child’s attendance in a private school, the LEA may offer services in the form of an Individualized Service Plan. The IEP may be revised and implemented if the child returns to their public school at a later date. Dependent upon the length of time since the IEP was finalized a new assessment may be required prior to special education placement and services. A lack of understanding surrounds the existence, characteristics, and performance of special education programs in Christian schools. The absence of empirical data reflects only partially the proprietary practices of the schools. Only recently have peer-reviewed studies on this topic appeared (Cookson, 2010; Cookson & Smith, 2011; Eigenbrood 2005, 2010; Fontan, 2012; Huppe, n.d.; McKinney, 2011; Stymeist, 2008; Taylor, 2003, 2005).

METHOD This study employed an open-ended questionnaire to determine the practice of child find activities in Christian schools throughout the United States. Participants were asked two questions: (1) Has your school district collaborated and consulted with you regarding possible children with special needs who attend your school? and (2) How responsive has your public school district been when parents make a request for assessment?

Population and Samples Researchers used a personal email database that included Christian schools located across the United States to distribute the survey. The survey was distributed twice during a 2-month period. Personal identification and demographic information was collected in order to avoid duplicate participation.

216


RESULTS The database identified educators serving in schools with the following affiliations:


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Association of Christian Schools – International National Catholic Educators Association Lutheran Church Missouri Synod Christian Schools International Evangelical Lutheran Churches of America Friends Schools Oral Roberts Schools National Association of Episcopal Schools

A total of 258 participants responded to the survey. Of these respondents, 10 participants indicated that they worked in schools outside of the United States, and eight participants did not indicate whether or not their school knowingly accepts children with special needs. This study reports responses from 240 participants (93% of initial response pool) who serve in schools in the United States and knowingly accept children with special needs. Table 1 reflects the geographical distribution of participants.

TABLE 1 Geographical Distribution of Participants. State Alabama Alaska Arkansas Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky

Participants

State

Participants

State

Participants

0 0 0 4 47 5 4 3 12 3 2 1 9 7 5 2 0

Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota

2 1 3 3 11 6 1 5 0 7 4 0 7 3 10 4 0

Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

12 1 1 9 0 2 2 3 15 3 0 3 8 0 10 0

217


Church Affiliation Of the 240 participants, the responses regarding church affiliation were as follows: . . . .


. .

88 respondents reported an affiliation with Association of Christian Schools International (36.7%). 53 respondents representing the National Catholic Education Association comprised nearly a quarter (22.1%) of the total number. 39 (16.3%) respondents represented the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod numbered. 25 (10.4%) Christian Schools International and 22 (9.2%) Evangelical Lutheran Churches of America also responded. 11 (4.6%) of the respondents denied an affiliation or self-identified as independent. One (0.4%) representative responded on behalf of each of Oral Roberts and Friends schools.

Open-Ended Response Review Question 1: Has your school district collaborated and consulted with you regarding possible children with special needs who attend your school? A total of 250 narrative responses were collected regarding school district collaboration and consultation between the participant’s Christian school and their corresponding public school district. Responses were analyzed and separated into one of three categories based on the nature of the response: ‘‘Yes,’’ ‘‘No,’’ and ‘‘Other.’’ Of the initial collection, 163 responses (65.2%) were sorted as ‘‘Yes’’ or otherwise affirming responses of the incidence of public school collaboration and consultation. Table 2 demonstrates the frequency of high incidence descriptors used to describe relationships with public schools in serving special needs students enrolled at Christian schools. TABLE 2 Frequency of High Incidence Descriptors of Collaborative Public Schools, Question 1. Descriptor ‘‘Collaborat . . .’’ (e.g., collaborative or collaborates) ‘‘Responsive’’ ‘‘Helpful’’ ‘‘Cooperat . . .’’ (e.g., cooperative or cooperates) ‘‘Good’’ ‘‘Excellent’’ ‘‘Positive’’ ‘‘Supportive’’

Frequency 31 13 10 9 9 3 3 2


218


The word ‘‘relationship’’ was used by 14 respondents to describe the pact with the public school district. Six respondents classified the collaborative relationship as ‘‘close.’’ Additionally, 21 respondents identified consultation (‘‘consult’’) as a major artifact of the relationship with the supporting school district. A total of 27 respondents denied receiving support from a public school for serving students with special needs enrolled in the Christian school. Four respondents elaborated that they had ‘‘never’’ received support from the public school district. Also 12 respondents implied that the absence occurred because of a lack of instigation on the part of the public school district (e.g., ‘‘The public school has not ever, to my knowledge come to us for collaboration’’ or ‘‘Our public schools rarely collaborate with us or assist us’’). Five respondents indicated the lack of collaboration may have resulted from the Christian schools’ intentional choice or lack of instigation (e.g., ‘‘We don’t collaborate with any public school’’ or ‘‘I have not formally consulted with public schools in this area’’). Of the 60 responses categorized as ‘‘Other,’’ many responses lacked content to indicate an affirming or a negating collaboration. For example, one respondent replied only ‘‘Neither positive nor negative.’’ However, five respondents indicated that the public school district had limited or ambiguous interaction with the Christian School through child find activities or through annual communications. Also 10 respondents acknowledged the public school district for providing screening of special needs candidates (i.e., assessment or testing). Question 2: How responsive has your public school district been when parents make a request for assessment? Participants were asked about responsiveness to requests for assessment. Narrative responses to this item were analyzed and categorized into the following sections: ‘‘Responsive,’’ ‘‘Somewhat Responsive,’’ ‘‘Slow=Non-responsive,’’ ‘‘No or Not Responsive,’’ and ‘‘Other.’’ Of 253 respondents, 62 (24.5%) constituted the ‘‘Responsive’’ category. Comments in the Responsive category included an array of superlative terms as indicated in Table 3. A total of 23 respondents identified the public school district as ‘‘responsive,’’ while others used descriptors such as ‘‘cooperative’’ (5), ‘‘willing’’ (4), TABLE 3 Frequency of Superlative Terms, Question 2. Superlative

Frequency

Very Well Excellent Great Extremely Positive

13 2 2 1 2 4

219

Child Find in Christian Schools TABLE 4 Descriptors from the Somewhat Responsive Category, Question 2. Descriptor

Frequency


Responsive Very Cooperative=Cooperates Somewhat Help=Helpful Good Quick

31 21 12 8 4 2 2

‘‘supportive’’ (1), and ‘‘accommodating’’ (1). Four respondents used time descriptors to describe communication from the public school district, with three of those responses utilizing the word ‘‘timely’’ and one using the word ‘‘prompt.’’ Categorization of type of response yielded 78 (32%) responses categorized as Somewhat Responsive, and 21 responses in this category contained the superlative ‘‘very.’’ More modest descriptors like ‘‘somewhat’’ (8) and ‘‘good’’ (2) were used. The use of superlative terms may suggest that a second round of review is in order to better refine the categorization. All descriptors for this category are indicated in Table 4. The Slow=Non-responsive category included 41 (17%) responses. Table 5 depicts the most frequently used descriptors respondents provided to describe the process of securing assistance from the public school district. The No Response category contained 40 (16%) responses. This category comprised two types of responses: 25 participants simply responded ‘‘No’’, while 15 replied ‘‘not applicable=NA.’’ Finally, 32 (13.3%) responses fell into the miscellaneous category. Although many did not address the content of the question or respondents indicated that the question did not apply to them, a cursory glance over these items suggests that some might better serve other categories as they contain viable content (e.g., ‘‘Some are accommodating and respond readily to requests for assessment.’’)

TABLE 5 Descriptors Category, Question 2.

from

the

Slow=Non-Responsive

Descriptor

Frequency

‘‘Long’’ ‘‘Slow’’ ‘‘Not=Non’’ ‘‘Difficult’’

7 13 12 2

220



CONCLUSIONS Child find activities are occurring more often than not between LEAs and Christian schools throughout the United States. When participants were asked ‘‘Has your school district collaborated and consulted with you regarding possible children with special needs who attend your school’’ 65.2% responded favorably. Data collected do not reflect the frequency of collaboration and consultation between LEAs and Christian schools. It is also unclear as to whether or not these interactions occur on a case-by-case basis as when an evaluation is requested and=or if collaboration and consultation is occurring on an annual basis as clearly defined in IDEA. Further analysis of qualitative data gathered reflected descriptors which depicted Christian school representatives’ relationships regarding child find activities as ‘‘collaborative,’’ ‘‘responsive,’’ ‘‘positive,’’ and ‘‘supportive’’. Participants were also asked about the responsiveness of public school district been when parents make a request for assessment. Only 24.5% of respondent indicated that the LEA was responsive while using descriptors, such as, ‘‘very,’’ ‘‘great,’’ and ‘‘positive’’ while, 17% of respondents indicated that the assessment process was ‘‘long,’’ ‘‘slow,’’ ‘‘no=not,’’ or ‘‘difficult.’’ The study did not seek to determine the timelines in which the responses occurred. IDEA provides specific timelines for the evaluation process of an identified student. IDEA also outlines an annual collaboration and consultation of public and private school representatives. Based upon the data collected, it cannot be determined as to what types of interactions were occurring and the response rate to identified activities.

RECOMMENDATIONS The current study collected qualitative data in order to understand current child find activities in Christian schools. Due to the data collected, further clarification and insight is needed in order to fully comprehend current practices. Participants’ qualitative statements were fairly general and brought into question participants own knowledge of what child find is as defined in IDEA. It may behoove further research using a quantitative approach which would shed light on private school administrators and educators knowledge of child find activities including appropriate steps to take when requesting an evaluation, evaluation timelines, and what LEAs are obligated to provide. In addition, research in exploring LEAs’ perspectives of child find activities with private schools would provide a reverse viewpoint. Research does not reflect public schools’ perspectives in working with their private school counterpart. It may be interesting to document whether or not public school representatives perceive that they have properly engaged in child find activities and discern in what mode these activities are delivered (e.g., email,



221

face-to-face, small group meetings, or electronic surveys). By eliciting data to provide a more holistic view of current practices, both public and private school representatives may be able to identify more effective and efficient means for collaboration and consultation to occur. In addition, the LEAs self-report may provide insight as to (1) what the child find process looks like and (2) how they perceive private school representatives regarding child find activities. It is unclear as to why there is such a substantial lack of research regarding special education practices in Christian schools. Lane and Kinnison (2014) reflect upon the value of serving children with disabilities as it is rooted in Christian informed practice. This mutual exchange of understanding when learning how to embrace the differences in each student allows for educators to rise to a ‘‘greater challenge of meeting more diverse needs [which heightens the] overall game, making us smarter thinkers, smarter problem solvers, and critically, smarter teachers’’ (Bartlett, 2014, p. 18). In order to provide as effective and appropriate education to children with special needs, research needs to assist Christian schools in making wise choices when developing and delivering special education programs (Lane & Kinnison, 2014). Recent studies and publications recommend a variety of research topics to understand best practices in Christian schools. An understanding of Christian school educators and specialist training as it relates to special education programs, services, and instruction needs to be sought (Bello, 2006; Eigenbrood, 2010; Lane & Jones, 2014; Lane & Kinnison, 2014, pp. 117–119). Bacon and Erickson (2010) recommend the need to further understand inclusive practices as it relates to Christian doctrine whereas Bello (2006) recommends further understanding of (1) disability documentation practices in Catholic high schools, (2) modified grading procedures, and (3) school-wide annual assessment alternatives.

SUMMARY Since the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 was implemented in 1979, children with special needs have had only one educational venue, public schools, in which to receive support and services. Whether attending their public school of residence or a private school, children were protected under the law as to their individual special education rights. With the amendments of IDEA in 1997, children placed in private schools by their parents no longer have the right to FAPE. However, child find activities must occur in a collaborative manner between public and private school representatives. Whether or not services will be provided in a private school is at the discretion of the LEA (Eigenbrood, 2004). LEAs are obligated to adhere to the federal and state mandated timelines when an assessment has been requested. In order to collaborate effectively regarding child find activities and to understand

222


federal and state mandates, private school representatives should educate themselves as to the requirements of LEAs collaborating with private schools and timeline regulations (Taylor, 2005).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was funded by a Fresno Pacific University Provost Grant.


REFERENCES Agostini v. Felton 521 U.S. 203. (1997). Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/ 1990-1999/1996/1996_96_552 Aguilar v. Felton. 473 U.S. 402. (1985). Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw. com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=473&invol=402 Bacon, J. K., & Erickson, K. E. (2010). Special education in Lutheran schools. Journal of Religion, Disability & Health, 14(4), 355–367. doi:10.1080=15228967. 2010.517430 Bartlett, K. (2014). Included, challenged, successful. UMC United World, 18–19. Retrieved from http://www.thecgcproject.org/uploaded/UWC_United_World_ April_2014_10.pdf?1400813502863 Bello, D. A. (2006). The status of special education services in catholic high schools: Attributes, challenges, and needs. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 461–481. Cookson, G. (2010). Experiences of principals establishing special education programs in Christian schools (Unpublished dissertation). Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia. Cookson, G., & Smith, S. J. (2011). Establishing special education programs: Experiences of Christian school principals. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 20(3), 239–253. doi:10.1080=10656219.2011.623653 DeFiore, L. (2006). The state of special education in Catholic schools. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 9(4), 453–465. Eigenbrood, R. (2005). A survey comparing special education services for students with disabilities in rural faith-based and public school settings. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 16–24. doi:10.1177=07419325050260010301 Eigenbrood, R. (2010). IDEA requirements for children with disabilities in faith-based schools. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15(1), 2–8. Fontan, P. (2012). An analysis of the legal issues of school voucher programs for students with disabilities and its impact on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. Huppe, M. A. (n.d.). Teaching all of God’s children: Attitudes of Catholic school principals towards children with disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. Ji, C. C., & Boyatt, E. (2007). Religion, parental choice, and school vouchers in urban parochial schools: The case of five schools in southern California. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 16 (2), 149–179. doi:10.1080=10656210701647753



223

Lane, J. M. (2011). Special education in Christian schools: Post professional development and support (Doctoral dissertation). Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA Lane, J. M., & Jones, D. R. (2014). Special education professional development in Christian schools. Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability, 3(2), 45–68. Lane, J. M., & Kinnison, Q. P. (2014). Welcoming children with special needs: Empowering Christian special education with purpose, policies, and procedure. Bloomington, IN: Westbow Press. McKinney, J. A. (2011). The privatization of special education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. Osborne, Jr., A. G., Russo, C. J., & DiMattia, P. (2000). Idea 0 97: Providing special education services to students voluntarily enrolled in private schools. Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 224–231. doi:10.1177=002246690003300405 Stymeist, M. L. (2008). Developing the heart: Private Christian schools and students with special needs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Biola University, La Mirada, CA. Taylor, S. (2003). The state of special education in Tennessee private schools. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3092454). Taylor, S. S. (2005). Special education and private schools: A principal’s point of view. Remedial and Special Education, 26(5), 281–296. Yell, M. L. (2012). The law and special education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Inc. Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District 509 U.S. 1. (1993). Retrieved from http:// laws.findlaw.com/us/509/1.html

Julie M. Lane, EdD, is the Division Chair of Educational Leadership at Fresno Pacific University. She has worked more than 20 years in the special education field. She co-authored Welcoming Children with Special Need: Empowering Christian Special Education through Purpose, Policies, and Procedures. David R. Jones, MS, serves as faculty at Fresno Pacific University where he oversees the student teaching experience and teaches. His perspectives regarding special education in Christian institutions are influenced by a K-12 experience spent in Christian schools and training in life-span developmental psychology.