Technology Teacher 06/26/2016

• School of Education at Johns Hopkins University-Alderwood Middle School Makes a Difference

  • The student population includes: 36 percent on free and reduced lunch, 7 percent of whom are limited English proficient, 10 percent who qualify for special education, and 35 percent various ethnicities.
  • Results from the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) indicate a gap in performance for students with disabilities, limited English proficient and students living in poverty.
  • They changed the class schedule to 80-minute periods for more in-depth instruction in the core curricula areas of mathematics, language arts, science and social studies.
  • Keys for Excellence in Your Schools (KEYS), an educational reform process developed by the National Education Association.
  • 1. Shared Understanding and Commitment to High Goals
    2. Open Communication and Collaborative Problem Solving
    3. Continuous Assessment for Teaching and Learning
    4. Personal and Professional Learning
    5. Resources to Support Teaching and Learning
    6. Curriculum and Instruction
  • In January 2002, the special education team recognized that many of their students were failing in the general education portion of their program
  • The group first identified the following set of objectives that they wished to achieve:
  • 1. To provide students consistency and high structure
    2. To meet the instructional and developmental needs of special education and struggling students
    3. To provide multi-age organization for students
    4. To provide a more cohesive range of options for students in smaller stair-steps
    5. To provide a supportive structure and a collaborative and cooperative culture for teachers and students
    6. To provide a more integrated curriculum for students
  • The team felt that the Academy had to be able to provide the full general education curricula, but the curricula needed to be delivered at a pace that was more responsive to the students.
  • The Academy is comprised of four general educators who teach language arts, math, science and social studies who joined forces with the special education teachers.
  • The special and general education staff worked together during the summer of 2002 to create curriculum maps in the content areas, institute research-based effective instructional practices, accommodations and specially designed instruction
  • The Academy staff met on a regular basis throughout the school year to discuss student performance and make program adjustments
  • Pre- and post- tests for reading and math were taken, and data on student desire to attend and participate in school and parent satisfaction with the school program collected.
  • Although several efforts have contributed to our success, the creation of the Academy for our struggling and special education students has proven to be beneficial in several ways.
  • This team is comprised of four special education teachers, one English teacher who is funded from Learning Assistance Program State funds (LAP), and two regular education teachers.
  • Academy parents also reported high satisfaction with the academic and behavioral transformation in their students.

• Special Education Inclusion - WEAC

  • Special Education Inclusion

     

    Special Education Inclusion

  • Any discussion about inclusion should address several important questions:

     
     
    • Do we value all children equally?
     
    • What do we mean by “inclusion”?
     
    • Are there some children for whom “inclusion” is inappropriate?
  • James Kauffman of the University of Virginia views inclusion as a policy driven by an unrealistic expectation that money will be saved.
  • trying to force all students into the inclusion mold is just as coercive and discriminatory as trying to force all students into the mold of a special education class or residential institution.
  • all students belong in the regular education classroom, and that “good” teachers are those who can meet the needs of all the students, regardless of what those needs may be.
  • hey wonder whether inclusion is legally required and wonder what is best for children. They also question what it is that schools and school personnel must do to meet the needs of children with disabilities.
  • mainstreaming has been used to refer to the selective placement of special education students in one or more “regular” education classes.
  • This concept is closely linked to traditional forms of special education service delivery.
  • Inclusion is a term which expresses commitment to educate each child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend.
  • bringing the support services to the child (rather than moving the child to the services) and requires only that the child will benefit from being in the class (rather than having to keep up with the other students).
  • Full inclusion means that all students, regardless of handicapping condition or severity, will be in a regular classroom/program full time. All services must be taken to the child in that setting.
  • Those who support the idea of mainstreaming believe that a child with disabilities first belongs in the special education environment and that the child must earn his/her way into the regular education environment.
  • those who support inclusion believe that the child always should begin in the regular environment and be removed only when appropriate services cannot be provided in the regular classroom.
  • The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended in 2004, does not require inclusion. Instead, the law requires that children with disabilities be educated in the “least restrictive environment appropriate” to meet their “unique needs.”
  • IDEA recognizes that it is not appropriate to place all children in the regular education classroom. Therefore, the law requires school districts to have a “continuum of placements” available, extending from the regular education classroom to residential settings, in order to accommodate the needs of all children with disabilities.
  • he IDEA requires the IEP team to consider placement in the regular education classroom as the starting point in determining the appropriate placement for the child.
  • Section 504 requires that a recipient of federal funds provide for the education of each qualified handicapped person in its jurisdiction with persons who are not handicapped to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the handicapped person.
  • Because the categories of disabilities covered by the IDEA have expanded during the past two reauthorizations in 1997 and 2004, Section 504 is less frequently used to obtain access to public education for students with disabilities.

  • Even after several reauthorizations of IDEA, most recently in 2004, federal law leaves several questions unanswered, including three significant ones:

     
     
    • How far must schools go?
     
    • How important is potential academic achievement/social growth in making placement decisions?
     
    • What are the rights of the other children?
  • Greer vs. Rome City School District (11th Circuit Court, 1992)
  • In this case, the court decided in favor of parents who objected to the placement of their daughter in a self-contained special education classroom.
  • “Before the school district may conclude that a handicapped child should be educated outside of the regular classroom it must consider whether supplemental aids and services would permit satisfactory education in the regular classroom.”

  • The district had considered only three options for the child:

     
     
    • The regular education classroom with no supplementary aids and services;
     
    • The regular classroom with some speech therapy only;
     
    • The self-contained special education classroom.
  • However, the court said that the district cannot refuse to serve a child because of added cost.
  • the court also said that a district cannot be required to provide a child his/her own full-time teacher.
  • major message in this case is that all options must be considered before removing a child from the regular classroom.
  • no clear determination is made about when costs move from reasonable to excessive
  • The parents in this case challenged the district’s decision to place their daughter half-time in a special education classroom and half-time in a regular education classroom.
  • wanted their daughter in the regular classroom full-time.
  • found that regular education placement is appropriate if a disabled child can receive a satisfactory education, even if it is not the best academic setting for the child
  • Non-academic benefits must also be considered.

  • The four factors were as follows:

     
     
    • The educational benefits of placing the child in a full-time regular education program;
     
    • The non-academic benefits of such a placement;
     
    • The effect the child would have on the teacher and other students in the regular classroom;
     
    • The costs associated with this placement.

  • the court ruled that three factors must be considered:

     
     
    • The court should consider whether the district made reasonable efforts to accommodate the child in regular education. The school must “consider the whole range of supplemental aids and services . . .”
     
    • The court should compare the educational benefits the child would receive in regular education (with supplemental aids and services) contrasted with the benefits in a special education classroom.
     
    • The court should consider the effect the inclusion of the child with disabilities might have on the education of other children in the regular education classroom.
  • f, after considering these factors, the court determines that the child cannot be educated satisfactorily in a regular classroom, the court must consider whether the schools have included the child in school programs to the maximum extent appropriate.
  • Poolaw vs. Parker Unified School District (9 th Circuit Court, 1995)
  • the district found that the benefits of regular education placement were minimal and that the child’s educational needs could be met appropriately only by the residential placement offered by the district.
  • School District of Wisconsin Dells v. Z. S. (7 th Circuit Court, 2002)
  • In this instance, the court decided that school authorities did not have to modify the neighborhood school for wheelchairs when an accessible program was available elsewhere in the school district.
  • Courts will carefully examine the facts in individual cases to determine whether school districts have offered an appropriate placement out of a continuum of placements available for every child with disabilities who is enrolled in the district. Courts will examine IEP team processes to ensure that placements are based on the individual needs of each child.
  • no comparative data available on special education students’ academic gains, graduation rates, preparation for post-secondary schooling, work, or involvement in community living based on their placement in inclusive vs. non-inclusive settings.

  • In assessing effectiveness, a control group was compared with the students in Success For All programs. Comparative measures included:

     
     
    • Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (1984)
     
    • Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (1980)
     
    • Student retention and attendance.
  • The primary importance of research on Success For All is that it demonstrates that with early and continuing intervention nearly all children can be successful in reading

  • In particular, students in special education and regular education showed several positive changes, including:

     
     
    • A reduced fear of human differences accompanied by increased comfort and awareness (Peck et al., 1992);
     
    • Growth in social cognition (Murray-Seegert,1989);
     
    • Improvement in self-concept of non-disabled students (Peck et. al., 1992);
     
    • Development of personal principles and ability to assume an advocacy role toward their peers and friends with disabilities;
     
    • Warm and caring friendships (Bogdan and Taylor, 1989).
  • A restructured system that merges special and regular education must also employ practices that focus on high expectations for all and rejects the prescriptive teaching, remedial approach that leads to lower achievement (Guess and Thompson, 1989, Heshusius, 1988).

  • We must also decide that diversity (ability, racial, etc.) is valuable. It is not just a reality to be tolerated, accepted, and accommodated . . . it is a reality to be valued (York, et.al. 1993).

     

  • When considering a move from traditional/regular special educational programming to a more inclusive approach, it is important that the entire school community be involved in a thoughtful, carefully researched transition.
  • The following recommendations can help districts or buildings in designing a positive transition to a more inclusive environment:
  • • A continuum of placements, supports and services should be made available for all students, but always assume that every student’s first placement is in regular education.
     
    • All placement decisions should be based on a well-developed IEP with an emphasis on the needs of the child, her/his peers and the reasonable provision of services.
     
    • Top-down mandated full inclusion is inappropriate. Neither federal nor state law require full inclusion.
     
    • Before any new programs are developed, the building staff must agree on a clearly articulated philosophy of education (an education ethic). Teachers and support staff must be fully involved in the decision-making, planning and evaluation processes for individual students and building-wide programs.
     
    • Extensive staff development must be made available as a part of every teacher’s and paraprofessional’s workday. Areas of emphasis include: 
       
       
      • Emphasis on higher-order thinking skills
       
      • Integrated curricula
       
      • Interdisciplinary teaching
       
      • Multicultural curricula
       
      • Life-centered curricula.
       
       
       
     
    • Work toward unifying the special education and regular education systems. For instance, separate evaluators and evaluation systems are counter productive. There should be one system.
     
    • Ensure that sufficient licensed practitioners are employed to address the social, emotional, and cognitive needs of all students. In inclusive settings, reduced class sizes and/or increased numbers of teachers in the classroom are necessary.
     
    • Appeal processes must be developed that allow teachers to challenge the implementation of IEP’s and placements that they determine to be inappropriate for a child.
     
    • Involve parents and students as partners in the decision-making process.
     
    • When developing programs, consider multiple teaching/learning approaches like team teaching, co-teaching, peer partners, cooperative learning, heterogeneous grouping, study team planning, parallel teaching, station teaching, etc.
  • Real inclusion involves restructuring of a school’s entire program and requires constant assessment of practices and results.
  • Constant reflection is necessary if we ever hope to be able to make clear determinations about which specific strategies will help children to become happy, contributing citizens.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.