Tag Archives: long range goals

Mailbag Jan 26, 2019

Are you a parent of a student with special needs who is struggling with a math topic? Are you a teacher figuring out how to differentiate for a particular student on a math topic? Pose your question and I will offer suggestions. Share your question via email or in a comment below. I will respond to as many as I can in future mailbag posts.

Here is a topic multiple educators and parents ask about:

I don’t want my child to be stuck in a room. He needs to be around other students.

Randy:

Often we view situations in a dichotomous perspective. Inclusion in special education is much more nuanced.

Image result for for in the road

In math if a student cannot access the general curriculum or if learning in the general ed math classroom is overly challenging then the student likely will not experience full inclusion (below) but integration (proximity).

For example, I had an algebra 1 part 1 class that included a student with autism. He was capable of higher level algebra skills but he would sit in the classroom away from the other students with a para assisting him.  Below is a math problem the students were tasked with completing.  Below that is a revised version of the problem that I, as the math teacher created, extemporaneously for this student because the original types of math problems were not accessible to him (he would not attend to them).

mapping traditional

comic book mapping

I certainly believe in providing students access to “non-disabled peers” but for students who are more severely impacted I believe this must be implemented strategically and thoughtfully. Math class does not lend itself to social interaction as well as other classes. If the goal is to provide social interaction perhaps the student is provided math in a pull-out setting and provided push-in services in other classes, e.g. music or art.

Here are the details of example of a push-in model I witnessed that had mixed effectiveness.  A 1st grader with autism needed opportunities for social interaction as her social skills were a major issue. She was brought into the general ed classroom during math time and sat with a peer model to play a math game with a para providing support. The game format, as is true with most games, involved turn-taking and social interaction. The idea is excellent but the para over prompted which took away the student initiative. After the game the general ed teacher reviewed the day’s math lesson with a 5-8 minute verbal discussion. The student with autism was clearly not engaged as she stared off at something else.

Inclusion is not proximity.

 

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mailbag Jan 25, 2019

Are you a parent of a student with special needs who is struggling with a math topic? Are you a teacher figuring out how to differentiate for a particular student on a math topic? Pose your question and I will offer suggestions. Share your question via email or in a comment below. I will respond to as many as I can in future mailbag posts.

Here is one from Doug:

You pointed out that what the student really needed to learn was counting money.

What insights do you have for reconciling the pressure of inclusion with the pressure of individual goals?

Randy:

The purpose of special education as explained in IDEA:

The most important statute in IDEA is Purposes in Section 1400(d). The main purposes are:

  • . . . to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living

In short, the purpose of special education is to prepare students for life after public education.

I worked with a family of a 7th grade student and the first step was to ask the parents to share the post-secondary goals. The mother replied that they hoped he could live independently and have a job. He likes working with cars so maybe in that area. In response I mapped out a long-range plan to prepare the student with the math skills needed for working with cars. Given the focus on working with cars measurement that is what dominated the plan (below).long range planning calendar.png

The IEP goals and objectives are supposed to be aligned with the post-secondary goals. The IEP team doesn’t need to wait until age 16 to incorporate this alignment. Students who are more severely impacted by a disability need as much time as they can get to prepare for life!

With all of this in mind, I will reply to the question. If the IEP team is focusing on preparing a student for post-secondary life then programming and services should be aligned accordingly. The main push for this should, in my opinion, come from the parents because this is all about their child. They will be the ones dealing with the outcomes of the education of their child, for better or worse.

If the student needs more small group or individual instruction for math or academics I would focus on a balance between the more isolated settings for crucial academic content vs courses that may more amenable to a general ed setting to allow the socializing and interaction with “non-disabled peers.” I recently completed a report for a math evaluation that involved this very situation. One recommendation was to provide the small group pull out support for math and English while providing full inclusion in gym, art and science (in which labs and group work was prevalent).

If you are an educator my suggestion is to ask the parents to share their ideas regarding post-secondary life. In fact, just this morning I had a conversation with a mother whose student was struggling with the traditional math sequence. We discussed post-secondary goals and she was welcoming of the idea of aligning her son’s math education with what he would likely be doing after high school (which was not college).

Tagged , , , , ,

Standards vs Deficits and Long Range Plans

categories-of-long-range-outcomes

I’ve had discussions with multiple caregivers and parents recently about IEP objectives and evaluation/assessment. I think this is not only an important issue but is an issue that is a foundation for special education.

The purpose of special education, as established in IDEA, is outcome based. The focus is on the future life of the student. Decision making and services are made in this context. With this in mind I believe evaluation/assessment and the development of the IEP, especially objectives, fall under this context. There should be an alignment to the long range future of the student.

Often the focus of special education is on deficits. Evaluations identify deficits and the programming is developed to address the deficits. Certainly many or most educators are conscientious of long range outcomes but the deficits are the priority. Contrasting this is a standards based approach. I do not mean every student working towards grade level work as this would be entirely inappropriate for severely impacted students (like my son). I mean more of an outcome based focus with long range goals as the priority. If the purpose of special education is to prepare students for life after K-12 education then the standards or outcome based approach is necessary. A deficits based approach can result in progress but progress that does not translate into necessary preparation for the future.

Here’s an analogy. A person gets up in the morning and has to go to work. She has a range of tasks from the essential, e.g. getting dressed, to the desired but not essential, e.g. send an email to a friend or make a cup of coffee to go. As is often the case with me, she runs out of time. Maybe she can try to send the email but then has no time for the coffee. Maybe she needed to print a report for work but overlooked it because she was preoccupied with all the other tasks. At some point she has no choice and has to leave regardless if the coffee is ready or the report is printed.

Our kids have a limited amount of time in special education. Like the person going to work, at some point our kids are exited from IDEA regardless if they are prepared. We know a great many of our kids are not prepared. A deficits approach prioritizes urgency at the expense of important. The email is sent but the report was overlooked. A standards/outcome based approach focuses on importance not urgency. This doesn’t mean deficits are overlooked but they are prioritized.

In my experience in school and in working with many different parents I have found a focus on deficits.

  • A sophomore in high school spent an entire year on arithmetic (doing this by hand) and basic pre-algebra skills because these were deficits. The goal is for him to go to a community college where he would qualify under ADA for use of a calculator.
  • A junior moderately impacted by autism was taking a basis algebra class. His postsecondary plans focused on some level of independence and maybe a supported work placement. He couldn’t count money but he was being taught how to simplify 3x + 2x.
  • Often, accommodations, e.g. teacher prompts, are included in assessment of IEP objectives “because the student needs this to be successful.” I’ve heard this in multiple situations.

Contrast this with another situation. I helped a family with a middle school student with autism. His mother explained to me that they had a goal of him having some type of job and some level of independence. He was very much interested in cars and working with cars in some capacity for his job. The math needed for auto repair is mostly measurement. We mapped out a muti-year plan for his math to focus on measurement and consumer math. He was not going to learn to simplify 3x + 2x but would focus on what a 5/16 inch wrench is and what is meant by 5/16 of an inch.

The first student I ever helped when I began my work in special education was a sophomore with aspergers. He received ineffective special education support and entered community college with the same challenges and gaps in math as he had his sophomore year. I served as a kind of case manager for him as he worked through community college. He needed help with study skills, math content, stress, completing work etc. This semester he is likely to graduate from community college and plans on transferring to a university.

Again, I am not proposing that deficits be marginalized. The deficits can be prioritized based on long range goals and addressed accordingly. The photo of the table above shows 3 categories of post-secondary outcomes and the level of focus on standards and curriculum.

  • Some level of independence – no formal vocational training or college course work
  • Some vocational training or college course work or a community college certificate or degree.
  • 4 year college

My position is that the current student work and support should be aligned with the appropriate outcome.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: