I believe that the high school diploma is widely viewed as the end game of K-12 education. The purpose of special education focuses on life AFTER the diploma. The focus of our collective efforts should be on NOW WHAT?
I have posted on this topic and want to circle back to it. If the purpose of special ed is to prepare students for life after K-12 education then I believe we should use backwards planning to guide services. I stumbled across a website on LinkedIn that can be very useful. This site (see below) provides detailed information about requirements for various occupations – useful for backwards planning. For example, I worked with a student in 7th grade with a more severe disability who was interested in working with cars. The math needed for this occupation was largely measurement and that was the focus for his math – a modification.
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.
See the video (link below) to find out about this photo.I believe one of the greatest problems in education is the challenge students have in taking an active role in the learning process.
This is a video of a presentation on issues related to academic self-help skills and how to develop them. This is especially important for students with special needs.
The sound quality is not what I want it to be but the slides may help make up for this. I intend to re-record this presentation.
This image is making the rounds through various social media outlets. I think it is a wonderful representation of the various settings and situations encountered in special education. I will share my take on each of these.
Full inclusion is the ultimate LRE (least restrictive environment) but is simply not the appropriate placement or LRE for some students. My son Gabriel rarely encounters this model because it is simply would not work for him. Even when it is the appropriate LRE it is incredibly challenging to enact for various reasons which I’ll enumerate.
Special ed teachers are often overwhelmed with responsibilities to provide the support for a full inclusion environment.
Administration does not allow for the factors necessary for implementation, e.g. providing a student with the individual attention necessary.
For the most part, general ed teachers simply do not know how to or do not take responsibility for providing accommodations necessary, especially ones not listed in the IEP.
The other models are both useful and misused as well. Exclusion can refer to how students in special education either are denied access to or could not make use of many opportunities or classes. Segregation would represent a self-contained placement. It has its place in services. My son Gabriel has situations in which it is necessary and desired. The integration model is also perfectly valid. Some students are not capable of being fully woven into a class but they can benefit from proximity to peers.
