 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
djasbridge
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 54 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 05:59 am |
|
It is apparent to me that almost everyone with whom I've spoken about labels and traditional "test, diagnose, and place" models agrees. Most of us who have been in the field for awhile ask the same questions and have many of the same observations. RWOL is not "radical" nor is it "controversial" -- it's just different (and probably a lot more effective) than how we've been doing it.
As I often do, I always remind the reader I didn't think all this up. In that spirit, here is a thread from the CASP Forum from 2003. A few psychologists are asking many of the same questions, yet, here we are in 2007, still doing what we do because that's what we do!
You can see this thread in it's original form at: http://www.casponline.org
-----
sp ed - what does it really do?
Posted: 10:14:17 am on 2/13/2003 Modified: Never
I put this out here in hope of creating a little controversy and stimulating thoughtful response. I have been a school psyc for 28 years and have seen many trends, fads and follies come and go. I have seen the old re-packaged and sold as new. I have been involved in sp ed assessment and placemmment from the "Master Plan" of the 70's to IDEA of the 2000s.
My opinion is that sp ed is ineffective in teaching kids how to learn, often encouraging students to become dependent on an aide, and disenfranchising them from the regular ed students and teachers. At best, sp ed can provide a "safe haven" for students who will never "succeed" in regular ed but still need to be "educated." It seems that as soon as a kid is IDd as a "special needs" student, expectations for that student are lowered or abandoned. Students who are placed in SDC seldom, if ever, "escape" to a less restrictive evironment. Many drop out before they graduate from high school.
What is our responsibility in this process? We continue to assess, evaluate,and place students into programs that fail in most ways to educate these students. We are a part of a system that continues to suck huge amounts of money from taxpayers that could otherwise go to pay for a higher quality education for a much larger number of children.
I realize that there are a few exceptions to this, but few is the operative word. I don't know what the answers are. I would be very interested in other opinions and possible solutions or alternatives to "special education."
-----
Re: sp ed - what does it really do?
Posted: 7:16:24 am on 3/19/2003 Modified: Never
I have been a school psychologist for a few years and it appears to me as the current model is not working. It is hard to put a bandaid on an old problem. Older children are difficult to work with and the parents, at that point, are not very involved.
For me, the preventative model shows more promise. Kindergarten screening seems to be the way to go. A phonemic awareness screen as well as a 28 question Teacher Conners in the beginning of the year would add to the Brigance that is given in my district in K and 1st grades and would make a good profile for the child. A small behavior plan or reading interventions would be great in Kindergarten and, at that age, the parents usually want to help and be part of the solution of the problem that the child is having. In this model all children would be helped, not just the magical ones that fall neatly into the classification.
I know it is hard to change, and many times we only change if we have to. This reauthorization and looking at the discrimination model is difficult for many. But we can look at it as a opportunity for something better in the field that might work for the children.
-----
Re: sp ed - what does it really do?
Posted: 11:44:08 pm on 12/3/2003 Modified: Never
Now wait a minute! Special ed manages to graduate 67% of students with Learning Disabilities and 51% of emotionally disturbed students with a diploma. And if you live in Idaho and are African-American chances are 1 to 4 that you will be labeled disabled and probably attend a special day class. In California 8.7% of the population is African-American but 24.9% of students under ED labels are African-American. Finally, Dr. Reschly reports that studies on "Mild Mentally" retarded students found that more gains were actually made by those students left in regular education (receiving no intervention) than those removed and placed in a traditional special day class. So...Special Education does a lot. Probably a lot of damage.
-----
Re: sp ed - what does it really do?
Posted: 2:22:50 pm on 1/5/2004 Modified: 2:25:59 pm on 1/5/2004
I think looking at the problem from the standpoint of prevention (with an emphasis on early intervention) as preveiously mentioned has some merit given the premise that the system is broken. I try to screen as many of the kids as I can before signing an assessment plan. I work at a low SES K-6 school (pop.= approx. 800) and the numbers of kids at or above grade level in any one grade can be counted on two hands and two feet. Obviously this many students not at grade level is a reflection of something other than LD. In the screening, I'm using mostly the DIBELS, WASI, and some CBM measures to get an idea of both the possibility of eligibility as well as diagnostic prescription to take back to the teacher for immediate intervention. This cuts down on inappropriate referrals and placements (particulary of "slow/low" kids). I also have been teaching parenting programs for the last 12 years or so as a way to get information about school readiness and organization out to parents. It's amazing how many kids chose their own bedtimes and have TVs in their rooms! Perhaps one possiblity in this mess is to start making placements into SPED more diagnostic in nature. Perhaps we should take a more critical eye to conitnuing students in program at the time of their annual review. If the program is not resulting in academic gain than dismissal might be in order
-----
Response to [previous]
Posted: 1:21:19 am on 2/1/2004 Modified: Never
If the special education setting is so bad, and the regular setting so good, then why are numerous students being referred out of regular ed into special ed? If you chose to believe that regular ed does a better job of educating students, then stop referring them out. Just keep the struggling child in the setting where he/she is struggling and, according to Dr. Reschly, everything will turn out fine.
-----
Re: sp ed - what does it really do? (Guest)
Posted: 10:54:30 pm on 4/5/2004 Modified: Never
My suggestion is to either update your views or retire.
-----
Re: sp ed - what does it really do?
Posted: 10:24:10 am on 12/2/2004 Modified: Never
Hmm where to start. Our education system is based on the assumption that 100 percent of our students will be going to college. So we attempt to fit all students into that mold. Not all students fit into that mold. In real life we have carpenters, janitors, rocket scientists, educators and thousands of other types of jobs. We can not legally "profile" students in Kindergarten for what job we will prepare them for. That said, our IQ 45 kids are not going to be working for NASAU designing space stations, well not without a heck of a lot of support. One reason our bottom 12 percent of students are not successful in school is that we are trying to get them to be college students. They often do not want this, their parents do not want this and they will not be successful at it. If we really wanted these children to be successful in life we would teach the ones who are interested the education they need and the trade skill, apprenticeship, on the job training that they will need to actual get and maintain a job in real life. I know children who have gotten jobs demolishing buildings or putting in carpet that make more money than I do with a Ph.D. Take a snapshot of our workforce, itemize what skills are needed to be successful in each job, review the variety of jobs available within 150 miles of where the student resides, review the child's interest, apptitude, find a match and then start working on skill building.
As far as actually educating students for traditional education there are many flaws in our approach. Research on how to teach students also typically is extremely poorly done. When teaching math to a LD student in math, special education teachers do not teach the advanced concepts needed to progress in math because the student never masters the multiplication tables. The student will be 75 years old and may never learn the times tables. Move on, often the student can grasp many of the other math concepts and use a calculator, like the rest of us do, for the actual math. Our model is "impairment based" and not "modification based". We teach in a straight line and that is not the way these kids brains work. They have a lot of breaks in thier processing that we need to detour around to get to other areas that are intact. If we never make that detour we never progress.
On a final note, kids in the bottom 12 percentile in thier academic skills will have trouble learning these skills. And yet somehow we are surprised when they have trouble learning these skills. Sometimes our learning curve is flatter than that of the students.
-----
Re: sp ed - what does it really do? (from WA)
Posted: 5:14:50 pm on 5/21/2005 Modified: Never
Has anyone considered the benefit to the most capable students that has been provided by the special education system? I have always considered special education placements as instruction to the students that educators would like to avoid. IDEA 97 emphasized specially designed instruction in the general curriculum to the maximum degree possible, but because of all the legalities and procedural due process rules that encompass special education, we have done little to equalize the quality of instruction of the IEP student as opposed to the general education student. It is not beneficial to instruction at a higher level to include students who are really special education students, and unfortunately we have so much advocacy for students with every disability to ensure that they get their specific needs met. We talk about childfind and the need to identify students with disabilities as early as possible. But I think if we wait and avoid the special education system more students would be better off in the long run.
I am in complete agreement with the sentiments of CASP that embrace the changes in identifying LD students. This is a great way to identify meaningful strategies to offer instruction to benefit students who are really learning disabled, and I think what we learn from this approach will generalize to other students with disabilities. We may be able to avoid classifying students as special education students so quickly, and history tells us that special education students will benefit as a result.
The backlash will come from the general education staff who depend on the special education system to identify their weaker students. Special education personnel are and continue to be a minority in education, and the majority of educators in the general education environment, and many parents will continue to be concerned about what is in it for them with these changes.
I find it fascinating that this string was intended to be controversial, and yet there does not seem to be any disagreement with the original message.
-----
Re: Response to [above]
Posted: 4:21:45 pm on 8/18/2005 Modified: Never
Typical special education during 4th and 5th grade increases reading by only .04 SD over what would occur in the classroom. In addition, SDC's, when looking at LD and ED students (which typically can also be served in RSP's) have effect sizes of +.29. An effect size of +.50 is interesting and +.75 is something that is probably worth a look into. So for most...special education is NOT working. If the argument is that we are using it because someone wants it that to me poses some ethical issues. People also thought that Indian Reservations managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs was a great idea as well as Japanese Internment Camps.
|
Current time is 02:33 am | |
|
|
|
|
