Agenda for Special Education
§ Historically, educational approaches to children with special needs and learning disabilities have been based on teaching specific skills or surface behaviors. For example, desired skills or behaviors from work with older children, such as the ability to sit and listen, identify letters and shapes, or sort shapes, are systematically taught to younger children. The approach is generally structured with a high emphasis on repetition and rote learning. Behavioral principles and a variety of eclectic approaches are often used, again with an emphasis on applying what is done with older children to younger children.
§ These approaches, however, have not sufficiently taken into account the newer, more modern understanding of how basic capacities actually develop. For example, we now have much better understanding than we had in the past of the developmental pathways and landmarks leading to the capacities for reflective thinking, for solving complex problems in math, reading, English, science, and social studies, as well as for focusing and attending, participating in groups, and cooperating. Understanding these developmental pathways reveals, however, that the road to desired academic thinking and social skills is not simply practicing desired behaviors or academic capacities, but involves mastery of critical building blocks in a number of areas.
§ Therefore, it’s critical to face an important fact. The older approaches have not been as successful as we would like, with large numbers of children unable to master basic academic thinking and social capacities, e.g., large numbers of children who can’t read, comprehend what they read, solve math or science problems, and engage socially at age- and grade-expected levels.
§ Modern approaches that work on building the foundations for academic thinking and social skills offer promise of much greater success. These approaches focus on three dimensions of development, including individual differences in information processing capacities (auditory processing and language, motor planning and sequencing—executive functioning, visual-spatial processing, and sensory modulation); functional problem-solving and thinking capacities; and relationship capacities. We now have the understanding to develop curricula for each of these areas and relate these curricula to specific academic goals, such as for reading, math, science, and social studies.
§ In order to implement these new curricula, however, for children with special needs and learning disabilities, we will need to rethink the organizational structures within which children learn. Specifically, the following innovations will need to be considered.
o New curricula for the areas outlined above
o An emphasis on one-on-one and very small group learning opportunities. This can involve either an aide or teacher. A small group would have no more than two to four children per adult
o Volunteers from the community who would be trained to apply these new curricula would need to be involved in order to supply the ratios outlined above. Volunteers could include parents, grandparents, and others. Also, public education would need to consider what private schools have been doing for years (i.e., employing talented BA level individuals as teachers with in-service training to foster their growth).
o Home-based programs led by parents, other family members, and volunteers would need to complement school-based learning opportunities. Schools and educators would need to reach out to help create partnerships with families where the family is seen as a vital resource for the child’s education and a co-member of a school/family team.
o Shifting resources from “guarding the door” into understanding the unique needs of each child and family. Traditionally, enormous resources are spent to make sure children who receive special education services evidence the significant, measurable delay or deviation from age-expected capacities. The tests that are used to measure these capacities, however, are not well validated for the variety of special needs conditions they are used to assess and often only delay children’s entry into special education, making the child’s challenges even greater. Therefore, children should be afforded access to the appropriate special education services, including special education services, if they are not learning to interact, communicate, think, read, write, or solve arithmetic problems in an age- or grade-expected manner. Often, this will be readily clear from class performance, parent reports, or combinations of the above. In other words, it’s rare that families seek extra educational help or that educators recommend it without a challenge being present and, as indicated, without help, such challenges usually intensify. Once a child is identified as needing further educational assistance, a thorough evaluation involving both observations, as well as needed formal assessments, can determine the nature of the challenges and the best ways to work with them. Some children, for example, may require little or no special education services, but simply more individualized regular education approaches while other children may require intensive, comprehensive approaches. If the detailed evaluation is implemented as part of the planning for the intervention, then the intervention team and the child and family will benefit from the evaluation. When the evaluation is used to “guard the door,” often there is a disconnect between the evaluation process and subsequent special education services. Therefore, resources should be shifted from guarding the door to the implementation of appropriate programs based on understanding each child’s and family’s unique needs.
These are some preliminary ideas that could help us turn around special education in the United States. We could help children much more substantially than we are now at far less cost per student with an innovative program that has the following features:
§ A focus on the building blocks of academic thinking and social skills (rather than surface traits or behaviors)
§ Small group and one-on-one learning opportunities on these basics
§ Emphasis on use of volunteers and entry opportunities for Bachelor level, talented individuals into teaching positions.
§ School/family partnerships with systematic home programs that complement school programs.
§ Heavy involvement of community and family in the governing structure of local schools.
§ These approaches, however, have not sufficiently taken into account the newer, more modern understanding of how basic capacities actually develop. For example, we now have much better understanding than we had in the past of the developmental pathways and landmarks leading to the capacities for reflective thinking, for solving complex problems in math, reading, English, science, and social studies, as well as for focusing and attending, participating in groups, and cooperating. Understanding these developmental pathways reveals, however, that the road to desired academic thinking and social skills is not simply practicing desired behaviors or academic capacities, but involves mastery of critical building blocks in a number of areas.
§ Therefore, it’s critical to face an important fact. The older approaches have not been as successful as we would like, with large numbers of children unable to master basic academic thinking and social capacities, e.g., large numbers of children who can’t read, comprehend what they read, solve math or science problems, and engage socially at age- and grade-expected levels.
§ Modern approaches that work on building the foundations for academic thinking and social skills offer promise of much greater success. These approaches focus on three dimensions of development, including individual differences in information processing capacities (auditory processing and language, motor planning and sequencing—executive functioning, visual-spatial processing, and sensory modulation); functional problem-solving and thinking capacities; and relationship capacities. We now have the understanding to develop curricula for each of these areas and relate these curricula to specific academic goals, such as for reading, math, science, and social studies.
§ In order to implement these new curricula, however, for children with special needs and learning disabilities, we will need to rethink the organizational structures within which children learn. Specifically, the following innovations will need to be considered.
o New curricula for the areas outlined above
o An emphasis on one-on-one and very small group learning opportunities. This can involve either an aide or teacher. A small group would have no more than two to four children per adult
o Volunteers from the community who would be trained to apply these new curricula would need to be involved in order to supply the ratios outlined above. Volunteers could include parents, grandparents, and others. Also, public education would need to consider what private schools have been doing for years (i.e., employing talented BA level individuals as teachers with in-service training to foster their growth).
o Home-based programs led by parents, other family members, and volunteers would need to complement school-based learning opportunities. Schools and educators would need to reach out to help create partnerships with families where the family is seen as a vital resource for the child’s education and a co-member of a school/family team.
o Shifting resources from “guarding the door” into understanding the unique needs of each child and family. Traditionally, enormous resources are spent to make sure children who receive special education services evidence the significant, measurable delay or deviation from age-expected capacities. The tests that are used to measure these capacities, however, are not well validated for the variety of special needs conditions they are used to assess and often only delay children’s entry into special education, making the child’s challenges even greater. Therefore, children should be afforded access to the appropriate special education services, including special education services, if they are not learning to interact, communicate, think, read, write, or solve arithmetic problems in an age- or grade-expected manner. Often, this will be readily clear from class performance, parent reports, or combinations of the above. In other words, it’s rare that families seek extra educational help or that educators recommend it without a challenge being present and, as indicated, without help, such challenges usually intensify. Once a child is identified as needing further educational assistance, a thorough evaluation involving both observations, as well as needed formal assessments, can determine the nature of the challenges and the best ways to work with them. Some children, for example, may require little or no special education services, but simply more individualized regular education approaches while other children may require intensive, comprehensive approaches. If the detailed evaluation is implemented as part of the planning for the intervention, then the intervention team and the child and family will benefit from the evaluation. When the evaluation is used to “guard the door,” often there is a disconnect between the evaluation process and subsequent special education services. Therefore, resources should be shifted from guarding the door to the implementation of appropriate programs based on understanding each child’s and family’s unique needs.
These are some preliminary ideas that could help us turn around special education in the United States. We could help children much more substantially than we are now at far less cost per student with an innovative program that has the following features:
§ A focus on the building blocks of academic thinking and social skills (rather than surface traits or behaviors)
§ Small group and one-on-one learning opportunities on these basics
§ Emphasis on use of volunteers and entry opportunities for Bachelor level, talented individuals into teaching positions.
§ School/family partnerships with systematic home programs that complement school programs.
§ Heavy involvement of community and family in the governing structure of local schools.
posted by Stanley I. Greenspan, M.D. at 3:24 PM
3 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Until we can see children as children, quit labeling their supposed deficiencies and attempting to remediate the perceived deficits, we will not be able to reach and teach the child inside. I can heal a child if I can reach them. No matter what the test says.
If The Baltimore school board can authorize $1 million in attorney fees to defend a school system with a failed special education delivery program that's been litigation for 22 years why can't they use the money more wisely to use your ideas, research and experience to design a system that actually educates kids with special needs? Why isn't there more of a dialogue between people such as yourself the courts and the school system? Why can't there be advocacy to bring your approach into the school system especially now at a point when there seems to possibly be an opportunity? See The Baltimore Sun June 29th "Special Education in city schools must continue judge says." I'm sure the issues in the case have been sufficiently narrowed to preclude widening the debate now, but it would seem to be such an opportunity to raise your points about more fundamental approaches to how learning actually occurs and the failures of the approaches that are used to intevene for special needs learning. Have you or ICDL thought of trying to find a way to have a voice (perhaps an amcius curiae brief??) in such litigation - to find a way to be able to be included in the policy thinking and making that underlies approaches to delivery of special education services in the public school systems? An excellent blog in this area is by Charles Fox: http://specialedlaw.blogs.com/
Post a Comment
<< Home