Dismantling the School to Prison Pipeline

Published on by Jen NewtonLeave a comment

When Chrissy (@buzzingwithmsb) approached us to contribute to this blog series we didn’t hesitate. We are continuously looking for ways to contribute to, engage in, and learn from conversations around bias, racism, and social justice. As white females in higher education, we recognize our privilege and believe that it is our duty to contribute to these conversations and encourage our students, our colleagues, and our friends to do the same. Engaging in these conversations and learning spaces are what enables all of us to gain a greater awareness of our own biases and understand how they impact the students, children, and families whom we work with daily. 

This post is in memory of Ivan Filiberto Manzano.   Ivan was one of eight Mexican citizens killed in the mass shooting at an El Paso Wal-Mart.  Ivan had a wife and two preteen children.  He was a devoted husband, father, and son, an entrepreneur, and a business owner. 

Related image

Dismantling the School to Prison Pipeline

The school to prison pipeline is a term used for the militarization of schools funneling kids from classrooms into the criminal justice system.  Discretionary violations – those where punishment is not mandated – disproportionality impact Black students overwhelmingly leading to persistent involvement with law enforcement.  

What is disproportionality?

Disproportionality refers to the “overrepresentation” or “underrepresentation” of a particular demographic group relative to the presence of this group in the overall student population.  In education, there is disproportionality in special education (Cruz & Rodl, 2018), in gifted programs (List & Dykeman, 2019), and in suspension and expulsion data (Mizel, Miles, Pederson, Tucker, Ewing, & D’Amico, 2016).  While there is much controversy around how we define under and over representation, the data are clear that teacher bias, both explicit and implicit, influences recommendations of suspensions and expulsions as early as preschool (Gilliam, Maupin, Reyes, Accavitti, & Shic, 2016) and that Black boys are three times more likely to receive those suspensions and expulsions than white students.  That’s just one way disproportionality shows up in schools and it has dire, life altering consequences for far too many.

Explicit Bias.  These are the biases that we generally think of as racism (a belief that members of specific ethnic and/or racial groups are inherently inferior).  These biases are consciously held and slow to change. People with explicit biases toward specific ethnicities, races, or gender norms tend to support punitive punishment structures such as zero tolerance (McIntosh, Girvan, Horner, & Smoklowski, 2014).

Implicit Bias.  These biases are unconscious, deeply held, and often do not align with our declared beliefs (Kirwan Institute, 2018).  These are the biases that are activated involuntarily. Everyone has implicit biases! We come to them from our upbringing, our lived experiences, and our professional training.  We must work to bring our implicit biases into our consciousness in order to diminish the negative impacts on our learners, our colleagues, and our communities.  

The Obama administration passed a regulation designed to ensure children of color were not disproportionality suspended, expelled, or identified for special education.  However, the Trump administration’s Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, delayed implementation of this regulation until just now when a federal court ruled it must be put into effect immediately.  This is a consistent and documented reality for kids and families in our educational system.

What does this look like in our schools?

First, let’s consider what the (pre)school to prison pipeline looks like in our schools.  The pipeline can be seen in the School Resource Officers flanking the front doors and walking the halls of schools.  It can be seen in zero tolerance policies and mandatory suspension/expulsion guidelines. It looks like moving kids to self contained classrooms with labels of emotional behavior disability without then providing them with access to the general curriculum and meaningful, intentional supports for self regulation. It can be found in calling families to come pick up their child early from school or telling preschool families their child “isn’t a good fit” for the program. It is evident in statistics showing that 70% of the students involved in school-related arrests or who were referred to law enforcement were Latinx or Black or that Black students were three and a half times more likely to be suspended or expelled than their white peers (Lewin, 2012).School-to-Prison Pipeline: School disciplinary policies disproportionately affect Black students

 How can educators interrupt this school to prison pipeline?

We’ve come up with a place to start, a set of teacher guidelines. We recognize that this is only a beginning but we also know that change has to start somewhere. Change is gradual and pushing back against injustices is work that takes time and brings great challenges. We are here for the marathon, not a sprint. 

Teacher Guidelines for Interrupting 

Recognize, Reflect and Reframe Biases.

Recognizing your own biases and viewing experiences/interactions with students as opportunities, rather than challenges, can help shift or reframe your mindset (Hill, Newton, Williams, 2018). When you shift your mindset and seek out opportunities for learning and growth alongside your students, you will find it easier to build stronger and more effective relationships with your students and their families.

Teach!

You may have heard the phrase “education not incarceration.”  We have to teach academics, but we also must teach behavior, emotional regulation, self care, and boundary setting. Zero-tolerance policies do NOT teach. Instead we must recognize that students need to be explicitly taught the expectations and retaught with consistency. Instead of punishment consider providing school-based supports for struggling students whose behavior repeatedly seems to disrupt learning and engagement. Determine the function of the behavior.  The key to interrupting the behavior cycle is replacing the undesired behavior with an acceptable alternative that still meets the learner’s needs.  We have to teach the behaviors we want to see.

Stand Up, Don’t Be a Bystander. 

If you hear or witness an act or micro-aggression (think back to explicit or implicit bias) interrupt the comment, action, or incident. Help the victim of the micro-aggression by making sure they are safe (physically and emotionally) and then be sure to address the other person(s). Remember, these are teachable moments. Be willing to learn.  Your colleagues may call you in on your language too!  That’s good – take the opportunity to grow!

Advocate. 

Build trusting relationships with your students. Advocate for them and help them learn to advocate for themselves. Honoring the humanity in each of our students is evidenced in our advocating for them.  Let them know relentlessly that they are worthy of being taught.

Focus on Strengths.

Every child. Every family…has strengths. Find them, embrace their strengths and build upon them. By recognizing your own biases, you are better able to reframe, find strengths, and stay clear of “cultural deficit thinking.”  Remember just because your own experiences are DIFFERENT,  doesn’t mean they are better or worse. 

The school to prison pipeline is ours to dismantle.  We must actively question punitive policies, our own implicit biases, and our deficit framings of kids and families. Here are some resources to learn more.

https://www.tolerance.org/learning-plan/school-to-prison-pipeline-20

http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/racial-disproportionality-in-school-discipline-implicit-bias-is-heavily-implicated/

https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/effective-classroom-management/responding-to-microaggressions-in-the-classroom/

https://www.tolerance.org/professional-development/test-yourself-for-hidden-bias

https://www.tolerance.org/sites/default/files/2017-06/TT_Social_Justice_Standards_0.pdf

Mental Health Awareness

Published on by Jen NewtonLeave a comment

We are consistently advocating for the mental health needs of our students.  We attempt to be as supportive as possible to the complex lived experiences of our students and to acknowledge that they have full lives outside of our course/program.  That’s not to diminish the value of the learning experiences we are providing but to develop self care skills in our learners now that they can carry with them into their work as educators.

We’re also often met with resistance.  “You can’t just call in sick over a break up when you’re an employed teacher.”  But, the thing is, you can.  And you should if that’s what you need to get yourself together.  This burnout culture is unhealthy and we all perpetuate it in one way or another.  Glorifying busy.  Shaming absence.  Self care isn’t always convenient or well scheduled.  Sometimes it must be addressed regardless of other obligations.

Which leads me to question why or how we came to dismiss the traumas invoked or perpetuated at school.  Why do we persist the myth that “middle school is the worst” instead of implementing the many evidence-based practices (intentional social skills curriculum, active preventative teaching, for example) with consistency and fidelity.  Middle school does not HAVE to be “the worst” – we allow it to be.

Tropes like “mean girls” persist because we allow them to persist.  Intervene.  Teach.  Relentlessly.  Kids need our guidance in learning how to navigate the world – socially, online, in all spaces.  We must take responsibility for teaching.

If kids are experiencing trauma at school or their trauma is exacerbated at school, that is on us. If we believe in self care for ourselves, we must model it and teach it to our learners.  Self care is for everyone.

Ambitious Teaching

Published on by Jen NewtonLeave a comment

Dr. Chelsea T. Morris and I presented a (what we thought was) cool poster at the Council for Exceptional Children’s Division of Early Childhood’s annual conference.

The first panel asked the participants to indicate how they evaluate student learning, if participation should be included for a grade, if attendance should be included in a grade, if and which social media accounts they use in their teaching, and how they handle late work.  Overwhelmingly, participants indicated they do include “participation” in grades.  There was more variability in if the participants include attendance in student grades although the majority indicated that yes they do include attendance for a grade.

There was interesting conversation around the “How do you evaluate student learning” boxes as many said they’re required to use letter grades but they incorporate a lot of ongoing, formative feedback.

Our second panel was the first one layered over the next one with the doors cut open to show the examples of “tired” and “wired” syllabus language underneath.  The literature provided in the middle provides some evidence for instructors moving toward learner-centered syllabi and more humanized course design.  Many participants reflected on the “tired” syllabus language as similar to the language in their own syllabus and noted that they had not really considered what their syllabi were communicating to their learners.  Which makes sense!  We also heard from many faculty and instructors who said their syllabi are inflexible due to requirements by their department, college, and university.  We, of course, considered a syllabus with all the required components (aligned professional preparations standards, state standards, university policies, etc) posted to the learning management system and then a learner-centered and/or co-created learning plan to direct the specific content for the course itself.  It also raises questions of academic freedom – particularly for tenured faculty but that’s for another post.

 The final panel invited participants to make note of what Ambitious Teaching means to them.  The words on the left say:

Dear faculty,

Are you preparing the next generation of early childhood educators and leaders? How long has it been since you critically examined your syllabi and teaching practices? Did you know, in contradiction to DEC leadership recommendations (L1, L4, L6, L8, L11), you may be widening the research to practice gap by making higher education – a place of evidence-based professional development – a hostile and unwelcoming environment?

Existing literature suggests that power relations and issues of expertise limit the extent to which faculty engage students in the design of their own learning and listen or respond to their needs (e.g. Mihans, Long, & Felton, 2008). In your work, examine and challenge the culture of higher education and the role of student-faculty interactions within and beyond the classroom. These interactions are crucial to the development of higher education students’ self-concept, motivation, and achievement (Komarraju, Musulkin, & Bhattacharya, 2010).

You can engage in critical conversations about the expectations placed upon pre-service practitioners. Through ambitious teaching, taking risks pedagogically and reconceptualizing teaching and learning for teachers and learners, you can facilitate dialogue around the extent to which the traditional “status-quo” of educator preparation truly teaches the behaviors we want to see.

Presume competence, rethink relationships, and trust the students you are preparing for the workforce.

Constructing a Learner-Centered Syllabus: One Professor’s Journey

Can a Learner-Centered Syllabus Change Students’ Perceptions of Student–Professor Rapport and Master Teacher Behaviors?

How are making your teaching ambitious?  We want Teaching Is Intellectual to be a space for ambitious teacher education.  For rethinking, reimagining, and redoing traditional (and largely ineffective) teaching and learning paradigms.  Tell us.  Let’s revolutionize teacher education together.

Determining Eligibility for Special Education

Published on by Jared TschohlLeave a comment

Here is a brief overview of the process of determining if a child is eligible to receive special education.

CHILD STUDY

If a parent/guardian requests a Child Study Team meeting, the school has 10 business days to meet to discuss any academic and/or behavioral concerns regarding the child.  The people required to be present at the meeting would be: parent/legal guardian, general classroom teacher, a special education teacher, and an administrator.  Additional participants could include the school psychologist and school social worker.  Intervention teachers the child is working with (i.e., ESL, reading specialist, gifted, etc.) are encouraged to be present as well.

Note: A business day occurs Monday through Friday (no weekends) when the school board office is open (excluding holidays).  If you have the day off from school due to inclement weather, but the school board office is declared open for administrators, this still counts as a business day.

Note: The Child Study Team can go by many different names (i.e., Student Study Team, etc.), so consult your individual school district on what terminology is utilized.

Three outcomes can come from the Child Study Team meeting:

  1. The team feels there is not sufficient evidence to suspect a disability is present; thus, the process stops.

If Option 1 is chosen, and the child begins to struggle later, the process restarts from the beginning.

  1. The team monitors (or continues to monitor) progress and meets back (usually within six weeks) to see if improvements have been made.  Interventions are implemented at this time.

If a child has never received any interventions, the team will likely choose Option 2.  This may be particularly true if this is a child’s first school placement (i.e., preschool or kindergarten) or is a recent transfer to the school.  The Child Study Team may not be willing to perform an evaluation yet as they have not had time to see the child in action.

If academic and/or behavioral concerns are present, the school will most likely implement targeted interventions.  The reason for this is to collect data.  In order for schools to justify referring for a full evaluation to determine special education services, they have to show documentation that they have tried multiple interventions first.  This becomes important later when determining eligibility to prove that specialized instruction is necessary, because other specific strategies have already been attempted.

Children may continue in Option 2 for some time assuming they are making progress with the interventions being implemented.  After meeting a few times to provide data on the interventions’ effectiveness, the Child Study Team may decide to dismiss the child from the special education process if progress is continuous.  If the child is dismissed, and the child begins to struggle later, then the process restarts from the beginning.  If the child makes minimal to no progress after multiple interventions, then the team may go to Option 3.

Note: Option 2 does not necessarily have to occur prior to Option 3; however, with the implementation of multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS)/response to intervention (RtI) in schools, this seems to be the path most schools are taking prior to referring for a full evaluation.

  1. The team suspects a disability, and refers for a full evaluation.

If the team chooses Option 3, the school has 65 business days to complete an evaluation and to meet as the Eligibility Committee to go over the results and determine if the child is eligible to receive special education services.  In addition to the original members of the Child Study Team, the school psychologist and school social worker are required members who will be present for these results.  Other individuals present may include related specialists (i.e. speech/language, occupational therapist, etc.) depending on the concerns being addressed during the evaluation.

During the meeting, all teachers will report updated data on the child, and each individual who conducted assessments with the child will report their results.  The Eligibility Committee will then consider all of the information presented to come to a decision.  They have to also consider exclusionary factors.  This means considering external factors that could be contributing to the child’s needs, but protects the child from being discriminated against due to personal situations (i.e. low socio-economic status, non-native English speaker, etc.).

Note: A special education evaluation cannot be administered until the parent/legal guardian provides written consent.  This is important, because if the parent/legal guardian is not present at the Child Study Team meeting (or participates by phone), and the child is referred for a full evaluation, the 65 business day timeline begins regardless.  Tests cannot be administered until written consent is obtained from the parent/legal guardian, even though the timeline has started.

ELIGIBILITY

After all tests have been administered (multiple means of assessment are required), the parent/legal guardian has a right to a written copy of all tests results 2 business days prior to the Eligibility Committee meeting.

Three outcomes can come from the Eligibility Committee meeting:

  1. A child is found eligible to receive special education services.

If the Eligibility Committee finds a child is eligible to receive special education services, then two different types of services are discussed:

Section 504 Plan = This is a plan outlying environmental accommodations that a child’s general classroom teacher can implement to help them better access the general curriculum.  It does not involve the child receiving specialized instruction from a special education teacher.

Note: Section 504 Plans can be developed for students without a full school evaluation being completed, if proper medical documentation is provided by the parent/legal guardian.  Consult with your local school district on their specific regulations.

Individualized Education Program (IEP) = This is a plan with the same accommodations a Section 504 Plan provides PLUS the child receives specialized instruction from a special education teacher.  This specialized instruction can taken place inside the general education classroom (i.e. inclusion) or outside the general education classroom (i.e. resource).

The school has 30 calendar days to write up the legal document (either Section 504 Plan or IEP) outlining what will be provided to the child at school.  An administrator, special education teacher, general education teacher, and parent/legal guardian must all be present for this meeting.  A child cannot begin to receive services through either document without parent/legal guardian written consent.

After a Section 504 Plan or IEP is created and agreed upon by all stakeholders, these documents are updated at least once a calendar year.  However, the school or parent/legal guardian can request a meeting at any point to update either document as necessary (i.e., a change of educational setting or a new accommodation needs to be added).

Note: A calendar day is any day of the week on the calendar, regardless of weekends, holidays or if the school board office is open.

Note: A Section 504 Plan can still provide related services (i.e. speech/language, physical therapy, occupational therapy).  Check with your individual school district’s policies.

  1. A child is found not eligible and all stakeholders agree with the results.

If this occurs, then the child is likely referred back to the Child Study Team for Option 2, which would be to continue to implement interventions and meet regularly to monitor progress.

Note: A stakeholder other than the parent/legal guardian (i.e., school psychologist, administrator, etc.) may disagree with the child being found eligible.  If this occurs, the dissenting stakeholder(s) is encouraged to write up a summary as to why they disagree with the Eligibility Committee’s decision.  However, the child would still receive special education services once written consent is provided by the parent/legal guardian.

  1. A child is found not eligible and the parent/legal guardian disagrees with the results.

Assuming an outside evaluation (more on this below) was not already provided by the parent/legal guardian, then they have the right to disagree with the results and request an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE).  This is the right for a parent/legal guardian to seek out an outside evaluation by an objective provider (i.e. doctor, psychologist, clinic, etc.), but it is paid for by the school district.  The school may provide a list of possible outside evaluation providers.  The parent/legal guardian may choose any provider they wish, even if they are not present on the list, as long as they are licensed to perform cognitive and achievement assessments.  Once the results of the IEE are available, the Eligibility Committee will meet at the school and determine if the child is eligible to receive special education services in the form of a Section 504 Plan or IEP.

Note: Although the school district’s pays for the IEE, it is the parent/legal guardian’s responsibility to contact the outsider provider and complete the evaluation themselves in a timely manner.  Discuss with your individual school district about what constitutes a “timely manner.”

Note: If a child is found eligible, and a parent/legal guardian initially signs that they agree with the results, this does not eliminate the possibility of an IEE.  The parent/legal guardian could come back later to the school, disagree, and request the IEE, if it has occurred within a reasonable timeframe.  Check with your local school district about what constitutes a “reasonable timeframe.”

PRIVATE EVALUATIONS

There are thirteen different disability categories.  Some are more straight-forward in terms of criteria (i.e., deaf, blind), while others are more subjective (i.e., specific learning disability, other health impairment).  With other health impairment (OHI), school districts will most likely require an outside medical diagnosis from a doctor or clinic (such as ADHD, Epilepsy, Tourette’s Syndrome, etc.).

A parent/legal guardian can have the child privately evaluated outside of the school without the school completing their own evaluation.  If a parent/legal guardian chooses to do this, they would request a Child Study Team meeting, who would then refer them to the Eligibility Committee to determine eligibility for special education services.

Note: In my professional opinion, it would be beneficial for a parent/legal guardian to provide a copy of the results from the outside evaluation to the school at least one week prior to meeting with the Eligibility Committee.  This gives time for the school personnel who will be present at the meeting to review the information.

Three outcomes can come from a parent/legal guardian providing an outside evaluation to the school:

  1. The school accepts the outside results and uses it to determine if the child is eligible to receive special education services.

At this point, the Eligibility Committee will meet to discuss the results of the evaluation.  If the child is found eligible, then the process of creating a Section 504 Plan or IEP will commence.  If the child is found not eligible, then the child will likely return to the Child Study Team for further interventions to be implemented and progress monitoring to continue.

  1. They can reject the results, stating they disagree. 

I have never personally seen this ever happen as most schools are willing to at least consider the results of the outside evaluation, particularly as it saves them time and money from having to complete their own evaluation.

  1. They can choose to do further testing on their own (assuming they have not yet).

If a school chooses to do further testing on their own, they would have 65 business days to conduct their own evaluation and then reconvene the Eligibility Committee to discuss all of the results of both evaluations and determine eligibility for special education services.

TRIENNALS

The Eligibility Committee is required to reconvene at least once every three years since the previous eligibility meeting.  This is called a triennial eligibility review.  However, the school or parent/legal guardian can request an eligibility review prior to the three year mark.

Note: Meeting prior to the three year mark, does not necessarily restart the timeline for the three year triennial review.  For example, if a child is receiving services under a specific learning disability (SLD) and speech/language impairment (SLI), and the speech/language pathologist requests an eligibility review at the year two mark to dismiss the child from SLI services, the school would still need to meet the following year at the year three mark to discuss eligibility about SLD.

HOWEVER, if during the eligibility meeting when SLI services were dismissed, and SLD services were continued with no testing update, then the three year timeline restarts again.  So in theory (if this were to occur), it would be five years from the initial eligibility before a child would get reevaluated if the school or parent/legal guardian never requested an updated evaluation before then.  Look at my example below:

2010 = Initial Eligibility = Child is found eligible for SLD and SLI.

2012 = Speech/language pathologist dismisses SLI and the Eligibility Committee continues SLD services without an updated evaluation.

2013 = This would have been the original triennial eligibility had the 2012 meeting never occurred.

2015 = This is the new triennial eligibility date based on the 2012 meeting; thus, five years since the initial eligibility before an updated evaluation occurs.

Realize this example is more likely an anomaly than the norm that would occur in most school districts.

Three outcomes can come from the Triennial:

  1.  The Eligibility Committee determines the child is still eligible to receive special education services, and no updated assessments are necessary.
  2. The Eligibility Committee performs an updated evaluation and determines the child continues to be eligible to receive special education services.
  3. The Eligibility Committee performs an updated evaluation and determines the child is no longer eligible to receive special education services.

Although schools are not legally required to update assessments every three years, the parent/legal guardian is encouraged to request them.  This is particularly true for students being served under the category of specific learning disability (SLD).

If assessments are not updated at the three year mark, best practice dictates an updated assessment should occur at six years and/or when a child is transitioning school buildings (i.e., elementary to middle or middle to high).

If updated assessments are administered, the school district is allowed 65 business days to complete the updated evaluation and reconvene to discuss the results; however, this must be completed prior to the three year mark.

If the child is being served under more than one disability category (i.e., OHI & SLI), and Option 3 occurs, the Eligibility Committee could dismiss the child from just SLI (i.e., speech services), but continue services under OHI or dismiss the child from all services.

Note: A child should NEVER be dismissed from all special education services without an updated evaluation being administered!

THINGS TO REMEMBER

  1. Schools have legal “red tape” they must follow in order to identify a child eligible for special education services. Just because they decline an evaluation, the school does want to help the child to succeed.
    1. If the Child Study Team decides to continue to monitor, then the parent/legal guardian is encouraged to request a copy of what interventions are being administered by the school, how often they are being administered, how they are progress monitoring data for the child, and if progress is being made.

 

  1. The special education timeline is long, but thorough. If all timelines are exhausted, it can take up to 105 days from start to finish.  This is a lot considering schools are only in session for approximately 180 days per year.
    1. No single test may be used by itself to determine a child’s eligibility for special education services. Multiple measures must be administered.

 

  1. A school CANNOT tell you they are no longer accepting referrals to Child Study or allowing evaluations for the rest of the school year. This tends to happen around mid-March/early April, because the 65 business day timeline would push the Eligibility Committee meeting to the summer when school is not in session.
    1. Be aware that if an evaluation is completed during the summer months, then the people who know the child best, may not necessarily be a part of the Eligibility Committee if schools have already been released for summer vacation.
    2. Schools are required to have a school psychologist, school social worker, general education teacher, special education teacher, school administrator, and the parent/legal guardian present at eligibility.
    3. However, anyone employed by the school district who has this license can be asked to participate. This means that any individual holding general education teacher licensure can sit in as the “general education teacher” (i.e., a fifth grade teacher from school A could sit in for a meeting on a first grade child who attends school B).  The same goes for any of the other individuals necessary.  Realize that the people determining eligibility may not have done the testing or have ever met the child, and are making decisions solely based on written documentation of the evaluation data.  (This is why schools try to prevent referrals after mid-March/early April, because if they get to 65 business days, the above scenario could occur.)

 

  1. If a child is not found eligible to receive special education services:
    1. A parent/legal guardian should never be pressured or coerced to sign any document.
    2. They have the right to disagree with the results and request an IEE.

 

  1. If a child is found eligible to receive special education services:
    1. Section 504 Plans and IEPs are required to be updated at least once a year.
    2. The Eligibility Committee must meet every three years to determine if a child is still eligible to receive special education services.
    3. A school CANNOT evaluate for special education services or implement a Section 504 Plan or IEP without written consent from the parent/legal guardian.
    4. A child should never be dismissed from special education services without an updated evaluation being administered!
  2. Parents/legal guardians are contributing members to all meetings, and should be respected and valued for their knowledge and input.

The following links may also be helpful:

The first explains what I stated above in more depth to provide an understanding of what steps the schools are required to perform when determining eligibility for special education services:

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/parents/parents_guide.pdf

2. The second explains the rights of parents/guardians of a child with a disability:

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/regulations/state/procedural_safeguards/english_procedural_safeguards.pdf

(Note that these two resources are specific to the state of Virginia.  Contact your individual state’s department of education for relevant information.)

IEP Writing 101

Published on by Jared Tschohl1 Comment

Just to give a little background on myself. I am a graduate of James Madison University (JMU; and former student of Dr. Jen Newton)! I remember after my first day of her class, I sat down with her one-on-one and we probably spent a good 90 minutes talking about educational assessments and problems with special education in America! I taught special education at the elementary level for three years, and have been working as an educational consultant at the Shenandoah Valley Child Development Clinic, located at JMU in Virginia, coming up on five years. One aspect of my current job is to review educational records, which definitely includes IEPs!

Unfortunately, more often than not, I run into a lot of poorly written IEPs, in the areas of the PLOP (Present Level of Performance), goal writing, identifying appropriate accommodations, and determining services. So let’s explore each section one at a time, but really focus on goals!

PLOP

Although the PLOP is the child’s current functioning, there is a section for history. Personally, I found the more information I put in the PLOP, the less I had to consult a child’s cumulative folder for past records. In addition, everything was in one place for the parents, the general education teacher, and most importantly myself; thus, I could consult a single document for the child’s full academic career. When you first do it, it is laborious, but once accomplished, all of your data is in one place, and it really helps for everyone to see a holistic history of the child you are supporting! Plus, once you have it in, it transfers over year to year (with online IEP programs), so you only have to type it up once!

I list all of the child’s cognitive and achievement scores from ALL eligibility assessments. You should at least have the most recent eligibility, but I find being able to see ALL previous helps me show progress across multiple years. I also include all historical Standards Of Learning (SOL; Virginia state assessment) scores for all years, and the most recent data from PALS as well as other intervention data, such as AIMSWeb. You should also include a history of other interventions (i.e., Title I, ESL, afterschool tutoring, etc.) the child has received throughout their career, including the names of any specific programs used (i.e., Wilson, LLI, etc.).

If you are a first year teacher, a lot of the information regarding previous interventions can be found in the cumulative file, but also asking previous teachers of the student as well as your school’s instructional coach or intervention specialist can be helpful. I find it very pertinent to know what the child has and has not been doing in terms of past interventions. You do not want to waste time doing something someone else has already done or is currently doing already! This is why documentation and communicating with other resource teachers is vital and necessary!

Your intervention should directly match the student’s needs! For example, if a child has a decoding issue and is struggling to sound out words, doing Leveled-Literacy Intervention (LLI) is not going to help. The child would need a structured literacy program, such as Wilson Reading or Orton-Gillingham. This seems like common sense, but I see this mismatch very often with many schools trying a “one size fits all” approach. Special education is specialized instruction for each individual.

Identifying effective interventions for your students’ needs will require some research on different strategies, so check out “What Works Clearinghouse” to get an overview on interventions you are considering, and the research behind their effectiveness.

GOALS

Let’s be honest, goal writing can be difficult, and laborious, I’ve experienced it myself! How many goals do I need? Do I need a goal for every single academic weakness? How will I track progress on the goal? Can I combine everything into one large goal?

The first step would be looking at the child’s most recent eligibility data. This is really helpful if the child has been tested for the first time, because looking at the scores, you would be able to know what areas are needed. Here’s some data (note: Average = 85-115; Below Average = 70-84; Low = 69 & Below):

– Reading Decoding = 69

– Reading Comprehension = 84

– Listening Comprehension = 100

– Spelling = 60

– Written Expression = 90

– Math Problem Solving = 95

– Math Calculation = 95

Clearly, I would need goals for decoding and spelling as they are the weakest areas. But what about reading comprehension, which fell one point into the Below Average range. I can see when the story is read to the child (listening comprehension), they are strong. In this specific case, I would focus my goals on decoding and spelling as of right now, because they are likely what is impacting this child’s understanding of what they are actually reading. In addition, the child is going to be getting comprehension work during guided reading with their general education teacher. I can always add in a comprehension goal later once decoding skills have improved.

So I have reading decoding and spelling at a 69 and 60 respectively, so I know the child is struggling and I need a goal. But what areas of decoding and spelling are needed? You can go look at the specific protocols to get a rough idea, but this is where other data sources are important. For example, PALS data (or a Ganske or Words their Way spelling inventory) would be able to give you more insight to a starting point (do they know sight words? CVC patterns? blends/digraphs? long vowels?). Never underestimate the value of informal data with helping you determine your starting point with goal writing. I have read records where reviewing the previous intervention assessments and progress monitoring data gave me enough knowledge prior to my own assessment that I was usually able to predict what I will see myself with that child. I have had three fourth graders recently, all of them similar to the data example I provided above. In all three cases, they all struggled with long vowel patterns (i.e. silent /e/, double vowels, ambiguous vowels, etc.), and in all three cases, when I reviewed historical informal data (in this case PALS data), this was a historically documented issue going back to first grade with each child struggling with long vowel patterns each year of the PALS spelling section. The school had the information, but were not matching it to the correct intervention! Interventions MUST match needs!

Let’s take our data and figure out a goal. We will use my fourth-graders as examples. Let’s say our 69 and 60 scores were the result of a deficit with all long vowel patterns. Should I write a goal for each type of long vowel pattern and for decoding and spelling?

Goal 1: Billy will improve his decoding of silent /e/ long vowel patterns.

Goal 2: Billy will improve his decoding of double vowel long vowel patterns.

Goal 3: Billy will improve his decoding of ambiguous vowel long vowel patterns.

Goal 4: Billy will improve his spelling of silent /e/ long vowel patterns.

Goal 5: Billy will improve his spelling of double vowel long vowel patterns.

Goal 6: Billy will improve his spelling of ambiguous vowel long vowel patterns.

Yikes! You can see how goals add up quickly if we are not careful! So let’s try to be a bit more succinct.

Revision 1

Goal 1: Billy will improve his decoding/spelling of silent /e/ long vowel patterns.

Goal 2: Billy will improve his decoding/spelling of double vowel long vowel patterns.

Goal 3: Billy will improve his decoding/spelling of ambiguous vowel long vowel patterns.

We cut it in half! Let’s try again!

Revision 2

Goal 1: Billy will improve his decoding of silent /e/ long vowel patterns, double vowel long vowel patterns, and ambiguous vowel long vowel patterns.

Goal 2: Billy will improve his spelling of silent /e/ long vowel patterns, double vowel long vowel patterns, and ambiguous vowel long vowel patterns.

Getting closer!

Revision 3

Goal 1: Billy will improve his decoding/spelling of long vowel patterns including: silent /e/, double vowels, and ambiguous vowels.

Look at how our one goal now incorporates everything with our original six goals without increasing all the extra time of goal writing. We could then put individual objectives for each pattern (silent /e/, double, and ambiguous) if you wanted to break it down more specifically, but consult your special education administrators on your individual school district’s policy on this. Personally, objectives would only be necessary for this goal if the percentage of mastery was going to be different between the three types of long vowel patterns. For example, if you wanted Billy to learn silent /e/ with 100% accuracy, double vowels with 95% accuracy, and ambiguous vowels with 90% accuracy. If you want the same amount of accuracy achieved, then objectives would not be necessary in this case.

I see this “mistake” of too many goals a lot in all subject areas.

Goal 1: Billy will comprehend fiction texts at grade level.

Goal 2: Billy will comprehend non-fiction texts at grade level.

Revised: Billy will comprehend fiction and non-fiction texts at grade level.

Goal 1: Billy will improve mastery of addition facts.

Goal 2: Billy will improve mastery of subtraction facts.

Goal 3: Billy will improve mastery of multiplication facts.

Goal 4: Billy will improve mastery of division facts.

Revised: Billy will improve mastery of math facts for all operations (addition, subtraction multiplication, division).

However, this only takes care of trying to combine our goals, so we do not walk out of an IEP with 14 goals, (which yes I recently read in a child’s records, and it was due to these same mistakes!) Combining is fine, as long as when you instruct and track your own data you separate out each skill!

But our goal is not ready yet for our IEP. We need to make it measurable, this is the most crucial step in IEP goal writing. How is anyone supposed to know if the goal has been reached if there is no measure included to identify the outcome? Again, seems like common sense, but it does not always happen.

When talking about measurability of a goal, three pieces need to be included: the amount of accuracy that will be achieved, the frequency of which it will occur, and how we will collect data to demonstrate the achievement.

Let’s return to our decoding/spelling goal from earlier:

Goal 1: Billy will improve his decoding/spelling of long vowel patterns including: silent /e/, double vowels, and ambiguous vowels.

Three questions emerge:

1. How much will Billy improve?

2. How consistently (i.e. frequently) will Billy demonstrated his improvement? This should include number of trials as well as over what period of time.

3. In what way will we collect data to show Billy’s achievement?

Let’s revise this goal with each of the three questions:

Revised goal – Question 1: Billy will improve his decoding/spelling of long vowel patterns including: silent /e/, double vowels, and ambiguous vowels with 90% accuracy.

We know we want Billy to demonstrate 90% accuracy. I personally was taught your bare minimum percentage should be 75%, and that 80-85% is a better minimum. We need to establish high expectations for our students! However, with a child that may require more time for mastery, that is where we could include objectives where they reach 50% mastery, then 60% mastery, and slowly build their achievement over a long period of time if necessary. Some children need a more specific breakdown of mastery levels, but others do not. It depends on the individuality of each child.

Revised goal – Question 2: Billy will improve his decoding/spelling of long vowel patterns including: silent /e/, double vowels, and ambiguous vowels with 90% accuracy in four out of five observations each week over a six week period.

Let’s look at this one and think about it. If we had just put four out of five observations, and left out the rest, think about semantics. Once we see Billy achieve 90% in four out of five observations a single time, we could technically say the goal is mastered. But we know as teachers, just because a child demonstrates mastery a single time, does not mean it is solidly mastered consistently over a specific time frame. Imagine how quickly the goal would be achieved if we only did it one time! That’s why the rest is so vital. We are communicating the frequency to ensure mastery is generalized.

Revised goal – Question 3: Billy will improve his decoding/spelling of long vowel patterns including: silent /e/, double vowels, and ambiguous vowels with 90% accuracy in four out of five observations each week over a six week period as collected through a teacher checklist and informal reading/spelling inventories.

Now we have included how we are going to collect our data, let’s talk about it. You can choose whatever data collection method words best for you as well as the skill being taught. For example, an informal reading inventory is not appropriate for collecting data on a math goal!

It pays to be non-descriptive!  It ensures, that as the teacher, you can figure out which method of data collection is best for you, and appropriate for what you are measuring. For example, a teacher checklist could be an actual list of words we want Billy to read/spell accurately, or just tallying when he makes errors with each pattern with level reading passages. An informal inventory could be a running record, PALS quick check, or an updated Ganske. Keeping your methods non-descriptive allows you more autonomy for your data method collection. The most important aspect is not which specific tool you utilize, but that you are collecting data consistently and fairly to show that your instruction is effective, and the child is making progress towards his/her goal! There is no need to add extra measures of tracking data, if you already have some established in your current teaching. However, teacher observation alone should never be your only measure for recording data for two reasons: (1) observation is not tangible if you do not record anything and (2) multiple measures should be used for each goal to support achievement.

Note: You would also put a time frame for when the goal is achieved, likely one year from the IEP date (i.e., By August 2020, Billy will…); however, most online IEP programs already have that programmed in to save you time. Check with your district’s special education administrator if your IEP program does this or not.

When talking about measurability of a goal, three pieces need to be included: the amount of accuracy that will be achieved, the frequency of which it will occur, and how we will collect data to demonstrate the achievement. Think about the criteria for measurability, and look at some of these IEP goals below and consider what is missing to become a stronger goal.

Goal: Billy will interact and respond to peers appropriately in 75% of observations.

Not only are specific levels of measurability missing, but in this case, we should also define “appropriately” either by saying what it is or is not (not cursing, not hitting, etc.)

Goal: Billy will interact with peers within the instructional setting (small group and/or partner) five consecutive observations sessions within a nine week period as measured by teacher observation.

Another case of defining better for semantic purposes, if Billy only has to interact with peers one could interpret this as either positive or negative interactions. So, technically, Billy could hit another child and according to the above goal he is “interacting” with peers.

Here are some others (and yes these are real IEP goals that I have read):

Goal: Billy will ask a teacher for a break prior to demonstrating negative behaviors in six out of 10 opportunities weekly.

Goal: Billy, when give a prompt, will construct a strong topic sentence and closing sentence.

Goal: Billy will master 80% of grade level SOLs by the end of the school year.

Goal: Billy will improve reading skills by engaging in sustained silent reading for 20 minutes in English class, measured by earning 10/10 points weekly for reading participation grade.

ACCOMMODATIONS

The biggest rule of thumb when it comes to accommodations is identifying the difference between a “need” and a “benefit.” Just because a child will benefit from a specific accommodation, does not necessarily mean they “need” it. We are trying to level the playing field, not provide an advantage!

In addition, certain accommodations are not necessary in an IEP since they are available to ALL students whether they have a disability or not. For example look at this document and scroll down to the final page.

How often have you seen “small group testing” as an accommodation in an IEP, yet ANY child can receive a small group testing environment?

Note: This applies to students in Virginia, contact your respective state’s Department of Education for information about standardized testing accommodations.

Another important aspect is that an accommodation should be connected to an IEP goal in some way.

For example, with Billy’s scores of 60 and 69 on decoding and spelling, then it would be beneficial for him to receive read aloud on assignments/assessments, because we also have a reading goal, and would not want his lack of reading decoding skills to impact his ability to demonstrate his knowledge of non-reading content (i.e., math, science, social studies, etc.).

However, I personally have read multiple IEPs where a child received a read aloud accommodation for assessments, but had no reading goal, no services related to reading, and their data showed they were reading on grade level. This would be an example of providing an advantage over leveling the playing field.

I often see children being given the accommodation “dictate to scribe” without a writing goal or fine motor goal in their IEP. If we are providing an accommodation, we need to include a goal to show how we are trying to improve this skill through a goal. By just handing out any accommodation to a student without providing them instruction to improve their skill deficit, we are creating learned helplessness.

SERVICE TIMES

Service times, like accommodations, need to be connected to a goal in some way. Inclusion service time is a little different, because we can choose any general classroom to serve in (i.e., a child with behavior goals can have those skills taught in any classroom whether it be reading, math, art, music, etc.); however, with resource service times, we need to be specific in which skills we are addressing during that time.

I recently came upon an IEP where a child was receiving 250 minutes weekly of resource services for reading, and receiving a read aloud accommodation. What was shocking was the child had no reading goal!!! So what was the child doing during this specific time with reading, since there was no goal to identify what skills were to be taught?

Let’s say Susie is a child eligible for the category of other health impairment (OHI) due to ADHD. She has two behavior goals related to her staying seated and staying on task as well as a writing goal to work on organization of thoughts and also giving her an accommodation of blank graphic organizer templates on writing tasks. We want to utilize a blend of inclusion and resource services. When identifying our service times, we need to make sure we are noting the specific goals we are addressing during those times. Here is what we are proposing:

Inclusion – 60 minutes weekly

Resource – 30 minutes weekly

A lot of questions come into play with what exactly is the special education teacher doing with Susie during these times frames. A better way would to state this:

Inclusion (staying seated/staying on-task) – 60 minutes weekly

Resource (writing) – 30 minutes weekly

Now we understand which skills are going to be addressed, where it will be, and for how long. By matching the goals with respective services times, transparency is increased. This allows the teacher to demonstrate accountability for Susie’s progress by communicating when and where Susie will be receiving her specialized instruction with her respective goals.

Important Items to Remember

1. Know your students’ academic history in terms of previous interventions implemented.

2. Organize your students’ formal and informal data all in one place to identify areas of need.

3. Match your intervention to each student’s area of need.

4. Combine relevant skills together to decrease the number of overall IEP goals.

5. Be sure your IEP goals are measurable in terms of level of accuracy achieved, frequency of how often this accuracy will be demonstrated, and the data collection tools necessary.

6. Accommodations should level the playing field, not provide an advantage.

7. Service times should state what goals are being addressed and in what setting.

8. A child’s data, IEP goals, accommodations, and service times should all connect together. If all four pieces are not present, then ask yourself what is missing or why including it is necessary!

Simultaneous Renewal: An Inclusive Approach to Collaboration and Teaming

Published on by Jen NewtonLeave a comment

We have a new article out today.  I hope you’ll check it out!

Abstract:  Collaboration goes beyond direct service provision. It is critical for effective personnel preparation and professional development as well as high-quality program implementation to close the gap between research and practice in early childhood contexts. Simultaneous renewal provides a framework for continuity from teacher preparation, inclusive teaching practices, and professional development to engage all stakeholders in teaming processes that promote child outcomes and improve teacher practice simultaneously.

Individualized Education Programs

Published on by Jen NewtonLeave a comment

We’re kicking off a new series on IEPs!

Starting with the basics to ensure we have a mutual understanding of what IEPs are and are not.

The IEP is a legal document and every component of special education (beginning with the fact that it exists at all) comes through litigation and advocacy. We are accountable for the things we agree to and despite the fact that oversight and accountability is severely lacking, we, as professionals, must enter into IEPs with integrity and good faith.

IEPs are specific to the child. The tendency is to write goals (more on goal writing later) that are specific to the person responsible for the goal. So we have a “speech goal,” two “OT goals,” and two “academic goals.” We get it . . . BUT is that functional? Does speech operate in isolation from academics? Does OT matter if it isn’t applied to a skill of independence or context? The objective would be for us to build collaborative, functional, shared goals supporting the child’s access to the general curriculum.

Remember, an IEP is not a curriculum. It’s a plan for the services and supports the child needs to be success accessing the general curriculum. Yes, we offer adapted curriculum to some kids but an IEP in and of itself is not an adapted curriculum.

It’s also not a behavior plan.

When I teach IEPs, I have the students work through writing one on themselves. On their present levels, current needs, what supports and services would help them be successful. It helps to personalize the language we use, to focus on strengths, to shut down the deficit framing, because when it’s time to write one on a child, we need to see ourselves and the IEP as a support, not a fixer.

What questions do you have about IEPs?

We can’t get into goal writing without working on our PLAAFP/PLOP/PLP writing. All good goals start as clearly written PLAAFPs.

The words “functional performance” are important here. Working together as a team (WITH families) to ensure we’re addressing functional needs rather than isolated skills is truly the heart of the IEP.

I get lots of messages about how, yes, that’s ideal but not practical or what happens in practice. And I know. However, when we know better, we can do better and advocate for best practices. Here’s to the ones shaking it up out there!!

Lots of requests for goal writing strategies so we are working on some resources for that but in the meantime, what are IEP goals? Are they written for specific academic skills based on assessment data and deficits? Or are they written for providing the missing foundational skills the individual child needs to gain access to the curriculum? This is exactly why general ed teachers need to know about goals, IEP specific data collection, and accommodations and modifications. Supporting learners is all of our work!

This gives the IDEA charge for goals. The words here are important.

IDEA has four purposes. 1) equality of opportunity 2) full participation 3) independent living, 4) economic self sufficiency

It helps to keep the big picture in mind when writing goals.

More on this to come but for now, what have you found helpful in writing meaningful goals?

 

IDEA Disability Categories

Published on by Jen NewtonLeave a comment

Remember, we talked about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the 6 principles of IDEA.  Now, we’re going to add the legal definitions of each of the 13 disability categories with a little info for each.

 

 

 

Autism is considered a clinical diagnosis. It is determined by a team of qualified professionals generally including a developmental pediatrician, psychologists, and/or neurologists.

If learners present with communication impairments, difficulties in making and sustaining relationships, sensory sensitivities, repetitive or nonproductive motor movements, they may meet the eligibility criteria for autism.

Using terms like low functioning and high functioning communicate more about how the learner’s autism impacts those around them rather than how the learner with autism experiences their autism. Changing our language to reflect the amount of support learners need in specific areas is more beneficial in meeting the learner’s unique needs.

Some states/districts allow school assessment teams to make eligibility determinations of autism without a medical/clinical team assessment.

The needs of a learner with autism are unique to the child themselves. Presuming competence, using the child’s interests to provoke engagement, and putting the child’s strengths in the forefront are critical components of supporting and teaching kids with autism.

Deaf-blindness is considered a low incidence disability as about .03% of those served in special education are eligible under this category.

Approximately half of those .03% have Usher Syndrome. Each child has their own unique combination of hearing and vision loss. It’s not necessary to experience total vision and/or total hearing loss to be eligible in this category.

Strategies will utilize touch cues, assistive technology, Braille, screen readers, TDD with Braille, and more!

The American Association of the Deaf-Blind is an excellent resource!

Deafness is it’s own IDEA category – separate from hearing impairment because the strengths, needs, values, culture, interventions, and decisions of Deaf children are unique. Families engage in complex decision making when raising (D)deaf children and professionals must partner with families and honor their decisions and priorities in terms of language, medical interventions, and educational goals. 

 

Let’s take a look at this category carefully, shall we?

I know it’s wordy! It’s important to see the words included in the law’s definition – and those NOT included.

Emotional disturbance (ED) is an umbrella term. Many many medical and psychological diagnoses qualify for services and supports in this category. Anxiety disorders (🙋🏽‍♀️), eating disorders, depression, mood disorders such as bipolar disorder, conduct disorders such as oppositional defiance disorder, and the rare childhood onset psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia.

This category is often overapplied in particular to black and brown children and to children living in poverty. The characteristics of children with ED (hoping this category is renamed very soon!) are characteristics exhibited by most children at points along the developmental continuum – the difference for learners with ED is the persistence over a long period of time.

We are challenged with considering the WHY before rushing to an ED determination. Highly qualified child psychologists and mental health experts are necessary partners in determining ED as a primary category.

This is an example of when educators wield great power over the lives of young children. We must be sure we are using that power for the good of the child focused on services and supports for the child’s success.

Why is hearing impairment its own category? Because hearing is COMPLEX!

There are a variety of ways in which hearing can be impaired – conductive hearing loss, sensorineural hearing loss, mixed, and central hearing disorders are all types of hearing loss.

And the extent to which a child’s education is impacted by their loss is complex and unique to the child!

Sound is measured by loudness (decibels) and frequency (hertz). Hearing impairment can occur in just one or both as well as in one or both ears. Do you know we have two ears to allow us to locate sound in space? Loss in one ear makes it very difficult to tell where sound is coming from!

Loss is described as slight, mild, moderate, severe, or profound based on how well a person can hear and differentiate sounds at intensities most common in speech.

Services and supports vary so never assume that one child with a hearing impairment who used an FM system means the next child with a hearing impairment will!

About 7% of kids receive services and supports under the category of intellectual disability. This (like all?!) category is also complicated because there are some genetic disorders, issues during pregnancy, birth complications, and health conditions that result in intellectual disabilities. Background information coupled with multiple means of assessment in cognitive and adaptive development provide the data necessary for eligibility in this category.

Developmental delay (or significant developmental delay in some states) provides an eligibility category to serve and support young kids before age 8-9. This gives time for loads of evidence based intervention before determination of an intellectual disability.

Due to the highly biased and problematic nature of intelligence testing (IQ tests), we have the responsibility to be aware of how kids may be underperforming on assessments for reasons unrelated to their cognitive abilities. Multiple means of assessment in a variety of modes and environments are critical. If we fail to provide a child with a highly qualified teacher and an evidence based curriculum, we cannot make a determination of ID.

Kids with intellectual disabilities can and want to contribute to and be a part of your classroom and school community. Meaningful inclusion is critical. Learn as much as you can about ID and about the individual learners in your classroom and school. Chunking, task analysis, and extended time for learning and engagement are just a few of the many strategies teachers use effectively with kids with ID. Partner with special educators to meaningfully support and include kids with intellectual disabilities in your classrooms and community. Everyone benefits when we do.

 When it’s not possible or reasonable to determine a primary eligibility criteria, IDEA gives us the “multiple disabilities” category. The key to this category is that the combination of two or more eligibility categories are causing the student to have significant educational needs.

Every single kid in this category is unique. This is an eligibility determination only. Now it’s time to learn about all the strengths and needs your learner has!

**story time**
When I was a first semester/first year faculty member in my very first tenure track position out of my doc program, I was teaching in an inclusive early childhood program. A colleague asked me to come in to her course and present on how to include “kids in wheelchairs and whatever.”

This is an extremely low incidence category for PK-12 because remember a couple of things. 1) the child’s education must be adversely affected by the disability. 2) we have ADA and Section 504 of the Rehab Act to cover environmental access issues and limitations 3) wheelchairs and walkers and standers and all the amazing accommodations we have available to give kids access to the curriculum, to their friends, and to their environment.Less than 1% of kids receive services and supports under IDEA in this category. It is more frequently a concomitant category in the multiple disabilities category.

I asked the class how they would welcome and include a child who uses a wheelchair to access their world. They said the right things – ensure tables are the right height, adequate space between tables, accessible supplies, books, etc. Then I said physical inclusion is not meaningful inclusion and that disabilities that affect a child’s educational opportunities are rarely ones we can see. Ensuring every kid has access to their educational environment is only one of three critical components of inclusion (the other two are participation and supports).

It’s another umbrella term for a number of medical concerns and needs. This one is tricky because the diagnosis of one of the named disabilities or disorders does NOT ensure services and supports under IDEA (remember – it has to adversely affect the child’s education) AND a diagnosis other than the ones named within the law COULD result in services and supports under IDEA. Totally clear, right?

Let’s use ADHD as an example since we’re probably all familiar with it. Child is diagnosed with ADHD. Child is achieving as expected in school, on assessments, and showing adequate growth over time. Does the child qualify for services and supports under IDEA?

It’s usually not that easy but in this clean example, no. If the child needs more breaks, some environmental supports built in, a 504 plan is a better option. This child’s education is not adversely affected.

There are also medical diagnoses not stated that may fit under this category – mood disorders such as bipolar disorder. How do we determine if a mood disorder like bipolar disorder should be categorized under OHI or ED?

OHI allows us to serve and support kids who are experiencing a variety of health and medical needs. It does not mean we HAVE to qualify them under IDEA. Remember – adversely affects the child’s educational performance.

Say it again – adversely affects the child’s educational performance.

Speaking of umbrella terms . . .

First, specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of intellectual disability, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

That last one is important.

There’s so much to say on SLD, more than we can say here, but know that the discrepancy model (significant difference between achievement and ability) is no longer used and that kids no longer need to fail in order to get support. Eligibility determination can be made through the RTI/MTSS process.

The lack of an appropriate evidence based curriculum or highly qualified teacher cannot be a determining factor in determining if a child has a SLD. Nor is learning English as a second language.

The word SPECIFIC is important too. When we say, “she has a learning disability” we are failing to communicate specific needs we can support. SLD is broad and encompassing category but kids served in this category have SPECIFIC learning and intervention needs.

Speech language impairment is the second most prevalent category under IDEA! (Do you know which is THE most prevalent?)

Communication is critical! No matter how kids do it – words, pictures, gestures, signs, apps, assistive technology, a mixture of all, communication is everything. Make your SLP your best friend and learn with them!

There is no right way to communicate. Whatever works for the child to get across their wants and needs, use it! Keep it always and readily available if it’s a device or a picture book. Not just for direct instruction or teaching time but always! Keep kids voices at their fingertips.

“Traumatic brain injury applies to open or closed head injuries resulting in impairments in one or more areas, such as cognition; language; memory; attention; reasoning; abstract thinking; judgment; problem-solving; sensory, perceptual, and motor abilities; psychosocial behavior; physical functions; information processing; and speech. Traumatic brain injury does not apply to brain injuries that are congenital or degenerative, or to brain injuries induced by birth trauma” (Sec 300.8(c)(12)

The key here is ACQUIRED. This category is specifically for kids who acquire brain injuries after birth. TBI range from mild to severe and the effects of the injury are unique to the individual.

Concussions are traumatic brain injuries.

Keep in mind that the emotional trauma of such an injury is also affecting the child. We can’t just focus on academic and behavioral supports but also emotional supports for navigating the world post-injury.

EVEN WITH CORRECTION

Kids served in this category account for less than 0.5% of kids receiving special education services and supports. It’s referred to as a “low incidence” disability because of how infrequently it occurs. This is important because if you are a teacher educator asking students to create modifications and/or accommodations for kids with specific disabilities and you use visual impairment, TBI, and a child who uses a wheelchair as your target children, you’re doing it wrong.

Kids with visual impairments, including blindness, have unique mobility and orientation needs and skills. Use your resources! Learn from mobility and orientation experts on how to set up your classroom routines in ways that include and support independence for your learner.

Additionally, visual impairments are widely variable – people experience vision in a variety of ways. So, again, teacher educators, stop using blindfold simulations and sighted guide simulations as that is ineffective and inaccurate in representing the experience of impaired vision.

Learn from the child and family! Ask! Ask more! Use color and shade and all the cool adaptations the mobility and orientation experts have available!

This is our 13th and final IDEA category. I know it hasn’t been super exciting but it’s critical we get this right. It’s the work of ALL educators to support and include kids with disabilities in our schools and communities.

What should we talk about next?

Make Parenting Great Again!

Published on by Jen NewtonLeave a comment

Parenting has changed, huh?

Let’s see . . . take me back . . . when was parenting “great”?  Was it in the early 1900s when kids were working, earning?  Was it before child labor laws and child welfare laws?  Was it when many kids didn’t persist past 8th grade?  When teachers were simply high school graduates themselves with no specialized training?  Was that the time we should aspire to return to?

Or was it post-WWII when families were adjusting to the industrialization of America and women in the workforce?  Or was parenting great when moms stayed at home in “traditional” gender roles with men coming home to dinner on the table and quiet children?  Is that your image of when parenting was great?  When we didn’t have compulsory education for all kids so many simply did not attend and no one cared?

Was parenting great in the 60s, 70s, 80s when kids like me were raised on TV, parents who smoked in the house and in the car, and largely ignored us?  We didn’t wear seat belts, no one read to us or played with us?  Yes, we left our house from sun up to sun down but do you have any idea what was happening to us when we were banned from our houses for that idyllic childhood you so romanticize?  Was that when parenting was great?

Remind me how parenting has changed for the worse?  Remind me when it was so great?  Families have ALWAYS struggled in this country.  Kids have long been neglected and abused.  Generational poverty and making ends meet is a struggle for far too many.

Now parents are TOO involved or not involved enough.  Very rarely just the right amount of involvement, apparently?  What motorized device are parents today?  Are they helicopters or lawnmowers?  Oh wait is it tiger?  It’s hard to keep all the categorizations of ways in which parents aren’t doing it right straight.  Maybe . . . just maybe . . . we could stop creating these flawed and insulting categories and start partnering with the families we have.

Don’t tell me parenting has changed.  It is incredibly hard to make it in this world and teachers, who are also working side hustles and second jobs to make ends meet, must be partners with families and communities.  We don’t make progress when we demonize each other.  Fight the systems.  Fight the policies.  Not each other.