wk 1A

see Wk 1A

Week 1 – Assignment

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

wk 1A

Just from $13/Page

Order Essay

· Points 9

· Submitting an external tool

Strategies for Incorporating Present Level of Performance

A student in Mr. Franklin’s class, Huang Le, has been making great progress this year. Huang has a moderate disability identified as an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). He has been working on goals from the previous year’s IEP. You will find more information about Huang in this week’s Instructor Guidance. In order to successfully complete this assignment, it is highly recommended that you review the details in the Instructor Guidance.

It is almost time for the IEP committee to hold his annual meeting to assess progress and develop a new IEP. Mr. Franklin has been monitoring his progress with your assistance as the special educator over the last year. It is time to review that data to begin considering his present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFPs). Over the next few weeks, you will be working with Mr. Franklin to assess and develop an IEP for Huang.

After reading

Huang’s most recent assessment report

, including

progress on his IEP goals and objectives

· Create a full report for his PLAAFPs using the

assignment template

provided.

· Compose his PLAAFPs template using the information provided for you in the assessment report and instructor guidance. If needed, include information regarding Huang using fictional information you create to describe his current level of functioning. Be sure this additional information is based in your readings of his disability category, personal or professional experiences, and support from scholarly sources on core areas of deficit for individuals with ASD.

You will use this PLAAFP document from this assignment and the feedback you receive from it to compose this section of your Final Week Six Summative Assessment.

The Strategies for Incorporating Present Levels of Performance paper

· Must be two to three double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the

Ashford Writing Center (Links to an external site.)

· Must include a separate title page with the following:

· APA heading/page numbers

· Title of paper

· Student’s name

· Course name and number

· Instructor’s name

· Date submitted

· Must use at least one scholarly source in addition to the course text.

· The

Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.)

table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment.

· Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

· Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

Running head:

PRESENT LEVELS OF

Present Levels of Academic and Functional Performance

Writing Template

PRESENT LEVELS OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE (Includes Transition for 16 and Older)	PRESENT LEVELS OF FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE (Includes Transition for 16 and Older)
STRENGTHS OF THE STUDENT
EDUCATIONAL INPUT FROM PARENTS, INCLUDING CONCERNS
RESULTS AND EXPLANATION OF CURRENT DATA, INCLUDING MOST RECENT EVALUATION
NEEDS OF THE STUDENT
IMPACT OF DISABILITY WITH CHILD’S INVOLVEMENT & PROGRESS IN THE GENERAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM

DataCollection & Goal Tracking System

___Huang Le_______ __Anytown School District ___________________
Student Resident District IEP Meeting

Date

__ Anytown School District ___________________
Gender: _X_ M ___ F Grade:
_____

Attending District Annual IEP Review Date

___xx/xx/xx_________ __ Anytown School ___________ ____________________
Date of Birth (mm/dd/yy) Attending School Amendment Date
__111-111-111_____ ____________________________ ___________________
Secure Student Identifier (SSID) Case Manager Most Recent (re)Evaluation

Date

AU Autism Spectrum Disorder _SI Speech/Language Impairment

____________________

Primary Disability Code & Category Secondary Disability Code & Category –
OPTIONAL

Re-Evaluation Due Date

Domain Goal Data Progress?
Language/communication Huang will initiate communicative

interactions with others by asking
questions 4/5
opportunities to do so.

Average rate: 3/5 Progressing

Social/behavioral skills Huang will work cooperatively with
peers in small group settings (ie. Share
materials, allow
peers to share different thoughts) 4/5
opportunities to do so.

Average rate: 4/5 Mastered

Classroom management
skills

Huang will raise their hand and wait to
be called on before talking aloud in
group settings 4/5
opportunities to do so.

Average rate: 2/5 Progressing

Mathematics Huang will identify what the characters
and mathematical operation within a
math story problem 4/5 opportunities to
do so.

Average rate: 5/5 Mastered

Literacy Huang will state the main idea of the
story, video or situation 4/5
opportunities to do so.

Average rate: 3/5 Progressing

Self-help skills Huang will transition appropriately
from tasks and activities and school
environments 80% of the time given
visual and verbal prompts.

Average rate: 20% Not
progressing;
change of
intervention
and strategy
needed

FULL COMPREHENSIVE INDIVIDUALIZED EVALUATION REPORT

DEMOGRAPHICS

___Huang Le_______ __Anytown School District
_________________
__

Student Resident District IEP Meeting Date

__ Anytown School District
_________________
__

Gender: _X_ M ___ F
Grade: _____

Attending District Annual IEP Review
Date

___xx/xx/xx_________
__ Anytown School
___________

_________________
___

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yy) Attending School Amendment Date

__111-111-111_____ ____________________________
_________________
__

Secure Student Identifier
(SSID)

Case Manager Most Recent
(re)Evaluation Date

AU Autism Spectrum
Disorder _SI Speech/Language Impairment

_________________
___

Primary Disability Code &
Category

Secondary Disability Code &
Category – OPTIONAL

Re-Evaluation Due
Date

INITIAL EVALUATIONS

A. the evaluation is conducted in accordance with the procedures in federal and

state law,
B. the results of the evaluation are used by the IEP Committee in developing an

individualized education program (IEP)

TIME LINE

A written report of a full individual evaluation of a student for purposes of
special education services shall be completed not later than the 60th calendar day
following the date on which the referral for assessment was initiated by school
personnel, the student’s parent or legal guardian, or another appropriate person. The
assessment shall be conducted using procedures that are appropriate for the student’s
most proficient method of communication.

The 60 calendar day time line requirements for the special education
department processing and assessment begins from the time that the parent/guardian

signs notice and consent for FIE. Data should be gathered and sent to special education
assessment person as soon as possible.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the full individual evaluation is to:

A. determine eligibility and the presence or absence of a physical, mental,
or emotional disability which may affect the student’s successful
participation in the general education curriculum;

B. determine the presence or absence of a significant educational deficit

and the need for special education instructional and/or related services;

C. identify specific learning competencies in instructional and related

service areas;

D. make recommendations for determining the grading criteria and

procedures for participation in extracurricular activities; and

E. provide information relative to the appropriate mastery level or levels at

which the student should be expected to achieve in order to receive
passing grades in all content areas of instruction.

EVALUATION DATA: PLAAFP

Based on observation and data collected:

PRESENT LEVELS OF

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
PRESENT LEVELS OF

FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE

STRENGTHS
OF THE

STUDENT

Huang has shown on or above
grade level performance for CCSS
in: Various grade-level science
concepts, scientific method,
mathematical principles and
operations, vocabulary
development, handwriting. He
reads extensive non-fiction
literature.

Huang shows great attention to
detail. He shows strength in
making logical decisions. He is a
visual learner. Huang shows deep
interest in his topics of choice. He
is beginning to attend to peer
social behavior around his during
unstructured activities.

EDUCATIONAL
INPUT FROM

PARENTS,
INCLUDING
CONCERNS

Parents report difficulties in
getting Huang to complete his
homework. In addition, they are
concerned about his frustration
with math story problems.

Parents report that there is no
adherence to self care routines
without significant prompting.
Huang has few relationships
outside his parents. He does not
actively participate in
extracurricular activities. His
leisure skills are limited. He
protests changes in routines.

RESULTS AND
EXPLANATION
OF CURRENT

DATA,
INCLUDING

MOST RECENT
EVALUATION

State Literacy Assessment: Passed
with Accommodation
State Mathematics Assessment:
Passed with Accommodation
District Standardized Assessment
of Skills: Passed with
Accommodation
Daily Data Collection on Goals &
Objectives from Current IEP: Raw
data and graphic analysis
indicate Progress or Mastery in
all area

Daily Data Collection on Goals &
Objectives from Current IEP: Raw
data and graphic analysis indicate
Progress or Mastery in all area
Functional Behavior Assessment:
Conducted for noncompliance

NEEDS OF THE
STUDENT

Huang needs support in the areas
of: language/communication,
social/behavioral skills, reading
comprehension, math story
problems, classroom
management, self help skills, and
he is very resistant to changes in
topic or routine.

Huang has difficulty initiating and
maintaining peer interactions.
Other areas of need include:
Conversation and complex
instructions, Social language, Body
language. He does not
independently interpret unwritten
rules or social routines that are
more subtle. Self care routines
both at home and at school are
lacking. Huang does not
demonstrate long term goal-
setting and planning. He engages
in noncompliant behavior.

ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING COMPETENCIES (ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE)

Huang should take the standard assessments with accessibility supports for statewide
and district testing.

———————————————————————————————————

Assessment for

Related Services

and Adapted Physical Education

Not recommended for Huang

Vocational Assessment

Incorporate self-help goals and independence into his IEP goals; no vocational services
recommended at this time.

Transition planning is recommended. Please develop a goal for Training, Education for
him based on his classroom placement.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUPPORTS:

Specially Designed Instruction

• N/A

Related Services

• Speech Language Therapy
• Transportation Services
• Occupational Therapy

Supplementary Aids/Accommodations

• Visual hourly schedule
• Breaks to move within the room when needed
• Visual or text available during lessons that require a verbal response
• Extended time to take tests and complete activities
• Extra wait time for instructions
• Seating in the front of the classroom
• Visual
• Daily or weekly communication between parent and teachers
• Social skills training
• Paraprofessional//classroom aide assistance in the classroom for communication

and social needs

Supplementary Aids/Modifications

• Reducing the number of questions on a test or homework
• Adjusted grading to weighted grading
• Using a calculator during a math test
• Adapted curriculum in reading
• Alternative activities

Supplementary Program Modifications/Supports for School Personnel

• Provide at least 3 specific training opportunities on specialized instruction for
students with ASD per year

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOALS & OBJECTIVES BASED ON PREVIOUS YEAR’S PLAAFP:

Huang has made great progress since his last full evaluation. At this time, goals
recommended include:

Language/communication Huang will initiate communicative interactions with

others by asking questions 4/5 opportunities to do so.

Huang will appropriately acknowledge an interaction
initiated by others by giving an appropriate response,
either verbal or non-verbal 4/5 opportunities to do so.

Social/behavioral skills Huang will work cooperatively with peers in small group
settings (ie. Share materials, allow peers to share
different thoughts) 4/5 opportunities to do so.

Huang will accept changes in routine/schedule by
exhibiting appropriate behaviors given visual and verbal
cues 80 % of the time.

Huang will follow classroom rules and directives given
visual and verbal prompts 80% of the time.

Huang will independently take a break given visual
prompts 75% of the time.

Huang will independently ask to take a break given
visual and verbal prompts 80% of the time.

Classroom management
skills

Huang will raise a hand and wait to be called on before
talking aloud in group settings 4/5 opportunities to do
so.

Mathematics Huang will identify what the characters and
mathematical operation within a math story problem
4/5 opportunities to do so.

Literacy Huang will state the main idea of the story, video or
situation 4/5 opportunities to do so.

Self-help skills Huang will transition appropriately from tasks and
activities and school environments 80% of the time
given visual and verbal prompts.

NONPARTICIPATION JUSTIFICATION:

Based on our observations, Huang will receive all his services in the regularly assigned
classroom with children that are nondisabled, as well as for all extracurricular activities.
Huang’s teacher will be provided with supports and additional staff if the need should
arise. No removal is recommended at this time.

Reference

Bailey, E. (n.d.). Suggestions for classroom accommodations and modifications for
children with autism. Health Central. Retrieved from
http://www.healthcentral.com/autism/c/1443/140596/accommodations/.

National Association of Special Education Teachers. (n.d.). Examples of IEP goals and
objectives: Suggestions for students with autism. Retrieved from
https://www.naset.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Autism_Series/Examples_IEP_Go
als_Objectives_for_ASD .

http://www.healthcentral.com/autism/c/1443/140596/accommodations/

https://www.naset.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Autism_Series/Examples_IEP_Goals_Objectives_for_ASD

 N/A

Related Services

 Speech Language Therapy
 Transportation Services
 Occupational Therapy

Supplementary Aids/Accommodations
Supplementary Aids/Modifications
Supplementary Program Modifications/Supports for School Personnel
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOALS & OBJECTIVES BASED ON PREVIOUS YEAR’S PLAAFP:
NONPARTICIPATION JUSTIFICATION:

Based on our observations, Huang will receive all his services in the regularly assigned classroom with children that are nondisabled, as well as for all extracurricular activities. Huang’s teacher will be provided with supports and additional staff i…

ESE668: EVIDENCE-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS FOR STUDENTS WITH MILD TO MODERATE DISABILITIES

Instructor Guidance

Week 1

Welcome! It is time to begin our next course in the MASE sequence, ESE 668: E

idence-Based Instructional Methods for Students with Mild to Moderate Disabilities.
Please be sure to review the Week One homepage for this course to see:

· The specific learning outcomes for the week.

· The schedule overview.

· The required and recommended resources.

· The introduction to the week.

· A listing of the assessments.

Next, be sure to read this entire Instructor Guidance page.

Overview

This guidance begins with a few words about the importance of reading the weekly Instructor Guidance pages. Next, this overview provides a section about the course learning outcomes and their relationship to the weekly outcomes and program outcomes. The document concludes with helpful information about active reading strategies and academic writing, which will be useful to you for excelling in this course, applying previous learning in a practical manner, and in future classes.
About the Instructor Guidance Pages
The guidance pages provide an overview of the week, a section with intellectual elaboration written by professors at Ashford University about the course topics explored during the current week, and additional specific guidance for the assessments (i.e., assignments and discussions). Here you will find information written by the course designers to supplement the instructions provided with the assessments and in the grading rubrics that are located on the weekly unit homepages.
Supplemental resources are also included in the Instructor Guidance. You are encouraged to consider using these resources to support your completion of the weekly assessments beyond using the required and recommended resources provided on the weekly unit homepages and in the consolidated list of resources on the Course Materials page. Thus, you are strongly encouraged to review the Instructor Guidance each week as part of your study plan. Not only does the Instructor Guidance offer your insight and assistance with the weekly topics and activities, it models effective academic writing, which is expected of you in all of your coursework in this graduate-level course.
The Scope and Outcomes of ESE 668

Through the learning activities in ESE 668, you will have opportunities to examine and create original resources you can use as a professional educator. Upon successful completion of this course, you will have demonstrated your mastery of the four course learning outcomes, which are listed on the Syllabus. Review the Course Map on the Syllabus to learn how each assessment in the course aligns to the four course learning outcomes.
The course and weekly outcomes are aligned to the Master of Arts in Special Education (MASE) Program Learning Outcomes, which can be viewed from the

MASE Program Details page (Links to an external site.)

on the Ashford University website. If you have questions about the scope and outcomes of ESE 668, please contact the instructor in the Ask Your Instructor discussion. Next, please continue reading to learn about active reading strategies and the importance of academic writing in this graduate-level course.

Active Reading and Academic Writing in ESE 668

Each week in ESE668, you will complete readings from the Henley, Ramsey, & Algozzine (2009) textbook and other required resources related to Evidence-Based Instructional Methods for Students with Mild to Moderate Disabilities. It is strongly recommended that you start using strategies for active reading now if you do not already as part of your study routine. Review the

Tips for Active Reading (Links to an external site.)

tutorial to learn more about active reading. The tutorial is approximately ten-minutes long and explains the concept of active reading and practical strategies for active reading. This tutorial will be especially useful for you as you read the textbook.
Additionally, remember that ESE 668 is a graduate-level course. As such, your writing and speaking in the discussion and assignment assessments each week is expected to demonstrate your best academic ability, including the area of academic writing and speaking. For a review of what academic writing entails, view the

What is Academic Writing? (Links to an external site.)

tutorial. Approximately fourteen-minutes in length, this video tutorial explains the fundamental components of academic writing and will provide helpful reminders about academic writing to support your writing in all assignments and discussions throughout the course.

Intellectual Elaboration

What Do We Mean, Culture?

We hear the term all around us: Culture. Cultural background. Cultural influence. Cultural conversations are intertwined in our conversations in the courses of this program, including the effect on collaboration and communication with team members and families. What do we mean by culture?
Defined, culture is: “The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought characteristic of a community or a population” (Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 2012, pg. 467). Culture is learned behavior. It defines the lens through which individuals perceive their world. Take a moment to watch this

video (Links to an external site.)

about what makes up culture.
Culture can also be narrowed down to each environment. Families have culture that might include traditions that have been passed down from generation to generation. Groups and communities also have culture. This can be the culture of a school campus, religious community, friend group, city, club, state, nation, etc.
As educators, it is important to be culturally competent to address the multi-cultural classrooms and communities in which we work. This week, you will read ways in which educators can assess their own cultural competence. You will have a chance to take the

Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI) (Links to an external site.)

and apply it to the classroom environment (Koyama, Plash & Davis, 2011).
For a collection of definitions on cultural competence, explore the recommended

website from Cultural Connections (Links to an external site.)

.
Culturally-Inclusive & Culturally-Responsive Classrooms
Beyond identifying what culture is and assessing our own cultural competence, it is essential to the success and understanding of our students to incorporate standards and principles to create culturally-responsive classrooms (Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995).
When managing the culturally-responsive classroom, it is important to (Weinstein, Curran, & Tomlinson-Clark, 2003):

· Organize the physical environment.

· Establish expectations of behavior.

· Communicate with students in culturally consistent ways.

· Create caring, inclusive classrooms.

· Work with families.

· Monitor and manage problem behaviors.

Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP)

Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP) have been discussed throughout your coursework. Determining PLAAFP is an important step in the assessment that drives instruction in the special education setting. This goes beyond initial evaluation and assessment for eligibility for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
This week we will discuss the importance of using assessment data collected to determine progress for past and current Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals to identify PLAAFP which in turn drives instruction and the development of the next IEP goals and objectives.
Review the articles and readings required this week. Take some time to review some recommended examples and guides for how PLAAFPs are developed, as well as reviewing your link library for our prior discussions on the importance of establishing PLAAFP:

PLAAFP Example 1 (Links to an external site.)

PLAAFP Example 2 (Links to an external site.)

PLAAFP Example 3 (Links to an external site.)

PLAAFP Example 4 (Links to an external site.)

Individual student needs, family culture and community experiences, language differences, and cultural norms need to be taken into consideration when developing an educational plan for students with disabilities. These characteristics are combined with what we know about assessing student performance and identifying priorities in PLAAFP.
Mr. Franklin’s Classroom

Throughout your coursework, we have been discussing students in Mr. Franklin’s classroom and on his campus. His students Henry (ESE 601), Destini Marlow (ESE 603), Manuel (ESE 610 & ESE 634), and Bianca (ESE 645); as well as other students on campus, Jared, Dave, Amanda, Juanita, Keisha, and Raul (ESE 656). It is time to meet Huang Le. Huang is a student that Mr. Franklin has been working with for some time now.
Huang has been making great progress this year. It is almost time for the IEP team to hold his annual meeting to assess progress and develop a new IEP. Mr. Franklin has been monitoring Huang’s progress with your assistance as the over the last year. It is time to review that data to begin considering his present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFPs). Over the next few weeks, you will be working with Mr. Franklin to assess and develop an IEP for Huang.
Huang has been working on goals and objectives in the areas of language/communication, social/behavioral skills, classroom management skills, mathematics, literacy, and self-help skills. This week, you will be reviewing Huang’s previous assessment and the data collected by Mr. Franklin on these goals and objectives to develop Huang’s PLAAFPs for Assignment 1.
Closing Remarks

The concept of culture encompasses the environments a student comes from as well as the environments within their school and community. All these factors need to be considered, along with background when determining how to select goals, objectives, and instructional strategies for students in special education settings.

Assessment Guidance

This section includes additional specific assistance for excelling in the assessments for Week One as a supplement to the instructions and grading rubrics. If you have questions about what is expected on any assessment for Week One, or any other week, contact your instructor using the “Ask Your Instructor” discussion before the due date.
Discussion 1: Post Your Introduction

The Post Your Introduction Video Presentation is your first opportunity to make a positive professional impression on classmates and the instructor. You will discuss who you are and consider now your role as a special educator in incorporating data- and assessment-driven instruction and planning. As well, you will discuss your prior experience with components of IEP development. Remember it is highly recommended that you read the final assignment for this course, before selecting a topic. Be sure to follow the Guided Response prompt for all discussions. Doing so helps to create a more robust discourse, which will lead to increased learning opportunities for everyone.
Discussion 2: Culturally-Inclusive Instruction

For this discussion you will be familiarizing yourself with the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI) and applying it by a) creating a plan to incorporate one of the CDAI categories into the classroom and b) determining the ways in which cultural awareness, interactions with culturally diverse families, cross-cultural commu¬nication, assessment, and creating a multicultural environment affect communication, classroom environments, IEP development, and lesson planning. Remember to read the final assignment for this course, as all work in this course lead up to the final Assignment.
Assignment: Strategies for Incorporating Present Levels of Performance in Lesson Design

The Week One assignment is an opportunity to demonstrate your ability with the course learning outcome: Integrate knowledge of behavioral characteristics, cognitive functions, and physical attributes associated with varying disabilities to align curriculum, standards, and individualized education program goals. In this assignment you will analyze assessment information and create PLAAFPs based on the information you have been provided. More specifically, you will review the assessment report for a student in Mr. Franklin’s class, Huang Le, as well as all data collected on his previous goals. You will interpret this information and create a summary of PLAAFP using the template provided.

References

Bourgault, D. (2008).

Prsent levels of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP/PLEP) development (Links to an external site.)

. ACES. Retrieved from http://www.autismcenterforeducationalservices.com/documents/PLAAPF
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (2011).

What is Culture? (Links to an external site.)

[Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=57KW6RO8Rcs
Culture Collections (2012).

What is cultural competence? (Links to an external site.)

Retrieved from http://cultureconnectionsnj.org/what-is-cultural-competence/
Cushner, K., McClelland, A., & Safford, P. (2009). Human diversity in education: An intercultural approach (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Henley, M., Ramsey, R. S., & Algozzine, R. (2009). Characteristics of and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities. 6th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Publication.
Howard, G. (2011).

The 7 principles of culturally-responsive teaching and learning (Links to an external site.)

[Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/IptefRjN4DY
Koyama, C., Plash, S., & Davis, K. (Winter 2011-2012).

Comparing cross-cultural multicultural self-awareness among K-12 in-service school teachers (Links to an external site.)

. SRATE Journal, 21(1), pp. 29-37. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ959534
Moloney, R., & Saltmarsh, D. (2016).

‘Knowing your students’ in the culturally and linguistically diverse classroom (Links to an external site.)

. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1098117
Weinstein, C., Curran, M., & Tomlinson-Clarke, S. (2003).

Culturally responsive classroom management: Awareness in action (Links to an external site.)

. Theory Into Practice, (4). 269. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/
Wlodkowski, R.J. & Ginsberg, M.B. (1995).

A framework for culturally-responsive teaching (Links to an external site.)

. Educational Leadership, 53(1), 17-21. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ511715

Required Resources

Text

Henley, M., Ramsey, R. S., & Algozzine, R. F. (2009).

Characteristics of and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities

(6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

· Chapter 1: Foundations of Special Education for Students with Mild Disabilities (pp. 3-8)

· Chapter 11: Building Family Partnerships

Articles

Bourgault, D. (2008).

Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP/PLEP) development (Links to an external site.)

. Retrieved from http://www.autismcenterforeducationalservices.com/documents/PLAAPF

· This document from the ACES provides a guide for developing and writing PLAAFP, as well as examples, to support your Strategies for Incorporating Present Level of Performance assignment this week and your Final Project.

Koyama, C., Plash, S., & Davis, K. (2012).

Comparing cross-cultural multicultural self-awareness among K-12 in-service school teachers (Links to an external site.)

. SRATE Journal, 21(1), 29-37. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ959534

· This study examines the five areas of the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI) across cultures. This article will support your Culturally-Inclusive Instruction discussion this week.

Recommended Resources

Articles

CultureConnections. (2012).

What is cultural competence? (Links to an external site.)

Retrieved from http://cultureconnectionsnj.org/what-is-cultural-competence

· This web-based article summarizes definitions of cultural competence provided by an organization, Cultural Connections. This source may support your work on your Culturally-Inclusive Instruction discussion this week.

· Accessibility Statement does not exist.

· Privacy Policy does not exist.

Moloney, R., & Saltmarsh, D. (2016).

‘Knowing your students’ in the culturally and linguistically diverse classroom (Links to an external site.)

. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 79-93. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1098117

· This article supports the cultural instruction of pre-service teachers to address and incorporate cultural-diversity in the classrooms. This article may support your Culturally-Inclusive Instruction discussion this week.

Weinstein, C., Curran, M., & Tomlinson-Clarke, S. (2003).

Culturally-responsive classroom management: Awareness into action (Links to an external site.)

. Theory Into Practice, 42(4), 269-276. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4204_2

· The full-text version of this article is available through the EBSCOhost database in the Ashford University Library. This article discusses the aspects of culturally-responsive classroom. This resource may support your Culturally-Inclusive Instruction discussion this week.

Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (1995).

A framework for culturally-responsive teaching (Links to an external site.)

. Educational Leadership, 53(1), 17-21. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept95/vol53/num01/A-Framework-for-Culturally-Responsive-Teaching.aspx

· This article discusses a culturally-responsive teaching model and strategies for the classroom. This source may also support your Culturally-Inclusive Instruction discussion this week.

Multimedia

JCPSEmployee. (2012, September 13).

Seven principles for culturally-responsive teaching and learning (Links to an external site.)

[Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/IptefRjN4DY

· This 32-minute video summarizes the seven principles of culturally-responsive teaching and learning in the classroom with examples from the author. The video may support your Culturally-Inclusive Instruction discussion this week.

Accessibility Statement (Links to an external site.)

Supplemental Material

Henry, G. B. (1986, October).

Cultural diversity awareness inventory (Links to an external site.)

[Booklet]. Hampton University Mainstreaming Outreach Services. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED282657

· This historical booklet contains a cultural diversity awareness inventory (CDAI). This resource may support your Culturally-Inclusive Instruction discussion this week.

CHARACTERISTICS

OF
AND STRATEGIES FOR
TEACHING STUDENTS WITH
MILD DISABILITIES

>MARTIN HENLEY

Westfield State College

ROBERTA S. RAMSEY

Norwich University

ROBERT F. ALGOZZINE

The University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Henley, Martin,

43-

Characteristics of and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities / Martin Henley, Roberta S. Ramsey, Robert F. Algozzine. — 6th ed.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN-

: 9

-1-3

-4

88-6

ISBN-

: 1-323-45488-8

1. Learning disabled—

United States

. 2. Mainstreaming in education—United States. 3. Behavior modification—United States. I. Ramsey, Roberta S. II. Algozzine, Robert. III. Title.

LC4705.H46

371.9—dc

2008022

Executive Editor and Publisher: Virginia Lanigan

Senior Editor: Ann Davis

Editorial Assistant: Matthew Buchholz

Production Editor: Gregory Erb

Cover Designer: Linda Knowles

Composition Buyer: Linda Cox

Manufacturing Buyer: Megan Cochran

Photo Researcher: Katharine S. Cebik

Editorial Production Service: Marty Tenney, Modern Graphics, Inc.

This book was set in Times by Modern Graphics, Inc. It was printed and bound by Hamilton Printing. The cover was printed by Phoenix Color Corporation/Hagerstown.

2002

1999

, 1996,

1993

by Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 0

58.

Pearson. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. For information regarding permission(s), write to: Rights and Permissions Department, 501 Boylston Street, Suite 900, Boston, MA 02

6, or fax your request to 6

–

1-2

Pearson® is a registered trademark of Pearson plc

Merrill® is a registered trademark of Pearson Education, Inc.

Pearson Education Ltd.

Pearson Education Singapore Pte. Ltd.

Pearson Education

Canada

, Ltd.

Pearson Education—Japan

Pearson Education

Australia

Pty. Limited

Pearson Education North Asia Ltd.

Pearson Educación de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

Pearson Education Malaysia Pte. Ltd.

Photo credits appear on

page 436

, which constitutes an extension of the copyright page.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
www.pearsonhighered.com	ISBN 13: 978-1-323-45488-6 ISBN 10: 1-323-45488-8

FOUNDATIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR

STUDENTS WITH MILD DISABILITIES

ADVANCE QUESTIONS

Answer the following questions as you read this chapter:

1. What factors led to the development of special education?

2. What are the key principles that drive special education today?

3. Why do some students receive special education?

4. Who is eligible for special education?

5. What are mild disabilities?

6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of classifying students for special education?

7. How do school personnel decide what special education services are appropriate for students with mild disabilities?

8. What are some key differences between general and special education?

VIGNETTE: JAKE, MARY, FELIPE

Jake always seems to be one step behind the other students in his 7th-grade class. Despite the slowness that is a part of Jake’s performance and social development, his teacher enjoys having him in class. Because Jake is talkative with a good sense of humor, many of his schoolmates enjoy helping him. Jake’s teacher likes teaching him because he responds favorably to efforts to help him develop new skills. Jake’s classroom performance is similar to many students with mild intellectual disability.

Jake’s class contains a mixture of students who are easy to teach and students who are hard to teach. Mary is one of the difficult kids. When she was younger she was diagnosed as “hyperactive,” and she was put on medication to control her behavior. She comes from a home where both parents work hard to maintain a comfortable lifestyle. There is a lot of pressure put on Mary to succeed. Both of her parents are upwardly mobile professionals. Mary does not trust adults and often takes her anger out on her classmates. When she is not physically disrupting the classroom, Mary is socially withdrawn, isolated, and unhappy. Mary’s teacher believes that Mary is emotionally disturbed.

Felipe also is difficult to teach—not because of what he does, but because of what he does not do. Felipe does not read or write as well as his 7th-grade classmates. He has never done well in reading, but his scores on ability tests and tests of achievement in other areas (e.g., mathematics) have always been average when compared to his peers. Now that Felipe is in junior high school, his difficulties are particularly troublesome, because he is expected to read and complete homework assignments in English, history, science, psychology, and economics. Felipe appears to have a learning disability.

Each of these students—Jake, Mary, and Felipe—is difficult to teach. They are constantly at risk of failing, and they are potential school dropouts. Jake, Mary, and Felipe have mild disabilities that are interfering with their progress in school.

Now that you have read the vignette about Jake, Mary, and Felipe, see how many problem-solving questions you can answer. For those questions you cannot readily answer, try to find some additional information to use in answering them as you read the chapter. The experiences of Jake, Mary, and Felipe are typical of students with mild disabilities.

1. What should be done to help students like Jake, Mary, and Felipe?

2. Who should teach them?

3. Should public schools provide special education services for students with learning problems like Jake, Mary, and Felipe?

4. What expectations would you have for students like Jake, Mary, and Felipe if you were teaching in their junior high school?

5. What is a mild disability?

6. Should students with mild disabilities be included in classes with students without disabilities?

Every classroom contains students like Jake, Mary, and Felipe. Helping students with learning problems is part of the motivation that stimulates many to become teachers. As one experienced teacher put it, “some teachers like the underdog.” The purpose of special education is to help students achieve success in school. Special educators and their general classroom peers want to see all students stay in school, graduate, and succeed in life, but because of differences between the two systems of education, they sometimes work at cross-purposes. When special and general educators communicate and share responsibility for educating students with special needs, everybody benefits.

THE ROOTS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

Origins of the national education system in America date from the colonial days. Early schools educated a select, limited segment of the population—white, male children of upper-class families (

Smith, Price, & Marsh,

). Before 1815, schools serving this small proportion of school-aged youth were primarily church sponsored.

Public support of schools by local taxation began during the first half of the nineteenth century. Children previously excluded from schooling—middle class, poor, female, or culturally different—were included. During the mid-nineteenth century, states began enacting compulsory education laws (e.g., Rhode Island in 18

, Massachusetts in 1852). A change in the values and economic thinking of U.S. society was reflected by this Common School Movement.

These early common schools educated students of all ages in the same classroom. In the one-room schoolhouse, students of different ages, different abilities, and different backgrounds learned side by side. Horace Mann, the architect of American public education, believed universal education was the great equalizer. Cremin (

1961

) characterized this early vision:

Mann’s school would be common, not as a school for the common people—for example, the nineteenth-century Prussian Volksschule—but rather as a school common to all people. It would be open to all, provided by the state and the local community as part of the birthright of every child. It would be for rich and poor alike, not only free but as good as any private institution. It would be nonsectarian, receiving children of all creeds, classes, and backgrounds. (p. 10)

Mann’s humanitarian ideal began to take hold, and by 18

, a majority of the states had established public school systems. Throughout this period of rapid growth, Mann advised that instruction be adapted to meet the needs of children who differed in temperament, ability, and interests.

As the United States grew, the one-room schoolhouse was replaced by graded elementary, middle, and high schools. Explicit academic requirements were established for each grade level of the common public school. Students were taught a specific curriculum and that curriculum was organized into graded units. Educators believed that grouping students by age would make the task of teaching easier (

Sarason & Doris,

1979

;

Ysseldyke & Algozzine,

1982

;

Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow,

2000

). Achievement was determined by how well children learned the predetermined, graded curriculum. This curriculum-centered characteristic of the new schools made it difficult for many children to keep pace (Smith, Price, & Marsh, 1986;

Ysseldyke & Algozzine,

1984

SPEEDBUMP—Did you know that summer vacations originated so students could work the family farm during peak growing times?

Immigration and compulsory school attendance broadened the school-aged population to a larger, more diverse membership. Cultural and ethnic differences in students created a mismatch between teacher expectations and student performance. Some children adapted to school and learned; others dropped out. Many children worked in factories; others took to the streets. Few of the absent students were missed. Little concern was shown for children with learning problems and what we now refer to as “at-risk youth.”

The influence of social reformers, such as Jane Addams, encouraged the establishment of alternative instructional programs for “special cases.” The superintendent of the Baltimore schools wrote, “Before the attendance laws were effectively enforced there were as many of these special cases in the community as there is now; few of them, however, remained long enough in school to attract serious attention or to hinder the instruction of the more tractable and capable” (

Van Sickle,

1908

–1909

, 102).

Early public educational programs offered two choices. Students either received and profited from instruction in lock-step, curriculum-centered classes or they were placed in special classes. Many administrators believed that these first special education programs were proper preparation for institutionalization. In a speech to the National Education Association, E. R. Johnstone (1908) stated that the special education class

must become a clearing-house. To it will be sent the slightly blind and partially deaf, but also incorrigibles, the mental deficients, and the cripples.…The only thing to do is to give them the best of care and training possible. Keep them in the special classes until they become too old for further care in school, and then they must be sent to the institutions for safety. (

Johnstone, 1908

, 1

–118)

A few early special programs were set up for children with specific disabilities, such as deafness or blindness. However, many early public school special classes were repositories for diverse youngsters who did not fit into the general classroom. In 1909, Elizabeth Farrell described students in her first special education class in New York City:

The first class was made up of the odds and ends of a large school. There were the over-age children, the so-called naughty children, and the dull, and stupid children. They were taken from any and every school grade. The ages ranged from eight to sixteen years. They were the children who could not get along in school. They were typical of a large number of children who even today are forced directly or indirectly out of school; they were the children who were interested in street life; many of them earned a good deal of money in one way or another. While some of them had been in trouble with the police, as a class they could not be characterized as criminal. They had varied interests but the school, as they found it, had little or nothing for them. (

Farrell, 1909

, 91–96)

From the first decades of the twentieth century until the mid-

1970

s, students who did not fit in general education classes were ignored, placed in isolated special classes, or transferred to state institutions.

SPEEDBUMP—There is a saying “the more things change, the more they remain the same.” Unfortunately, there are still programs where students are separated from their peers because they don’t fit in. Many of them are like the streetwise type of youngster taught by Elizabeth Farrell over a hundred years ago.

In Pennsylvania, legislation provided for the exclusion of specific children from school. Children evaluated as uneducable because of below-average IQ scores were assigned to the Department of Public Welfare for training in state-run institutions. Most notable about the process of classifying and rejecting students who didn’t fit the standard public school curriculum was the lack of due process in educational decisions.

In 1970, the Task Force of Children Out of School studied the Boston Public School System. The Task Force report—The Way We Go to School: The Exclusion of Children in Boston—found over ten thousand students excluded from public school classrooms because they didn’t match school standards for the normal student. Patricia Reilly, age

, was told to leave school because she was pregnant. Kathy Fitzgerald, age 9, was excluded from public school because she had a seizure disorder (i.e., epilepsy). Richard, 11 years old, was placed in a special class for the retarded because he was emotionally disturbed and no other program was available. These children were denied the right to an appropriate education because they were different. In 1974, the U.S. Congress estimated that over a million school-aged youngsters were denied a proper education in this country’s schools.

The experience of being treated differently because one does not fit into society’s vision of what is normal and accepted is difficult. Many move to the “land of opportunity,” to “the other side of the tracks,” to “the better part of town,” or to “a good school” to overcome discrimination and to build a “better life” for themselves and their children. They hope to reclaim the dignity they are entitled to as human beings and citizens of a country for which dreams and ideals of individualism, equal opportunity, nationalism, and success prevail and are the basis for fundamental human rights and continuing social responsibilities. Too often it simply doesn’t work out that way. Too often, differences and diversity that should be celebrated are the source of disparaging remarks, continuing intolerance, and disenfranchising treatment.

SPEEDBUMP—Having a disability is just another way of being different.

How could a nation based on equal opportunity for all its citizens support discriminatory practices toward children? The answer is found in attitudes. Prejudice, like creeping shadows, can take many forms. The public school system mirrors society. Schools reflect the attitudes and prejudices of teachers, administrators, and parents. Students with disabilities have special needs, and in the past those special needs have been used as a rationale to exclude them from mainstream life in American schools.

Education once intended for a small, elite sector of the population now is mandated for all children. During the past century, the curriculum-centered format of public schools has remained static while the needs of students have changed significantly. School dropouts, discipline problems, low achievement, and increased referrals to special education are a concern to educators and the public at large.

SPEEDBUMP—Passing standardized testing as a graduation requirement has created difficulties for many students, including those with special needs.

Diversity of students, simply defined as coming from a different background than your peers, is at odds with a system of education that requires conformity and assimilation of an unyielding curriculum. Smith-Davis (

1989

) identified some important events and acts of legislation that enhanced diversity. The Brown v. Topeka Board of Education decision in 1954 radically altered the national school population. This landmark case, acted upon by the U.S. Supreme Court, decreed that “segregated but equal” school facilities for black and white schoolchildren were discriminatory and unconstitutional. Brown v. Topeka Board of Education reversed a prior decision rendered in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1894 that legalized separate schools based on racial lines.

The Civil Rights Act of 19

gave support to advocates who pushed for the inclusion of students with disabilities in public schools (

Smith-Davis,

1989a

, b; Smith, Price, & Marsh, 1986;

Ysseldyke & Algozzine,

1990

). Mainstreaming, a term used to promote the integration of school-aged youth with disabilities into classrooms with their peers without disabilities, followed on the heels of successful efforts to deinstitutionalize programs for adults and children with disabilities. Placement of youth and adults with moderate and severe disabilities within community settings dramatized their capability to live normal lives. These changes diversified the student population in the nation’s schools and emphasized the need for schools to accommodate children with special learning needs (

Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow, 1983

; 2000), yet changes in public school practices toward students with disabilities have been slow to come. For instance, the steady increase each year in youngsters identified with mild disabilities and placed in special programs is testimony to the intractability of a system of education that looks first to blame the student for failure.

SPEEDBUMP—If you like to look at a situation from different points of view, you will like special education. It is interdisciplinary—combining such areas as politics, law, medicine, and psychology.

DIVERSITY

1987

, 47 percent of the workforce was comprised of white Americans; by the mid-twenty-first century 85 percent of new workers will be African Americans. In the year 2020, almost half of the school-aged population will be young African Americans (

Pallas, Natriello, & McDill, 1989

). This “browning of America” is a reality that signals profound change in U.S. culture. Multicultural education, with its attendant emphasis on gender, race, and bilingualism is aimed at preparing today’s youth for a future characterized by diversity. Ford (

1992

) defines multicultural education as school “practices and policies that transform the school so that male and female students, social class, racial, and ethnic groups will experience an equal opportunity to learn” (p. 108).

Multicultural Family Adaptation.

Family adaptation researchers are just beginning to recognize culture as an important variable for exploration (

Bennett, DeLuca, & Allen, 1996

;

National Research Council,

2001

;

Seligman, 1999

). For example, African American families whose religions strongly influence their family traditions may appraise disability positively. “The optimism and belief that all children are important typifies African American culture and is reflected in family functions and reinforced in church and religious beliefs” (

Rogers-Dulan & Blacher, 1995

, 234). Within the Native Hawaiian culture, the spiritual orientation toward life may influence families to think that having a child with behavior disorders is “normal” and that this child is a valued member of the community, regardless of disability. The Native American assimilation of individuals with disabilities into the mainstream culture is reflected in the absence of native language “labels” or “classifications” for disabilities such as autism. Rather, descriptive statements commonly are used such as those by some Navajos, including “she runs away,” or “he gets excited,” or “he’s in his own world” (

Connors & Donnellan, 1998

, 171).

Social support is defined as the community supports and resources “that the family may use to cope with a stressor situation” (

McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson, & Thompson, 1998

, 20). Social support may include people, such as family and friends, and organizations, such as schools, churches, parent and sibling support groups, and medical services. Social support mediates the effects of the stressor on the health of the family (see

McCubbin et al., 1998

). The strong familial support needed to raise a child with behavior disorders is found in many cultures.

Native Hawaiians share a common concern for the well-being of all individuals in the tribal structure, which encompasses the immediate and extended family (McCubbin et al., 1998). Similarly, the foundation of the family structure in Filipino American families is built on cooperation and family support and allegiance, in which individual desires are sacrificed for the benefit of the family (McCubbin et al., 1998). Many individuals within the African American culture perceive caregiving for a dependent member as a responsibility to be shared among siblings and extended family members (

Pruchno, Patrick, & Burant,

1997

Fear of stigma also has been reported in African American families (

Pruchno et al., 1997

), who tend to access services provided by professional organizations less frequently than the majority culture (see Pruchno et al., 1997) and only after relying on family, friends, religion, and church support. The concept of “familismo” in Hispanic families relates to strong family cohesion. This familial cohesion may circumvent the use of professional services if family values conflict with standards of the majority culture (

Blacher, Lopez, Shapiro, & Fusco, 1997

). When Hispanic mothers of children with disabilities believe in their spiritual role as “sacrificing mothers,” and if they receive strong support from their extended family, they may take upon themselves the responsibility of raising their child with little organizational support (

Bailey, Skinner, Rodriguez, Gut, & Correa, 1999

A diversity issue that affects all populations is lack of equal rights for women. Even though men and women have equal ability, men continue to be paid higher salaries and have easier access to promotion. Stereotypes about women begin in infancy, with pink birth ribbons signifying daintiness and beauty. These initial views are strengthened throughout childhood through toys, sports, and leisure activities. Consider a 9-year-old boy who chooses ballet over baseball or a 10-year-old girl who wants to play football. These youngsters will face opposition and ridicule as they attempt to oppose gender barriers. Look around your education classes. If you are an elementary or early childhood major, you probably have five times more females than males in your class. Why do more women than men select education as a major? An analysis of explanations will highlight some of the gender barriers girls and women must overcome in order to achieve an equal position in U.S. society.

SPEEDBUMP—One of the major issues educators as well as citizens will be dealing with in the future will be whether English should be the “official” language of the United States. What do you think?

As the debates continue about how diversity issues should be dealt with, the major hurdle to the educational progress of many people of color continues to be poverty. Hu-De-Hart (1993) succinctly illustrates the chasm that separates rich and poor in the United States: “Today 1 percent of the population of the United States has ‘gained control’ of more of the nation’s wealth than the bottom 90 percent. This situation parallels the stark and painful inequality in much of the Third World” (p. 51). Multicultural proponents point to inequities of school funding as evidence that today’s poor schoolchildren (many of whom are minorities) are at a distinct disadvantage in their preparation for tomorrow’s workplace. Property taxes fund schools. Children who live in destitute communities are unable to break the cycle of poverty because their education is as bleak as their neighborhoods.

African American children, particularly males, are overrepresented in special education programs for students with mild intellectual disability and emotional disturbance. Paradoxically, females and children with limited English proficiency (e.g., Hispanic) are underrepresented in special education programs. This trend of over- and underrepresentation means that many African American children may be inappropriately placed (see Lloyd Dunn’s remarks in

Chapter 3

, Mild Intellectual Disability), while females and Hispanic students who require special education are overlooked. The uneven distribution of students in special education has created a confusing picture about the educational needs of females of all races: African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans.

In an optimistic future scenario, the United States will be built on a strong foundation of respect for individual differences. The positive outcomes of multicultural education could help alleviate sexism and racism. In such a society all individuals regardless of gender, ethnic origin, sexual preference, or disability will have an equal opportunity to succeed. As educators, the choices we make now will determine our ability to adapt to fundamental changes in U.S. society.

ENDING HANDICAPPISM

Advocates for individuals with disabilities have used the word handicappism to refer to the disabling perception that a person is incompetent because of a physical or psychological impairment. When asked about their most difficult adjustments, adults with disabilities invariably comment about dealing with stereotypes. For example, friends and neighbors may refer to Elise Jones, who has a visual impairment, as “poor, blind Elise!” Condescending remarks about individuals with disabilities may be masked as sympathy, but the message is a clear illustration of handicappism. In fact, Elise’s visual impairment is only a part of her individuality, not the sum total of who Elise is as a person.

Sooner or later, most of us will experience a disability. Old age, injuries, or illness are inescapable aspects of the human condition. Although the idea that at some point in your life you will experience a disability might seem remote, the simple truth is that we are not talking about infrequent or isolated cases. The number of U.S. citizens with disabilities is equal to the combined population of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami.

Individuals with disabilities are people first and people with a disability second. The label assigned to their disability should not be used to replace all their other characteristics. Franklin D. Roosevelt guided the United States through the Second World War from the vantage point of a wheelchair. Einstein was considered too slow to attend school with his peers. Thomas Edison had a learning disability. These extraordinary people were not limited by their disabilities. Throughout this book, we highlight the individual first and the disability second by our phrasing “student with a disability.” We do this because language shapes expectations and expectations shape actions. Our persistent theme is that students with mild disabilities are more like their peers than different from them.

SPEEDBUMP—Your language, your expectations, and your actions when you teach students with mild disabilities will determine their success or failure. Remember, a disability is a problem that can be overcome; don’t handicap your students by limiting your expectations for their personal and academic growth.

Litigation and Legislation

Prior to the early 1970s, handicappism, the notion that individuals with disabilities were severely limited in their ability to learn, was the predominant educational perspective. Most notable about this view was that the lack of due process afforded students when educators either excluded them from school or placed them in dead-end special classes. Due process is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. During the 1970s, concern about the legal rights of students with special needs spurred several significant class action suits that challenged school evaluation and placement practices. A class action suit is litigation on behalf of a class or group of individuals. For example, when a small group of students who were classified as mentally retarded won a class action suit, all other students with intellectual disability within the court’s jurisdiction benefitted.

SPEEDBUMP—A class action suit affects all individuals who are in the same “class” as the litigants. Can you think of any other class action suits that have influenced public policy?

In Diana v. California State Board of Education (1970), the issue of Mexican American student overrepresentation in special classes for students with mild intellectual disabilities was addressed. The plaintiffs were nine children who came from homes where Spanish was the primary language. The class action suit alleged that Mexican American students had been improperly categorized as mildly retarded on the basis of invalid IQ testing. In a consent agreement, the opposing parties agreed that schoolchildren should be tested in their native language. This case laid the groundwork for future lawsuits based on cultural bias in educational evaluations.

The following year, 1971, fourteen families sued the state of Pennsylvania on the basis that their children with intellectual disability were denied equal access to a public education. This case, Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was prompted by the state policy of denying a public education to youngsters with intellectual disability. During the legal proceedings, parents described their futile attempts to fight a system that arbitrarily and callously excluded their children from school.

Nancy Beth Bowman was expelled from kindergarten because she wasn’t toilet trained. The 15-year-old daughter of Leonard Kalish was never allowed to enroll in school. It cost him $40,000 to have her educated in private schools. The parents of David Tupi said their son was expelled from school without notice. One morning the school bus simply stopped coming to pick him up. The three-judge panel, in a consent decree, ruled that the state could not predetermine educability. In their decision the judges stated that Pennsylvania must:

1. Admit all children with intellectual disability into public school.

2. Place students with intellectual disability in general classrooms when possible.

3. Make all school records accessible to parents.

4. Provide preschool programs for children with intellectual disability when such programs were available to nondisabled children.

5. Precede all placement decisions with a hearing to allow parental participation and consent.

HIGHLIGHT 1.1

Francis enjoyed going out to eat with his friends. However, he often encountered difficulties because few restaurants were accessible to his wheelchair. Curbs, narrow doors, stairs, and small public restrooms were all obstacles for Francis. One evening Francis and his friends were ordering dinner. When the waitress came to Francis, she asked one of his friends, “What would he like to eat?” The waitress assumed that because Francis was in a wheelchair he was incapable of ordering his own dinner! Just as physical obstacles impaired Francis’s ability to live a normal life, so did stereotypes by well-meaning but thoughtless people. A disability is born but society handicaps.

The PARC decision emphasized the due process rights of parents to review and challenge placement decisions regarding their children.

In Mills v. The Board of Education of the District of Columbia (

1972

), litigants challenged the exclusion of children identified as mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, learning disabled, visually impaired, hearing impaired, and physically disabled from Washington, D.C., schools. As in the PARC case, Mills demonstrated the unconstitutionality of school exclusion procedures. Both the PARC and Mills “right to education” cases highlighted the right of students with disabilities to due process in educational decisions.

By 1973, 31 similar court cases constituted a groundswell of political activism on behalf of students with disabilities (

Taylor & Searle, 1987

). It was clear to Congress that schools could no longer be allowed to violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of students with disabilities. The Fourteenth Amendment states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

FEDERAL LAWS

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Several federal laws have significantly influenced the education of children and adults with disabilities. The first of these is the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that protects individuals from being discriminated against because of a disability. Within public schools Section 504 of this law is often used to provide support services for students who have a disability that is not included in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), for instance students with ADHD.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

states:

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability… shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. … [Language of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act: 29 U.S.C. 794(a) (1996)]

Section 504 is a brief but powerful provision of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that extends to individuals with disabilities the same kind of protection extended to individuals discriminated against on the basis of race and gender (

Huefner, 2000

). Originally targeted at employment discrimination, the scope of Section 504 is broad, addressing protection in many areas (e.g., public school education, higher education, social services, health care, transportation). Because most school districts in the country accept federal funds, public education was greatly influenced by Section 504.

The relationship between Section 504, the

Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA), the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

, and the

No Child Left Behind Act

is presented in

Table 1.1

. Basically, any person with a disability (i.e., physical or mental impairment that limits major life activities) is eligible for Section 504 assistance. This group is broader than the group eligible for federal assistance under IDEA and special education guidelines (i.e., all students with disabilities receiving assistance under IDEA are eligible for 504 support, but not all students receiving assistance under 504 are eligible for support under IDEA).

TABLE 1.1 Scope of Key Legislation Affecting Students with Disabilities

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT (IDEA) (

2004

)

This education act reauthorizes federal financial assistance to state and local education agencies to guarantee special education and related services to eligible children with disabilities.

Who is protected?

Children ages 3–21 who are determined by a multidisciplinary team to be eligible within one or more of 13 specific categories of disability and who need special education and related services. Categories include autism, deafness, deaf-blindness, hearing impairments, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairments, other health impairments, serious emotional disturbance, specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairments, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairment.

Responsibility to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?

A FAPE is defined to mean special education and related services. Special education means “specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of the child with a disability….” Related services are provided if required for the students to benefit from specially designed instruction. States are required to ensure the provision of full educational opportunity to all children with disabilities. IDEA requires the development of an individualized education program (IEP) document with specific content and a required number of specific participants at an IEP meeting.

What are the procedural safeguards?

IDEA requires written notice to parents regarding identification, evaluation, and/or placement. Further, written notice must be made prior to any change in placement. The act delineates the required components of the written notices.

What is the due process?

IDEA delineates specific requirements for local education agencies to provide impartial hearings for parents who disagree with the identification, evaluation, or placement of a child.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT (2002)

Signed into law in 2002, this new law contains sweeping changes in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The act contains four basic education reform principles.

Responsibility to provide a system for educational accountability?

States create their own standards for what students should learn in each grade. Beginning in 2002, states began testing students in grades 3–5, 6–9, and 10–

. By 2005, tests were administered in grades 3–8 in math and reading. All students including those with mild disabilities are to be held to the same curriculum and assessment standards.

Who is protected?

Federal aid is contingent on an increase in proficiency in math, reading, and science among all students. States must maintain goals and assess results for various categories of students based on poverty, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency.

What are the procedural safeguards?

Students attending Title I schools that fail to improve have the option to attend a better school in the same district.

What is the due process?

Schools have more flexibility in allocating resources and teacher professional development. Students who choose to attend persistently failing schools can use Title I funds to obtain supplemental educational services from public or private sectors.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 (ADA)

This act is a civil rights law to prohibit discrimination solely on the basis of disability in employment, public services, and accommodations.

Who is protected?

Any individual with a disability who (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities; (2) has a record of such an impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. Further, the person must be qualified for the program, service, or job.

Responsibility to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?

However, ADA protections apply to nonsectarian private schools, but not to organizations or entities controlled by religious organizations and ADA provides additional protection in combination with actions brought under Section 504 and IDEA. Reasonable accommodations are required for eligible students with a disability to perform essential functions of the job. This applies to any part of the special education program that may be community based and involve job training/placement.

What are the procedural safeguards?

The ADA does not specify procedural safeguards related to special education; it does detail the administrative requirements, complaint procedures, and the consequences for noncompliance, related to both services and employment.

What is the due process?

The ADA does not delineate specific due process procedures. People with disabilities have the same remedies that are available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of

1991

. Thus, individuals who are discriminated against may file a complaint with the relevant federal agency or sue in federal court. Enforcement agencies encourage informal mediation and voluntary compliance.

SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973

This is a civil rights law to prohibit discrimination solely on the basis of disability in programs and activities, public and private, that receive federal financial assistance.

Who is protected?

Any person who (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, (2) has a record of such an impairment, or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. Major life activities include walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, working, caring for oneself, and performing manual tasks.

Responsibility to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?

An “appropriate” education means an education comparable to that provided to students without disabilities. This may be defined as regular or special education services. Students can receive related services under Section 504 even if they are not provided any special education. Section 504 does require development of a plan, although this written document is not mandated. The IEP of IDEA may be used for the Section 504 written plan. Many experts recommend that a group of persons knowledgeable about the students convene and specify the agreed-upon services.

What are the procedural safeguards?

Section 504 requires notice to parents regarding identification, evaluation, and/or placement. Written notice is recommended. Notice must be made only before a “significant change” in placement. Following IDEA procedural safeguards is one way to meet Section 504 mandates.

What is the due process?

Section 504 requires local education agencies to provide impartial hearings for parents who disagree with the identification, evaluation, or placement of a student. It requires that parents have an opportunity to participate in the hearing process and to be represented by counsel. Beyond this, due process details are left to the discretion of the local education agency. It is recommended that districts develop policy guidance and procedures.

Source: Adapted from ERICDigest E537, Henderson, K. (1995).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

The culmination of many years of struggle on behalf of children with disabilities occurred on November 29,

1975

, when President Ford signed Public Law 94–142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA). This landmark federal legislation mandated a free and appropriate education for students with disabilities aged 3 to 21. The EHA has been called the “first compulsory special education law,” and much of what happens in special education today is a direct response to the provisions embodied in it (

Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow, 2000

). Since first enacted, the EHA has been amended to further emphasize the rights of individuals with disabilities and their families. Today the EHA is known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Despite the name change and other amendments, the basic rights and provisions it afforded students with disabilities and their families have remained largely the same: the right to free and appropriate education, the right to due process, and the right to education in the least restrictive environment.

SPEEDBUMP—If it wasn’t for this law, you probably would not be taking this course. IDEA changed the educational landscape in this country.

BOX 1.1
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

The year 2000 represented a milestone for the nation’s disability community; July

marked the 10th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA guarantees access, accommodation, and removal of barriers to help people with disabilities fully participate in society. For people with disabilities, the ADA is analogous to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law provided individuals with disabilities a declaration of liberty from the days when they had little hope of competing on a level playing field with their peers without disabilities. It provides the foundation of nondiscrimination against people with disabilities in the areas of employment, state and local governments, public accommodations, and telecommunications.

Free and Appropriate Education.

By law, school personnel must prepare an individualized education program (IEP) for every student receiving special education services. The IEP must include certain information about the child and the educational program designed to meet his or her unique needs. The IEP documents that a student is receiving an “appropriate education. In a nutshell, this information is (

U.S. Department of Education

, 2000a):

■ Current performance. The IEP must state how the child currently is doing in school (known as present levels of educational performance). This information usually comes from the evaluation results such as classroom tests and assignments, individual tests given to decide eligibility for services or during reevaluation, and observations made by parents, teachers, and related service providers. The statement about “current performance” includes how the child’s disability affects his or her involvement and progress in general education.

■ Annual goals. These are goals that the child can reasonably accomplish in a year. Goals may be academic, address social or behavioral needs, relate to physical needs, or address other educational needs. The goals must be measurable; meaning that it must be possible to measure whether the student has achieved the goals.

■ Special education and related services. The IEP must list the special education and related services to be provided to the child or on behalf of the child. This includes supplementary aids and services that the child needs. It also includes modifications (changes) to the program or supports for school personnel—such as training or professional development—that will be provided to assist the child.

■ Participation with students without disabilities. The IEP must explain the extent (if any) to which the child will not participate with children without disabilities in the general class and other school activities.

■ Participation in state and districtwide tests. Local educational agencies must measure student progress with state- or districtwide assessments used for students without disabilities.

■ Dates and places. The IEP must state when services will begin, how often they will be provided, where they will be provided, and how long they will last.

■ Transition service needs. Beginning when the child is age 16 (or younger, if appropriate), the IEP must state what transition services are needed to help the child prepare for leaving school.

■ Discipline. When disciplining students with disabilities, a school must determine if the behavior was a result of the disability before taking action.

SPEEDBUMP—The amount of paperwork and time it takes to develop an IEP is a serious concern for school principals and educators.

Due Process. By law, students with disabilities and their families are guaranteed rights of due process (see

Figure 1.1

). This means that these students and their families have the same Fourteenth Amendment rights enjoyed by all citizens. School personnel cannot change the educational placement of students with disabilities without the informed consent (i.e., written permission) of the students’ parents or guardians. Parents also are entitled to independent assessments and impartial hearings when decisions about their children are being made. If needed, states must provide mediation services to resolve disputes with families regarding special education services.

Least Restrictive Environment. Students with disabilities must be educated in the least restrictive environment. This means that students with disabilities should be educated to the maximum extent feasible with students without disabilities. Students with disabilities receive special education in a variety of settings. Some are enrolled full time in general education classes and receive only indirect services from special education personnel. Some students with mild disabilities are pulled out of their general education classes daily to go to resource rooms for special education services. Still others are enrolled in self-contained special education classes but, to the maximum extent possible, attend general education classes for part of the school day for certain kinds of instruction. For example, a student might be enrolled in a special class but attend a general education class for instruction in math, music, art, or physical education.

Figure 1.2

lists key provisions of IDEA. In addition to IDEA, other significant federal legislation promotes the rights and services for individuals with disabilities. The mandate for a free, appropriate public education for adults with disabilities also is paralleled in the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93–112). Section 504 of this act made it illegal for institutions or organizations that receive federal funds to discriminate against citizens with disabilities.

FIGURE 1.1 Due Process Procedures

Source: Georgia Department of Education, 1989.

FIGURE 1.2 Major Provisions of IDEA

IDEA. In 1990, Congress amended the EHA in several significant ways. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Public Law 101–476) replaced the original title of the law. The name change reflects the need to emphasize the person first and the disability second. Also, individuals who receive special education up to age 21 should not be referred to as “children” as in the original title: Education of Handicapped Children Act. Amendments in IDEA included an expansion of related services such as therapeutic recreation, social work services, and rehabilitation counseling. Transition services were mandated to be written into IEPs. Transition services begin at age 16. These services coordinate rehabilitative services—for example, supported employment and independent living—beyond the school years. The purchase or leasing of customized equipment to support educational services (e.g., computers, wheelchairs, adaptive equipment) also is authorized by this federal law. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act adds students with autism and traumatic brain injury to the list of populations provided special education.

Americans with Disabilities Act

In 1990 Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This national law provides individuals of all ages with protection from discrimination due to a disability. The ADA is sweeping in authority. Sometimes referred to as “the civil rights act for the disabled,” ADA applies to a variety of venues including public services, transportation, private sector employment, public accommodations, and communications. ADA requires that every sort of public accommodation from automatic bank machines to football bleachers be accessible to individuals with disabilities.

SPEEDBUMP—The next time you go to a restaurant or sporting event see how many accommodations you can identify.

No Child Left Behind Act

On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. This reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act set challenging new academic standards for the education of this country’s youth. The Act is based on four education reform principles:

1. Stronger school accountability is needed for student improved learning.

2. Local schools need increased flexibility in order to respond to specific student needs.

3. Expanded options should be made available to parents.

4. Teaching methods should have a strong positive research basis. (

www.nclb.gov

)

Throughout the 670-page document a central theme is repeated: Schools and teachers are accountable for the academic achievement of all students including those who receive special education services. Some highlights of NCLB in relationship to special education students are:

1. Students with disabilities must be included in each state’s new accountability system.

2. State plans must be coordinated with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

3. Academic standards apply to all students including those with disabilities.

4. Special education students must meet each state’s proficient level of academic achievement by 2014.

5. States must report graduation rates for students with disabilities and at least one other academic indicator.

In December of 2004, President George W. Bush signed the reauthorized IDEA into law. The provisions of the act became effective on July 1, 2005, with the exception of some of the elements pertaining to the definition of a “highly qualified teacher” that took effect upon the signing of the act. The final regulations were published on August 14, 2006, and required the alignment of IDEA and the NCLB (

U.S. Department of Education,

2007

). From early beginnings in isolation and discrimination, individuals with disabilities have taken their rightful place in the mainstream of the U.S. education system.

SPEEDBUMP—A child comes home from his first day of school. His mother asks, “Well, what did you learn today?” The kid replies, “Not enough. They want me to come back tomorrow.”

At-Risk Students. By now it should be clear that legal mandates to educate and provide services to individuals with disabilities have been the driving force to provide equal opportunities for all school-aged children. The IDEA is being reviewed continually in state and federal courts. For example, overrepresentation of African American students in special classes and the use of IQ tests to identify African Americans and Hispanics as mildly “retarded” have been scrutinized by federal courts. Such key provisions as “appropriate education” and “nondiscriminatory assessment” also have spurred important judicial decisions.

Table 1.2

lists some court cases that have shaped refinements of special education services to students with mild disabilities.

TABLE 1.2 Selected Judicial Decisions Since Passage of Public Law 94–142 Focus on Students with Mild Disabilities

1975

Issac Lora et al. v. The Board of Education of New York et al. Nondiscriminatory assessment procedures must be used when placing minority students with emotional problems in special education programs.

1976

Frederich L. v. Thomas (Philadelphia). Class action suit that reaffirmed the right of students with learning disabilities to have appropriate education programs.

1979

Larry P. v. Riles (California). Intelligence tests banned in California when assessing African American students as mildly retarded. Disproportionate numbers of African American students were placed in special classes for the mildly retarded.

1981

Luke S. and Hans S. v. Nixe et al. (Louisiana). Prereferral interventions, curriculum-based assessment, and direct classroom interventions were mandated for students with mild disabilities.

1982

Board of Education of the Henrick Hudson School System v. Rowley. This Supreme Court decision clarified “appropriate” education by determining that the intent of P.L. 94–142 is to open the doors of public schools to students with disabilities, not to provide opportunities for students to reach maximum potential. Due process procedures to determine an appropriate education were reaffirmed by the Court.

1984

Smith v. Robinson. This Supreme Court decision restricted the ability of students and their families to recover legal fees incurred in due process hearings. This decision was negated in 1986 when Congress passed the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act, which restored the courts’ authority to award legal fees to parents who succeed in lawsuits or administrative hearings.

1984

Marshall et al. v. Georgia. Judge Edenfiel ruled that the overrepresentation of African Americans in special classes was not discriminatory. In his view, lower socioeconomic conditions rather than discriminatory assessment and placement practices was the reason African American students were placed in programs for the mildly mentally retarded. This was the first court case that highlighted the need to include a measure of adaptive behavior within the classroom as part of the criteria for determining mild intellectual disability.

1985

Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts. The Supreme Court found that parents had the right to public school reimbursement of private school tuition if the public school program rejected by parents was inappropriate.

1988

Honig v. Doe. The Supreme Court decreed that school systems may not unilaterally exclude children with disabilities from the classroom for dangerous or disruptive behavior. Any programmatic changes because of behavior disturbances must follow due process procedures outlined in P.L. 94–142. In drastic situations the school can suspend a student for up to 10 days.

1989

Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education. District and appeals courts upheld the hearing officer’s decision that general education curriculum was beyond abilities of a student with retardation and that he would receive little benefit from mainstreaming. The courts found that for some children placement in general education environment would not provide a free appropriate education.

1990

Moore v. District of Columbia. Reversing an earlier decision, the federal appeals court ruled that prevailing parents were entitled to recover attorney fees when a final resolution of their special education dispute came at the administrative hearing level.

1993

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District. The court held that provision of a sign language interpreter in a parochial school was not an entitlement under IDEA; the decision was reversed in a finding that services of an interpreter were part of a general government program that distributed benefits to any child qualifying for services regardless of the school the student attended.

1997

K.R. v. Anderson Community School Corp. The Seventh Circuit court decided that a student with severe disabilities was not entitled to a publicly funded personal assistant while attending a parochial school. The ruling set forth that under the IDEA, students with disabilities who choose to attend religious school need not receive the full range of services they would receive if they attended public school, but they must receive some services.

1999

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. During the school day, Garret required services of a specially trained nurse because of his health needs. The school district, believing that they were not obligated under IDEA to provide continuous nursing care, refused to provide the services. The Supreme Court held that the school district had to pay for the nursing services required by Garret when he was at school.

2003

Lewisville Independent School District v. Charles W. and Gay W. ex rel. Charles W. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that an intellectually superior 7th grader with pervasive developmental disorder received FAPE, despite the parents’ belief that the child could make better grades and should attend a private school for children with disabilities. The court determined that his IEP was individualized, addressed all his special needs, and resulted in both academic and nonacademic progress.

2004

C.J. v. Indian River County School Board. The court agreed with the hearing officer’s determination that a student presenting with bipolar disorder and oppositional defiance disorder was not eligible for special education because there was no support for a finding of emotional disturbance. Although the student exhibited behavior and feelings that were inappropriate under normal circumstances, the behaviors were intermittent in the school setting. The student’s behavioral problems, suspensions, and hospitalizations did not interfere with her learning and she performed well, above average in most of her classes. Unilateral placement in a residential facility was largely for noneducational reasons.

Unreported in the special education data are at-risk students who may or may not have received some type of compensatory education. At risk is the phrase used for students who fall through the cracks between special education and general education. Unless a student is found eligible under IDEA for learning disabilities, emotional disorders, or intellectual disability (or other exceptionality listed in IDEA), the youngster is not required to have an individualized educational program. Additionally, the disability must interfere with school progress. The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA allows schools to use up to 15 percent of special education funds for underperforming students in general education classrooms.

SPEEDBUMP—In IDEA, the term mental retardation is used; throughout this text we use the term “intellectual disability.” The explanation is in Chapter 3. In the meantime can you figure out why the authors prefer intellectual disability rather than mental retardation?

Several categories of children with disabilities are at risk. Even though they have a condition or a documented disability, they may not be eligible for special education as defined in IDEA. For instance, a child with an emotional disorder may not meet the federal criteria for “intensity and degree,” or, despite an emotional problem, a student might be making adequate grades.

Many students are protected under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, they are not covered by the stringent procedural safeguards available under IDEA. The safeguards include the right to remain in the current placement, nondiscriminatory evaluation, an individualized educational plan, an impartial determination as to the appropriate placement, and other due process protections (

Rothstein, 1995

Youth with social maladjustments (e.g., incarcerated youth) do not qualify for special education under IDEA unless a disability is documented. There is disagreement over whether to identify or even attempt to separate youth with social maladjustments from other youth who meet the federal definition of emotional disturbance.

ADHD. Another category of children who require significant assistance in schools, but for whom there is no category in special education, are those with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders (ADHD). In order to assess public opinion about whether ADHD should be a separate special education disability, the 1990 amendments to IDEA required that the U.S. Department of Education solicit comments about the issue. It was decided that this condition would not become a separate disability category under IDEA. Several reasons were given, including the fact that many youngsters with ADHD qualify for special education services as learning disabled. Some youngsters with ADHD receive special education services under the category “other health impairments.”

Youth who are addicted to drugs and alcohol are protected under IDEA only if they qualify for special education and related services under one of the disability categories.

These students, like other categories described, are at risk, and although they do not qualify for special education under IDEA, they are entitled to protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA.

What determines whether a person is entitled to protection under Section 504? The individual must meet the definition of a person with a disability, which is

any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life activities, (ii) has a record of such an impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment.

If the person meets the definition of a person with a disability under Section 504, “reasonable accommodations” must be made by recipients of federal financial assistance. Public school systems receive this assistance, so teachers must make accommodations that are educationally beneficial for these students. The usual remedy when a violation of Section 504 is proved is the termination of federal assistance, which means loss of federal funding to the school system.

WHO RECEIVES SPECIAL EDUCATION?

In the United States, school-aged children with disabilities are entitled to a free, appropriate public education. It is illegal to discriminate against individuals with disabilities. An individual cannot be denied an education or a job because of a disability. Special education is mandated to provide services to students who have been identified as unable to progress effectively in the general classroom as a result of that disability. It is important to note that the presence of a disability alone is not sufficient reason to initiate special education services. Special education is warranted only after all attempts to help a youngster within the confines of the general classroom have proved ineffective.

In the first textbook dealing with the “education of exceptional children,” Horn (

) observed that mental, temperamental, and physical differences were the bases for some students needing special education. Today, many states organize their special education departments along similar categorical lines. A category is a descriptor or label assigned to a group of students. Although the names of the categories vary slightly from state to state, special education is generally provided for children within each of the following categories:

1. Students with visual impairments or blindness

2. Students with hearing impairments or deafness

3. Students with deafness and blindness

4. Students with orthopedic impairments

5. Students with multiple disabilities

6. Students with language or speech impairments

7. Students with learning disabilities

8. Students with emotional disturbances

9. Students with mental retardation

10. Students with autism

11. Students with traumatic brain injury

12. Students with developmental delay

13. Students with health impairments

Physical/Sensory Disabilities

Special learning needs in areas of physical abilities (e.g., seeing, hearing, moving) are the basis for several categories of students with special needs. Most of us take normal vision and hearing for granted. The expression “20/20 vision” is used to describe normal visual functioning. Vision is measured by having people read letters or discriminate objects at a distance of 20 feet. The task is not difficult for most people. There are people, however, who must stand closer to see what others see easily from 20 feet away. These differences in visual functioning are the basis of deciding whether a student is blind or visually impaired. There are also people who even at a louder volume cannot hear what can easily be heard by the majority. Between normal hearing and deafness are various degrees of hearing loss, and it is these differences in degrees of hearing that are the basis for another category of exceptional students (i.e., deaf or hearing impaired).

How different does vision or hearing have to be before a person is considered blind or deaf? A person who, even with correction (e.g., glasses), must be 20 feet from a target that a person with normal vision can see at 200 feet or more is considered blind. People with corrected vision better than 20/200 but not better than 20/70 are considered visually impaired. Ability to hear is measured along two scales: intensity and frequency. Intensity or loudness is measured in decibels (dB), and frequency or pitch is measured in hertz (cycles per second). Moores (1982) defines deaf and hard of hearing in terms of the effects on hearing loss:

A deaf person is one whose hearing is disabled to an extent (usually 70 dB or greater) that precludes the understanding of speech through the ear alone, without or with the use of a hearing aid. A hard of hearing person is one whose hearing is disabled to an extent (usually

–69 dB) that makes difficult, but does not preclude, the understanding of speech through the ear alone, without or with a hearing aid. (p. 17)

For practical purposes, deafness means the absence of hearing in both ears; people with deafness have great difficulty hearing conversational speech without the assistance of a hearing aid. People with hearing impairments experience significant difficulty in hearing.

There are other disabling conditions that are of a physical nature. For example, arthritis is a measurable inflammation of a joint that limits movement. Cerebral palsy is impaired motor function due to brain damage; it produces difficulties in motor control that are observable in movement of large and small muscle groups. Seizure disorder (i.e., epilepsy) is also a brain disorder that results in convulsive episodes and periods of unconsciousness.

Other health impairments

include severe orthopedic problems that adversely affect educational performance and limit strength, vitality, or alertness. Special education may be provided to people with physical differences caused by congenital anomalies (e.g., spina bifida) as well as other general health and physical problems (e.g., heart disease, asthma, diabetes, traumatic brain injury, autism).

Intellectual Disabilities

Differences in intellectual performance or mental abilities are the bases for identifying a special need. To be considered intellectually disabled, an individual must demonstrate sub-average intellectual functioning and delayed social development. Intelligence tests frequently are used to determine if an individual’s intellectual performance is below that of peers. Students with scores from 50 to 75 on an intelligence test fall within the mild range of intellectual disability. Students with more complex forms of intellectual disability are categorized as mildly, moderately, severely, or profoundly disabled. Besides the differences in severity linked to IQ scores, students with moderate to profound intellectual disability usually have communication and health problems. We refer to these students as having a developmental disability because they have serious physical and medical complications that are identified by a physician at birth or soon afterwards.

Students with intellectual disabilities demonstrate deficits in adaptive behavior (i.e., social development). Adaptive behavior generally refers to the way in which an individual functions in his or her community. As with intelligence tests, adaptive behavior evaluations are based on age-group comparisons. Formalized inventories of functional abilities (such as dressing oneself, using the telephone, or independently moving about the neighborhood) help educational evaluators determine adaptive behavior. Any determination of intellectual disability must include a measure of intelligence and a measure of adaptive behavior skills.

Just as there are students with low intelligence test scores, there also are students whose intellectual performance is above that of their classmates. Historically, giftedness was determined by high IQ test scores. This approach is no longer favored by many educators because intelligence tests sample too narrow a range of abilities. Creativity, musical talent, leadership skills, and problem-solving abilities are a sample of talents not measurable through intelligence testing. More recently, experts in the field of giftedness recommend a multidimensional approach to establishing criteria for identification of students with special gifts or talents. According to Renzulli, Reis, and Smith (1981), in order to be identified as gifted, students should demonstrate:

1. High ability including measured intelligence evaluation

2. Creativity in the development and implementation of innovative ideas

3. High task commitment—perseverance or diligence

Students with special talents are not viewed as needing special education services; consequently, they do not receive federally mandated special education.

HIGHLIGHT 1.2

Evan is a 14-year-old resident of a Catholic residential facility for youngsters who require child care in Syracuse, New York. Tall and athletic, Evan is a leader among the other boys. Mark Costello, a first-year child care worker, describes his response to Evan’s invitation to come see the puzzle he has just completed.

As Evan led me over to a card table sitting in the middle of the living room, it was obvious how proud he was of his accomplishment. Eager to lavish him with praise, I looked down at the table to see the three hundred jigsaw pieces carefully connected after many evenings of effort. Pride quickly turned to confusion, however, when it became apparent that the picture was face down on the card table.

“What picture, Mr. Cos?” Evan asked.

“Do you see the picture on the top of the box the pieces came in, my friend?” I asked.

“Sure, what about it?”

“Well, that picture is now upside down on this card table and you, old buddy, have just completed one heck of a tough task.”

While the other boys were trying to read Evan’s reaction to this perplexing bit of news, I began to internalize my first real lesson about the significance of intellectual disability. Naïve but determined, he had stuck to a task few if any youths of normal intelligence could tolerate. Was this just a glimpse of his true potential? How hard it was that night to convince Evan of how proud we were of his somewhat tarnished accomplishment.

SPEEDBUMP—Do you think federal law should mandate special education programs for gifted children?

Gifted programs exist in some school systems because of state or local leadership and funding. Four groups of students are underrepresented in gifted education programs: culturally different, female, disabled, and underachieving (

Patton, Kauffman, Blackbourn, & Brown, 1991

How different do measures of intelligence have to be before an individual is considered intellectually disabled or gifted? Differences in scores on intelligence tests and measures of adaptive behavior are evaluated in the same way as differences in scores on hearing, vision, or physical performance tests. Standards for normal intelligence and adaptive behavior are set by testing large groups of individuals. Professionals then set criteria for intellectual disability or giftedness that are based on mean intelligence scores and adaptive behavior ratings. For example, the common standard for normal performance is a score of 90–110 on an intelligence test; scores below 75 or above 1

are generally considered indicative of intellectual disability and giftedness. It is important to remember that special education services for students identified as gifted are not mandated by federal legislation.

Figure 1.3

traces the normal curve distribution of IQ scores.

FIGURE 1.3 Normal Curve Distribution of IQ Scores

Academic Disabilities

With the categories of intellectual disability and gifted, it is assumed that the individual’s performance on achievement tests will be consistent with the performance on intelligence tests. This means that if a student obtains a high score on an intelligence test, high performance on an achievement test also is expected. If students perform poorly on intelligence tests, it is expected that their achievement test scores also will be low. There are students whose performance on achievement tests is not consistent with their performance on intelligence tests. When the difference between ability (e.g., intelligence test performance) and achievement (e.g., reading, math) is significant, the student may be identified as learning disabled. Students with learning disabilities comprise one-half of the entire special education population.

SPEEDBUMP—Why do you suppose so many students are identified as learning disabled as compared to the other disability categories?

How different do scores on ability tests and scores on achievement tests have to be before a student is classified as learning disabled? Although officials of the federal government have provided guidelines for use in identifying students with learning disabilities, no specific criteria have been provided for judging when discrepancies between ability and achievement are severe enough to call a student learning disabled.

Students are considered eligible for special education if they meet guidelines spelled out in state regulations. Due to a lack of consistent criteria between and within states, it is likely that many students in special education programs for students with learning disabilities are misidentified.

Communication Disabilities

Just as there are differences in the reading, writing, and mathematical skills of students, there are also differences in the ways students speak and express themselves. Some people speak clearly, enunciating each part of their speech. Others speak quickly, making it difficult for listeners to understand them. Some children use speech as a means of making their desires, feelings, and opinions known. Others are less adept at verbalizing personal needs. There are accepted ages at which children are expected to demonstrate the use of various forms of communication. For example, most children understand approximately one thousand words, combine their words into simple sentences, and understand concepts related to language (e.g., on, off, later) by the time they are 2 years old. By the age of 7, children are expected to use culturally acceptable grammar when speaking; language at this age is much like that used by family and friends. Differences in language and communication skills are measured by performance on tests and classroom observations of student interaction. Differences in language development and communication skills commonly are observed in children of all ages. When these differences adversely affect educational performance, the individual may be entitled to special services provided for students with language impairments.

How different does language have to be before a student is considered language impaired? Many students in this category receive special services for such problems as lisping, stuttering, and mispronunciation of individual words (e.g., they say “wabbit” instead of “rabbit,” “pasketti” instead of “spaghetti,” or “bud” for “bird”). Some of these students have voice tones that are too low, too high, too nasal, too harsh, or too hoarse. There are no absolute standards for determining when an individual’s speech is “too” nasal or “too” harsh or when it will adversely affect educational performance. When speech mannerisms cause difficulties for the listener, a student may be referred for speech therapy. Some teachers are more adept than others at understanding differences in the language produced by their students. Similarly, the context in which speech occurs influences the judgments made about it. Recent government figures indicate that there are more students in this category than in any other besides learning disabilities. This is probably not surprising for a category based on differences in speech clarity or tone.

Emotionally Disturbed

Just as standards for normal intellectual performance have evolved within the educational system, standards for how students should act in school and society also have evolved. Standards for normal behavior are based more on what is judged acceptable in a specific setting than on judgments about how an individual performs on a test. Demonstrating intellectual performance that is sufficiently above or below normal is the basis for being identified as gifted or mentally retarded. Demonstrating unacceptable behavior in school is the basis for being identified with behavior disorders or emotional disturbance.

Just how different does behavior have to be before a student is considered emotionally disturbed? Based on what you have learned about the other conditions of special education, your answer may be “behavior that is significantly different from the behavior of their peers.” You are right, but you will have trouble explaining behavioral differences. There are no numerical standards for normal behavior. There are no tests to measure the normality of behavior. Classroom observations by teachers carry the most weight in identifying students with emotional/behavior disorders. However, what is acceptable behavior for one classroom may not be acceptable in another, and what is acceptable behavior for one teacher is not necessarily acceptable for another.

Many students with emotional problems sit undetected in general education classrooms. Although 1 percent of students receive special education services because of emotional disturbance, mental health experts estimate that from 6 to 10 percent of the school-aged population have an emotional problem serious enough to warrant mental health care. Chief among these emotional problems are depression, posttraumatic stress disorder secondary to abuse and attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (Forness, 2001).

HOW MANY STUDENTS RECEIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION?

Since 1976, the U.S. Department of Education has maintained a database on the number of children with disabilities served in special education programs. In 1990, several of the disability category labels within IDEA were revised: learning disabled was changed to specific learning disabilities, mentally retarded became mental retardation, and hard-of-hearing and deaf were combined to become hearing impairments; in other revisions to the regulations, multihandicapped was changed to multiple disabilities, and autism, traumatic brain injury, and developmental delay were added as separate categories.

More than six million students aged 3 to 21 receive special education services in public school or private settings (Twenty-seventh Annual Report to Congress). In thinking about the number of students involved, consider that it is about the same as the total full-time undergraduate enrollment in all U.S. colleges and universities. The number of students who receive special education is more than the combined population of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming.

TABLE 1.3 Growth in Numbers of Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA

DISABILITY CATEGORY	1991–1992	2000–2001	2003–2004
Specific learning disability	2,247,004	2,887,217	2,866,908
Speech or language impairments	9 98,904	1,093,808	1,129,260
Mental retardation	55 3,262	6 12,978	5 82,663
Emotional disturbance	4 00,211	473,663	484,479
Multiple disabilities	98,408	122,559	132,645
Hearing impairments	60,727	7 0,767	72,048
Orthopedic impairments	51,389	73,057	68,234
Other health impairments	58,749	291,850	452,442
Visual impairments	24,083	25,975	25,879
Autism	5,415	78,749	141,002
Deaf-blindness	1,427	1,320	1,670
Traumatic brain injury	245	14,844	22,534
Developmental delay	28,935	66,267
All disabilities	4,499,824	5, 77 5,722	6,046,031
Percent with specific learning disabilities, mental retardation, or emotional disturbance	71	69	65
Percent with specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairments, intellectual disability, or emotional disturbance	93	88	84

Note: Reporting in the autism and traumatic brain injury categories was optional in 1991–1992 and required beginning in 1992–1993; developmental delay category is available only for children under age 10. The table does not include students receiving special education early intervention or preschool services.

There has been a steady increase in the number of students aged 6 to 21 receiving special education services. In 1992, 4,499,824 school-aged students were placed in special education programs; in 2003, the overall figure had increased to 6,046,031 students (see

Table 1.3

). Included in this figure are 269,596 children ages birth to 2 who received early intervention services and 680,142 children aged 3 through 5 who received preschool services; the total number of children benefitting from special education in 2000 was 6,995,789 (

U.S. Department of Education,

2007b

). The number of students classified with specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairments, intellectual disability, and emotional disturbance has decreased in recent years, while the number with multiple disabilities, other health impairments (including ADHD), and autism has increased. In 2003, for all racial/ethnic groups, the largest disability category was specific learning disabilities (

U.S. Department of Education, 2007b

). Specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairments, intellectual disability, and other health impairments were among the five largest disability categories for all racial/ethnic groups. Autism appeared in the top five disability categories only for the Asian/Pacific Islander racial/ethnic group. The percentage of the population receiving special education and related services varies by race/ethnicity. In 2003, the percentage receiving special education (i.e., risk index) was largest for American Indian/Alaska Native students (13.8 percent), followed by black (12.4 percent), white (8.7 percent), Hispanic (8.2 percent), and Asian/Pacific Islander (4.5 percent) students. The average cost to educate a student with a disability is $12,639 per year (

U.S. Department of Education, 2002

). Reasons for the increase in students identified as having special needs include the following:

1. Poverty-related issues, such as inadequate health care

2. An increase in cultural and linguistic diversity in the schools

3. An increase in the numbers of students identified with specific learning disabilities

4. The addition of new categories of students eligible for special education

5. Variations in school referral and evaluation procedures

Special education’s growth has continued to increase the demand for special education teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 1999; 2007b).

The growth of special education services has caused other problems. For example, school personnel have to decide how to pay for the increasing numbers of students. Because the cost of educating students with special needs may come at the expense of educating students in general education, school personnel face hard choices when allocating funds. The growth of special education is attributed directly to passage of the IDEA, which mandates a “free and appropriate public education” for all students with disabilities.

For years many school districts organized their special education programs along categorical lines (e.g., emotionally disturbed, learning disabled). Recently public schools have made a greater effort to include students with disabilities in general education classrooms. The “inclusion” movement is based on the premise that students with disabilities will make greater progress if they are allowed to learn alongside peers without disabilities. The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA stated that special education students should be educated in general education classrooms to the maximum appropriate extent. Inclusion efforts continue to show results. During the 1984–1985 school year, only 25 percent of students with disabilities aged 6–21 spent more than 80 percent of their day in general education classrooms. By 1998–1999, almost half of all students with disabilities spent more than 80 percent of their time in general education classrooms and this figure has remained constant for many years (

U.S. Department of Education, 2001

; 2007b). Unfortunately, the inclusion trend is not without problems. Forty-two percent of general education teachers feel inclusion is “not workable” due to deficiencies in teacher attitude, teacher preparation, and administrative support (

Henley, 2004

SPEEDBUMP—Because of the constant rise in the special education population, the demand for teachers licensed in special education continues to grow as well.

STUDENTS WITH MILD DISABILITIES

Many people experience mild vision, hearing, or other physical problems but they are not typically among those receiving special education services. Students with mild disabilities who do receive special education are those typically included in the federal categories of specific learning disabilities, intellectual disability, and emotional disturbance. Students with language or communication impairments is another large category of mild disabilities; however, because their difficulties are primarily treated by speech clinicians rather than teachers in general or special education classrooms, information about them is not included in this book.

We do not use the term mild disabilities to imply that these students do not have serious learning problems or that their problems are less important than those of other students. We use this term for these students because many of their characteristics overlap, many of the interventions used with them are effective with all of them, and many of them can be educated effectively in general education classrooms with support rather than full-time assistance from special education teachers. The three mild disabilities are mild intellectual, learning disability, and emotional disturbance.

Students classified with learning disabilities, mild intellectual disability, or emotional disturbance account for about than two-thirds of all students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2007b), and they share many characteristics. For example, students with learning disabilities often have problems with reading comprehension, language development, interpersonal relations, and classroom behavioral control (

Lerner, 2000

). These same characteristics are common in teacher descriptions of students receiving special education in the categories of mild intellectual disability and emotional disturbance.

If you think that these characteristics also can be found in students who do not receive special education services, you are correct. It is a thin and sometimes arbitrary line that separates students with mild disabilities from other students. Many classroom problems are interactional: the result of a mismatch between teaching and learning style. The behavior, expectations, and attitude of the general classroom teacher is a key component in determining whether a student is referred and evaluated as having a mild disability. For example, some characteristics of learning disabilities, such as dyslexia (i.e., an impairment in reading ability), are neurologically based; other characteristics, such as distractibility, can be based on teacher perception of student performance. A student with dyslexia will be dyslexic in every classroom; on the other hand, a student identified as distractible and hyperactive in one teacher’s classroom may have less difficulty attending in another classroom. How can this happen? Some teachers are more adept at engaging students in their schoolwork than others. In special education, never underestimate the power of good teaching to “cure” a mild disability.

Whether it helps students with mild disabilities to be categorized is controversial. Over the years, each of the three subgroups of mild disabilities has been separated by distinct identification criteria, different teaching methods, teacher certificates linked to a single disability, and different special education placements. Each category is represented by separate professional organizations and advocacy groups and their efforts influence the number and types of services provided to students with disabilities. The American Association for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities and the Council of Children with Behavior Disorders are two examples of disability-specific organizations. Researchers develop expertise within a single category of mild disabilities and report their findings in journals that specialize in intellectual disability, learning disabilities, or emotional disturbance.

Still, students who are placed in different categories of mild disabilities share many common traits. Lack of interest in school and low motivation are two traits displayed by many youngsters categorized as having a mild disability. It also is clear that instructional practices proved effective for students in one category of mild disabilities can be useful with students within another category. Such instructional strategies as peer tutoring, phonemic awareness, and cooperative learning can help students learn regardless of how their mild disability is categorized.

There are advantages and disadvantages to classifying students by specific categories of mild disabilities. Special educators sometimes use the term “labeling” to describe this categorization process. Is it a good idea to label students? We will present the facts about both sides of this issue. Ultimately you will need to make your own professional decision about labeling students with such terms as intellectual disability, learning disabilities, and emotional disturbance. Whether to place a student into a mild disability category is an issue you will be faced with throughout your career as a teacher.

Previous section

Next section

LABELING

Students identified as having problems in school either will meet eligibility criteria for special education services or will be unofficially labeled with such negative adjectives as “lazy,” “unmotivated,” “slow learner,” or “behavior problem.” In the latter case, neither the teacher nor the student will get help. The student will remain in general education and most likely continue to fail in school. There is an increased probability that the student will eventually drop out of school (see

Figure 1.4

FIGURE 1.4 Children with Disabilities Remain at Risk

Sources:

U.S. Department of Education, 2004

; U.S. Department of Education, 2002.

In most states, a student is identified as requiring special education when school evaluation data match the student with a specific disability category that is outlined by state education regulations. This classification process assumes that assigning a student a categorical name implies knowledge about the characteristics of the student’s learning problem. This categorical approach to providing help has been roundly criticized by many educators who claim that labeling a student does more harm than good. What students are called determines what services they receive and where they will receive them. Because this classification process alters the school experience of many students, professionals have researched and described the advantages and disadvantages of the labeling associated with it.

Advantages of Labeling

The advantages of labeling were more obvious in the formative years of special education (mid-1940s to early 1970s) than they are now. For instance, without the category of learning disabilities, advocates for these children would have had no rallying point to promote educational programs. Imagine how ineffective scientists would be in raising money for cancer research if they had no name for it. The advantages of labeling can be summarized as follows:

1. Federal and local funding of special education programs are based on categories of disabilities.

2. Labeling enables professionals to communicate with one another because each categorical label conveys a general idea about learning characteristics.

3. The human mind requires “mental hooks” to think about problems. If present categorical labels were abolished, a new set of descriptors would evolve to take their place. There is ample evidence of this in the evolution of the term “mildly retarded.”

4. Labeling the disability spotlights the problem for the public. Labeling can spark social concern and aid advocacy efforts.

5. Labeling may make the majority without disabilities more tolerant of the minority with disabilities. In other words, the actions of a child identified as having intellectual disability might be tolerated, whereas the behavior of a peer without intellectual disability would be criticized.

6. Labeling has led to the development of specialized teaching methods, assessment approaches, and behavioral interventions that are useful for teachers of all students. (

Hallahan & Kauffman, 1982

)

DISADVANTAGES OF LABELING

Because of IDEA, students with disabilities have made significant gains in public schools. These advances have been accompanied by problems inherent in officially designating someone abnormal. Make no mistake about it; these labels stick. Once a child is categorized with intellectual disability, emotional disturbance, or learning disabilities, that information will be forwarded to every new teacher in the child’s cumulative folder. Along with the label comes the stigma of being considered deficient. For this reason alone, assigning a student to a category for special education purposes is a fateful step that should not be taken unless all other options have proved unsuccessful. The disadvantages of labeling are summarized as follows:

1. Labels shape teacher expectations. Imagine what your reaction would be if the principal informed you that the new student in your class is mildly mentally retarded. Studies on teacher expectations have demonstrated that what teachers believe about student capability is directly related to student achievement.

2. All children have some troubling behaviors. Labels can exaggerate a student’s actions in the eyes of a teacher. A teacher may overreact to behavior of a labeled child that would be tolerated in another.

3. Labels send a clear message: The learning problem is with the student. Labels tend to obscure the essence of teaching and learning as a two-way street. Some students placed in a mild disability category have nothing wrong with them. They are the unfortunate recipients of ineffective schooling.

4. Labels perpetuate the notion that students with mild disabilities are qualitatively different from other children. This is not true. Students with mild disabilities go through the same developmental stages as their peers, although sometimes at a slower rate.

5. Teachers may confuse the student with the label. Labels reflect categories of disabilities. Categories are abstract, not real, concepts that are general enough to incorporate many different individuals. More than two million students may be identified with specific learning disabilities, but as individuals, each is a unique human being. When a student is placed in a category, a teacher who knows some of the characteristics of a category may ascribe all known characteristics to each labeled child. This is stereotyping. Stereotypes harm students when teachers rationalize low achievement by citing characteristics of the label. An example is the teacher who explains away a teaching-learning problem by stating, “We can’t really expect Mary to remember too much math because she is ‘intellectually disabled.’”

6. Students cannot receive special education services until they are labeled. In many instances, the intervention comes too late. The need to label students before help arrives undermines a preventive approach to mild learning problems.

7. Diagnostic labels are unreliable. Educational evaluation is filled with quirks. States use different descriptive criteria for the same categories; many evaluation instruments have questionable validity and reliability; specific labels go through trends (for example, at one time learning disabilities was considered a white, middle class category and African American students were overrepresented with mild intellectual disability).

8. Labels often put the blame (and the guilt) for a student’s learning problems squarely on the parents’ shoulders. In many cases, this is unjustified because students may be mislabeled or teachers may not fully understand the many different causes of mild disabilities

WHAT TO TEACH STUDENTS

The purpose of IDEA is to ensure that all students with special needs receive a free and appropriate education—however, Congress did not define what it meant by the term “appropriate.” The legislators recognized that there is no one instructional approach that is best. Instead they viewed appropriate as a process rather than a product. Whether a program is appropriate is based on the ability of the school system and parents to work out a mutually acceptable individualized education program.

Individual Education Program

An individualized education program (IEP) must be written for each student receiving special education. Special education includes many services related to classroom instruction, such as transportation, occupational therapy, counseling, and adaptive equipment. Assessed instructional needs of each student determine the areas for which an IEP is developed.

Each school district may develop its own IEP format as long as the required information is included. The IEP must be developed within a meeting by participants stipulated by legislation. The IEP team is a group of individuals composed of:

1. The student’s parents or guardians

2. At least one general education teacher (if the child is, or may be, participating in the general education environment)

3. At least one special education teacher, or, where appropriate, at least one special education provider of such child

4. A representative of the local educational agency who is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of individuals with disabilities; is knowledgeable about general curriculum; and is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the local educational agency

5. An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results

6. At the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the student, including related services personnel as appropriate

7. Whenever appropriate, the student

SPEEDBUMP—If you ever get an opportunity to attend an IEP meeting, take advantage of it. You will learn a lot about what it is like from a parent’s point of view to have a child in special education.

In the case of students with mild disabilities, the IEP is usually determined by the portion of the general education curriculum with which a student is having difficulty. A student with a specific learning disability might have an IEP that emphasizes reading and mathematics. A student with emotional disturbance would have an IEP that emphasizes self-control and adjustment to classroom routines. An adolescent with mild intellectual disability might have an IEP that describes vocational goals and objectives.

WHERE TO TEACH STUDENTS

When Congress passed IDEA, the media hailed it as a mainstreaming law. This caused considerable concern among teachers and administrators who feared this would lead to dumping students with disabilities into general classrooms. News people inadvertently misled the public. The term “mainstreaming” is not mentioned in the law. Congress believed that students with disabilities should be educated with students without disabilities whenever feasible. The law states that students should be educated in the least restrictive environment. The intent of the least restrictive environment mandate is to assure that students are not segregated because of their disabilities and to give them every opportunity to have a normal school experience. More restrictive settings, such as self-contained special classes and residential programs, should be utilized only when a student’s needs are so complex that he or she would not receive an appropriate education in a less-restrictive environment. Evelyn Deno’s Cascade of Services (

Figure 1.5

) provides a visual representation of the relationship between least and most restrictive settings. Level I is least restrictive. Each succeeding level establishes more distance between special and general education services.

FIGURE 1.5 Cascade of Services

Council for Exceptional Children

. Reprinted with permission.

It is the responsibility of each school system to provide a continuum of educational services ranging from least to most restrictive. We will briefly describe the types of special education services you can expect a school system to provide.

General Education Classroom Placement

Placement in the general education classroom with supportive services (e.g., materials, consultation, team teaching) is the least restrictive environment in the hierarchy of services. If a student spends less than 21 percent of the school day outside the general classroom receiving special instruction, the federal government defines the placement as a general classroom. Students with learning disabilities usually spend most of their day in the general classroom. Full-time placement in general education often is described as an inclusion program. Speech clinicians, social workers, special education teachers, and school psychologists may consult with the general classroom teacher on student needs and progress.

SPEEDBUMP—If you visit an inclusion program, take note of how often special education students are actually included in normal classroom routines.

Resource Room Placement

Resource rooms are commonly referred to as pull-out programs. The resource room is a special education classroom located within the student’s school. A youngster goes to the resource room on a scheduled basis to receive tutorial help from a special education teacher. Students may spend from 21 to 60 percent of their school day in a resource room. Typically, resource room teachers teach fundamental skills and/or tutor students in the academic subjects that were the source of the referral. It is the resource room teacher’s job to take a lead role in the development and implementation of IEPs for students placed in this setting. The majority of students who receive resource room help remain in the general classroom for most of their school day (U.S. Department of Education, 2002; 2007b).

Special Class Placement

Special classes are self-contained programs located in a public school system. They are sometimes called segregated programs because only students with disabilities are enrolled. Students are usually grouped in special classes by categories of disability. The special class is the most criticized of special education placements when it is used for students with mild disabilities. Although students with specific learning disabilities are not usually placed in special classes, students with mild intellectual disability and especially emotional disturbance sometimes are placed in these programs.

Special Day School Placement

Alternative high school programs, special education early childhood programs, and private day programs are examples of special day school placements. Students are transported to these special education programs at the school system’s expense. Public school systems sometimes contract with private vendors to provide special education services for students with low-incidence disabilities such as autism or multiple disabilities. In addition to the disadvantages inherent in segregation, students who attend special day school programs may spend lengthy amounts of time being transported from home to program and back home again.

SPEEDBUMP—Why do you suppose students with emotional disturbance are placed in more separate special education classrooms than students with learning disabilities?

Homebound Programs

Students who are ill or require intensive medical services are educated by itinerant teachers at home. With the passage of P.L. 99–457 in 1986, incentives were created to develop individualized family service plans for infants and toddlers with disabilities at home. P.L. 99–457 (Handicapped Infant and Toddler Program, Part H) amended the Education for All Handicapped Children Act to extend special education services to preschoolers in the 1991 school year.

Other Domiciled Settings

Some hospitals have their own special education programs. Only a small percentage, less than 1 percent, of all special needs learners are restricted to hospital care (U.S. Department of Education, 1999; 2007b). More than 450,000 adolescents are incarcerated in correctional facilities across the country each year (

Margolis, 1988

). Many of these young people are from minorities and the uneducated. If a special need is identified, an incarcerated youth up to age 21 has the same right to special education services as students in the public school system. In their book Special Education in the Criminal Justice System (1987), Nelson, Rutherford, and Wolford suggest that this population is underserved and that there may be a higher prevalence of mild disabilities among prisoners than the general population. Within the past few decades, some special educators have argued that an adjudication of delinquency (i.e., socially maladjusted) may be a disability in itself (

Benson, Edwards, Rosell, & White, 1986

; U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Correctional facilities include prisons, jails, and detention centers. DiGangi, Perryman, and Rutherford (1990) reported that 42 percent of offenders in a state juvenile facility required special education.

Residential Programs

When a student requires intensive, around-the-clock treatment, residential programs are an option. Residential placements are expensive, however, and it can cost a school system over $50,000 a year to send one student to a residential facility for a year. One program for students with severe disabilities in Providence, Rhode Island, costs in excess of $135,000 a year. Ironically, the funding mechanisms in some states actually create incentives for such restrictive placements by providing reimbursements that increase in proportion to time in a special education program.

Blackman (1989) reported that in Illinois, “it frequently costs a school district less money to send a child to a private day, often a residential school, than educating the child within the school district” (p. 461). Illinois set aside money to fully reimburse school districts for room-and-board costs incurred as a result of residential placements. Despite the additional expense, residential placements cannot match the quality of public school special education programs. Private school teachers often are uncertified or inexperienced. They work longer hours (usually through the summer) and for less pay than public school teachers. Union representation, a sine qua non of public school life, is virtually nonexistent in private, residential facilities. In 1997, less than 1 percent of students with special needs were placed in residential programs (U.S. Department of Education, 1999; 2002; 2007b).

HIGHLIGHT 1.3
AN EDUCATIONAL OASIS ON RIKERS ISLAND

In the halls of the Adolescent Reception Detention Center on Rikers Island, there are rapists and muggers, murderers and thieves awaiting judgment—but when Sharon Jones looks at the teenagers there, she sees mechanics and writers, printers and scientists. “Whatever they might be to other people, to me they’re students,” said Ms. Jones, principal of the Rikers Island Educational Facility, a surprising oasis of order, possibility, and education for young men who mostly never before appreciated the value of school and who mostly never before bothered to attend. Ms. Jones believes that if the offenders at Rikers Island are not educated, “you might as well set a permanent place with them in a prison mess hall.” The school has a newspaper and a literary magazine that is printed in the school’s print shop. There are seven computer labs and an auto shop—and there is no violence.

“I was really into autos back at home, but I had the bad influence of my environment and I let it rule me,” said Danny, awaiting trial at Rikers Island. “Then I see my teacher in here and I think, ‘Oh man, I really made a mistake with my life.’ But if there was no auto shop here, I don’t think I would learn any lesson being incarcerated because I would have nothing to keep me interested” (

Fein, 1995

Previous section

Next section

HOW TO TEACH STUDENTS WITH MILD DISABILITIES

The laws and court decisions that mandate an appropriate educational program for youth with disabilities are equally beneficial for general education students. Working together, general and special educators can improve the education of all students. Some special educators have proposed a merger of general and special education. They believe that the splintering of educational services in schools has diminished efforts to help difficult-to-teach students (

Stainback, Stainback, & Forest, 1989

). If the ideal is the establishment of an appropriate education for students with disabilities, can this be accomplished in the general education classroom with collaborative efforts of general and special educators? The movement to educate all students together has addressed this concern and is discussed in more detail in

Chapter 6

Both general and special educators are aware that the education system is in a state of transition as educators determine the best strategies for helping students with mild disabilities. Therefore, the future focus may shift from where (setting) and why (rights) students are placed in special education to a focus on how to educate successfully those students who are difficult to teach. Smith-Davis (1989a) defined the following factors as critical in making these decisions: (1) curriculum, (2) instruction, (3) methods, (4) materials, (5) options, (6) alternatives, and (7) instructional roles and relationships. In order to understand how these factors can make a difference in the realm of general education, it is necessary to understand the current status of the field.

Comparing General and Special Education

Many students end up in special education, not so much to meet unique individual needs but because special education is one of the few services available to help children unable to meet general education requirements (Sarason & Doris, 1979;

Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1982

; Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow, 2000). This practice neglects preventive efforts to solve classroom problems. Often, the only way a teacher can get help for a student (or for him- or herself) is to refer the youngster for special education evaluation.

There are differences between the two systems of general and special education. Basically, special education is adaptive to the individual needs of students. Concepts such as individualization, specialization, heterogeneity, and lifelong learning are among those that drive practices in special education. In contrast, general education is group oriented, global, norm referenced, and presents standardized curriculum.

Since 1975, special education has grown as a subsystem of general education. This growth has tended to accentuate differences between the two systems. Students have received special services, but not without cost. The stigma of being identified as deficient, along with a loss of general classroom instructional time, has pushed some students with mild disabilities further down the ladder of school success. If general and special educators can find ways to work together, the combination of knowledge and expertise will benefit all students. The following chapters will focus on the unique characteristics of students with mild disabilities. Using this knowledge as a base, in ensuing chapters we describe those strategies that can help general and special educators work more closely to assist students with mild disabilities in reaching their fullest potential.

Previous section

Next section

SUMMARY

Special education serves students with disabilities. Students with mild disabilities constitute the majority of students in special education programs. These students have problems and characteristics that make success in school difficult without special assistance. Students with mild disabilities have problems that are basically educational in nature. Today, more than two-thirds of the students served in special education programs are classified with specific learning disabilities, mild intellectual disability, or emotional disturbance.

Early special education programs sometimes consisted of isolated special classes or custodial placements that left much to be desired in terms of good instruction and sound educational practices. With the advent of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its subsequent supplements and amendments, special educators focused on providing appropriate education for students with mild disabilities. As a result of this monumental legislation, students who receive special services are entitled to education that is as much like normal as possible. Cooperation between general and special educators is the best strategy for ensuring the success of educational interventions for students with mild disabilities.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

BUILDING FAMILY PARTNERSHIPS

ADVANCE QUESTIONS
Answer the following questions as you read this chapter:

1. How do social and economic conditions affect the quality of life of children in the United States?

2. What are some barriers to family-school communication?

3. What are some ways that schools have overcome communication barriers that impede family member participation in their students’ schooling?

4. What is the emotional impact on family members of having a youngster with a mild disability?

5. What are some ways that family members can gain additional information about their role in their students’ schooling?

6. How do government-funded programs enhance opportunities for youth?

7. What are some due process rights of family members when a student is placed in a special education program?

VIGNETTE: EILEEN

Eileen slowly climbed the steps of the rundown, two-family house. She felt apprehensive in this poor neighborhood where every house seemed to need a new coat of paint. As she reached for the doorbell, Eileen reviewed why she was here.

Her student, Alexis, a pretty 12-year-old, seemed to be compensating for her weak academic skills by playing the role of class clown. Every time Eileen gave an assignment, Alexis had a comment. “You never showed us how to do this,” or “This is stupid; why do we have to do it?” were typical of the disturbing remarks Alexis directed at Eileen on a regular basis.

Perhaps this home visit would help. After a moment’s hesitation, Eileen knocked on the front door. Within a few seconds, the door swung open. Alexis stood in the doorway. “Hi, Ms. Morrison; my mother is in the living room.” Alexis led Eileen into a sunny room with blue muslin curtains. Standing with teapot in hand was Alexis’s mother. “I’m Mrs. Taylor; I’m pleased you could visit us. Alexis tells me so many wonderful things about you.” Eileen glanced at Alexis whose face had suddenly turned three shades brighter. “Please sit down and have some tea,” invited Mrs. Taylor. She turned to Alexis, and said, “Go into the kitchen and get some oatmeal cookies for your teacher.” “Yes, momma,” was the quick reply, and Alexis breezed into the other room. Eileen watched in astonishment. “Is this the same child who has been carrying out a single-handed verbal assault on me in class?” she wondered.

Mrs. Taylor smiled, “It’s been difficult for Alexis ever since her daddy died, but she tries hard and she’s a good girl.”

“I’m sorry, Mrs. Taylor. I didn’t realize your husband had passed away,” responded Eileen.

Mrs. Taylor’s smile slowly melted away. “Alexis needs help with her schoolwork, I know, but trying to raise her and her younger brother and sister on my waitress salary has been difficult for all of us,” said Mrs. Taylor. “Tell me, what can I do at home to help Alexis with her reading? I didn’t get past 8th grade, and I want Alexis to earn her high school diploma,” continued Mrs. Taylor. Eileen sat down and the two women spent the next hour discussing how together they could help Alexis improve her schoolwork.

As Eileen drove home, she reviewed her home visit. After school, Alexis makes dinner for her 7-year-old brother and 9-year-old sister. Her mother is trying to raise three children on a waitress’s salary. They can’t afford health insurance. Perhaps most surprising of all, Alexis is not the disruptive child at home that she appears to be in the classroom. Eileen smiled to herself. She knew that her classroom strategy for handling Alexis would change. The insights she gained from this visit would help her to better manage Alexis’s attention-seeking behavior in school. As she drove toward her condominium in the suburbs, Eileen vowed to make more home visits. An hour in a student’s home, she realized, could eliminate countless hours of misunderstanding in school.

1. Do you think Eileen’s apprehension about visiting homes in a low-income neighborhood is shared by other teachers?

2. Why don’t more teachers visit with their students’ families?

3. Do you think school systems should require home visits?

4. What are some reasons for making home visits? What are some reasons for not making home visits?

Eileen’s home visit highlights a little-appreciated fact; students’ lives do not begin and end at the schoolhouse door. Student experiences outside school have a profound influence on student behavior in the classroom. If a student is having difficulty in school, a home visit can provide a teacher with useful insights into how to handle the problem. In today’s public schools, there are many communication gaps between students and teachers. Language, cultural, and ethnic differences lead to misunderstandings. Communication is a vital link to bridge this gap. Families are the best source of information about a student’s likes and dislikes, emotional peaks and valleys, motivation, and activities outside of school.

AMERICA’S CHILDREN

Children, James Coleman (1990) noted, require “social capital” in order to grow, learn, and prosper. Social capital refers to the social networks and adult relationships that nurture children during their development. Coleman found, for instance, a lower dropout rate among students in Catholic schools (3.4 percent) than among students in public schools (14.3 percent). He explained the discrepancy in terms of social capital in the Catholic schools. The community of school and church helped families keep students in school. Because of the additional adult support outside the family, the students attending Catholic schools had a strong incentive to stay in school. Coleman highlighted the bonding together of adults through shared goals and beliefs as a primary source of social capital.

Social capital has steadily eroded since the turn of the century. In early-twentieth-century agricultural society, children were mentored by extended families, neighbors, and community members. Informal relationships between adults outside the family were commonplace. Home visits, teacher–family member meetings, and school socials were once frequent aspects of life in the United States. James Comer’s (1986) memories of his neighborhood recall a time when the authority of family members was transferred to teachers through proximity.

When I went into the grocery store with my mother and father in the 1940s, it was a rare day that we did not encounter someone from my elementary school—the custodian, the principal, the secretary, or a teacher. There would always be an exchange of pleasantries and sometimes an exchange about my school behavior or achievement. The knowledge that my family members knew and appeared to like and respect the people at my school had a profound impact on my behavior. (p. 442)

During the era of the neighborhood school, indirect involvement of family members in school activity was underscored at each chance meeting of teachers and family members at the grocery store, bus stop, park, or library. Trust and mutual respect between school and home was a by-product of close-knit communities. The transformation to an industrial society disconnected children from the lives of adults. Fathers returned home from factories tired from hours of mind-numbing toil on assembly lines. Soon mothers followed fathers into the workplace. The family unit as a source of social capital began to unravel as the pressure to maintain a decent standard of living increased each year. With more time spent in work, adults had less time to spend in community activities such as family member–teacher organizations (PTOs) and Scouting (

Coleman, 1987

). The overall effect has been an alienation of children from basic nurturing elements in society that were common throughout history.

SPEEDBUMP—Thinking back to your childhood, what elements of social capital can you remember?

The Children’s Defense Fund (2007) reported that every 36 seconds, a child is born into poverty. African American children have the highest poverty rate, followed by Hispanic children, white children, and Asian/Pacific Islander children. Infant mortality for children born into poverty is 50 percent higher than for children above the poverty guidelines listed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (i.e., $20,650 for a family of four living in the contiguous 48 states (

Federal Register, 2007

). African American children have almost twice the mortality rate of white children: 16.5 deaths compared with 6.5 deaths per live births. Poverty and transiency are the two most critical factors influencing the well-being of children in the United States.

Up to 40 million Americans move each year. Mobility is a significant factor in classroom composition. Hodgkinson (2001) reported, “Many teachers have 22 students in the fall and 22 in the following spring, but 20 out of the 22 are different students. Hospitals in these regions spend most of their time taking case histories from strangers. Each Sunday, ministers preach to a congregation, a third of whose members are new” (p. 8). California, Texas, and Florida are the main havens for a million immigrants a year. Sharon Dreyfus, a 2nd-grade teacher in Gaithersburg, Maryland, saw a new face in her classroom every few weeks. Typically the youngster spoke little English and came from a family of recent immigrants. “The biggest challenge is to keep constantly changing the program around to meet the needs of the kids,” said Dreyfus. “Not only are they learning a new language, but learning about life in the United States” (

Armas, 2001

, A5). Other significant demographic data about children include the following:

TABLE 11.1 Child Poverty in 17 Developed Countries Before and After Government Assistance

1989

1991

1989

1984

1991

1985

1992

1982

1992

1991

COUNTRY	YEAR	BEFORE ASSISTANCE (%)	AFTER ASSISTANCE (%)	PERCENT OF CHILDREN LIFTED OUT OF POVERTY BY GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
United States							1991	26	22	17
Australia	20			14	29
Canada	23	40
Ireland	1987		30				12	60
Israel	1986		24	11	54
United Kingdom		10	67
Italy
Germany	9		7
France	25	74
Netherlands	6	55
Norway	13		5	64
Luxembourg			4			77
Belgium			1992		16
Denmark
Switzerland			3	35
Sweden	19	86
Finland	78

Source: Rainwater & Smeeding (1995).

SPEEDBUMP—The problem of transient children in urban schools is so serious that a superintendent jokingly commented that the number one thing on his wish list was a transmitter planted under the skin of kids so he could keep track of them.

■ An estimated 3 million children were reported as suspected victims of child abuse and neglect and referred for investigation or assessment in 2003; approximately 900,000 children were confirmed as victims of child abuse and neglect. In other words, a child is abused or neglected every 35 seconds.

■ Fewer than 6 out of 10 (57.1%) of these children who were abused or neglected receive any post-investigation services. Several reasons are given for why only some children and families receive post-investigation services, including unavailability of services and long waiting lists.

■ Neglect is the most common form of child maltreatment. Three times as many children are victims of neglect (63.2 percent) as are victims of physical abuse (18.9 percent). Another 9.9 percent are recorded as victims of sexual abuse; 4.9 percent emotional and psychological maltreatment; and 16.9 percent other.

■ Research indicates that children who live in families with annual incomes less than $15,000 are 22 times more likely to be abused or neglected than children living in families with annual incomes of $30,000 or more. This higher rate can be attributed to the stress that poverty places on parents and to the increased likelihood that child abuse and neglect will be detected, reported, and substantiated in low-income homes that are more closely supervised by social services and law enforcement agencies. (

www.childrendefensefund.org

, 2007)

The teenage birth rate has also declined in the 15-year to 17-year-age bracket from 38.7 live births per 1,000 females in 1991 to 32.1 live births per 1,000 females in 1997. Children born to teenage mothers are at risk of developing intellectual disabilities. Tragically, government assistance for poor children in the United States falls far behind that provided by other countries. See

Table 11.1

for a comparison of the United States and other countries’ poverty rate before and after government assistance (

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995

Source: Rainwater & Smeeding (1995).

SPEEDBUMP—These statistics can be overwhelming. What you should understand is that millions of U.S. children have much bigger problems to deal with on a daily basis than such things as grades and test scores.

Most family members care deeply about their children. A few family members are indifferent and, unfortunately, a small minority of family members harm their children. Neglect and abuse are a sad reality in some homes. Early medical and educational intervention for youth should be a national priority. As a society, the United States is at risk of squandering its most precious national resource: its children. Without a major shift in U.S. national priorities, many youngsters will mature without hope for success in life.

FAMILY MEMBERS AND TEACHERS: VALUABLE PARTNERS

The erosion of school-neighborhood linkages began in the 1960s with the advent of racial integration through busing. This process of detachment continued in the 1970s with the middle-class exodus to the suburbs and subsequent regionalization of small-town schools. Today, separation of school and family is a pervasive condition. Sometimes, the only time a family member has direct contact with the school is when there is a problem. Although such measures as school open houses provide some assurance that teachers and family members get an opportunity for personal meetings, these usually large-group activities preclude personal conversation between family members and teachers.

SPEEDBUMP—Throughout this chapter, terminology has changed from parents to family members. Many schoolchildren are raised by their parents, but many others are raised by aunts, uncles, and grandparents. Still others are raised in foster homes.

A common teacher complaint when family members are missing conferences or open houses is that family members “don’t care.” There are many explanations for family members not attending school functions. Their own education may have left them with negative feelings about school. Perhaps the family member is illiterate or a school dropout. Family members may not have a phone or transportation. There may be a language barrier or a communication problem (the message doesn’t reach the family member). A family member might miss a meeting or school function due to an inability to obtain child care. When schools provide child care, family member attendance increases. Family members may be working when meetings are held. Many IEP meetings, for example, are held during the day, which can conflict with family work schedules.

The isolation of school and family continues at the same time that schools and teachers are being asked to take on responsibilities that used to be the sole domain of the family. Social skill curriculums, character education, and school safety have found a larger role in school curricula. Sex and drug education have become major concerns in schools. In many urban and suburban school districts, “Johnny” can’t read because he’s too “high” to care. When schools find ways to work with family members on problems of youth, the results are impressive.

BENEFITS OF FAMILY-TEACHER COOPERATION

The National Committee for Citizens in Education (NCCE) learned that when teachers maintain frequent contact with family members, students profit. Family member–teacher partnerships produce measurable gains in student achievement. “Some of the major benefits of family member involvement include higher grades and test scores, better long-term academic achievement, positive attitudes and behavior, more successful programs, and more effective schools” (

Henderson, 1987

, 149). The greater the degree of familial involvement, the greater the likelihood that students will succeed in school. In a review of 53 studies that measured the impact of family member–teacher partnerships, the NCCE did not find a single negative report. The evidence also indicated that students who were at risk for educational failure gained the most from family member–teacher collaboration (

Mapp, 1997

At-risk students include the disadvantaged, the students with mild disabilities, and underachievers. These students frequently are absent from school. Some are behavior problems. Almost all lack the motivation to persevere. By age 16, the at-risk student is a prime dropout candidate. Research on at-risk students indicated that “by the time students are in the third grade we can fairly reliably predict which students will drop out and which will complete their schooling” (Slavin, 1989, 5). The early onset of school failure underscores the need for close school-family partnerships at the beginning of formal schooling. Successful preschool programs, such as Head Start, place a premium on family member involvement.

SPEEDBUMP—Have you heard of the marshmallow test? Walter Mischel developed an experiment with preschoolers to determine the long-range effects of impulsivity. The researcher put a marshmallow in front of the child and said, “If you don’t eat this and wait until I get back I’ll give you a second marshmallow.” Some sang to themselves, played with toys, stared at the marshmallow, and tried to occupy the time successfully. Others ate the marshmallow. Mischel followed the development of these children for many years. Which group do you think fared better? See

www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/indiv_pages/mischel.html

Disadvantaged students who participate in preschool programs with strong family member involvement components outperform their peers through high school. Despite the documented benefits of family member participation in preschools, the carryover of family member participation in education is uneven. Some educators believe the best place for family members is at a bake sale or car wash. Williams (1988) reported that principals and teachers preferred that family member involvement be limited to extracurricular activities. The educators in Williams’s study did not view family member involvement in educational decisions as either useful or appropriate.

Leitch and Tangri (1988) investigated barriers to school-family partnerships in two poor, inner-city, Washington, D.C., junior high schools. Twenty-nine teachers and 60 families participated in the study. The researchers found that a family member from a single-family household was less likely to be involved than one from a two-family member household. The larger the family (six members or more), the more likely the involvement. Extended families, both single- and two-family member, were the most involved. Members of foster families were highly involved. Employment made it difficult for almost half the family members to get to school functions. Among the unemployed, poor health was the most frequent reason for lack of participation. Education did not seem to be a factor; family members who finished and those who did not finish high school were involved on an equal basis.

From the teachers’ perspective, their own family responsibilities were factors that impeded setting aside time for family members. Teachers who enjoyed their work tended to value family member involvement more than teachers who were unhappy or disgruntled. Some familial attributes listed by discontented teachers were: unrealistic expectations about the school’s role; familial jealousy of teacher’s upward mobility; poor family member attitudes about school; large families (although the data showed large families participated more frequently); and lack of familial skills to help with school-work. Other teachers listed the following school barriers to family member involvement: absence of school activities, teachers’ suspicions of family members, and teacher apathy. All the teachers recognized that changes in society had diminished the familial role. They felt that the schools needed to change to meet the changing social fabric of families and the community.

SPEEDBUMP—Were your family members closely involved with your schooling? Ask them if they felt accepted and valued by your teachers and school administrators.

Family members believed teachers looked down on them. “One family member said that teachers have the attitude, ‘I got mine, and you got yours to get’” (p. 74). Family members characterized school attempts to get them involved as meager. Family member–teacher organization meetings were the most commonly reported school invitation, although many family members said they never received such notices. The same small group of family members seemed to control most activities. Despite the negative attitudes attributed to both teachers and family members, Leitch and Tangri summarized their report by stating that a lack of specific planning about how to organize and utilize family member resources was the major barrier to school-home collaboration.

When administrators and teachers make a commitment to family member involvement, results have followed. In many schools, family members volunteer in classrooms. They sponsor orientation programs, conduct alcohol education classes, welcome new families, arrange for guest speakers, provide library assistance, and much more. The principal is the catalyst in these ventures. The principal allocates resources, persists in family member recruiting efforts, and establishes a schoolwide norm that family members are welcome. In order for family member–school partnerships to flourish, family members need to make decisions about school policies. Treating family members as teacher aides and doling out menial tasks works against collaboration. It’s not how much time family members spend in school that counts, it’s the responsibilities they assume (

Sandford, 1987

). A well-planned and comprehensive family member–school partnership can have a positive impact on both individual students and the school (Henderson, 1987).

James Comer built school–family member partnerships in approximately 100 urban schools throughout the country. His goal was to create school management teams comprising of family members, teachers, and mental health professionals. These schools enhance teachers’ knowledge of their students, draw family members into the educational process, especially governance and management, and combine school and community services (

Reed & Sauter, 1990

). In 1991, the School Development Program formed CoZi, a family support model that enhances families’ efforts to participate in their children’s schooling (

Comer, Zigler, & Stern, 1997

). Other such programs throughout the country bear witness to the ability of teachers and family members to work together to improve schools.

In San Francisco and Redwood City, California, Henry Levine’s accelerated schools model established specific achievement goals for all elementary school children. Including family members as educational decision makers is a key component in this program. Joyce Epstein developed other family member involvement models that emphasize reciprocal relationships—the family members within the school and the school within the community. Family member involvement projects share the following values: No child is labeled a potential failure because of social or economic factors; social and physical development of children is as important as academic and cognitive gains; and children’s development is a shared obligation of school, family, and community. These principles are exemplified in the work of the League of Schools Reaching Out, a confederation of 41 urban schools that span 13 states and Puerto Rico (

Davies, 1991

The league takes an enlarged view on the meaning of family member involvement. The term “family member” is broadened to “family,” which may include grandfamily members, uncles, aunts, and other significant adults in a youngster’s life. The league advocates coordinating with social agencies that provide assistance and support to families—for example, agencies that administer housing, mental health, and public health services. Hard-to-reach families are targeted. Included in this group are the non-English speakers, the unemployed, and the indigent. League members recognize that the families that are least responsive are precisely the ones that most need to get involved with educational affairs. The League of Schools Reaching Out is attempting to revitalize Coleman’s concept of social capital by abandoning the deficiency view of urban life and identifying strengths in families. Cultural diversity is prized and families are encouraged to establish their own priorities for school-community partnerships.

Just as the opening vignette described, Eileen’s home visit deepened her insight into Alexis and her school behavior, educators throughout the country are learning that families are a teacher’s best source of information about students. Families can provide information on developmental, social, and academic problems. Student attitudes toward school are shaped in the home. When families value the educational process, students succeed. If teacher and family are at odds, students are left without direction. However, when teachers and families cooperate, they are able to help a student focus on productive goals. Each year, teachers begin anew the hope of helping their students grow and learn. Building family member partnerships has proved to be one of the most effective means of turning this hope into reality.

SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES

Help for families who have a child with a disability can be broadly divided into three categories: emotional support, information, and federal government programs. Emotional support for family members of children with mild disabilities begins with the immediate family, branches out to grandfamily members and other relatives, and continues with friends and neighbors. Professional support agencies complement “grassroot” networks by providing information and services that train families to help themselves. The stronger their support system, the more capable the family will be in coping with the daily stresses of raising a child with a disability.

Federal programs are primarily targeted at low-income families. Poverty continues to play a significant role in the development of mild disabilities, particularly mild mental retardation and behavior disorders. Children without adequate nutrition and health care are at-risk populations. Environmental threats to normal development include heavy-metal poisoning, child abuse, child neglect, community violence, lack of proper educational experiences at home, and drug abuse. Government programs, when funded properly, can prevent and/or remediate medical and environmental conditions that contribute to mild disabilities.

Emotional Support

Support groups help family members cope with isolation. When family members have an opportunity to discuss their problems with other family members of children with disabilities, they learn they are not alone. Over the years, many self-help, support groups for family members have sprung up in local communities. Sometimes leadership for these groups comes from local professionals; more often family members themselves are the organizers.

Support groups provide family members with an emotional lifeline as they discover that others share their experiences. When family members talk to family members, a sense of comradeship supplants feelings of loneliness and isolation. The Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health, for example, has assisted many family-run organizations in getting started (

Bullock & Gable, 1997

). Support groups also help family members learn how to use their influence to get the best educational services for their children. Many school systems have family member advisory councils. These advocacy groups are comprised of family members with disabled children and representatives from the local educational agency. They meet on a regular basis to discuss issues pertaining to delivery of special education services in their community. How much influence a family member advisory council has is largely determined by the political activism of member family members. Some typical activities of a family member advisory council include regular review of special education policy in their school system, dissemination of information to family members of special needs children, and the writing of grants to improve educational services for children with disabilities.

Information

Recent federal legislation has enabled family member–organized groups to develop a national networking system. A federal grant program to support organized family member efforts to provide information and training is the

Federation for Children with Special Needs

(

www.fcsn.org

). The purpose of the federation is to disseminate information regarding special needs to family members and families.

The National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY,

www.nichcy.org

) provides educational information and technical assistance to family members, advocates, and professionals. NICHCY maintains a collection of resource publications and fact sheets that help family members locate assistance in their local communities. Since 1922, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC,

www.cec.sped.org

) has provided both family members and professionals with support services, including national and regional conferences, journals, and political activism on behalf of children with disabilities. While CEC provides support activities for all types of disabling conditions, other national organizations provide support services for families of children with specific disabilities. Chapters of the Learning Disabilities Association (

www.ldanatl.org

) and Association for Retarded Citizens exist throughout the country (

www.thearc.org

). These organizations provide family members with information on recent developments in research and teaching children with specific impairments. Family members or educators who wish to contact any of these organizations can get the necessary information from websites and state department of education offices.

Many organizations and agencies are eager to help support families (see

Table 11.2

for a list of Internet addresses), yet each year countless family members struggle alone, unaware of the support network that is available to help them. By providing family members with names of local and regional support agencies, teachers can help ensure that their classroom efforts are complemented by help outside of school. Mild disabilities are more than just a school problem; learning disabilities, mild emotional disorders are family problems. When families are supported at home, children with special needs have a better opportunity to overcome their intellectual disability in school and in the community.

TABLE 11.2 Agencies and Organizations that Support Families

American Association of Mental Retardation

Internet Resource for Special Children

www.aamr.org

www.irsc.org

American Council of the Blind

Learning Disabilities Associations

www.acb.org

www.Ldonline.org

American Speech and Hearing Association

Education Development Center

www.asha.org

www.edc.org

Autism National Committee www.autcom.org

National Educational Service (at-risk and behavior disorders)

Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder (CHADD)

www.nes.org

National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY)

www.chadd.org

Children’s Defense Fund–Family Member

www.nichcy.org

Resource Network

National Deaf Education Network

www.childrensdefense.org

www.clerccenter.gallaudet.org

Council for Exceptional Children

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services

www.cec.sped.org

www.ed.gov

/offices/OSERS

Federation for Children with Special Needs U.S. Department of Education

www.fcsn.org

www.ed.gov

Compiled by Linda Nober, Education Department, Westfield State College.

Government Programs

Because federal grant funding is cyclical and subject to legislative approval, changes in funding priorities and appropriations are frequent. Updated information regarding federal assistance to enhance families involvement in schooling can be obtained through the U.S. Department of Education website at www.ed.gov. The following is a brief list of important federal assistance programs.

WIC (

www.fns.usda.gov

). The Special Food Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is a federal grant program for which Congress authorizes a specific amount of funds each year. A family of four that earns $31,593.00 or less annually meets WIC assistance guidelines. The WIC target population is low-income, nutritionally at-risk women and children. Specifically included are:

■ Pregnant women (through pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after birth or after pregnancy ends); one in four new mothers participates in WIC

■ Breast-feeding women (up to infant’s 1st birthday)

■ Non–breast-feeding postpartum women (up to 6 months after the birth of an infant or after pregnancy ends)

■ Infants (up to 1st birthday); WIC serves 45 percent of all infants born in the United States

■ Children up to their 5th birthday

WIC operates through 2,000 local agencies in 10,000 clinic sites and in 50 state health departments. WIC provides nutritional assistance to pregnant women and children through supplemental nutritious foods purchased at retailers with vouchers, nutrition education and counseling in WIC clinics, and screening and referrals to other health, welfare, and social services.

CHIP (

www.cms.nhs.gov/home/schip.asp

). In 1997, Congress enacted the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Eligible working families are those whose income is too high to qualify for Medicaid, but too low to afford private coverage. More than 90 percent of eligible children live in working families. In most states, children age 18 and younger in a working family of four earning up to $34,100 annually would qualify. The Children’s Defense Fund estimated that in 1999, 10.8 million children under 18 lacked health insurance. Of the uninsured, 4.4 million were white, 3.4 million Hispanic, and 2.1 million were African American. Compared with the insured, children without health insurance are four times more likely to have an unmet medical problem, three times as likely to have an unmet dental need, and almost twice as likely to have an unmet vision problem. Lack of health insurance is a leading contributor to mild mental retardation and behavior disorders.

EPSDT (

www.hrsa.gov/epsdt/default.htm

). Medicaid and Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) provide health services to families who are unable to afford health insurance. Prenatal care, increased birth weight, decreased neonatal deaths, and fewer abnormalities are some of the benefits of EPSDT for poor children. Screening for lead poisoning is a required component of EPSDT treatment for all Medicaid-eligible children from 24 to 72 months. Childhood immunization programs, which prevent measles, rubella, mumps, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, are funded. As a result of EPSDT, in 1997, an estimated 37,177,000 recipients including low-income persons over 65, disabled, low-income children, and pregnant women received medical assistance (

Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog, 1997

Head Start (

www.nhsa.org

). Head Start is a federally funded program that provides preschoolers with a range of crucial services. The Head Start educational programs help youngsters learn school readiness skills, thus increasing their chances for academic success when they enter public school. Nutrition and medical screening, including EPSDT and dental checkups, are components of Head Start. Family member involvement is built into every Head Start program. Family members are encouraged to attend family membering workshops on such topics as nutrition and developmental play at home. Some Head Start programs are home based. Head Start teachers visit youngsters’ homes and demonstrate early childhood activities for family members.

The most notable accomplishment of a Head Start preschool was attributed to the Perry Preschool Program in Ypsilanti, Michigan. By age 19, students who had attended the Perry program “were more likely to have finished high school, were dramatically less likely to have committed a crime, were less likely to be on welfare, and were earning more money” when compared to peers who had not attended the Perry program (

Stein, Leinhardt, & Bickel, 1989

, 149). Head Start children have demonstrated better school readiness skills, higher verbal achievement, and enhanced social competence when compared to other low-income children (www.nhsa.org).

Federal programs make significant contributions to strengthening the ability of family members to improve the health and education of their children. Only the federal government has the financial and political leadership required to make children a national priority. In order to provide for the needs of youth, a new vision of community is needed. A community is a network of people working together toward common goals. This new vision would promote community organizations as extended families. Services such as youth clubs, athletic organizations, schools, mental health clinics, and family member resource centers can help family members and children. All of these ventures are woefully underfunded.

SPEEDBUMP—Tip: Keep an active list of these resources. Many family members are unaware of available support.

Although the country can’t turn back the clock to the neighborhood school memories of James Comer, there are many paths to the goal of providing for the nation’s children. WIC, CHIP, and EPSDT are based on the premise that children need to be healthy to learn. Head Start integrates health services, family member involvement, and education to help at-risk children succeed in school. Innovative programs and family member involvement provide a decision-making role for family members in schools, establish support for family members to assist children to learn at home, and enhance family member–teacher communication.

TEACHER–FAMILY MEMBER COMMUNICATION

Good communication with family members serves three useful purposes. First, it provides teachers with information about their students and family member expectations for school. Second, family members get reliable and up-to-date information to help them make decisions about their child’s special education. Finally, when family members and teachers communicate and work together, they develop trust and a sense of shared commitment. Trust helps the school and family support each other and share expectations for student achievement. This is the type of social capital that can make a significant difference in a youngster’s life (

Bryk & Schneider, 2002

Communication means more than simply relaying information. The medium of exchange tells family members how the school system feels about them. Schools and teachers who seek minimum family member involvement do the least to attract a family member’s attention to important issues. For instance, one school system was obligated by state special education regulations to form a special needs family member advisory board. Instead of sending letters of invitation to family members describing the need for family member participation, the superintendent and special education director squeezed the message on the back of the weekly school lunch menu. As expected, there was minimal family member response. Did this mean that the family members in this school system were apathetic? Of course not, but judgments about family member behavior sometimes are based on such transactions.

Understanding family members of children with mild disabilities requires treating each family member as an individual. Teachers communicate their respect through words and actions. One strategy is to make telephone calls to family members notifying them of their child’s positive classroom contributions. This offsets the family member expectation that the only time they will hear from school is when there is a problem.

The following description of an exceptional teacher by a family member highlights the anxiety and hope that family members harbor when they first meet their child’s teacher.

I just met a talented and gifted teacher, and I’m still tingling with joy. He invited the family members to a meeting, before the beginning of school, to introduce himself and to discuss the year. I wouldn’t have missed it for the world, but I went with fear. What if I didn’t like the man? Within half an hour, however, I felt the tension drain from my body to be replaced with excitement. Before me was a talented and gifted teacher. I knew other exceptional teachers before, and this time I could identify the qualities they had in common. (

Williams, 1988

, 61)

Linda Williams described a teacher who loves to learn, is not afraid to take risks, believes teaching is helping children to learn, conveys the message that family members are important, and respects children. Family members need to know what kind of person is teaching their child.

Conferences

When family members and professionals meet to discuss a child, family members need to feel that they are valued participants. Teachers who treat family members with respect create the best climate for a cooperative partnership. It wasn’t long ago that professionals placed the majority of the blame for a child’s learning problem on inferior parenting skills. Professionals viewed family members as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. A one-sided view that says ‘it’s all the family members fault’ bred a condescending attitude toward family members of children with disabilities. In order to avoid barriers to effective communication, teachers should keep in mind the following pointers outlined by Gloeckler and Simpson (1988):

1. Family members of exceptional children are more like family members of nondisabled children than they are different. There are no generalizations about families of children with mild disabilities. Each situation is unique. The majority of special needs children come from families in which other children do not have learning problems.

2. Family members of children with mild disabilities, in general, are not the cause of their children’s disabilities. Mild disabilities have been traced to many sources, including poor instruction, faulty assessment practices, neurological impairments, and poverty. To view family members as the single contributor to a child’s disability is misleading and unfair. Teachers may encounter some family members who are inadequate. These individuals need support and help, rather than condemnation.

3. Family members are interested in their child’s welfare and will react positively to those they believe are genuinely interested in their children. Family members need someone to listen more than someone to tell them what to do. Listening indicates concern and interest in each individual situation. Listening helps professionals to problem-solve with family members. When family members feel their point of view is respected, they are more likely to be open and honest in their conversations.

4. The family is a social unit. When a child is identified as having a learning disability, mild intellectual disability, or emotional disturbance, each member of the family—mother, father, siblings, and relatives—will have individual reactions. The interrelationship among family members will have an impact on how a student behaves in school.

5. Family members have the greatest impact on their own children. No matter how many professionals are involved with a youngster, the specialist is still the family member. Family members need accurate and full knowledge of their child’s status in school. Explanations of classroom actions, test results, and professional judgments should be honest and direct. Describing student actions in descriptive, nontechnical language helps the family member to understand discrepancies between home and school behavior.

An initial family member–teacher conference sets the tone for all future contacts. In order to prepare for a conference, imagine how the family member feels driving or walking to the conference. What will be on his or her mind? Think about feelings that precede a visit to a doctor, dentist, lawyer, or professor. A common concern is that something is wrong. Some family members, particularly those of children with mild disabilities, approach a conference with apprehension. They might be concerned that they appear to be “bad” family members, or they hope the teacher has some magic up his or her sleeve that is going to turn things around for their child. Their schooling may have been a negative experience, so the simple task of walking into a classroom and sitting down with a teacher can be anxiety provoking.

The first step to a productive family member–teacher conference is preparation. The following are some practical suggestions for family member–teacher meetings.

1. Physical preparation. Physical preparation means attending to the accoutrements of the conference. Don’t sit behind a desk. If you are an early childhood teacher, provide adult-sized chairs. Have concrete samples of student work available to highlight topics you want to cover. Sit at a table that is wide enough to display student work. Be organized.

2. Mental preparation. Have a mental or written checklist of specific items you want to review. Avoid using materials, such as test profiles, that require educational jargon to explain. Talk in plain language. If the family member is a non-English speaker, make an attempt to communicate in a way that will help set the person at ease. A smile and cheery “Buenas tardes,” for example, can go a long way toward helping a Spanish-speaking family member to relax.

3. Establish a mood. Begin a conference with good news. This will set a positive tone and help smooth the waters for any trouble spots that need to be reviewed. Be candid and direct with family members. Honesty helps establish trust. Don’t dominate the conference. At least 50 percent of the talk should come from family members. Remember that the purpose of the conference is for both of you to learn about each other. Use active listening skills. Encourage family members to give examples of their concerns by talking about what happens at home. Remember that you might be the only adult outside the family that a family member can confide in about his or her child. This is an opportunity for family members, but they need your nonjudg-mental support in order to express their concerns. Finally, don’t be defensive. If a family member makes what appears to be a negative remark about your teaching or the curriculum, listen to what they have to say. Listening demonstrates respect.

4. Carryover. Teachers can use a family member conference to assist family members with their children at home. Many family members would like to do more but they need guidance.

Table 11.3

offers ideas for family members to improve their children’s school performance. Give a family member a reading list of children’s books, or refer a family member to another resource such as the WIC program or Head Start. A teacher’s credibility rides on follow-up. After the conference is over, make a careful written record of the conversation. Include suggestions and questions that were discussed, and the type of follow-up you agreed on.

TABLE 11.3 Helping Family Members Help Their Children

1. You Can Help Your Child Mentally by

_ praising your child for work well done and for good effort.

_ eliminating comparisons of your child to another child.

_ showing confidence in your child’s abilities.

_ being realistic in your expectations of your child.

2. You Can Help Your Child Physically by

_ seeing that your child gets adequate sleep.

_ providing a schedule or fixed routine for your child to follow during school days.

_ seeing that your child has an appropriate diet with limitations on the amount of junk food consumed.

_ encouraging your child to exercise regularly.

_ seeing that your child visits his or her dentist and doctor on a regular basis.

_ showing your child a great deal of love.

3. You Can Help Your Child Academically by

_ talking with your child. Have your child talk about the day’s activities or future plans for the weekend or any other subject of interest.

_ listening to your child. Responding to questions encourages curiosity and motivation in a child.

_ reading to your child and having your child read to you.

_ seeing that your child does assigned homework.

_ establishing a regular time and place for your child to study.

_ providing materials to use while studying (e.g., pencils, paper, dictionary, etc.).

_ allowing your child to do his or her own work, but being available to provide assistance if needed.

_ taking your child to the library often.

_ playing vocabulary games with your child, such as naming common objects around the house and their uses; going to the grocery store and naming fruits and vegetables.

_ playing question games with your child. Ask your child questions that begin “What if” or “How will.”

_ having your child memorize some vital pieces of information, such as a family telephone number, home address, your place of employment, the police emergency number, and other information needed for your child’s safety and well-being.

_ serving as a positive role model for your child by reading, using appropriate speech, writing notes or letters, watching educational television programs.

4. You Can Help Your Child in Test Taking by

_ ensuring your child gets a good night of sleep so as to be alert the next day.

_ seeing that your child eats breakfast.

_ seeing that your child dresses appropriately for outside weather conditions.

_ getting your child to school on time (so there will be no last-minute problems).

_ encouraging your child to do his or her best on the test, but not placing undue pressure on your child.

_ demonstrating verbally and nonverbally that you have confidence in your child’s abilities to perform well on the test.

5. You Can Help Your Child in Other Ways by

_ seeing that your child turns in assigned homework.

_ keeping up-to-date on your child’s progress in school.

_ getting to know your child’s teacher(s).

_ volunteering to work in a school classroom or making materials for use in the classroom.

_ participating in school-sponsored activities.

_ reviewing your child’s work folder as it is sent home from school.

_ supporting the family member–teacher organization of the school that your child attends.

Source: Whiting & Aultman (1990).

Written Communication

Newsletters, family member handbooks, and bulletins provide families with information regarding their rights and obligations under IDEA. Teachers and administrators usually assume that family members understand this information. Given the importance of family member involvement in special education decisions, it is clearly in the school’s best interests to disseminate readable information to family members.

In order to fulfill their obligations, family members need a working knowledge of special education law and regulations. They should understand notification, evaluation, and placement procedures. Family members also must be aware of due process procedures established to protect their rights. Family members should know how to utilize family member advocates. Finally, family members need to understand their role in developing and implementing an IEP.

Roit and Pfohl (1984) assessed the readability of written information disseminated to family members regarding their involvement in special education meetings. The researchers hypothesized that family members did not clearly understand information presented in school information materials. Their supposition had particular significance for family members of students with mild intellectual disabilities and behavior disorders because a disproportionate percentage of these children come from either non-English–speaking or culturally different families. Additionally, Educational Testing Service data on adult literacy indicated that between 18 and 23 million adults cannot read a daily newspaper.

The results of the readability study indicated that large pages filled with small print made reading overwhelming and unappealing. The use of examples, samples, charts, and pictures enhanced the readability of printed materials. The researchers found that bold headings and outlines did not communicate information as effectively as paragraphs that related concepts to specific situations. Finally, Roit and Pfohl recommended organizing the content of printed material into five broad categories: (a) disabling conditions (e.g., what is a learning disability and how does it affect a youngster developmentally, socially, and academically); (b) normal child development; (c) legal issues and trends in litigation; (d) assessment and placement procedures; and (e) the role of family members in the educational process.

Although family member conferences, the telephone, and newsletters represent the traditional approach to school-family communication, educators realize that the electronic media has tremendous potential for interconnecting families and teachers.

THE INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PLAN MEETING

One of the remarkable aspects of IDEA that family members are required to collaborate with educators to determine the appropriateness of their student’s IEP. The law requires family memberal involvement in deciding the:

1. Type of special services required (e.g., speech therapy, counseling)

2. Educational placement (e.g., full-time regular class with support, resource room, special class)

3. Makeup of the individual education program (e.g., annual goals)

Students with mild disabilities cannot be evaluated or placed in a special education program without family member’s consent. If family members do not agree with educational decisions about their child, they have the due process right to mediation and appeal.

Figure 11.1

lists family member’s due process rights. The fact that several family member–school disagreements about special education services have reached the Supreme Court highlights the importance of family member–school cooperation.

FIGURE 11.1 Family Members’ Due Process Rights

The IEP begins with the initial referral and concludes with the family members agreeing to special education services outlined in the program. The IEP is a management tool designed to ensure that special education services match a student’s individual needs and that special education services are monitored. It contains annual goals, a statement about a student’s educational strengths and weaknesses, and a description of special education and related services.

Figure 11.2

lists the basic components of the IEP. The individual education program must be approved by family members before a student can be placed in a special education program. (See a sample IEP in

Appendix D

FIGURE 11.2 Components of an Individual Education Program

In theory, the IEP meeting provides for maximum family member input into a child’s special education program. Unfortunately, the reality often is different. Sometimes, family members are not viewed by educators as colleagues at the meeting. A survey of several hundred families (

Lynch & Stein, 1987

) reported that 50 percent of family members did not feel they were active participants and only 34 percent of family members made suggestions during the meeting. Sometimes, because of time conflicts, transportation problems, child care needs, or work commitments, family members are unable to attend the meeting. When family members are absent, the IEP usually is mailed to them for their signature.

When family members attend the IEP meeting, a variety of factors impede participation. Consider the following scene. A group of professionals are sitting around a table facing the family members. Each professional takes a turn reporting on the educational failure of their child. The family members are deluged with educational jargon like “sub-average IQ,” “deficient adaptive behavior skills,” “dyslexic,” and “behavior disordered.” Education jargon places the family members at a serious disadvantage as they attempt to follow what is being said. Without an advocate to help the family members sort out what is happening, the family members are in jeopardy of consenting to an IEP that is unclear.

All IEP meetings are not as muddled for family members as the one just described. When educators are sensitive to family members’ feelings and take the time to explain what they are talking about, family members have an opportunity to be involved. Educators need to remember that it takes a good deal of resolve for a family member to participate in a meeting that is intended to analyze what is wrong with his or her child. One family member expressed her feelings this way (

Roberts, 1986

The IEP process was something that was really hard for me to accept and get into, because I’m not by nature an assertive person. In a group I don’t speak up that much, but as a family member in an IEP conference, I have to. I have to be totally prepared. I may have a lot of confidence in the staff that’s working with him; they’re all great people. But I have to know what each is doing with Geoff and where they’re headed with him. I need to review my concerns when I go to the conference, to speak up, and really be his advocate. I have to do that. I think the family member is the one who has the best whole concept of the child, with regard to where he’s been and where he’s going. And the family member has a lot to offer the staff members—knowledge and understanding of the child. (p. 206)

The IEP planning meeting is an important event in a family member’s life. By following a few basic guidelines, educators can ensure that the meeting enhances rather than diminishes family member–teacher communication.

1. Before the meeting, tell family members how the meeting will be conducted, who will be attending, and what they can do to be effective participants.

2. Arrange seating so family members are not sitting on one side of a table, “squared off” against the professionals.

3. Avoid general negative statements like “Carlos is 8 but has a mental age of 5.” There is enough valid criticism of educational assessment procedures to warrant tempering of professional enthusiasm for the accuracy of test results.

4. Encourage family member questions after each professional makes a contribution.

5. Be conscious of the group dynamics. Is one person dominating? Are there hidden agendas? Are the professionals communicating their views in plain language? Are family members giving off distress signals with body language? Most important, are family members being given ample opportunity to verbally participate?

6. When the meeting is over, summarize the group’s conclusions and indicate one professional that the family members can contact to answer questions that may occur to them on the way home.

In order to ensure an appropriate education for students with disabilities, Congress mandated family member participation in IEP meetings. By encouraging active family memberal participation, educators not only fulfill their legal responsibilities, they also provide students with their best opportunity for success.

SPEEDBUMP—You finished the book, congratulations! The authors sincerely hope it has met your needs. We would like to hear from you. Contact us at

mhenley21@comcast.net

SUMMARY

Teachers and families share a common vision. Both want children to develop the social and intellectual skills needed to function as contributing citizens. Homes, schools, and communities are besieged by the ravages of poverty, drugs, and alcohol. Schools and families need each other. When educators reach out to families and seek their involvement, schools improve, students achieve, and communities grow closer together.

Family members of children with mild disabilities need support and understanding as they deal with the daily stresses of modern life. When a child is evaluated by the school as having a mild disability, it affects all members of the family. This ripple effect in turn influences the family’s ability to cope with the demands of family membering and education. There are many organizations that support families, yet many families struggle on in isolation, unaware of the network of help that is available to them. Family members need opportunities to communicate with others who share their problems. Family members need information about their rights and responsibilities as codeterminers of their child’s appropriate education. Successful experiences with the schools are needed in order for family members to believe in their ability to promote their child’s education. Most of all, family members need teachers who respect them and value their role in shaping the education of their children.

What Will You Get?

We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.

Premium Quality

Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.

Experienced Writers

Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.

On-Time Delivery

Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.

24/7 Customer Support

Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.

Complete Confidentiality

Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.

Authentic Sources

We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.

Moneyback Guarantee

Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.

Order Tracking

You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.

Order Now Talk to Us

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.

Preferred Writer

Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.

Grammar Check Report

Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.

One Page Summary

You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.

Plagiarism Report

You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.

Free Features $66FREE

Most Qualified Writer $10FREE
Plagiarism Scan Report $10FREE
Unlimited Revisions $08FREE
Paper Formatting $05FREE
Cover Page $05FREE
Referencing & Bibliography $10FREE
Dedicated User Area $08FREE
24/7 Order Tracking $05FREE
Periodic Email Alerts $05FREE

Our Services

Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.

On-time Delivery
24/7 Order Tracking
Access to Authentic Sources

Academic Writing

We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.

Professional Editing

We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!

Check Out Our Sample Work

Dedication. Quality. Commitment. Punctuality

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

Here is what we have achieved so far. These numbers are evidence that we go the extra mile to make your college journey successful.

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

We have the most intuitive and minimalistic process so that you can easily place an order. Just follow a few steps to unlock success.

Call Us +1 (877) 657-8180 Discuss Order Details Now

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.

Clear elicitation of your requirements.
Customized writing as per your needs.

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.

Proactive analysis of your writing.
Active communication to understand requirements.

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades

We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.

Thorough research and analysis for every order.
Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.

Place an Order Start Chat Now

wk 1A

ESE668: EVIDENCE-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS FOR STUDENTS WITH MILD TO MODERATE DISABILITIES

Overview

Intellectual Elaboration

Assessment Guidance

References

FOUNDATIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR

STUDENTS WITH MILD DISABILITIES

ADVANCE QUESTIONS

VIGNETTE: JAKE, MARY, FELIPE

THE ROOTS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

DIVERSITY

Multicultural Family Adaptation.

ENDING HANDICAPPISM

Litigation and Legislation

HIGHLIGHT 1.1

FEDERAL LAWS

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Americans with Disabilities Act

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

No Child Left Behind Act

BOX 1.1 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

Free and Appropriate Education.

WHO RECEIVES SPECIAL EDUCATION?

Physical/Sensory Disabilities

Intellectual Disabilities

HIGHLIGHT 1.2

Academic Disabilities

Communication Disabilities

Emotionally Disturbed

HOW MANY STUDENTS RECEIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION?

LABELING

Advantages of Labeling

DISADVANTAGES OF LABELING

WHAT TO TEACH STUDENTS

Individual Education Program

WHERE TO TEACH STUDENTS

General Education Classroom Placement

Resource Room Placement

Special Class Placement

Special Day School Placement

Homebound Programs

Other Domiciled Settings

Residential Programs

HIGHLIGHT 1.3 AN EDUCATIONAL OASIS ON RIKERS ISLAND

HOW TO TEACH STUDENTS WITH MILD DISABILITIES

Comparing General and Special Education

SUMMARY

CHAPTER ELEVEN

BUILDING FAMILY PARTNERSHIPS

VIGNETTE: EILEEN

AMERICA’S CHILDREN

FAMILY MEMBERS AND TEACHERS: VALUABLE PARTNERS

BENEFITS OF FAMILY-TEACHER COOPERATION

SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES

Emotional Support

Information

Government Programs

TEACHER–FAMILY MEMBER COMMUNICATION

Conferences

Written Communication

THE INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PLAN MEETING

What Will You Get?

Premium Quality

Experienced Writers

On-Time Delivery

24/7 Customer Support

Complete Confidentiality

Authentic Sources

Moneyback Guarantee

Order Tracking

Areas of Expertise

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

BOX 1.1
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

HIGHLIGHT 1.3
AN EDUCATIONAL OASIS ON RIKERS ISLAND