WWYD?!

What would you do if you were a parent of a student with a disability?  Would you sit back and let others make schooling decisions regarding your child?  Would you fight day and night for your child’s rights?  Would you educate yourself on the disability?  Would you follow the advice of “experts” and take them at their word?  What would you do?  What if your child’s school disagreed with your suggestions or with what you thought was best for your child?  What would you do then?

The reason I ask these questions is because I had to become more familiar with the Rowley v Hendrick Hudson BOE (1982) court case.  Without getting into too much detail, this case was about a deaf little girl with deaf parents.  Total communication was used in the home but in the school setting, the school determined Amy did not need a sign language interpreter (whom the parents wanted in school with Amy).  The courts ruled that when schools provide a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), the schools are able to provide just enough services to be of benefit to the child with a disability.  So, since Amy was able to use some residual hearing and speechread and made good grades, the school decided that a sign language interpreter was not necessary.  

This case made me wonder…how does a school determine what is “just enough” in terms of educational benefit.  Shouldn’t the school make every effort to provide an education that is equivalent to what a child without a disability would receive by making education as accessible as possible?  How would someone feel going to the gas station to fill up the tank of the car but instead of giving a full tank of gas, the attendant pumped ¼ of the tank’s worth of gas.  The attendant gave enough gas for the car to go from the gas station to point A but what about later when the car attempts to go to point B?  Would the same argument of providing just enough hold true then?  

On the other hand, if more time, money, manpower, and effort is going to be spent on accommodating to a child with a disability to help that child achieve all he or she is able to within the school, then what about the average student without a disability.  The child is not entitled to receive any services because there is no disability but he or she may benefit from accommodations just the same.  How is it fair to the child without a disability to make satisfactory performance when he could be doing better with some assistance?

Regardless of how you feel about the provision of services to students with disabilities in schools, I highly recommend you learn more about the Rowley v Hendrick Hudson BOE (1982) case.  Even though it is over 25 years old, it still proves very relevant in today’s schools.  Many cases since 1982, have referred to Rowley v Hendrick Hudson BOE (1982) to act as a guide or benchmark in determining court decisions.  If you’re interested in reading about this case in more depth, I stumbled upon this book that I think would make for a fascinating read!  I might have to add it to my wish list!

 http://www.amazon.com/Case-About-Health-Society-Policy/dp/1566394120

Making a difference politically...?

The other day, I received an email from a faculty member in my department.  She urged my peers and me to take action and help out The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) by taking a stand.  She asked us to contact our Senators through CEC’s website through their Legislative Action Center.  CEC urged us to vote NO on the Isakson Amendment to help make classrooms a better place for all.

For those of you not familiar with the Isakson Amendment, Senator Isakson (R-GA) has offered an amendment that would allow states to remove any number of students with disabilities from the general accountability system. Those in special education do not want the Isakson Amendment to pass because students with disabilities do deserve access to the same education as other students! 

This is the letter that I signed, through CEC’s website, and sent to my local senator…additional questions or comments I had about portions of this letter are in green font.

I'm a constituent and a member of the Council for Exceptional Children,
the largest professional association of educators who work on behalf of
special and gifted education students. The Isakson amendment would remove
the limits on how many students with disabilities can be counted as making
sufficient progress using separate systems of standards and assessments.

(What does this mean?  Does it mean that students with disabilities will no longer have alternate assessments?  That they will be tested using general education assessments?  That they will not be tested at all?)

•       The Isakson amendment INCORRECTLY promotes that most students with
disabilities can't learn or achieve when most students with disabilities
are able to learn and achieve, just like all other students, when provided
appropriate access, services and supports.

(Students with disabilities can make progress.  That progress may not appear as quickly as progress of students without disabilities or may not be as evident but progress is still made nonetheless.  Progress must be measured in appropriate ways using appropriate materials.)

•    The Isakson amendment promotes abuse and overuse of alternate assessments by allowing any
student with a disability to be tested through these assessments.

(Alternate assessments should be used by only the students with disabilities who’s progress cannot be measured in any other way.) 

•     The Isakson amendment will turn back the clock on the advances made in
educating students with disabilities over the past 10 years.
 

(This would be such a shame if it were to happen.  Think of all those who have fought and paved the way for students with disabilities to be valued, counted in the education system, and to receive fundamental rights in our schools.  It would be a terrible shame if we moved backwards instead of forward in this area.)
 

Please vote NO on this amendment so that students with disabilities can
have the same opportunities to achieve college and career ready standards
as all other students.
 

What do you think?  Do students with disabilities have the same right to achieve college and career ready standards as students without disabilities do? 

Follow the (student) leader...

I read an article today that discussed the teaching of self-advocacy skills to students with disabilities (SWD).  I am particularly interested in this topic as it relates to students with hearing loss.  In the past and even in some cases now, in the field of special education, teachers have total and full control and SWD are passive learners.  Our SWD move through the ranks of schooling being dependent on teachers, support staff, and parents.  They rely on these figures to make decisions, evaluate performance, and serve as their advocates (Merchant and Gajar, 1997).

Some may oppose the teaching of self-advocacy skills to SWD because they believe that the educational planning process is too complex for the children to participate in or understand.  As I continued to read this article, I realized that special education teachers need to “buy in” to the fact that teaching of self-advocacy skills is a worthwhile contribution to the schooling of SWD to promote and foster independence upon graduation from school.  What will happen to our students if they are coddled and not expected to fend for themselves during their schooling once they step outside those doors upon graduation and enter the “real world”?  We need to start teaching self-advocacy skills to our students and need to do so early..rather than waiting until they are at a transition age (usually between 14 and 16 years old).  The authors used the analogy of someone wearing a life jacket in the pool for 12 years.  Upon removing the life jacket, we would not expect that person to know how to swim within minutes.  We need to be helping our students to be swimmers so as to not drown!

In thinking of self-advocacy skills for our students with disabilities, we need to be sure to understand that students must be aware of their own interests and preferences before they can advocate for them.  Knowledge of rights empowers the student to advocate for needed services and accommodations.  We also need to be sure to provide several different opportunities for students to use self-advocacy skills so they can generalize these newly acquired skills to multiple circumstances and settings.

One of the strategies to teach self-advocacy skills the authors focused on was the idea of student-led IEPs.  I was drawn to this concept since I had done this with some of my former students.  I first started having my students attend their IEP meetings and help run the meeting at the vocational education school where I taught due to the nature of the meeting and school.  After seeing how successful the students in that setting were in explaining their learning needs and interpreting their IEP, I began to incorporate having student-led IEP meetings at the high schools where I taught.  Even some of my middle schoolers appreciated the student-led approach to the IEP meetings.  

I noticed a difference in my students who participated in student-led IEP meetings in many areas.  They were more proactive in terms of seeking assistance from their teachers when they needed it, they understood why we did the activities and lessons we did in our Deaf/Hard of Hearing Support sessions, and they were motivated to improve their grades, just to name a few of the changes.  I also noticed that there was a general positive vibe about the IEP meeting with the presence of the student.  While the weaknesses were still discussed, as well as the needs and challenges that needed to be addressed in the IEP, the tone and wording around these items were more positive.  It should also be mentioned that a student-led IEP, in my experience, took longer than a meeting that would have been held without the student being present.  However, I feel that the student-led IEP meeting forced the team to look at the issues and paperwork more intensely so I feel the advantages outweighed the negatives in this case.

Last, but not least, this is my hand-drawn copy of two figures that were in the article I read today.  I think the Venn Diagrams show nicely how the team is more balanced and inclusive when using the student-led IEP meeting approach.  

Fiedler, C. R. & Danneker, J. E. (2007). Self-advocacy instruction: Bridging the research-to-practice gap. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39, 1-20.

Merchant, D.J., & Gajar, A.  (1997).  A review of the literature on self advocacy components in transition programs for students with learning disabilities.  Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 8, 223-231.