Here are two articles about some technological supports available to help the parents, advocates, and educators of children with special needs. I am not personally endorsing either of these publications or products but wanted to make the information available to you so that you can take a look for yourself!
Enjoy!
App Store Special Education Section
IEP Checklist for iPhone
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
LRE Part III: The Bottom Line
I have given you a lot of information over the last three posts regarding the Least Restrictive Environment. Within each of those, there have been details which could be expounded upon for multiple posts.
Here is the most important thing that I want you to gather from all of the information I have shared with you on LRE:
Special Education is NOT a place. It is a combination of services, supports, instruction, modifications, people, and resources designed to help your child with special needs access the regular curriculum in the way that BEST meets his or her needs.
The question should not be "where should the special needs child be placed?"
Rather, the IEP team needs to ask, "How can we best enable this child to access the curriculum in the general education setting."
The question is how can this child be taught in the classroom alongside typical peers; not whether or not it is possible.
Only after all options and supports have been implemented and exhausted should removal from the general education setting be considered. Being taught in the typical classroom is a right, not a privilege to be earned.
Here is the most important thing that I want you to gather from all of the information I have shared with you on LRE:
Special Education is NOT a place. It is a combination of services, supports, instruction, modifications, people, and resources designed to help your child with special needs access the regular curriculum in the way that BEST meets his or her needs.
The question should not be "where should the special needs child be placed?"
Rather, the IEP team needs to ask, "How can we best enable this child to access the curriculum in the general education setting."
The question is how can this child be taught in the classroom alongside typical peers; not whether or not it is possible.
Only after all options and supports have been implemented and exhausted should removal from the general education setting be considered. Being taught in the typical classroom is a right, not a privilege to be earned.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
LRE - Part II: The Role of Goals
It is important to note that the Least Restrictive Environment is not a place. It is a description of a learning environment. It is important that in the advocating process, we are careful to not confuse LRE with General Education.
That is not to say, of course, that the General Education Setting is not the Least Restrictive Environment for a child with special needs. In fact, in most cases education alongside typical peers in typical classroom settings with appropriate support IS the least restrictive, most beneficial place for a child with special needs.
The backbone of this entire understanding is the knowledge that Special Education itself is not, nor should it ever be, a PLACE. The Environment that is least restrictive for the child should not BE Special Education. The supports that are put in place to help maximize a child's learning potential are the Special Education resources. And according to IDEA, as noted in my last LRE - Part I:
The IEP team meets for an annual review or placement consideration. Introductions are made. Any new testing results (which should have been approved by the parent/guardian before administration) are presented. Present levels of performance (PLOPs) are discussed including strengths and weaknesses as identified by the school staff and in relation to the child's disability. Parent concerns are addressed. Then comes the challenging part of the IEP - and often the part that is allocated the least amount of time.
I could spend an entire blog post (or twelve) on how to write implementable, measurable, solid goals for children with an IEP. And maybe I will... at a later time. For now, I want you to consider this: The goals drive placement.
Right or wrong, this is how 99% of the IEP teams on which I have participated have made their placement decisions. Can the goals be implemented in the general education setting with appropriate support?
It can get confusing here because "appropriate support" leaves a lot of room for ambiguity. What one administrator may see as "appropriate" support may not in fact be what a student needs - whether that child needs more or less than suggested. Additionally, it will take work to get all members responsible for IEP goal implementation to agree that everyone needs to be involved in the process of working on goal achievement.
Certainly there are situations when the speech or occupational therapist will have specific goals that he or she will work on during those designated sessions. However, writing goals, reading goals, math goals, social goals, etc. should be able to work in both the self contained/special education setting as well as the general education setting with typical peers.
The key to determining if those goals are in fact applicable in both settings is understanding a very critical point: Having a child INCLUDED in the general education setting is not the same as having a child MAINSTREAMED in the general education setting. I will note here that there are educational professionals who disagree with this perspective. However, I have found in my practice that there is a significant semantic difference between the two.
Inclusion affords a child with special needs to learn at his or her own pace alongside typical peers in the general education setting with supplemental supports at a pace that is appropriate to his/her learning needs. This could include but is not limited to decreased workload, varied academic goals, and other "standards" adaptations as needed. For example, a special needs child included with his or her typical peers may not be held to the same rigorous academic criteria as his or her classmates. However, he or she will still be required to work on topic appropriate material that not only aligns with the curriculum and flow of the general education setting, but is also adapted in such a way that the goals from his or her IEP are being addressed.
Mainstreaming, on the other hand, assumes that once a child has met certain criteria, he or she is "ready" to move into the general education setting and learn the same academic curriculum at the same pace alongside his or her typical peers.
Inclusion takes work. Writing goals that promote inclusion takes a lot of work. Getting the IEP team to agree that the goals do promote and are able to be achieved in an inclusive setting can be an especially challenging and exhausting task. But it is, I guarantee you, a task for which your child will be thankful.
It is not reasonable to assume that a parent or advocate can walk into a room demanding an inclusive education for a child with special needs simply because it is the child's right. In my early advocacy, I often made the mistake of putting placement before goals. This led to a lot of confusion and frustration.
If you want your child's least restrictive environment to be in the inclusive setting, you need to set up a case for the type of environment you would like to see him or her thrive in. You can do that by recommending goals that will foster placement in general education and describing the type of learning environment you want for your child.
If you do not get the desired placement the first time, do not be afraid to go back and ask for it again. Step away from the table, do some more research, and figure out how to paint an IEP picture for your child that will help you get closer to your goal.
That is not to say, of course, that the General Education Setting is not the Least Restrictive Environment for a child with special needs. In fact, in most cases education alongside typical peers in typical classroom settings with appropriate support IS the least restrictive, most beneficial place for a child with special needs.
The backbone of this entire understanding is the knowledge that Special Education itself is not, nor should it ever be, a PLACE. The Environment that is least restrictive for the child should not BE Special Education. The supports that are put in place to help maximize a child's learning potential are the Special Education resources. And according to IDEA, as noted in my last LRE - Part I:
LRE means that, to the maximum extent appropriate, school districts must educate students with disabilities in the regular classroom with appropriate aids and supports, referred to as "supplementary aids and services, " along with their nondisabled peers in the school they would attend if not disabled, unless a student's IEP requires some other arrangement. This requires and individualized inquiry into the unique educational needs of each disabled student in determining the possible range of aids and supports that are needed to facilitate the students's placement in the regular educational environment before a more restrictive placement is considered. (http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/lre.osers.memo.idea.htm)Every child has unique learning needs regardless of the nature and extent of his or her learning challenges. In determining the LRE for your special needs child, it is important to consider and understand several things. Today's post will focus on the impact of goals in the determination of placement in the Least Restrictive Environment.
The IEP team meets for an annual review or placement consideration. Introductions are made. Any new testing results (which should have been approved by the parent/guardian before administration) are presented. Present levels of performance (PLOPs) are discussed including strengths and weaknesses as identified by the school staff and in relation to the child's disability. Parent concerns are addressed. Then comes the challenging part of the IEP - and often the part that is allocated the least amount of time.
I could spend an entire blog post (or twelve) on how to write implementable, measurable, solid goals for children with an IEP. And maybe I will... at a later time. For now, I want you to consider this: The goals drive placement.
Right or wrong, this is how 99% of the IEP teams on which I have participated have made their placement decisions. Can the goals be implemented in the general education setting with appropriate support?
It can get confusing here because "appropriate support" leaves a lot of room for ambiguity. What one administrator may see as "appropriate" support may not in fact be what a student needs - whether that child needs more or less than suggested. Additionally, it will take work to get all members responsible for IEP goal implementation to agree that everyone needs to be involved in the process of working on goal achievement.
Certainly there are situations when the speech or occupational therapist will have specific goals that he or she will work on during those designated sessions. However, writing goals, reading goals, math goals, social goals, etc. should be able to work in both the self contained/special education setting as well as the general education setting with typical peers.
The key to determining if those goals are in fact applicable in both settings is understanding a very critical point: Having a child INCLUDED in the general education setting is not the same as having a child MAINSTREAMED in the general education setting. I will note here that there are educational professionals who disagree with this perspective. However, I have found in my practice that there is a significant semantic difference between the two.
Inclusion affords a child with special needs to learn at his or her own pace alongside typical peers in the general education setting with supplemental supports at a pace that is appropriate to his/her learning needs. This could include but is not limited to decreased workload, varied academic goals, and other "standards" adaptations as needed. For example, a special needs child included with his or her typical peers may not be held to the same rigorous academic criteria as his or her classmates. However, he or she will still be required to work on topic appropriate material that not only aligns with the curriculum and flow of the general education setting, but is also adapted in such a way that the goals from his or her IEP are being addressed.
Mainstreaming, on the other hand, assumes that once a child has met certain criteria, he or she is "ready" to move into the general education setting and learn the same academic curriculum at the same pace alongside his or her typical peers.
Inclusion takes work. Writing goals that promote inclusion takes a lot of work. Getting the IEP team to agree that the goals do promote and are able to be achieved in an inclusive setting can be an especially challenging and exhausting task. But it is, I guarantee you, a task for which your child will be thankful.
It is not reasonable to assume that a parent or advocate can walk into a room demanding an inclusive education for a child with special needs simply because it is the child's right. In my early advocacy, I often made the mistake of putting placement before goals. This led to a lot of confusion and frustration.
If you want your child's least restrictive environment to be in the inclusive setting, you need to set up a case for the type of environment you would like to see him or her thrive in. You can do that by recommending goals that will foster placement in general education and describing the type of learning environment you want for your child.
If you do not get the desired placement the first time, do not be afraid to go back and ask for it again. Step away from the table, do some more research, and figure out how to paint an IEP picture for your child that will help you get closer to your goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)