|
Home >> Resources >> Special Education >> Special Ed Articles
BCCPAC's Special Topics Series
Special Education: A series by Cathy Abraham
Reprinted from BCCPAC's magazine
|
November 2004
|
|
|
February 2005
|
|
|
May 2005
|
|
|
December 2005
|
|
|
February 2006
|
|
|
June 2006
|
|
Part 1: Special Education Evolves as We Learn More About Learning Differences
Ministerial Order 150/89 established the rights of all students to be educated alongside students who did not have special needs. This entitlement is often referred to as inclusion.
Students with special needs were defined as those having a disability of an intellectual, physical, sensory, emotional, or behavioural nature, a learning disability, or exceptional gifts or talents.
From 1994 to 1996, the Ministry of Education modified and refined guidelines and ministerial orders to assist in defining special needs, to outline expectations for placement and services, to clarify the role of parents, and to establish requirements for Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for these students.
Since 1987, the number of students labeled as special needs has more than doubled. In 2003, it was reported as approximately 61,000. This change came in part because of increased recognition and understanding of learning differences and better assessment, but also because school districts had the incentive of additional funding for labeled students.
Special education was further influenced by contract language which often directed how students with special needs were to be identified and served. Some districts had extensive contract provisions for special education, others had very little. For example, in some districts, contract provisions limited the numbers of students with special needs who could be placed in individual classrooms, or reduced the total number of students in a class if that class included a student with special needs. Other provisions covered ratios of specialist teachers based on student population.
In 2000, the Ministry of Education undertook a Special Education Review to assess how services were meeting the needs of students, and to recommend areas needing change. The review produced 47 recommendations to improve services, many of which have been implemented, including removal of contract language which might interfere with the rights of these students.
Special education continues to evolve as we learn more about learning differences and develop tools to give all children the best possible education. Parents in their PACs, DPACs, and BCCPAC have been strong and persistent advocates for high quality, inclusive schools.
References:
Part 2: Learning More About Learning Differences
In the November issue of IMPACT, we gave you some background on the evolution of special education. Now, we hope to describe services as they exist today, and highlight some ongoing issues for parents.
There are approximately 62,000 students in our public schools labeled as having special needs (about 10% of the total student population). The Ministry of Education tops up the provincial per-pupil funding for certain categories of these students as follows:
-
Level 1: Dependent Handicapped; Deaf/Blind—$30,000
-
Level 2: Moderate to Profound Intellectually Disabled; Physically Disabled, Chronic Health; Visually Impaired; Deaf/Hearing Impaired; Autistic—$15,000
-
Level 3: Intensive Behaviour; Serious Mental Illness—$ 6,000
School districts are required to use this additional funding to create an educational program appropriate to the child, which may be done in a variety of ways.
The provincial per-pupil funding allocation includes additional funding for students with other special needs, such as mild intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, moderate behavior or mental illness, and for students who are gifted. Approximately one-third of labeled students are individually funded, and two-thirds are funded within the per-pupil allotment.
Services for students with special needs are guided by legislation and Ministerial Orders. The primary reference document for parents and educators is Special Education Services: A Manual of Policies, Procedures and Guidelines. Parents may find the Policy Directions section helpful, as it outlines roles and responsibilities of parents and educators, and explains how services should be organized to reflect the diversity of educational needs within the student population.
Parents have an essential role in developing and monitoring Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for their child with special education needs. The Individual Education Plan Order describes what an IEP is, when it is required, and the right of parents to be consulted about the preparation of the IEP.
The Ministry of Education’s Special Education Review completed in 2000 assessed the status of special education services. Many of its recommendations have been implemented, but there are a number of issues remaining for parents:
1. Lack of consultation:
Parents often express frustration when they are not given an opportunity to participate in their child’s educational programming. Sometimes IEPs are not written; at other times they simply arrive home for a parent’s signature.
2. Misunderstanding about funding of special education:
Special education is often seen as separate and apart from mainstream education, rather than as a means of organizing funding to address the educational needs of some students.
3. Labeling of students:
It can be detrimental to students to carry the special label, particularly if it is used to define the student, or is used in the absence of an understanding of their learning differences, or it results in the isolation of the student from other students. Parents have complained that school districts have used labels to acquire additional funding which does not always result in services that meet students’ needs.
4. Lack of understanding among educators of learning differences:
Educators may not understand or implement strategies to address learning differences within the classroom. Parents sometimes complain that the education of students with special needs is done only by specialist teachers and teacher assistants.
5. Lack of accountability for implementing policy:
There is still a lack of understanding of the roles and responsibilities of teachers, administrators, and school districts. Educators are not always held accountable when services are not provided as required by the manual. Appeal processes can be intimidating for parents.
Despite these issues, we continue to make progress in creating inclusive schools where all students are welcomed. Our children benefit from learning to accept and appreciate differences. By continuing to strive for excellence through our PACs, DPACs, and School Planning Councils, parents will ensure that schools become accountable for all the students they serve. We can be leaders in taking the special out of special education.
References:
Part 3: PACs and SPCs Can Make a Difference in Special Education
PACs and SPCs have a right to look at special education services in their schools and examine whether they are meeting the needs of students. Parents are very capable of doing this task, using a common sense approach that cuts through rhetoric to the heart of helping children learn. We can be effective advocates for quality service quite simply because we care.
Over the years, as I have learned to advocate for my daughter, Sheila, I have encountered exemplary professionals, as well as a few questionable practitioners. As a parent, I have learned to take the best that was offered, and have tried to model those practices in other settings. You can do the same at your school.
I learned about real professionalism when my daughter was having dental problems and we were referred to a specialist. On our first visit, we were asked to record her medical history and the nature of her disabilities. The dentist then examined her and explained his findings. The miracle happened when he asked me to tell him more about Sheila. I outlined her long history of medical interventions, her fears, and abilities. We worked together to develop a plan for her dental treatment that took all this information into account.
When I left his office, I was elated. Here was a professional who was willing to work with my daughter, was respectful of her, and sought to work with me. By bringing together his professional expertise with my expertise as a parent, we had a real opportunity for success.
Using this example, we see that the model used for delivering services is central to the success of the program for the child. The key is in working together, supported by an exemplary framework. Success does not happen by accident.
Services begin and end in the classroom because that is where children “live” at school. Teachers need to be informed and involved in planning for children with special needs. Parents must be involved to ensure that the plan suits their child. Other specialists bring expertise to help incorporate best practice whenever needed.
Too often we assume that if a child has special needs, we should automatically provide the child with an aide who becomes responsible for their education. This neither complies with special education policy nor exemplifies best practice. Aides have a role, but it is in providing support, not direction.
Following are basic questions that will help your PAC and SPC determine whether your school is using best practice:
-
Can your principal describe the model for service? Is it centered in the classroom?
-
Are teachers trained in learning differences to meet the needs of students in their classes?
-
Are Individual Education Plans (IEPs) done yearly for every student with special needs? How often are they updated?
-
Do parents participate in the development of the IEP in all cases?
The answers to these questions can be revealing, and will give your PAC and SPC a basis from which to plan for improvement. Don’t be baffled by the “special” in special education. Use what you know about best practice and you will make a difference!
Part 4: Straight Talk About Inclusion
This fall, we heard a lot of discussion about special education. Some of those conversations provided us with good information, but many were founded upon myths about services for students with special needs. In this article, we will attempt to dispel some myths about inclusion.
The Ministry of Education’s Ministerial Order 150/89 lays the foundation for inclusion in our schools. Some people believe that the Order directs schools to include all children at all times in all classes. The Order does not say that, nor is it intended to be interpreted that way.
The Order says that, unless the best interests of a child with special needs, or other children, are better served in some other way, the child is to be included in a typical classroom. Thus, the Order is “weighted” in favor of inclusion, but the best interests of the child and other children always come first.
If a school district can show that an alternative setting is required to meet the needs of a special needs child or of other children, or if safety is a consideration, the district can (and sometimes should) provide an alternative setting for the child. The objective of using alternative settings is to address, wherever possible, the problems that required segregation in the first place, with a view to eventually returning the child to the regular classroom. The classroom is the hub of service, and a segregated setting should be part of a continuum of services that begins and ends in the classroom.
Let’s look at some examples of best practice:
-
A student is diagnosed with a learning disability. The parents, school-based team, and district specialists strategize on interventions based on the child’s learning disability and these are put in place. Only after school and district resources are exhausted would segregation be appropriate so that the child could eventually return to the classroom. Follow up and monitoring should be part of the plan.
-
A student with autism may not be able to tolerate the stimulus of a typical classroom. A quiet space may be appropriate for extended periods of time at the beginning of the school year. As the child becomes more accustomed to the school and classroom, he or she could spend more time with other students.
-
The process to address a child with behaviour problems is similar to that for learning disabilities. If a child is removed, a plan should be put in place to help the child stop the difficult behaviour and return safely to the classroom.
-
Many secondary schools use resource rooms. Depending on the needs of the student, he or she may continue to have a “home base” to help the student become more comfortable in the regular classroom. The degree of inclusion will depend on the child.
The majority of students with the “special” label have never been segregated, and we need to keep this in mind when looking at the big picture of inclusion. By making the classroom the hub of service for all students, we are able to provide extra support while at the same time building more inclusive school communities. We make a clear statement that all students belong.
This statement carries over into society’s perceptions and expectations, and influences our ability to understand and appreciate those who face challenges. Our fear dissipates as students of today become employers and employees of tomorrow. Our economy benefits when those with special needs are supported and expected to become contributors rather than “takers”, assets rather than liabilities.
Through my long years of involvement with special education, prodded by my daughter with special needs, I have come to learn that the quality of life we give to those with special needs is far less dependent upon their unique challenges than upon society’s willingness to see beyond the wheelchair, the IQ, or the glasses. The quality of their lives rests in our hands. Let us give it back with tenderness and understanding.
Part 5: Human Rights Decision Puts Emphasis on Early Intervention
On December 21, 2005, the BC Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the Ministry of Education and the North Vancouver School District discriminated against Jeffrey Moore, a severely learning-disabled child, by failing to provide him with the education he needed.
The Tribunal ordered the Ministry and School District to compensate the Moores for a host of expenditures— costs of a specialized tutor, tuition to send Jeffrey to two independent schools for learning-disabled students, half of his transportation costs, costs for expert evidence at the hearing, and $10,000 for injury to his dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
In addition, the Tribunal ordered the Ministry and School District to make significant changes to the way they fund and deliver services to severely learning-disabled students. They must ensure that the services meet the goals of the School Act and Special Needs Student Order, and they must create early intervention programs for these students. (See the sidebar to the right for part of the order made against the Ministry.)
The Tribunal’s decision has major implications for every school district in BC. While we might assume the decision will result in dramatic increases in funding for special education, simply expending dollars will not guarantee better service. We can look instead to the Tribunal’s emphasis on early intervention for guidance on how to better address the needs of students with learning disabilities.
The Tribunal said: “If learning disabilities can be identified early, and appropriate supports provided, their severe negative consequences, which are both academic and social, can be mitigated.” It went on the say: “Early intervention is more economic and efficient, and it can avoid the ... effect in which academic deficits are cumulative.”
Children who are not identified early are at risk for never catching up to their peers despite ongoing and costly intervention. The Tribunal noted that: “Teacher observation, checklists, and some simple testing may be enough for an experienced teacher to identify children at risk for reading difficulties.”
Some school districts have taken the lead in early identification; others wait too long before offering re-mediation to students in need. This increases costs and makes intervention far less effective.
University training for teachers often does not include training in learning disabilities. Resistance to teacher education in this area is well illustrated by a remark of Paul Shaker, Dean of Education at Simon Fraser University. He said (as quoted in the Vancouver Sun): “It would be too much to expect all teachers to understand every disability. We need to think about creating school settings where there is appropriate support for the generalist teacher and in terms of teams, instead of individuals, bearing this responsibility.”
Skaker’s opinion is in sharp contrast to Howard Eaton’s of UBC. Eaton thinks new teachers need increased course work. He said: “If we’re not doing a year-long course on learning disabilities ... it’s sort of like a medical doctor going through (university) without taking courses on the human heart.”
It is obvious that consistency in training is desperately needed. It is also apparent that teachers currently in the classroom can lack the skills to identify and deal with learning problems. At present, there are no standards for continuing education of teachers despite a bylaw of the BC College of Teachers requiring the College Council to develop such standards. The Council seems to have little appetite for this requirement, and recently attempted to water down the bylaw. In the meantime, children bear the consequences of inconsistent or insufficient training.
If government is to respond to the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal in the Moore case, and make our education system more accountable for the success of every student, it will have to insist upon adequate teacher knowledge and skills. Adding more specialist staff, alongside a proliferation of teaching assistants, is only a band-aid solution to an underlying problem. Teachers need university training. They also need continuing education on current research-based best practices.
Parents of students who are quietly lagging behind in reading, whose concerns are shuffled aside while their children are in the primary grades, have every reason to insist that this problem be addressed head on. The Moore decision highlights the need for change. It is our responsibility to insist that the right changes be made.
The Moore decision is available at http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Moore_v_BC_(Ministry_of_Education)_and_School_District_
No_44_2005_BCHRT_580.pdf
Part 6: It's Time to Question Services and Labelling in Special Education
One of the most fundamental problems parents face with special education is our reluctance to question how services operate and how dollars are spent. We fear that asking questions in this area will make it seem as if we are discriminating against our most vulnerable students.
Parents of students with special needs, like me, are sometimes afraid of the questions parents of “typical” students ask. None of us understands very well the complex legislation surrounding special education. As a result, we carry on from day to day and year to year quietly tolerating services over which we feel little control. We are vulnerable to the myths that abound about special education, and services that warrant close scrutiny are often delivered in a vacuum of accountability.
Parents are susceptible to believing that public questioning might include: “Can we afford inclusion?”, or “How can teachers cope with the increasing numbers of students with special needs?” Neither of these questions is constructive or reflective of the facts. Inclusion is here to stay, and the number of designated students has dropped slightly.
Currently we label 10.2% of our children as special needs, 10.1% as English as a Second Language, and 9.4% as Aboriginal. These labels bring additional dollars to school districts, some on the basis of actual students, others as a percentage of student enrolment. Still, there is an insatiable appetite for extending labelling to kids who have become known as “grey area” students, including those with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Attention Deficit Disorder, and those whom the school system is simply failing.
If we continue this labelling, we could find as many as 40% of students carrying a “special” label (assuming a percentage of these students might carry more than one label). Are the labels helpful in meeting their learning needs? Or, are we moving away from inclusive classrooms to ones in which an increasing number of children are seen as add-ons over and above the “typical” students?
Labels have been very successful in adding resources on top of the classroom, in contrast to basic funding that works within the classroom to meet the diverse needs of all learners. In 2003, the BC Teachers’ Federation surveyed 380 teachers on inclusion. Their report admits: “Over 40% of respondents in both Nanaimo and Coquitlam stated that they felt professionally unprepared to teach students with special needs ... After many years of a provincial inclusionary policy, such perspectives are of concern. Inclusion is hardly newly-arrived, and the presence of students with exceptionalities in our schools is the norm. Yet, in spite of policy and the presence of students with exceptionalities over the years, many teachers say that they feel unprepared to teach to such diversity.”[1]
The lack of training of classroom teachers contributes to the perception among both teachers and parents that some students are a “burden”, that resource teachers and aides should assume responsibility for their education, and that the responsibility of the teacher should extend only to those students in the center of the class. Students with labels are taking the hit for the busy-ness of teachers.
Parents can and should question the direction we are taking with labelling. Are labels helping us understand children, or are they a means to deal with overall changes to teachers’ roles? If we are serious about using labels to help students, we can and should query teacher expertise and ongoing training. These must keep pace with the identification of learning differences if we are really to put children first.
Teachers can’t teach what they don’t know. Our reluctance to tread into special education has permitted walls to go up around children. If we, as parents, don’t ask the hard questions, no one will.
Teaching in 2003: Survey Report–How Teachers in Coquitlam and Nanaimo Vew Special Education and ESL Services. Available at http://www.bctf.ca/education /InclusiveEd/ResearchProject/dc/SurveyReport.html
|