Sped Presentation2

4,210 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,210
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
37
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
153
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Sped Presentation2

  1. 1. What is Inclusion? <ul><ul><li>Full or part-time placement of students with disabilities in the same school or classroom they would attend if they were not disabled </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Alper, 1997, p.6) </li></ul></ul>
  2. 2. So…what’s “full inclusion”? <ul><li>Inclusion without exception </li></ul><ul><li>The notion that LRE is always the mainstream classroom </li></ul><ul><li>All supports and services must be taken to that child in the mainstream setting </li></ul><ul><li>Extremely controversial topic (Evans, 2002, p. 1) </li></ul>
  3. 3. Full Inclusion or Total Delusion? (qtd. in Hornby, 1997, p. 68) <ul><li>“ The history of the twentieth century for disabled people has been one of exclusion. The twenty-first century will see the struggle of disabled people for inclusion go from strength to strength. In such a struggle, special, segregated education has no role to play” </li></ul><ul><li>-M. Oliver Understanding Disability (1996) </li></ul><ul><li>“… full inclusion can provide only an illusion of support for all students, an illusion that may trick many into jumping on the bandwagon…[S]pecial education is in danger of riding the bandwagon called ‘full inclusion’ to its own funeral.” </li></ul><ul><li>-J.M. Kauffman, The Illusion of Full Inclusion (1995) </li></ul>
  4. 4. Key Concepts of Inclusion <ul><li>Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Special Ed. provided at public expense in conformity with the IEP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Appropriate varies from student to student </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ To the maximum extent appropriate ” SwD educated in general education classrooms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Restrictiveness a measure of “proximity to, and communication with the ordinary flow of persons in society” (qtd. in Yell, 2006, p. 310) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>FAPE vs. LRE...which wins? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>School’s primary obligation is to FAPE </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IEP team selects LRE most compatible with FAPE </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Key Concepts of Inclusion (continued…) <ul><li>Supplementary Aids and Services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Modification of the GenEd classroom for the inclusion of SwD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensures accessibility of information and equal participation for all </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Key to meeting LRE </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Continuum of Service </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Continuum of alternative placements available to students with disabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Arranged from least to most restrictive </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. The Continuum of Services GenEd GenEd w/consultation GenEd with part-time assistance Part day in Special Ed classes Full day in Special Ed classes Special Ed School Homebound Placement
  7. 7. LRE , Inclusion , and Mainstreaming …oh my! <ul><ul><li>SwD entitled to education with peers w/o disabilities “to the maximum extent appropriate” (IDEA) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not a setting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Placement of SwD in general education setting with peers w/o disabilities </li></ul></ul>Somewhat dated, less comprehensive program than inclusion Inclusion/mainstreaming sometimes LRE, but not always! <ul><li>Not IDEA </li></ul><ul><li>Synonymous in court </li></ul><ul><li>Narrower than LRE </li></ul>Least Restrictive Environment Mainstreaming Inclusion
  8. 8. History of Inclusion Paradigm <ul><li>Before 1960s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SPED = segregation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>1960s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Civil rights movement— integration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1968 L.M. Dunn article spearheads SPED integration </li></ul></ul><ul><li>1970s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EAHCA 1975 promises LRE </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Part-time inclusion prevails </li></ul></ul><ul><li>1980s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>REI movement – “Good teachers can teach to all students” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited full-time inclusion of high-incidence disabilities (LD, EBD, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>1990s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Full inclusion movement— full-time inclusion for all </li></ul></ul>Hornby, 1997, p. 69; Kavale et al., 2000, p. 281
  9. 9. Why Inclusion? <ul><ul><li>Educational Beliefs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All students can learn regardless of disability (diversity trumps difference) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All students learn through participation with and modeling of competent peers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All classrooms can be equipped to support all students </li></ul></ul>(Alper, 1995, p. 6-16; Taylor, 2006, p. 50; Hornby, 1997, p. 69)
  10. 10. Why Inclusion? <ul><ul><li>Social Outcomes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve self-esteem and social skills of students with disabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve academic achievement of students with disabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Challenge stereotypes of students without disabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduce disproportionality in special education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduce stigma attached to special education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Promote greater individualization for all GenEd students (UDL) </li></ul></ul>(Alper, 1995, p. 6-16; Taylor, 2006, p. 50; Hornby, 1997, p. 69)
  11. 11. Why Inclusion? <ul><ul><li>Other Beliefs… </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost effective </li></ul></ul>(Alper, 1995, p. 16; Hornby, 1997, p. 81) $$$ Or is it…?
  12. 12. Objections to Full Inclusion <ul><li>Rhetoric over reason </li></ul><ul><li>Emotion over evidence </li></ul><ul><li>Advocacy for programs over advocacy for children </li></ul><ul><li>Savings over services </li></ul>Hornby, 1997, p. 76-79; Kavale et al., 2000, 279-283
  13. 13. Obstacles to Full Inclusion in GenEd Classroom <ul><li>Lack of teacher motivation (NIMBY) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lip-service to inclusion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reluctant practice (time and energy concerns) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lack of teacher efficacy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Failed differentiation (one-size fits all) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Botched co-teaching </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lack of student awareness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social contact does not automatically improve social consciousness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Anxiety of students with disabilities over mainstreaming </li></ul></ul>Kavale et al., 2000, 285-289
  14. 14. <ul><li>OSSE </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Issued a statewide inclusion policy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Particularly affects two parts of Section 612 (a) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Unless services cannot be achieved satisfactorily, students with disabilities and students without disabilities should be educated together. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>OSSE is responsible for ensuring that the mandate is met </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Non-compliance with SPED indicators ensuring: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FAPE </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>LRE </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>OSSE, 2008 </li></ul>Inclusion in DC (Cont)
  15. 15. Inclusion in DC <ul><ul><ul><li>Blackman-Jones </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Two lawsuits filed in 1997 vs. DC Gov’t and DCPS </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Blackman vs District of Columbia </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Challenged school system’s failure to hold special education due process hearings </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Jones vs. District of Columbia </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Charged system with delayed implementation of SPED plans ordered by hearing officers or negotiations made with parents or advocates. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Includes thousands of plaintiffs </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Make up a class and are called class members </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>OSSE, 2008 </li></ul>
  16. 16. Inclusion in DC (Cont) <ul><li>Blackman-Jones (Cont) </li></ul><ul><li>Class Members </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Over 6500 members </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requested or received SPED services at a DC public school (DCPS or Charter) or attended private school funded by DC between Jan 1, 1995-March 1, 2008. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Experienced delays receiving services because of an untimely due process hearing or decision or school did not implement due process hearing decision or settlement agreement. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DC agreed to provide all members with an award </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Blackman/Jones Compensatory Education </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does not include all DC students identified with special needs </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Inclusion in DC (Cont) <ul><li>Full Service Schools (FSS) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In-school services not offered regularly in DC schools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Academic coaches </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Behavioral and mental health professionals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Support for teachers in students to increase academic achivement and social wellbeing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Best practices, differentiated instruction, behavior management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strong partnerships between families and schools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Currently only on a middle school level- looking to expand </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>11 schools </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>DC Public Schools, 2009 </li></ul>
  18. 18. Inclusion in DC (Cont) <ul><li>Schoolwide Applications Model (SAM) </li></ul><ul><li>Increases supports, services, and resources in Gen. Ed settings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enhanced staffing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Intensive professional development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical assistance on integrated services </li></ul></ul><ul><li>From isolated/separated support services to full integration of services </li></ul><ul><li>Response to an intervention model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Using indiv. Student achievement and behavior data to identify needs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ongoing prof. development and technical assistance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Coaches assigned to every school </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Currently in 15 Elementary schools- looking to expand </li></ul><ul><li>DC Public Schools, 2009 </li></ul>
  19. 19. Least Restrictive Environment? <ul><li>Most students with special needs attend </li></ul><ul><li>the majority of the classes with Gen Ed. </li></ul><ul><li>students </li></ul><ul><li>Some classrooms use a co-teaching model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One Gen Ed./ One SPED </li></ul></ul><ul><li>SPED teachers work with both Gen Ed. And SPED students in adhering to inclusive model </li></ul><ul><li>Students who cannot be accommodated have the option to petition for placement </li></ul>
  20. 20. Least Restrictive Environment? <ul><li>Kingsbury Day School </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Private School </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>90% of students come from DCPS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>School for students with special needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Still accomodations that DCPS cannot meet </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Puts LRE vs. Inclusion </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. $$$$ RESOURCES! How Many of Us Have Them? $$$$ <ul><li>Teacher Lay-offs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Approx. 229 teachers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Budget Deficit </li></ul><ul><li>Many Schools still not in compliance re: SPED staffing </li></ul><ul><li>Not enough teachers with adequate SPED training to promote inclusive model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cannot afford co-teachers </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. $$$$ RESOURCES! How Many of Us Have Them? $$$$ (cont) <ul><li>Do not have the resources we need to promote the inclusive model we advertise. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In promoting a model we do not have the resources to support or implement, it compromises the LRE of all students </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Students with disabilities are not getting the differentiated instruction they are entitled to </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Gen Ed. Teachers= generally not equipped to work with IEPs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Little SPED training required to obtain Gen. Ed. licensing </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Recommendations <ul><li>Implement incentives for Gen. Ed. teachers to become SPED certified </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Salary increases </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Currently, teachers only receive $1500 a year extra for dual-certification </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Make dual cert requirement for highly qualified status </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Offer discounted/accelerated cert. programs </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Through local partnerships/grants </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Loan forgiveness </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Over a third of DC’s residents are recognized as functionally illiterate- literacy training emphasis in several SPED programs in DC </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>More dual cert. teachers=less co-teachers= save $$$ </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Team of paraprofessionals for extra presence in classroom </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Benefits <ul><li>For Gen Ed. And SPED students </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All students can benefit from teachers who have specialized training in working with/differentiating instruction for a variety of learners </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Schools save money by eliminating co-teachers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Can work on increasing the pay of dual cert. teachers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More staff to manage case loads </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>More people qualified to lead IEP meetings and advocate for students with disabilities. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Single-certified SPED teachers can focus on students who need accommodations that extend past an inclusive classroom </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. References <ul><li>Kavale, K. and Forness, S. (2000). History, Rhetoric, and Reality: Analysis of the Inclusive Debate. Remedial and Special Education . 22 (5), 279-296. </li></ul><ul><li>Hornby, G., Atkinson, M., and Howard, J. (1997). Controversial Issues in Special Education . London: David Fulton Publishers. </li></ul><ul><li>Alper, S., Schloss, P., Etscheidt, S. and Macfarlane C.A. (1995). Inclusion: Are We Abandoning or Helping Our Students? Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc. </li></ul><ul><li>Yell, M. (2006). The Law and Special Education (2 nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson </li></ul>

×