What Does Inclusion Look Like at Your School?
I received this guest post from "Don't Know Where to Start", a public school parent in Seattle:
Last week the Seattle Times carried an article about upcoming changes to special education in Seattle Public Schools, "Special education reforms would likely include classes taught in pairs" (Wed 30 April). The article says that “As a task force begins this spring to revamp Seattle Public Schools' approach to special education, it's likely many classrooms around the district will begin to look more like Eckstein's” where children who qualify for special ed services are in general education classrooms taught by two teachers, one general ed and one special ed. Currently this model only exists at the kindergarten level.
However if you read the School Board Work Session on the Student Assignment Plan and Special Education, April 30th, there is no mention of this co-teaching model at all.
The co-teaching model should be extended beyond these specialized kindergarten contexts because, according to the external review of the special ed programming in SPS and according to the instructional leaders survey for the strategic plan, there is currently not enough support for general education teachers to meet the needs of children who are differently-abled in their classrooms. I wonder if general education teachers who read this blog could comment. Currently as many as 30% of children who receive special education are doing so in contexts that violate their rights to the least restrictive environments, yet even for those who are in general education classrooms outside of those co-teaching contexts, “least restrictive” can translate into “sit and wait until someone can individualize …”.
Co-teaching may be an expensive fix but it could be the only realistic way, in the short run, to address the situation and the realities that general ed teachers are saying that there is a gap in their ability to individualize effectively in the short run. It would be good to hear from others about the inclusion atmosphere in your schools and PTAs and where leadership on this important matter could be strengthened.
Comments
Anyway, the district has eliminated the position of special education manager and task force manger. There's no one at the helm. So, the media reported co-teaching arrangement is pure speculation until they find whoever it is they're looking to hire.
It is astonishing to me that schools enforce dress codes and rules against hugging because they are disruptive to the educational environment, but regular outbursts - which literally do disrupt students' education - are supposed to be tolerated.
The situation described by 1964 should not have been allowed to repeat - let alone repeat regularly. I'm not saying that the special education students should be removed from the class, but more aggressive and pro-active steps must be taken for the benefit of all students.
As for the gawking and ridicule, that should also be addressed aggressively and pro-actively. It's reprehensible.
It is not fair or acceptable to the general ed students to have to give up a portion of their learning time to accomodate one or two special needs children. It is not fair for them to have to duck the pencil that the child throws, or to have to jump out of the way of a turned over desk. And it is not fair for them to be expected to sit without anything to do for 20 or so minutes while the teacher is calming the special ed child down. And how is fair to the special needs child? The teacher was often exasperated? The other children in the room stared? It just wasn't a good situation for anyone.
Do you think this is a good situation?
It's the law, and for a very good reason. Forty years ago, any student who was deemed "not mainstream" (or "disruptive") could, and often would, be sent down some dark hallway to languish in a self-contained room so as not to bother the "regular" students.
That has changed. The laws now require that students be mainstreamed as much as possible, in the least restrictive environment, because to do otherwise denies these children their rights.
It's against the law to merely send these children away, and a positive interpretation of the district's current moves towards "inclusion" suggests that not only are they more closely moving towards adhering to the law, but they're doing the right thing.
But this will, by necessity, be expensive. Smaller class sizes, more aids, case managers to support each student who is struggling through each day (and make no mistake, the hair-puller, the wall licker, the shouter...these are just kids, these are not some horrible creatures), all these additional services will cost money.
By consolidating services, by streamlining where possible (shutting down stand-alone "rooms down the hall" and reallocating those staff members is a start, if done correctly) might allow for a better delivery of service.
But self-contained classrooms are not the answer, and they're often used illegally. To repeat, the law, and basic human rights, dictates that ALL students be in regular ed situations wherever possible.
Some might say, but my child will be exposed to screamers, kickers, others who disrupt. A response to that is that the world is full of people who act out in "weird" ways, and it might be a good idea to have some exposure and some responses available.
Another response is private school, many of which have a very low proportion of "special ed" (and remember, some SpEd is behavioural, it's socially predicated) and if a parent feels that his or her child shouldn't be exposed to these children, then perhaps a private school, or home schooling is an alternative. For the rest of us, compassion and the law work to ensure that every child's needs are met in a setting as close as is possible to that which the rest of us expect.
How does it work to have more than one set of behavioral rules in a classroom? 'It is ok for that child to scream, but the other child is punished for talking.' 'It is ok for him to hit you, but not ok for you to hit him.' How is that explained to children?
What do children learn if they are trained to accept kicking, chair throwing, hair-pulling from a child with emotional challenges? Is it possible that they learn to define their own compassion as being able to accept a role as victim?
Yes, behavior is harder to deal with than academic. It's easier to differentiate academic than behavior. This speaks to the need for a wide support system of aid: IAs and other parapros, pull-out rooms, case management that assists SpEd teachers and parent/guardians, outside agencies to facilititate a web of support...
Good point about students maybe learning only that compassion is being a willing (or quiet) victim. Good place for a lesson.
So, I am all for inclusion if it is supported with appropriate funding and staff by our district. Otherwise, it just does not work.
One thing I don't understand though is how 'least restrictive' applies. Does it mean that kids have to be accomodated at the school closest to their home? That seem counter productive. I would think that you would want to group kids by their type of disability so that: teacher training and other resources could be focused on those children's needs; to reduce average costs by serving more than one child per classroom; and also so the kids and their families would have more of a community.
For example, TOPS has a deaf and hard of hearing program. The kids spend parts of the day in a self contained classroom but are included in the grade level classrooms whenever possible. When they go out to the gen ed rooms, an aide often goes with them. Some kids are completely mainstreamed, but have access to the DHH teachers if something goes wrong with their implants or hearing aids or if they need extra help on something. More and more of the teachers and even kids have been studying sign language.
It seems odd that programs like this might be discontinued and all of the kids sent to separate schools with general purpose special ed aides in the classrooms. Maybe this is a special case, but I could imagine the same set up being good for kids on the autism spectrum or with Downs, or with physical disabilities.
One thing that seems odd is how rarely continuity seems to be valued in special ed program placement. All of the TOPS DHH kids will be sent to Eckstein when they get to middle school even though we're a K-8. Meanwhile we have a Middle School self contained ('low incidence?') Sped classroom (those kids are sometimes included too, but with out aides, which probably contributes to the rareness). We used to have a primary Sped classroom, but that was replaced by a 2nd primary DHH program, so the kids who would most benefit from continuity (Sped or DHH)don't seem to get it.
In the same vein, I noticed that AE2 seems to have a primary autism program, but then they go to Salmon Bay. Why not start them at Salmon Bay to reduce transitions? At least the cohort can move with them for now, but I believe the AE2 preference to Salmon Bay isn't permanent? And then there is the Viewlands autism program which moved to Broadview Thompson; will those kids stay there K-8, I hope so.
The situation described by 1964 most definitely been handled more appropriately if students are indeed throwing things at people and pulling out the hair of others. It is entirely possible that a more restrictive placement is warranted. And it would also be unacceptable if 20 minutes of every day was spent consoling one student. But, it's pretty hard to believe that having seen many inclusion programs. Other schools have exactly the opposite problem. At my school a second grade autistic student was suspended for throwing a rock at the building, damaging nothing and hurting no one. Some may view his behavior as dangerous. But others would say this second grader was suspended precisely because of his disability for something any other 7 year old might have done.
I'm a little more interested in hearing from someone who has ideas, experience, or opinions on the district's EBD programs, where students are more capable of sustained and planned behaviors. These are the self-contained emotional-behavior programs filled with minorities students. It's basically jail training. The sped review listed this as the most inequitable piece of special education. In fact, it's getting it's own review.
Is throwing rocks against your school rules? Would a non special ed student have been suspended for this action too?
If the answer is yes, then I would say you can't have it both ways. You can't ask for special ed kids to be in inclusion programs or mainstreamed, and then give them different or "special" rules. If they are in regular programs they should be able to follow the same rules that regular ed children follow. If they can't then they should be in self contained classes with specialists, and a much lower student to teacher ratio.
If the answer to my question was no, throwing rocks is not against school rules, and a regular ed 2nd grader would not be suspended for it, then I would say you may have a law suit.
Schools absolutely can, do, and must have different rules for students with disabilities in general education. Yes, different standards of behavior are required. It is the law. There are accommodations for everything in IEP's, including behavior. There are also behavior intervention plans that are legal documents describing actions adults must take for students with disabilities. No, other people don't get them. I'm really surprised that people don't know this. Inclusion is NOT about 1 size fits all, everybody follows the same rules, everybody does the same thing. It is about tailoring a school to meet the needs of everyone.
You keep citing the law. If the school broke the law by suspending the special ed student for throwing a rock, why is there no law suit?? I think it might be the opposite of what you think. I think the law suit may have been filed if the school did nothing about the autistic child throwing rocks, and he injured another child on the playground.
Get a grip. Rocks should not be thrown on a playground full of children. It is DANGEROUS. And when it happens, by any child, it should be addressed as a serious offense.
of course, no one has provided detailed costs in time and effort, just vague odes to unfunded laws.
guess what? all kids have more rights than we pay for, so how about figuring out what any rights actually cost and how about actually paying for those rights.
inclusion is currently a cheap way to blame teachers for crazy classes, classes which rob the many of their right to an education.
Since we agree that a sped child should not be the cause of injury or disruption to the rest of the class, I would like to know what you propose should happen when they do? When a teacher has to stop teaching for 20 minutes to calm the sped child down, when the rock the sped child throws hits another child in the eye, when a sped child pulls a quarter size lump of hair out of another child's head?
I did not say that I did not like inclusion. Please read my post again. What I said was if a spec ed child can not follow basic rules, especially those that enforce safety for all students, then they should be in a contained room OR have an aid with them in a gen ed classroom and on the playground. If you don't like my idea, please tell me what you suggest to make sure that all students are safe and able to learn in a LDR (least disruptive environment)
I am a special education teacher. Now I am working with kids who are mainstreamed most of the day and have mild disabilities, but I have worked with kids with severe behavioral disabilities, whom I did send out to mainstream classes for varying lengths of time per day. I had 10 students and three aides, all of whom had a B.A. in psychology (this was in another state). That's how it was possible, and it was still hard work.
The district is not staffing the special education positions that it has already. More inclusion would mean more open positions. I am totally in favor of SUPPORTED inclusion, but not unsupported.
Mainstreamed students with severe behaviors should not be left in a gen ed classroom without support. It is not professional, it is cruel to the student with disabilities, and it is confusing to the peers without disabilities.
And there is a fine line between teaching other kids tolerance and sharing too much personal information about a child with disabilities. Creating a truly aware and inclusive classroom requires a lot of support, communication, and parent buy-in.
Co-teaching requires regular shared planning time. Right now I work with 7 teachers and am alloted 30 minutes of planning time per day. I am lucky if I get an e-mail out to them a couple of times a week.
These self-contained classes work for kids with behavior/emotional issues and many of them would prefer not to mix with the general ed students as it is too stressful for them. Yet there are a few higher functioning students where inclusion would work and work well. Yet because these kids are assigned to “self contained” rooms, educators feel these students already have an appropriate education within the “self contained” classroom and so the few students who would benifit, do not receive inclusion opportunities.