Print Friendly, PDF & Email

I recently read an article in Education Week entitled Improving Special Education in Tough Times. With budgets being cut, especially to special education, the title sparked my interest. As I read, I found myself applauding many of the suggestions presented. But, there was one theme I found myself in total disagreement about, at least on the surface.

Yes, I agree that districts most stop using special education as the “catchall” program as it has become. Not every child who lags behind in school academically or has behavior problems need to be given a label and given an IEP. This practice has destroyed the integrity of the program and has caused many teachers and administers a great deal of frustration. But most importantly, it takes away seriously needed resources for students who not only need them but who really could benefit and improve their academic skills as a result of the special education program.

 

Yes, I agree that districts need to reduce unwanted turnover among teachers of students with disabilities. I guess I can be included in this bunch. Too often talented teachers burn out and leave the profession. Only to be replaced by less experienced,  individuals who lack the passion and the patience really needed to be an effective special education teacher.

Yes, I even agree that districts have to focus more on instructional quality and less on its quantity. The  myriad of standards teachers are expected to teach, yet still  remediate areas of weaknesses, is unprecedented. Who are we fooling? Most teacher’s classrooms resemble speed dating than actual places of learning where teachers work with students until they have mastered a skill. Although it’s not verbalized, most teachers are force to adhere to, “If they don’t get it move on. The standards must be covered.” Did you catch that? Covered not mastered! That’s a big difference.

What I don’t agree with is the ideal of placing students in inclusive settings based solely on the fact of saving money and because educating students in self-contained environments is “enormously expensive”. While it’s obvious that placing students with disabilities in the general education setting is more cost effective and many times very beneficial, it can be to the academic detriment of many other students, especially without the time and support needed.

I am all for inclusion. In fact, it’s greatly needed. But here is the reality, some students (moderate to severe students with disabilities) need a more restrictive environment. However, there has been a big push to have students with Mild Intellectual Disabilities (MID), severe Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) and severe Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorders (ADHD) in more inclusive setting without the benefit of effective resource accommodations to continue to remediate areas of weakness.

I have experienced it-  having students with MID, sever (SLD) and ADHD in an inclusive setting where the pace was just too fast for them to keep up even when they were the model student. Not to mention having to make the decision to not do “pull out” because the amount of curriculum that must be covered (not mastered) forces many teachers to do a new lesson every day. Furthermore, it is difficult to teach well when many students (and this may include some students who are not labeled) have acting out behaviors.

When it comes to the education of students with disabilities, there are many pieces to the puzzle that are often ignored and simply not taken into consideration. It seems that too often the cost is what is focused on the most. What ever happened to serving students based on their individual needs and not the needs of the school system?

 

The LD Coach

 

 

Join the Conversation

12 Comments

  1. Thanks Ruby!!! Inclusion is such a great ideal; however, we must be careful. Something that should be great opportunity could end up being a curse for some. The decision to place SWD in general education should be one that is made void of money, but what is in the best interest of the student.

  2. This is a huge issue in smaller, poorer districts where the "executive session mandate" is to keep the cost of services low. IEP's are altered or ignored, action is delayed, services are fudged to "make due". In order to make this easier to sell to the staff/victims, it's described as inclusion or co-teaching, and some makeshift "training" is provided despite the fact that the truly smart people who created working models of these approaches would be appalled at how their language is used to describe what amounts to avoidance. In districts like this, parents who are educated, involved and aggressive about holding the district to its irresponsibility will get the services the student needs. Other students can end up on the "inclusion" mouse-wheel where the regular education teacher struggles to meet the varied and sometimes significant needs of students that flounder in the regular classroom setting.

    1. @DMaxM This saddens me because your words are so true. The same thing happens in urban settings. If you are on the right side of town and know the right things then your students will get the right services. On the other…well you know. Just sad!

  3. I am a teacher who works in special education in NZ. Specifically I am an itinerant teacher of Deaf and Hearing Impaired students. I totally agree with the sentiments here. Whilst the majority of my students are doing well in inclusive settings, some are not and choice is important. It should be about what is best for student and his/ her family. The sad reality is that it is neo-liberal ideology that is the biggest driver of inclusion not educational pedogogy.

    1. Clint…choice is very important! "It should be about what is best for students…" I guess that is too much like right!

  4. Thank you – in my neck of the woods- many students end up in special education because they were not getting the ELL or ESOL services they needed. When we first went to the inclusion model – some teachers were also more apt to try a co teaching model_ now they do not want to give up the control of their classes because of all evaluations, standard testing! Inclusion teachers have become facilitators.

  5. I am a Special Education teacher and a proponent of inclusion when it is in the best interest of the students. Unfortunately, there are simply not enough special education staff members to support individualized inclusion which leaves us often with an “all or none” model. We can push SWD into a general education setting but since a licensed SPED teacher needs to be there (as well as 2 other places often) we put as many identified students into that general education class as possible. If 30% or more of the class are SWD is it still a general education classroom? Too many SWD to put into the one or two class period that I am available? Then we revert to the pull out model. Caseloads are overwhelming and it truth, little is individualized beyond the paperwork I am required to produce so that we appear to be in compliance. It breaks my heart.

  6. As a parent pf a mod severed child and a gen ed teacher – agree toyally with your article. I do not believe inclusion os always the answer and should be based on an individual case by case need! Well said!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.