Early childhood special Education

marydyn

Mod2InclusionandInclusiveStrategies21.ppt

Home >Education homework help >Early childhood special Education

The Beginnings of Inclusion

If you recall from the previous module’s readings, immediately after the first special ed law was implemented in 1978 and throughout the 1980’s, there was a term used in special ed called “mainstreaming.
This meant that children were placed in an appropriate setting and when the special education teacher or spec ed team decided they were ready, the child was given access to general education.
Today, the term is still used, but the correct term is really “inclusion” and it means that ALL students should have the opportunity to be with general education students when and where appropriate.
Along with a change in terminology, there is now a process in place for assisting the special ed team in making more informed decisions for where and when inclusion should take place. This all came later, in the 1990’s with the IDEA Act.
This should be a review from the last mod’s readings.

Mainstreaming:
Problems

Mainstreaming had problems because it too often was an arbitrary decision, or one that was made for the wrong or inappropriate reasons.
One problem with mainstreaming students, was that many times, the students were not taught or given the skills necessary to actually do well in a general classroom, and then of course, never put back into a gen ed classroom.
The example I like to use is a real example from when I taught self-contained LD (learning disabled) students in a public school in the late 1980’s.

Mainstreaming:
Problems

I taught 5th and 6th grade age students who were reading (in Sept) at or below the 1st grade level.
I began by teaching them reading through the use of alternative texts (rather than the reading textbooks used by most teachers at the time). We read folktales, poetry, newspapers, tall tales, and studied Roman and Greek mythology. By January, most of my students were reading well above the 1st grade level.
By the end of the year, almost all my students were reading at or above the 3rd grade level. So, for the following year, we discussed mainstreaming many of my students.
Besides content, part of what I taught them was study skills, critical thinking and problem solving skills, and social skills. My aide and I worked hard to help our students act like 5th and 6th graders and they were the only special ed class in the school asked to attend the end of the year picnic for the general ed students of their grade level.
My students were ready to be mainstreamed, because I had taught them the skills they needed to be successful and given them the tools they needed to be effective learners at their grade level.

Mainstreaming:
Problems

The classroom next to our room was also 5th and 6th grade age students who read at or below the 1st grade level.
However, that teacher taught traditionally and followed the textbook (not only was the reading text we were given for these students a first grade reader with a floppy-eared bunny on the cover, but the students had been in the book for multiple years!)
When my students were considered for mainstreaming, she was greatly distressed that her students were not. When she asked why not, the principal told her that her students’ reading levels had not changed throughout the year nor had her students been able to integrate successfully in general education activities throughout the year.
My students had the skills to do well in gen education and unfortunately, her students did not. Was it the difference in the students? No, it was the difference in teaching strategies AND, most importantly, a difference in attitude toward the role of special education.

Remediation

And that was the main problem with mainstreaming: too much was left up to the individual teacher and the special ed team in the school.
Some of these problems still exist with inclusion, but there are some procedures, policies, and processes in place to make sure that the biggest potential problems are addressed.
Unfortunately, even with the procedures and processes in place in today’s schools, there are still problems with inclusion of children with disabilities, both in general education classrooms, and full day special education classrooms.
Let’s look at the first point I listed above: difference in teaching strategies.
Unfortunately, what occurs in many special education settings and with children in any level of special education is an emphasis on review and remediation.

Remediation

What is remediation?
Catching up and repeating or reteaching skills missed or not previously learned.
Why is remediation used as a primary strategy in special education classes and with students with disabilities, even in the general classroom setting?

Remediation

Special education was designed to assist students who were behind academically or who needed extra assistance to achieve.
This means that there is (and should be) an emphasis on remediation. Without remediation, students cannot move ahead and learn new concepts.
Many special education teacher programs, even today, train teachers that remediation and review are the primary ways to teach students with disabilities who are behind in their learning.

Remediation

Why is this a problem?
Because if all a teacher does is review and remediate, when does a child learn the new skills for their chronological age/grade level?
Many children will not be diagnosed as needing special ed services if they are not “significantly” behind. 2 years behind is considered significant so this means there are a lot of skills and concepts a child has missed.

Remediation

For example, let’s say a child enters kindergarten 2 years behind.
In order for the child to function on grade level (K level), it would mean a teacher would need to not only remediate and review for 3 and 4 year old skills, but new kindergarten skills would need to be taught too.
That’s a lot of content to cover in one school year!

Remediation

Obviously, a teacher must remediate and teach skills not previously learned, but if that is all that is done, then it is highly doubtful that a child will end the year on grade level.
The rule of thumb is that a child can typically gain 6 months (1/2 year) each academic school year.

Remediation

Therefore, if a child is behind 2 years when they enter kindergarten, the following chart shows what will happen.
Child 1 is the child behind and Child 2 is a child on grade level.
Look at the chart. What do you see happening in the chart to the child with special needs?

Remediation

What happens to the child with a learning issue or who is behind in their academics?
The child becomes further and further behind each year.
This ensures that the child will never have the skills to return to general education (if they are in a full day special ed program) or to be on grade level in a gen ed classroom.
In other words, they most likely will never be able to leave the special education system.
This is one of the main reasons (in my opinion) that you see few students exit special ed.
(One note-on IEP/IFSPs we often write goals for increasing one academic year-ex. from 1st grade to 2nd grade. This is typically used even though research shows most children cannot increase their skills this much annually.)

Successful Strategies: Acceleration

So, if remediation alone is not the answer, then what needs to be done if a child is to ever be successfully included in general education and/or transition out of special education?
As stated earlier, remediation is absolutely necessary. But what is also necessary, is to teach the grade level content.
So, is it possible to do this?

Successful Strategies: Acceleration

The only way to accomplish both these goals (1-mastering grade level content and skills and 2-remediation and review of prior content and skills) is to both remediate and accelerate.
What does accelerate mean?

Successful Strategies: Acceleration

Acceleration means that students need to learn prior skills within learning new skills.
Remember that just because a child has trouble with reading or math, does not necessarily mean they can’t think.
So when teaching basic skills, embed them within interesting, hands-on, and age appropriate content. (We’ll talk a lot more about this when we begin to discuss specific areas of disability.)

Successful Strategies: Acceleration

Does remediation and acceleration work for all special education students?
Definitely not.
Why not?

Successful Strategies: Acceleration

Unfortunately, (and obviously,) there will be some children who can not successfully learn in a general education classroom- who will always need extensive special education services, and who will be best served by being in special education for their entire educational experience (a more specialized LRE). This is especially true of children with severe and/or multiple handicaps.
For these children, acceleration is not necessary, nor is it appropriate.

Successful Strategies: Acceleration

For the large majority of children with disabilities, especially those who are in a general education inclusive setting, and/or classroom, acceleration is key to assisting them in gaining skills needed for the workforce or to higher academic achievement.
Therefore, for most special education teachers, acceleration needs to go hand-in-hand with remediation.

Successful Strategies: Attitude

Another successful strategy that teachers need to use, especially in an inclusive setting, is that of a positive attitude.
This means not just in general, but in how you, as a teacher, include, treat, and think about the children with disabilities that you work with.

Successful Strategies: Attitude

If you think about the example I gave from my own teaching career, attitude was another important ingredient in helping my students be successful.
My students were demoralized, embarrassed, and felt they were stupid.
And why wouldn’t they feel this way? They were 10-12 years old and still reading in a first grade reader, that was still too hard for them to read from!

Successful Strategies: Attitude

Therefore, one of the first things I did was to do some self-esteem activities with them, tell them that there was no reason they couldn’t learn and read, and that I had some strategies to help them with this.
I told them if they worked hard with me, we could make great strides in their academic skills.

Successful Strategies: Attitude

Most of my students had learning disabilities, so we talked about what that means and what we could do to compensate or retrain their brain so they could learn better.
Although I was realistic, I also made sure that everything we did was done in a positive way, and that they were never made to feel that they could not do it.

Successful Strategies: Attitude

When you are in a gen ed classroom, this often means you have to ensure that everyone in the classroom also shares this positive attitude.
This is what is truly meant by an inclusive setting!
Research shows that inclusion is of benefit for everyone who participated in it: gen ed teachers, gen ed students, students with disabilities, schools, and parents.

Successful Strategies: Attitude

Why?
Gen ed teachers must use research based effective strategies to reach students with disabilities and teach them, so it helps them become more effective teachers (because these strategies should be used with ALL students).
Gen ed students, parents, the school as a whole (and the teachers) who are involved with inclusion have been found to be more empathetic and more tolerant of others who are not like them, and these feelings persistent over time (years, if not life long).

Successful Strategies: Attitude

So, it’s important for schools and teachers to make sure that inclusion is a real, positive experience for everyone, not just something that lip service is paid to, but no one really likes or approves of.
As a teacher, you need to make sure that you are treating all your students in respectful ways, and making sure that negative behaviors such as exclusion and bullying are not present in your classroom.
Of course, all children may be the victims of these negative behaviors, but research shows that children with disabilities are bullied at a much higher rate than those children without disabilities.