Nov 22 2007
Sorting out: Student exit outcomes
A teacher call came via this blog. to examine the needs of two High School students in a 1:8:1 BOCES program located within a school district. Visitation was set up for a center-based High School English teacher of Special Education, to meet the students and discuss the educational issues associated with the 1:8:1 placement. In the one case, the young man’s behavior and current academic issues warrant more restrictive placement based on the fact that smaller class sizes with more concentrated doses of academic information can be tolerated by the student. In the second case, a young girl, the issue is not behavior. The girl is integrated into general education classes without support or very little, from her special ed. teacher/classroom. Her attendance is suffering and there may be indications that she is beginning to slowly separate from her former definitions of success because she is in a mixed ability/classification classroom, where some like herself and the young man are tolerating gen. ed. but other students are unable to leave the classroom for any form of integration because of the large academic and social skills divide between spec. ed and gen ed.
The question is, what should the class configuration be for these two students in order to fulfull their post-secondary outcomes? The answer lies in the Transition Planning process.
Within Special Education, the answer in my mind should be one involving sorting and predicting. Sorting and Predicting is a unique feature of Special Education which involves a student centered instructional team approach which includes the family. On the IEP this section refers to the career planning portion: anticipated post secondary outcomes. This is the Transition Planning Process which begins at age 14 for every student with an IEP.
The 1:6:1 high school model available at the Hewes Center is intended to meet the needs of students who display both educational and behavioral issues caused by stress imposed in larger classrooms which affects both behavior and academic output. The students should typically be Regents diploma bound and have the opportunity to pursue a CTE subect eg. culinary arts, health assisting, auto body, graphic arts, instructional technology, small animal science etc.
The 1:8:1 high school model at the Hewes Center is intended for the student who needs to be self-contained but can access a Career and Technical Education subject (CTE), can explore work experience in the community or on campus. The student should be IEP diploma bound with full access to Regents level course material since all students in this model will take the Regents/RCT exams in the four core subject areas.
The two students described above are both showing indications of being interested in a CTE vocational subject. Therefore, planning involves examining what educational programs are available to them within the BOCES.
As an aside, I believe that if a special education student is successfully (meaning he/she can tolerate integration with little to no evidence of disrupted learning/behavior that impacts self or others) integrated into gen. ed. classes for academic purposes, that student should require very little or no support from a special education teacher/support system eg. aides. This thinking is supported and reinforced particularly at 11th and 12th grade level where Special Ed. students are able to access CTE courses without consultant teacher services.
If the student is not able to function independent of the special ed. teacher/classroom supports, then this student should not be integrated. With regard to BOCES students in district based programs, integration into gen. ed. should be considered (see earlier ref.) unsuccessful if the student cannot “stand alone without special classroom supports being provided by the self-contained teacher, and in deference to the students needs, other BOCES options should be explored like Center Based programs which would fully expand the opportunities for individual student success based on their stated post-secondary objectives.
4 responses so far
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
Planning is the key concept to this issue. First, the transition planning stage of the IEP is crucial. I am not always convinced that there is sufficient evidence and thought given when recommendations are made. A behavior (intervention)plan (behaviors, antecedents, etc.) would provide the evidence needed to answer the question about inclusion.
I agree totally that students who cannot exist in a gen ed classroom without assistance from a special education teacher or aide do not belong there. This adds to the old question of “behavior interfering with learning”. Is it the behavior that prohibits the learning or is the learning frustrating the student and thus initiating the undesired behaviors? There needs to be absoloute and concrete evidence that the student can be successful before enrolling them in a CTE or regents class if the child is to be successful and also not interfere with the learning of others.
As in the case of the girl cited above, her absences are a red flag that something is interfering with her success. Was it a good placement? Perhaps the transition planning conversations need to be revisited as well conversations with the girl herself.
If the needs of the student indicate self-contained placements, the student should still be afforded a regents level curriculum. There is much evidence that special education students can and do learn on a regents level. My experience tells me it is the instructional delivery and educational setting that prohits a level playing field for students needing the self contained placement resulting in a regents diploma.
I have been taught that disruptive behavior is largely because there is a problem with either management or instruction in the classroom. Mostly, I agree with that. Also, there are a lot of IEPs improperly written with data included that should not be, for instance, the inclusion of standardized test scores.
The IEP should feature realistic, concise descriptions of observable and measurable behaviors and goals using consistent language from student to student, and we are not yet there.
This post enlightens the thinking around Special Education students. It is always a celebration when Special Education students are succesfully integrated into CTE programs. Special Eduacation students who complete approved CTE programs will acquire the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary for success in post-secondary education and employment. Students experience relevent, challenging, well organized curricula, supported by current technology and learning environments that foster high academic achievement and skill development. Students enrolled in all CTE programs will benefit from accommodations and curriculum modifications that are identified on their individual education plan (IEP).
One other thing to consider during this sorting out and predicting process is that in all of the CTE programs at Erie2 BOCES, academics are integrated. This means that the students will be evaluated based on their performance of tasks in the CTE curriculum. It is one thing to be able to do a math or science test
(some students are proficient at these assessments) but to lay out a stair case or roof rafter, extrapolate menu ingredients for a catering situation, or estimate and calculate the angles for specific hair cutting styles are assessments where many students show their learning style strength. The math suddenly makes sense to them and the science concepts are reinforced by real world applications in CTE.