Philosophy of Education
_ The
evolution of advocacy for students with special needs started with the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed in 1965, initiating the role of
the federal government in protecting and providing for students from
disadvantaged backgrounds equal access to the public education system. Focused primarily on individuals from
disadvantaged backgrounds, it was a gateway for equality in education for
individuals with disabilities. By 1975
schools were required to ensure that all children, regardless of disability,
receive a free and appropriate public education; this was recently reauthorized
as IDEA in 2004 (Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm).
Subsequent amendments to these rights included that to the maximum
extent possible, disabled students would receive their services within the
least restrictive environment. The
important consideration that lies within the least restrictive environment is
that prior to this, many individuals with disabilities were provided services
outside of the public school system.
Within the construct of the “least-restrictive environment” comes the intention that students with disabilities are to be educated in a setting that is least removed from the general education classroom. This means that students with disabilities will not be restricted to the confines of special schools or special classrooms for the education but have access to the same educational setting as their non-disabled peers. It is this requirement that sparks the debate revolving around the appropriate environment made available to students with special needs that will maximize their academic and social success and development.
Two main placement options exist when considering the location of education for students with special needs; mainstream and inclusion. Mainstream provides students with disabilities the opportunity for exposures to general education classrooms throughout the school day while their primary placement is maintained within a special education setting. Mainstream students may find themselves in core curriculum classes such as math or reading, and partake in art, music, physical education, lunch, and recess with their non-disabled peers. Inclusion provides students with disabilities the opportunity to receive their education entirely within the general education classroom under the responsibility of the general education teacher. With inclusion settings, it is important to indicate support services are still made available to students with disabilities both in and outside of the classroom. Services such as resource may take place in an outside setting, where co-teaching may take place within the classroom with a special education teacher or additional assistance may come from an occupational therapist, speech pathologist, physical therapist, or paraprofessional.
The perception of professional educators is the recommendation of placement in general education classes for students with disabilities and other special needs. When choices are provided, there are those that oppose and those that advocate; such is the situation when considering the option for full inclusion verse a continuum of services. Arguments of proponents for full inclusion believe that students with disabilities have the right to educated alongside their non-disabled peers. These students are provided the opportunity to negate the stigmatizing effects associated with attending special schools and classrooms. It is perceived that through inclusion students can improve their social skills, learn to communicate better, and increase their friendships. With full inclusion, “pull-out” services are generally not needed, which creates a more efficient delivery of the general education curriculum without the interruption of transition. Last, full inclusion promotes equality through the placement of all students in the same classroom.
Proponents of a continuum of services are not without argument. Continuum services are believed to be necessary for students with disabilities as the services needed are often not available in the general education classroom; here court decisions tend to favor “appropriate education” verse “least restrictive environment” (Mastropieri & Scruggs). In contrast of those advocating for full inclusion, there are those that believe full inclusion can be stigmatizing when services like physical therapy, speech therapy, and resource are pushed in with general education peers. General education teachers lack the necessary time and training to implement instruction that caters to the needs of students with disabilities; essentially sacrificing effective instruction to both disabled and nondisabled students. General education classrooms are often ill equipped to implement the appropriate resources necessary for students with disabilities in order to accommodate and maximize academic success. Last, research evidence has yet to support the superiority of full inclusion, and in the data-driven day-and-age of public education evidence plays a primary role in implementation.
Debate over full instruction is a swinging door within the public school system. When considering inclusion for students with disabilities, it is imperative that educators consider the student’s academic and social needs and not optional policy. Educational professionals show support for inclusion in the general education setting for students with disabilities; however every student is different and focus success has to be the priority when choosing placement. Parents of students with disabilities share the same pro’s and con’s as mentioned by educators and until research-based data can prove otherwise, consideration and continuum services must regulate decisions made for the academic and social success of students with disabilities.
Alternative Assessment Tools
Alternative assessments can be used in combination with traditional norm-reference and criterion referenced assessments to gain a more comprehensive understanding of a student’s progress. Standardized statewide assessments may not always be the best tool when assessing students, particularly those with special needs. Diversifying assessment procedures provides students with an ability to show what they know without the pressure often associated with testing. Teachers have many alternative assessment tools that can be employed to monitor student progress; these may include portfolio assessments, clip board observations, and interviews. Alternative assessments provide teachers with a current picture of a student’s knowledge and their ability to apply learning contextually outside of summative and formative testing.
Portfolio assessments work well for all students in an inclusive setting. Portfolios provide an ongoing assessment of a student’s progress within particular subject matter through a collection of work. The purpose of a portfolio is to show evidence of student progress over a particular period of time; this could be throughout a particular lesson or over the entire school year. With a portfolio, teachers are able to collaborate with their students by visualizing progress and involve the student in decisions about which pieces to assess. Portfolios provide students with an opportunity to monitor their progress within particular areas of curriculum, focus on areas of need, and employ independent thinking through self-assessment. Teachers are able to use portfolios to track student progress and identify areas of need; enabling them to focus on particular problem areas and monitor development. Portfolios also provide the flexibility needed to assess particular areas of growth and can be tailored to incorporate IEP goals and objectives.
Clipboard observations are alternative assessments administered through simple informal observation during student’s independent and group work. The purpose of this assessment is to provide an unobtrusive way of assessing students without their knowledge by roaming the room with a clipboard and taking notes. This assessment is effective in identifying multiple areas of student progress. Depending on the student, a teacher may be assessing critical thinking and problem solving when working independently or assess a student’s ability to engage peers during group work; effectively contributing knowledge while employing social skills. All students can be monitored through clipboard observations, but for students with special needs, a teacher is able to closely monitor goals and objectives set forth in IEP’s and successfully identify particular areas of need that formal assessments may otherwise not provide.
Interviews work well with students within an inclusive setting as they are able to better assess and identify a student’s ability to employ critical thinking. Interview with students and parents can also yield information useful in evaluating student progress (Wildemuth, B.M. 1984). Interviews are simple in nature and can take place at anytime throughout a student’s day. Asking a student to share information about how to solve a particular math problem, review comprehension of a story, or employ the scientific method can often be more effective than requiring those same questions to be answered on a test. For students with disabilities, a teacher is better able to construct questions in a manner that caters to a student’s ability. If a student has a difficult time in reading, asking them to take a mathematic concepts and application test with word problems may be overwhelming. Through the interview process, the teacher can ask the same question and achieve a realistic result of the student’s mathematic knowledge. Interviews also provide a dynamic opportunity for student’s feedback and perception pertaining to peer interaction, classroom activities, or curricular objectives.
Technology and Media Resources for Inclusion
Technology and Media in the classroom promotes student development and learning within the inclusive setting for all students. Through the use of assistive technology, students with special needs are more effectively able to participate in activities and routines within their natural environment. Assistive technology plays a vital role for students with special needs in allowing for options that facilitate their ability to participate physically, academically, and socially. Assistive technology devices can include both low and high tech devices. Low tech devices may include spoons, pointers, switches, and picture boards. High tech devices may include computers, augmentative communication systems, power wheelchairs (Judge, Floyd, & Jeffs, 2008). Computer technology promotes meaningful, engaged learning by allowing students to work independently or collaboratively within dynamically interactive environments that support higher-order thinking. The SMART Board is another piece of technology that provides an interactive curriculum for all students to participate in. Through the use of a SMART Board, students are able to access their special reasoning and kinetic functions when learning. SMART boards also increase classroom participation and accommodate the learning styles for all learners.
Social media has evolved to become a powerful tool for education. Social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Skype are allowing students from all cultures to connect with each other and interactively learn. Social media opens the doorway for many students, both for those with and without special needs, to access information related to lessons students are studying. Twitter can provide student to follow famous people related to studies of the presidential election and can be used to create GPS treasure hunts. Google Earth can be incorporated with Twitter to help teach geography lessons. Electronic pen pals can be created with students from other countries, along with video chats through Skype. This type of social media has made the world a much smaller place and allowed for interaction that would otherwise be impossible.
Parent Communication Plan
Parents are the most influential people in a child’s life; no one knows your students better than their parents. Being able to access their respect and authority on a regular basis develops a relationship built on trust and opens the lines of communication needed for parents to be involved in their student’s education. Having parents as partners in the educational process is important to achieve success in education. Many researchers found that the amount and quality of teacher communications influence parental involvement and the success of the partnerships (Bos & Vaughn, 2006). When parents become involved in their children’s education, they begin to take ownership for their student’s actions and provide support when behavior or slipping grades become an issue. Teachers of inclusive classrooms should begin the year by reaching out to parents and introducing themselves. Information should be exchanged with contact numbers and email addresses in order to establish accessible channels for correspondence.
Home-to-school and school-to-home communication aids in the success of all students. Teachers and parents of students with special needs should remain in constant communication to ensure that the student’s needs are being met. Academics, behavior, homework, socialization, medication, use of assistive technology, and safety are all topics of importance that should be discussed by the parent and teacher.
As a teacher, it is important to remain in constant communication with the parent of a student with special needs. One great way to do that would be a communication binder which parents and teachers can use to address the topics that best meet the needs of the student. A communication binder could be used daily to list areas of concern and strength. The pages within the binder should be dated and both the parent and teacher should be consistent in its use. The sheet is divided into two sections addressing behaviors and work habits, and allows for a comment section for additional information as it pertains to sharing outcomes of accommodation and modifications used during learning.
If school to home communication takes place in a form other than the binder, a log should be kept tracking the date, time, person contacted and the subject of that communication. If during the communication something needs follow-up on the teacher’s part, then include that into the log. It’s in the best interest of both the teacher and the parent to track all communication in the event of a misunderstanding or to resource details of a previous conversation.
References
Boss, C., Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Teaching students Who Are Exceptional, Diverse, and at
Risk in the General Education Classroom, 4e. Allyn & Bacon Inc. A Pearson Education
Company.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2007). The Inclusive Classroom: Strategies for Effective Instruction, 3e.
Prentice Hall Inc. A Pearson Education Company.
Within the construct of the “least-restrictive environment” comes the intention that students with disabilities are to be educated in a setting that is least removed from the general education classroom. This means that students with disabilities will not be restricted to the confines of special schools or special classrooms for the education but have access to the same educational setting as their non-disabled peers. It is this requirement that sparks the debate revolving around the appropriate environment made available to students with special needs that will maximize their academic and social success and development.
Two main placement options exist when considering the location of education for students with special needs; mainstream and inclusion. Mainstream provides students with disabilities the opportunity for exposures to general education classrooms throughout the school day while their primary placement is maintained within a special education setting. Mainstream students may find themselves in core curriculum classes such as math or reading, and partake in art, music, physical education, lunch, and recess with their non-disabled peers. Inclusion provides students with disabilities the opportunity to receive their education entirely within the general education classroom under the responsibility of the general education teacher. With inclusion settings, it is important to indicate support services are still made available to students with disabilities both in and outside of the classroom. Services such as resource may take place in an outside setting, where co-teaching may take place within the classroom with a special education teacher or additional assistance may come from an occupational therapist, speech pathologist, physical therapist, or paraprofessional.
The perception of professional educators is the recommendation of placement in general education classes for students with disabilities and other special needs. When choices are provided, there are those that oppose and those that advocate; such is the situation when considering the option for full inclusion verse a continuum of services. Arguments of proponents for full inclusion believe that students with disabilities have the right to educated alongside their non-disabled peers. These students are provided the opportunity to negate the stigmatizing effects associated with attending special schools and classrooms. It is perceived that through inclusion students can improve their social skills, learn to communicate better, and increase their friendships. With full inclusion, “pull-out” services are generally not needed, which creates a more efficient delivery of the general education curriculum without the interruption of transition. Last, full inclusion promotes equality through the placement of all students in the same classroom.
Proponents of a continuum of services are not without argument. Continuum services are believed to be necessary for students with disabilities as the services needed are often not available in the general education classroom; here court decisions tend to favor “appropriate education” verse “least restrictive environment” (Mastropieri & Scruggs). In contrast of those advocating for full inclusion, there are those that believe full inclusion can be stigmatizing when services like physical therapy, speech therapy, and resource are pushed in with general education peers. General education teachers lack the necessary time and training to implement instruction that caters to the needs of students with disabilities; essentially sacrificing effective instruction to both disabled and nondisabled students. General education classrooms are often ill equipped to implement the appropriate resources necessary for students with disabilities in order to accommodate and maximize academic success. Last, research evidence has yet to support the superiority of full inclusion, and in the data-driven day-and-age of public education evidence plays a primary role in implementation.
Debate over full instruction is a swinging door within the public school system. When considering inclusion for students with disabilities, it is imperative that educators consider the student’s academic and social needs and not optional policy. Educational professionals show support for inclusion in the general education setting for students with disabilities; however every student is different and focus success has to be the priority when choosing placement. Parents of students with disabilities share the same pro’s and con’s as mentioned by educators and until research-based data can prove otherwise, consideration and continuum services must regulate decisions made for the academic and social success of students with disabilities.
Alternative Assessment Tools
Alternative assessments can be used in combination with traditional norm-reference and criterion referenced assessments to gain a more comprehensive understanding of a student’s progress. Standardized statewide assessments may not always be the best tool when assessing students, particularly those with special needs. Diversifying assessment procedures provides students with an ability to show what they know without the pressure often associated with testing. Teachers have many alternative assessment tools that can be employed to monitor student progress; these may include portfolio assessments, clip board observations, and interviews. Alternative assessments provide teachers with a current picture of a student’s knowledge and their ability to apply learning contextually outside of summative and formative testing.
Portfolio assessments work well for all students in an inclusive setting. Portfolios provide an ongoing assessment of a student’s progress within particular subject matter through a collection of work. The purpose of a portfolio is to show evidence of student progress over a particular period of time; this could be throughout a particular lesson or over the entire school year. With a portfolio, teachers are able to collaborate with their students by visualizing progress and involve the student in decisions about which pieces to assess. Portfolios provide students with an opportunity to monitor their progress within particular areas of curriculum, focus on areas of need, and employ independent thinking through self-assessment. Teachers are able to use portfolios to track student progress and identify areas of need; enabling them to focus on particular problem areas and monitor development. Portfolios also provide the flexibility needed to assess particular areas of growth and can be tailored to incorporate IEP goals and objectives.
Clipboard observations are alternative assessments administered through simple informal observation during student’s independent and group work. The purpose of this assessment is to provide an unobtrusive way of assessing students without their knowledge by roaming the room with a clipboard and taking notes. This assessment is effective in identifying multiple areas of student progress. Depending on the student, a teacher may be assessing critical thinking and problem solving when working independently or assess a student’s ability to engage peers during group work; effectively contributing knowledge while employing social skills. All students can be monitored through clipboard observations, but for students with special needs, a teacher is able to closely monitor goals and objectives set forth in IEP’s and successfully identify particular areas of need that formal assessments may otherwise not provide.
Interviews work well with students within an inclusive setting as they are able to better assess and identify a student’s ability to employ critical thinking. Interview with students and parents can also yield information useful in evaluating student progress (Wildemuth, B.M. 1984). Interviews are simple in nature and can take place at anytime throughout a student’s day. Asking a student to share information about how to solve a particular math problem, review comprehension of a story, or employ the scientific method can often be more effective than requiring those same questions to be answered on a test. For students with disabilities, a teacher is better able to construct questions in a manner that caters to a student’s ability. If a student has a difficult time in reading, asking them to take a mathematic concepts and application test with word problems may be overwhelming. Through the interview process, the teacher can ask the same question and achieve a realistic result of the student’s mathematic knowledge. Interviews also provide a dynamic opportunity for student’s feedback and perception pertaining to peer interaction, classroom activities, or curricular objectives.
Technology and Media Resources for Inclusion
Technology and Media in the classroom promotes student development and learning within the inclusive setting for all students. Through the use of assistive technology, students with special needs are more effectively able to participate in activities and routines within their natural environment. Assistive technology plays a vital role for students with special needs in allowing for options that facilitate their ability to participate physically, academically, and socially. Assistive technology devices can include both low and high tech devices. Low tech devices may include spoons, pointers, switches, and picture boards. High tech devices may include computers, augmentative communication systems, power wheelchairs (Judge, Floyd, & Jeffs, 2008). Computer technology promotes meaningful, engaged learning by allowing students to work independently or collaboratively within dynamically interactive environments that support higher-order thinking. The SMART Board is another piece of technology that provides an interactive curriculum for all students to participate in. Through the use of a SMART Board, students are able to access their special reasoning and kinetic functions when learning. SMART boards also increase classroom participation and accommodate the learning styles for all learners.
Social media has evolved to become a powerful tool for education. Social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Skype are allowing students from all cultures to connect with each other and interactively learn. Social media opens the doorway for many students, both for those with and without special needs, to access information related to lessons students are studying. Twitter can provide student to follow famous people related to studies of the presidential election and can be used to create GPS treasure hunts. Google Earth can be incorporated with Twitter to help teach geography lessons. Electronic pen pals can be created with students from other countries, along with video chats through Skype. This type of social media has made the world a much smaller place and allowed for interaction that would otherwise be impossible.
Parent Communication Plan
Parents are the most influential people in a child’s life; no one knows your students better than their parents. Being able to access their respect and authority on a regular basis develops a relationship built on trust and opens the lines of communication needed for parents to be involved in their student’s education. Having parents as partners in the educational process is important to achieve success in education. Many researchers found that the amount and quality of teacher communications influence parental involvement and the success of the partnerships (Bos & Vaughn, 2006). When parents become involved in their children’s education, they begin to take ownership for their student’s actions and provide support when behavior or slipping grades become an issue. Teachers of inclusive classrooms should begin the year by reaching out to parents and introducing themselves. Information should be exchanged with contact numbers and email addresses in order to establish accessible channels for correspondence.
Home-to-school and school-to-home communication aids in the success of all students. Teachers and parents of students with special needs should remain in constant communication to ensure that the student’s needs are being met. Academics, behavior, homework, socialization, medication, use of assistive technology, and safety are all topics of importance that should be discussed by the parent and teacher.
As a teacher, it is important to remain in constant communication with the parent of a student with special needs. One great way to do that would be a communication binder which parents and teachers can use to address the topics that best meet the needs of the student. A communication binder could be used daily to list areas of concern and strength. The pages within the binder should be dated and both the parent and teacher should be consistent in its use. The sheet is divided into two sections addressing behaviors and work habits, and allows for a comment section for additional information as it pertains to sharing outcomes of accommodation and modifications used during learning.
If school to home communication takes place in a form other than the binder, a log should be kept tracking the date, time, person contacted and the subject of that communication. If during the communication something needs follow-up on the teacher’s part, then include that into the log. It’s in the best interest of both the teacher and the parent to track all communication in the event of a misunderstanding or to resource details of a previous conversation.
References
Boss, C., Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Teaching students Who Are Exceptional, Diverse, and at
Risk in the General Education Classroom, 4e. Allyn & Bacon Inc. A Pearson Education
Company.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2007). The Inclusive Classroom: Strategies for Effective Instruction, 3e.
Prentice Hall Inc. A Pearson Education Company.