Stritch Grad Class-Forum 1 by Mike Mooren

Mike Mooren-

mmooren — 2014-09-22 03:40:22 UTC

I finally have some interesting information to add here. So in response to Charity's question around the change in discrepancy model and RTI, I am curious to know why the state mandate for RTI was to have it fully implemented ten years after it was spelled out from the last re-authorization of IDEA? I can say that RTI in our district is still a work in progress and there are less clear intervention procedures at the upper levels than the elementary levels.

Of particular note, on page 44 I found it interesting that the Public law 94-142 passed in 1974 authorized the federal government to fund up to 40% of educational finances for students with special needs. Yet the funding percentage remained between 8% and 20% until most recently in 2009 where it was closer to the 40%, at 34%. In further reflection, I saw this slow movement toward equity in funding as something symbolic to the greater societal fight for equality for individuals with special needs. Here is a video to give further thought to the changes that have been made, and how we still have a ways to go (just watch the first 4 minutes): http://www.ted.com/talks/aimee_mullins_the_opportunity_of_adversity

As far as the highly qualified teacher comments, I agree that it is a challenge to find individuals who can "do it all". I have two thoughts. First, I believe this is partly due to the pre-service programs and a lack of real-world application and collaborative skills emphasis. And second, speaking from my experiences as a department chair, the more opportunities you give special education teachers to participate in meaningful professional development the better the instructional capacity of that teacher becomes. Yet, where I saw the most growth in special education teachers, is when they took the expertise and professional development back to regular education teams and discussions. The focus on regular education and special education members as a team, in my opinion, allows for collective ownership of student success and increased self-efficacy on the part of both sets of educators.

In response to the inclusive practices for students with behavioral concerns in the classroom, I believe (especially at the elementary level) there are environmental supports and instructional strategies that can be provided by all educators to support inclusion. Many of these supports and strategies would be focused around what would be seen as traditionally best practices for students with ASD, but they would benefit all students. The aforementioned area is one way we plan to support inclusive practices at MTSD in the future.

Charity Eich

charityeich — 2014-09-30 22:41:45 UTC

I'm still waiting for Mike to add some interesting notes...

In the meantime, I will share some of my insights and pose some questions from the first 2 chapters. The first Chapter brought me back to my high school days in reviewing

the branches of government. It was interesting to think about this in relation to laws surrounding special education. I'm interested in learning more about how the most recent

laws to determine eligibility came to be - such a drastic change from the discrepancy model to response to intervention. How have your Districts handled this change in the law?

On page 49, I read closely the information on highly qualified teachers. With the cross-categorical assignments, this has been a struggle for us as a District. What are some professional

learning opportunities that you have for your special educators?

I also found the Discipline Amendments to be thought provoking. With inclusive practices for special education students, this issue comes up quite often, especially in regards to

ensuring the safety of others. This is sometimes a difficult balance. How do you support students with behavioral concerns in the classroom?

Carrie Reid

2014-10-02 13:24:55 UTC

Since my background is not in special education, I find myself reading and rereading many of the details within these first chapters. The progression of laws over time, along with the specific strategies and attempts to not only reach all learners, but avoid the stigmatization that often gets coupled with students in special education, seems logical. What I found interesting was looking back at the dates of the amendments. Many of them initiated over 35 years ago, yet I still see the mindset of those in and out of the system who feel that special education is a place and not a set of services. Reading through the legal time line clarified why there was a need to tie additional dollars to educating students with special needs from the onset.

Charity, regarding highly qualified teachers; this has also been a struggle for out small district. Recently I conducted interviews for a special education teaching position in our district. The pool of candidates varied drastically in their perception of the special education teacher's role in the regular education setting, as well as, collaboration with the teacher. In a recent conversations with a local college, I was excited to hear that their program focus for regular and special education teachers was shifting to offer a dual certification.

Jack Strebel

2014-10-02 18:33:49 UTC

Full disclosure - I have ordered the book straight from the publisher but I have not recieved it yet. I called and they said it would be to my house on Friday. This is why I have not posted until today. Also, I had a conversation I had with my Director of Pupil Services about this book when I was speaking with her about my hours, and she stated that the book is a great resource. But due to the possible law changes on the horizon it might become somewhat outdated in the next year or so. From what I have seen it looks like a great resource.

In response to Charity, other than PLC within my schooldepartment I have had very little input from the district level other than new initiatives or IEP guidelines as directed by the state. Often, when our district has an issue and new districtwide guidelines are developed, we will meet to discuss them - often with the district lawyer. Safety and restraint are the major factors in these meetings, the laws that protect the student during restraint, and the procedures the educators should use. Safety first, for everyone involved. Other than that our school-based team is on it's own.

We use our PLC time to plan testing schedules based on student needs, and we often go through this procedure 2-3 times due to new perameters set by administration on a weekly basis. This takes up 2-3 PLC times, often removing me from my content area PLC's (English).

Carrie - I agree with your dates of amendments comment and thoughts on the role of SPED in the school. Up until just a few years ago SPED teachers were being told that we should accommodate rather than plan and teach with (In my case). It is amazing how fast the focus has shifted in my district, as well as throughout the profession.

Also, Rita Gielfuss needs a study group. Would you mind if she joined ours?

Steve Bold

boldie1963 — 2014-10-04 18:47:00 UTC

Sorry, I didn't add anything from the reading that I did. I will go back and add some of my notes. As far as some questions that I have, there are two. I am interested in your thoughts. Question #1, what is your take on whether to advocate for a 504 versus referral for special education. My second question rests with the dates on the placement page. As a matter of opinion, I have suggested special education teachers always make the date of implementation one week from the date the IEP is locked/finalized. DPI references an opinion that if a parent is physically at the meeting and the IEP is finalized and you literally print and are giving the parent a copy, you can set the implementation date as the same date of the meeting. Here is my take on that, regardless of if the parent is there and gets a copy or not...it seems good practice to still roll out the date by a week. One, it offers the parent some reflection time to still have an opportunity to review as the IEP meeting can often involve much discussion. At the same time, it allows time for service providers to prepare for any services that may need some time to put in place. All of this does rely on the fact that the implementation date can't extend beyond the annual date of providing placement. So if teachers wait to long before holding the meeting, that can impact things. Hopefully, this can be avoided by advanced planning. So, any thoughts regarding the two questions I have for the group?

Rita Geilfuss

2014-10-11 16:36:08 UTC

Rita Geilfuss

2014-10-11 17:07:02 UTC

Wow...so much information to take in. Reading the book was like taking a walk back through my own history for me. To be honest, as all of these changes took place during my career, I was mindful of the changes and implemented them. I always tried to make sure I was following the guidelines/ instructions set out by my director of special education and the excellent school psychologists that I have worked with. That being said, I have always had a "safety net" so to speak, someone who would catch my mistakes or advise me if I wasn't sure about something. Now...looking at this from a possible director's position, I view the changes in law a lot differently. It all seems so much more important to remember all of the details, as others will be looking to us as directors. When you consider that these decisions may negatively impact districts both financially and in reputation, it all seems like a tremendous responsibility. Throughout my career, I have focused so much on "what was good" for the student, but this class and the book have already really broadened my perspective. If I never even get a director's position, I am confident that this class will make me a more conscientious and well-rounded special education teacher (it may have already done that just in the first couple of weeks).

Regarding Charity's post on the term highly qualified teacher, I could go on and on about this. At the high school level, being highly qualified in all content is really quite impossible. The best opportunity for learning I believe is simply getting into those regular education classes and supporting students. If that means you are learning as they learn, so be it. I also think that you can't do it all at once; you may need to tackle one subject a year. Working collaboratively with a specific department is also important. Attend their meetings; offer to help them modify tests/assignments with/for them. This will also expand your knowledge in a variety of content areas. I agree with Carrie's post in that I think the universities need to provide programs that ensure that their programs provide special education majors with a more vigorous background in content areas. I believe that some of the Praxis tests and other high stakes tests required by the university is a step in that direction.

Jack regarding your response to Carrie's question, something our leadership has gone to and I believe it is the right move in the context of using a Professional Learning Community model. PLC time seems to be wasted when discussing calendars/schedules etc. Our administration expects PLC time to be used for discussing learning. We focus on what we call the corollary questions: 1) What do we want students to learn? 2) How are we going to know whether they have learned it? 3) What are we going to do if they have not learned? 4) What are we going to do if they have learned it? Within those questions we also try to talk about how we get them to learn (strategies/materials, etc.) These conversations during PLC time can really help a special education become more confident in content areas if they are included in those conversations