December 2016 – Special Educator e-Journal

Table of Contents

• Update from the U.S. Department of Education

• The Gap in Sports and Special Education. By Laura A. Vopelius

• Changing the Education Paradigm to Achieve Better Student Outcomes. By N. Alexandra Cooper

• Book Review:Teaching Outside the Box: How to Grab Your Students by Their Brains. By Phoebe Jones

• The Toni Jennings Exceptional Education Institute: Community Based Partnerships and Tutoring in Mathematics and Reading. By Tanya Moorehead, Tracy McKinney, Tiphanie Gonzalez, Jessica Hunt, Bobby Jean Jeanpierre and Lisa Dieker

• Special Education Legal Alert.  By Perry A. Zirkel

• Latest Employment Opportunities Posted on NASET

• Acknowledements

• Download a PDF Version of This Issue

 

King Sends Letter to States Calling for an End to Corporal Punishment in Schools

U.S. Education Secretary John B. King Jr. sent a letter urging state leaders to end the use of corporal punishment in schools, a practice repeatedly linked to harmful short-term and long-term outcomes for students.

“Our schools are bound by a sacred trust to safeguard the well-being, safety, and extraordinary potential of the children and youth within the communities they serve,” King said. “While some may argue that corporal punishment is a tradition in some school communities, society has evolved and past practice alone is no justification. No school can be considered safe or supportive if its students are fearful of being physically punished. We strongly urge states to eliminate the use of corporal punishment in schools– a practice that educators, civil rights advocates, medical professionals, and researchers agree is harmful to students and which the data show us unequivocally disproportionally impacts students of color and students with disabilities.”

There is a wide consensus from teachers’ groups – including both the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association – as well as the National PTA, medical and mental health professionals, and civil rights advocates that corporal punishment has no place in our schools. Eighty organizations, include the National Women’s Law Center, are releasing a letter this week calling on states and policymakers to end this practice.

“It is a disgrace that it is still legal in states to physically punish a child in school. Students are subject to corporal punishment for something as minor as cell phone use or going to the bathroom without permission. And students of color and students with disabilities are disproportionately victims of physical punishment,” said Fatima Goss Graves, Senior Vice President for Program at the National Women’s Law Center. “Not only does corporal punishment inflict pain and injury, it also stifles students’ ability to learn. Policymakers must eradicate violence against schoolchildren and instead foster learning environments that are safe and productive. This barbaric practice must end.”

In the short term, students who receive this form of punishment show an increase in aggressive and defiant behavior – the opposite of the intended outcome.[1] In the long term, students who experience physical punishment in school are more likely to later grapple with substance abuse and mental health issues, including depression, personality disorders and post-traumatic stress.[2]

Corporal punishment in school is also associated with poorer academic outcomes. Research has shown, for example, that corporal punishment can affect students’ cognitive functions,[3] lessening brain development,[4] verbal ability,[5] problem-solving skills in young children,[6] and lowering academic achievement.[7]

Corporal punishment has been banned in 28 states and D.C. and has been abandoned by individual districts in many others. Despite that progress, more than 110,000 students across the country were subjected to corporal punishments in 2013-14, according to the latest version of the Department’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC).

What’s more alarming is that the CRDC shows that corporal punishment is used overwhelmingly on male students and is much more commonly administered to African-American students of all genders. In nearly all of the states where the practice is permitted, students with disabilities were subjected to corporal punishment at a higher rate than students without disabilities.

For more on the CRDC data, the Department is also releasing new maps that show where the use of corporal punishment occurs across the country.

The letter from the Secretary was sent to governors and chief state school officers and provides links to resources that can be promoted by those state leaders and adopted by district and school leaders.

The letter builds on the Obama Administration’s work with states and districts through its Rethink Discipline campaign, which has focused attention on the importance of school disciplinary approaches that foster safe, supportive, and productive learning environments in which students can thrive. These efforts include

• Supportive School Discipline Initiative: In 2011, the Departments of Education and Justice announced the launch of a collaborative project to support the use of school discipline practices that foster safe, supportive, and productive learning environments while keeping students in school. A cornerstone of this Initiative is the School Discipline Consensus Project, managed by the Council of State Governments and supported by various philanthropic organizations. The Consensus Project brought together practitioners from various fields to develop consensus recommendations to dismantle the “school-to-prison pipeline.”
• Joint Federal Policy and Legal Guidance: Education and Justice jointly released a School Climate and Discipline Guidance Package in 2014 to provide schools with a roadmap to reduce the usage of exclusionary discipline practices and clarify schools’ civil rights obligation to not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the administration of school discipline.
• #RethinkDiscipline Convening and Public Awareness Campaign: The Departments of Education and Justice launched Rethink Discipline at the White House in July of 2015, convening school district teams, including superintendents, some law enforcement practitioners, and justice officials from across the country and sparking a national dialogue around punitive school discipline policies and practices that exclude students from classroom instruction and targeted supports.
• Rethink School Discipline – Resource Guide for Superintendent Action: As a part of Rethink Discipline, the Department of Education developed a resource guide with a set of potential action items to help school leaders implement safe, supportive school climate and discipline by engaging stakeholders, assessing the results and history of existing school climate and discipline systems and practices; implementing reform; and monitoring progress.
• Support for State and Local Educational Leaders and Partners from Other Systems: In 2015, the Department of Justice launched the National Resource Center for School Justice Partnerships to advance school discipline reform efforts and serve as a dynamic resource hub for schools, law enforcement agencies, and others to support school discipline reform efforts at the local level.
• Fostering Safe and Supportive Learning Environments: In 2016, the Department of Education released the ED School Climate Surveys and the Quick Guide on Making School Climate Improvements to help foster and sustain safe and more nurturing environments that are conducive to learning for all students.
• Addressing Implicit Bias and Discipline Disparities in Early Childhood Settings: In 2016, the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services announced a new investment of $1 million in the Pyramid Equity Project to establish national models for addressing issues of implicit bias, and uneven implementation of discipline, including expulsions and suspensions, in early learning programs.
• Providing Guidance to Schools on Ensuring Equity and Providing Behavioral Supports to Students with Disabilities: In 2016, the Department of Education announced the release of a significant guidance document in the form of a Dear Colleague Letter, which emphasized the requirement that schools provide positive behavioral supports to students with disabilities who need them. It also clarified that the repeated use of disciplinary actions may suggest that many children with disabilities may not be receiving appropriate behavioral interventions and supports. Also included was a Summary for Stakeholders.
• Transforming School Climate: In the 2016 Investing in Innovation Program, the Department supports innovative approaches to creating a supporting school climate. This priority builds on the #RethinkDiscipline campaign to increase awareness about the detrimental impacts of exclusionary discipline, the Department’s investment in School Climate Transformation Grants to help states and districts strengthen behavioral supports for students, and a school discipline guidance package to clarify schools’ obligation not to discriminate on the basis of race in discipline.

• Best Practices and Procedures for School Resource Officers: In September of 2016, U.S. Departments of Education and U.S. Justice released new tools to assist states, districts and schools in the implementation of best practices for the appropriate use of school resource officers (SROs). The release is the result of collaborative work between both Departments to define the best use of law enforcement officers when utilized within a school environment. The Departments also jointly released the Safe, School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect (SECURe) Rubrics. These new resource are designed to help education and law enforcement agencies that use SROs to review and, if necessary, revise SRO-related policies in alignment with common-sense action steps that can lead to improved school safety and better outcomes for students while safeguarding their civil rights.

The letter also advances the goals of the President’s My Brother’s Keeper Initiative, which was launched in 2014 to address persistent opportunity gaps faced by boys and young men of color and ensure that all young people can reach their full potential.
For more information about the Administration’s work on school climate and discipline go to www.ed.gov/rethinkdiscipline.

 

U.S. Department of Education Launches $680,000 Challenge for Virtual and Augmented Reality Learning Experiences

The U.S. Department of Education launched the EdSim Challenge, a $680,000 competition to design the next-generation of educational simulations that strengthen career and technical skills. The Challenge calls upon the virtual reality, video game developer, and educational technology communities to submit concepts for immersive simulations that will prepare students for the globally competitive workforce of the 21st century.

“This initiative is an exciting example of how virtual reality and game technologies can be applied to give students everywhere the tools to prepare for future success,” said Johan Uvin, acting assistant secretary for career, technical, and adult education. “We encourage developers from all disciplines to answer our call and help define the future of applied learning.”

Simulated digital learning environments, such as virtual and augmented reality, 3D simulations, and multiplayer video games, are an emerging approach to deliver educational content, and provide students with enriched experiences in information retention, engagement, skills acquisition, and learning outcomes. Students who participate in digital learning simulations for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) learning had a 23 percent higher achievement rating than those who do not.

The Challenge seeks to spur the development of computer-generated virtual and augmented reality educational experiences that combine existing and future technologies with skill-building content and assessment. Collaboration is encouraged among the developer community to make aspects of simulations available through open source licenses and low-cost shareable components. ED is most interested in simulations that pair the engagement of commercial games with educational content that transfers academic, technical, and employability skills.

Those interested in participating in the Challenge should submit their simulation concepts by Jan. 17, 2017. A multidisciplinary panel of judges will evaluate the submissions and select up to five finalists to advance to the Virtual Accelerator phase. Each finalist will be awarded $50,000 and gain access to expert mentorship as they refine their concept and build a simulation prototype.

The Challenge winner(s) will be awarded the remainder of the $680,000 prize money and additional sponsor prizes from IBM, Microsoft, Oculus, and Samsung.

For a complete list of Challenge rules, visit http://www.edsimchallenge.com/.

Follow the Challenge:

• Twitter: www.twitter.com/edprizes, www.twitter.com/usedgov
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ED.gov
• Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/usedgov/

 

Departments of Education and Health and Human Services Release First Joint Policy Brief on Use of Technology with Young Children

The U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services released a policy brief on the use of technology with early learners to help families and early educators implement active, meaningful and socially interactive learning. The brief includes a call to action for researchers and technology developers, highlighting topics for further research and encouraging the development of research-based products.

“The early learning community has been wisely cautious about using technology with our youngest children,” said Libby Doggett, deputy assistant secretary for Policy and Early Learning. “But technology, when used appropriately with caring adults, can help children learn in new ways – and lessen the growing inequity in our country. This brief helps early educators think about developmentally appropriate ways to use technology in their classrooms.”

The brief, which was developed in consultation with the American Academy of Pediatrics, will help those who care for the nearly 36 million early learners ages birth to 8 years make wise decisions about media use, and provides four guiding principles for families and early childhood educators on the use of technology with young children. The guiding principles are:

• Technology, when used properly, can be a tool for learning.
• Technology should be used to increase access to learning opportunities for all children.
• Technology may be used to strengthen relationships among parents, families, early educators, and young children.
• Technology is more effective for learning when adults and peers interact or co-view with young children.

“For early learners, technology can provide opportunities to connect, create, and engage in meaningful learning experiences,” said Joseph South, director of the Office of Educational Technology. “But this will only happen if families and early educators consider whether children are using technology in active, imaginative ways as opposed to just passively watching a screen. Active learning with technology is best when an adult is guiding and participating side-by-side with the child.”

“The brain science is clear – in the earliest years, learning is dependent on adult-child interaction and on healthy relationships between children and their caregivers,” said Linda Smith, deputy assistant secretary for HHS’ Early Childhood Development. “We are excited about the new learning opportunities that technology can offer young children when parents and early childhood educators use it appropriately to support and supplement one on one interactions between children and their caregivers, both in the classroom and at home.”

In 2013, the Obama Administration launched the ConnectED initiative and set a goal of connecting 99 percent of America’s students to next generation broadband and high-speed wireless by 2018. This expanded access will support the effective use of technology to transform learning in our nation’s schools. The Administration also has worked to expand access to high quality early learning, including early STEM education. The thoughtful use of technology by parents and early educators can engage children in key skills such as play, self-expression, and computational thinking which will support later success across all academic disciplines and help maintain young children’s natural curiosity.

U.S. Department of Education Releases Guidance Encouraging Well-Rounded Education

The U.S. Department of Education released non-regulatory guidance to help states, districts and schools provide students with a more well-rounded education under Title IV, Part A, Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (SSAE). The new grant program in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) focuses on safe and healthy students, and how technology can be integrated into schools to improve teaching and learning in addition to emphasizing access to a well-rounded education that includes a wide variety of disciplines – such as music, the arts, social studies, environmental education, computer science and civics.

“As a social studies teacher, I know the value of a well-rounded education for students,” said U.S. Secretary of Education John B. King Jr. “For me and for so many students, a wide range of possible subjects in school, powerfully and creatively taught, can be exactly what it takes to make the difference between disengagement and a lifelong passion for learning. Literacy and math skills are necessary but not sufficient for success in college, careers, and life. The world our children will be working, leading and succeeding in will be one of constant innovation and connection from across the globe. In order to fully maximize the potential of this world of ideas and cultures, it’s vital that we redefine a well-rounded education for all students that includes access to learning new languages, in addition to science, social studies and the arts. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, we have an opportunity to broaden the definition of an excellent education to strike the right balance in our nation’s classrooms and expand opportunities to learn for all students to build a strong foundation for college and career.”

The guidance – which serves as a resource to help support effective implementation of the new grant program – provides examples of allowable uses of funds, discusses the role of state education agencies, details fiscal responsibilities, and identifies local application requirements.

Under the new program, states, districts and schools have the flexibility to tailor investments based on the needs of their unique student populations.

As, King said earlier this year, while strong literacy and math skills are essential for success in college, career and life, they are not sufficient. King told the audience at Las Vegas Academy of the Arts that varied disciplines – including music and the arts, social studies and civics, science and technology – “aren’t luxuries that are just nice to have. They’re what it means to be ready for today’s world.”

One recent survey found, though, that elementary school students spend just 21 minutes a day on social studies, and just a little bit more on science. With the passage of ESSA, states, districts and schools can refocus on the characteristics of a comprehensive, well-rounded education—and do so in ways that and ensure access and equity for all students.

Too often, students from low-income families and students of color do not have access to arts, science, social studies or advanced coursework. Likewise, gender gaps persist in many disciplines. Science achievement gaps can show up as early as kindergarten. Further, there is evidence that students get better at math when they take classes that make the connection between STEM and the arts. Students can also grow in self-confidence, in linguistic skills, and in creativity when they have certain courses in the arts.

Through this guidance, the Department provides resources, tools and examples of innovative strategies to support the effective implementation of the SSAE grant program. Areas of focus include:

• Strategies to leverage federal, state, and local funds as well as develop partnerships to maximize the impact of the programs and services;
• Steps to guide districts in examining their needs and investing in areas that will have the greatest impact on their communities;
• Tactics to improve school conditions for student learning so students are healthy and feel safe and supported;
• Effective practices to carefully design and thoughtfully apply technology to accelerate, amplify, and support student learning;
• Approaches to engage students in educational opportunities across multiple subjects and domains.

Importantly, the guidance highlights that SSAE funds may not be sufficient to independently fund many of these innovative activities. This guidance discusses leveraging other state and local resources in combination with the SSAE grant funds to achieve the goals of SSAE programs and activities. For the full guidance released today, click here.

To top

By

Laura A. Vopelius

American College of Education

 

Abstract

This article will explore questions posed about students enrolled in special education courses and the proposed gap between this classification and the percentage of those who participate in sports. There is sufficient documented evidence to bring this issue to the forefront, both claiming the necessity for sports and physical connection but lacking the capacity to handle the differentiation needed. Proposals for schools moving forward will include that of supplemental coach instruction and seminars connecting both aspects of academic and athletic to be instructed in similar fashion.

Although sports have an outward presentation of being a strong socialization tool for students of all levels and abilities, this sentiment does not seem to trickle down through all levels of education. Many students fall to the wayside when looking at competitive sports in the realm of secondary schools. There is unsettling evidence that though secondary schools have the superficial presentation of having their athletic program represent a diverse spread of athletes, many who have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) still feel as if they are on the outside looking in. It becomes a question of not only the reality of high school athletics, but the steps that schools take in order to hire coaches who are fully capable of working with the wide dimension of students that transition over athletics after the school day is complete.

Artinger et al (2006) make the claim that “for years the field of campus recreation has championed the benefits of participation in recreational sports activities, programs, and services”. This claim integrates the main focus of recreational sports being offered and the benefits they in turn supply in regard to socialization. Though their points can be legitimized by other student-athletes who are considered success stories of their accomplishments throughout their tenure, how many of these stories would uncover a student with an IEP?

When articles are written for students encompassed under the umbrella of special education, they tend to sway aggressively towards the students that function in the lower side of the spectrum. These students with multiple disabilities and running in self-contained environments do not necessarily connect with the overall sentiment of those students who are classified and have and IEP due to a lower level learning disability. Socially, they are able to connect with peers in a mainstream environment as well as possess physical capabilities that would allow them to excel on sports teams. Dieringer and Lawrence (2015) gear their article at the group determined in the first aforementioned statement, but their overall initiative towards inclusion in the sports capacity still can hold a resounding truth.

 

They state:

The purpose of this article was to provide implementation strategies for inclusion of students with disabilities into physical education opportunities and extracurricular athletics. An overview of the problem is discussed and suggestions are given to increase opportunities for students with disabilities to access physical activities including physical education and extracurricular athletics (p. 89).

This article is meant to provide structure and background to the history of sports and youth with disabilities.  Though it does not specifically cater to high school students, it provides the groundwork that students with special education needs are, in theory, meant to have the same access to sports and other school resources as other students. Dieringer and Lawrence (2015) also take a page from history and recap the laws that have been put into place to enable these sentiments to be pushed into all stages of schooling.

Looking at the accessibility aspect, student-athletes are, in fact, given more freedoms and services due to their returned promissory note of successful returns on the athletic field. Terri Lakowski (2009) gives a poignant argument with the piece Athletes with Disabilities in School Sports: A Critical Assessment of the State of Sports Opportunities for Students with Disabilities. Lakowski laments over the athletics system and the limited capacity in which athletes can compete, despite their academic or cognitive differences. It looks at the biggest representatives of sport, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFSHSA) and their overall stance on the integration of athletes with disabilities and those without. It states, “Opportunities for students with disabilities to compete in intercollegiate and interscholastic sports are extremely limited (Lakowski, 2009).” It also states the NCAA and the NFSHSA not officially sanction any intercollegiate or interscholastic program, event or competition for individuals with disabilities (Lakowski, 2009). If this is truly the case, how can we expect the voices of students with IEPs to have their voices heard? With this mentality coming from the top of the pyramid, it is virtually impossible for secondary schools to go out of their way to implement any form of change. It is not worth the time or effort of working through red tape for these schools to become equal opportunists on the athletic field as much as they do in the classroom. The pure thought worked through shows the gross double standard that has been allowed to develop and be accepted into our educational and athletic culture.

As an educational foundation, we strive for equality for all students, regardless of their disability. We teach students to be advocates of their IEPs and be proud of their differences in learning. They are encouraged to use their accommodations and modifications on a daily basis and be comfortable with the concept of asking for help through their struggles. All of these concepts somehow get lost in translation when looking from an athletic lens. Athletics are the complete counter-opinion to these thoughts. Athletes are penalized in practices for asking questions and needing clarity, and drills are shown one way without any bend for compromise. Is this a necessary statute we incorporate, or are athletics simply years behind the progressive mentality within their own building?

Dieringer and Lawrence (2015) summarize the frustration of student-athletes and the overall lack of accessibility by stating the following:

Students with disabilities are intelligent, productive, capable, and uniquely strong                   individuals. They deserve equal respect, consideration, and access. However, school officials may encounter significant barriers. Perhaps the most significant barrier is access to sufficient resources needed to implement the modifications/accommodations needed for students with disabilities to participate fully in school-sanctioned athletics (p.101).

This aspect of overall acceptance in the athletic world is crucial the progression forward of full integration in all respects. Not all coaches have special education background, nor do they feel the need.  Academics and athletics tend to be looked at as separate entities, but when looking at the day-to-day life of a student, we find it really is not. Looking forward, possibly integrating professional development for coaches to have a better understanding of students with IEPs in order to be more well-rounded and creating an environment of success for all could change the mentality our students have. Having schools, and bigger organizations that sanction the athletics component of such schools, create more positive initiatives to reinforce the integration of these athletes could be the final piece of the progressive puzzle so many are searching for.

References

Artinger, Lori; Clapham, Lisa; Hunt, Carla; Meigs, Matthew; Milord, Nadia; Sampson, Bryan;             Forrester, Scott A. The Social Benefits of Intramural Sports: NASPA Journal                  (National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc.), December 2006, Vol.    43, Issue 1, p69-86, 18p, Database: Education Source.

Dieringer, Shannon T.; Judge, Lawrence W. Inclusion in Extracurricular Sport: A How-To               Guide for Implementation Strategies. Physical Educator, LateWinter2015, Vol. 72                   Issue 1, p87-101, 15p. Publisher: Sagamore Publishing.

Lakowski, T. (2009, May 27). Athletes with Disabilities in School Sports: A Critical Assessment        of the State of Sports Opportunities for Students with Disabilities. Boston University.

 

About the Author

Laura Vopelius is a 34-year-old Special Education teacher working at Cherokee High School in Marlton, New Jersey. She has been part of Cherokee for ten years, beginning as a paraprofessional and transitioning into teaching. This is currently her fifth year as a teacher. Laura spends her day working with the Asperger’s population, incorporating social skills into their daily repertoire. Laura also divides her time between the role of an in-class support teacher for English and World Cultures along with the Adaptive Physical Education program. A former Division I soccer player at West Virginia University, Laura continuously looks for ways to incorporate kinesthetic learning, as well as behaviors learned through sport into the classroom. Laura received her Master’s Degree from American College of Education in Curriculum Integration: Special Education. Laura is extremely active in her community, from coaching soccer at the high school to being a class advisor. Laura resides in Marlton, New Jersey with her husband Jason Vopelius and their Bernese mountain dog Lucy.

By Amanda Berndt

“When it comes to culture, the only thing we all have in common is that we have one, and it shapes us” (15).  Author Debby Irving documents her personal transformation as she defines her ideas of race and culture to “make the world a more humane place to live, work and thrive,” (xiv).  She provides personal experiences, resources, guiding questions and activity prompts to help others uncover their understanding of race and find ways to help people connect respectfully.  The author believes that by confronting anxiety, asking difficult questions, re-evaluating childhood experiences, defining personal cultural norms and listening carefully to others, we can develop a new understanding and appreciation for diversity.

 

Some of the lessons are the result of what is left unsaid.  Her childhood memories provide clues as to how she developed her understanding of race as a child.  From disapproving facial expressions, the clicking of her mother’s tongue, the expectation that she should help those in need, and the presumption that everyone shares the same goals, the author acknowledges that much was taught without directly saying anything at all.  She becomes aware that many of her values and perspectives were based upon a sheltered and worry free childhood.  “Providing a worry-free childhood is a privilege of the dominant class – a white privilege,” (19).  Her parents, in an attempt to protect her, had withheld experiences that would have deepened her understanding that not everyone has equal access to resources.

 

Inattentive blindness, where we do not see what we do not want to see (69), is a startling lesson she confronts by “making an effort to slow down, look around, and notice how other people might be experiencing the world,” (70).  As simple as this sounds, taking the time to consider another’s perspective is an activity that must be practiced.  By accepting that others have an experience that is different from our own and resisting the urge to qualify that experience as inconsequential or inferior is a huge step towards greater understanding.

 

Irving provides a simple formula, “Skin color symbolism + favoritism + power = systemic racism” (54).   Skin color may be observable, however, culture is the expression of language, behaviors, customs and understandings by a group.  Systemic racism uses skin color as a defining factor.  Favoritism refers to identifying one group as superior; reinforcing the idea that one group is the “norm,” and all others are somehow different.  When reflecting on her description of people, white was the norm, further reinforcing them as superior in her experience.  This was not a conscious linguistic decision, but the result of her upbringing.  The author writes of her struggles when she inadvertently dismissed the worries of others, as the result of her narrow life experiences.  The power to make policy and allocate resources is instrumental in perpetuating systemic racism.  Historically, those in power have actively restricted racial groups through financial and educational means.

 

This book has significant implications for educators.  White culture values independence, confidence, academic awards and often discourages asking for help.  While teaching second grade, the author misinterpreted a girl offering to help her classmate, focusing instead on her leaving her seat and developing a behavior chart with rewards and consequences to correct the behavior.  She had failed to see this behavior as a strength, “Nor could I conceive of interdependence as a survival strategy in an under-resourced population,” (202).  The cultural expectation to help, which is not aligned with the white cultural expectation to work independently and competitively, caused friction between the teacher and student. “I thought I was being helpful,’ (48).  Inadvertent harm, by imposing cultural expectations without regard to differences in cultural norms may be a factor in disproportionate office referrals and may negatively affect student and parent engagement in schools. Educators are keenly aware of the achievement gap and spend time and resources trying to “bridge the gap.”  The author questions the roots of this disparagement and argues systemic racism is at its core.  The long history of segregated neighborhoods, unfair banking policies, access to adequate health care and even law enforcement bias (i.e. racial profiling and limited access to adequate legal representation) continue to impact students and their families.

 

Teachers and administrators, particularly white teachers and administrators, may benefit from the prompts and activities suggested by the author to help become more self aware of cultural bias they bring to the classroom.  Michael Fullan, in his book Leading in a Culture of Change, describes the messy process of how to make meaningful change in schools.  The components necessary for change include relationship building, defining moral purpose, and knowledge sharing.  This book is a first step for many educators as they begin their journey of change.  Creating a culture that not only tolerates diversity, but uses cultural differences to enhance the community and foster deep connections between students, teachers and families, may help decrease the achievement gap and the disproportionate identification of non-white students for special education services.

Literature Review: Inclusion and Least Restrictive Environment By Lauren Vivar Florida International University

By

Lauren Vivar

Florida International University

“Special education is supposed to provide an avenue through which children with disabilities are guaranteed to receive specially designed instruction to assist them in maximizing their highest potential.”  (Obiakor, 2011, p. 11) There has been a long-lasting debate as to the most effective and appropriate way to provide this instruction to students with special needs. For many educators and policymakers, inclusion is the answer. Even then, however, there are differing views on what exactly constitutes inclusion and how it should be carried out.

The idea behind inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms revolves around the idea that all students should have access to the same curriculum. This means every student, regardless of their ability level, should be a part of the same classroom where they are being exposed to the same lessons. With that idea, it is understood that all students have different needs and their learning is best done with different strategies and supports. Some may argue that these supports can be provided in a general education classroom setting by the classroom teacher or a special education teacher while others believe that some children’s needs may be best met in a special classroom with less students. Ryndak et al. (2014) argue that special education should be seen as a service and not a specific location. While there is a push towards this inclusion, there is evidence that shows that a very small population of special education students are included in a general education classroom for most of the day. The majority of these students tend to be those with more high-incedence disbabilities while those with the more severe disabilities are still being segregated into different classrooms.

While the debate on what is best continues, it is important to keep in mind that the end goal is the same for everyone. Meeting the students needs in the most appropriate way possible is the most important aspect of the push behind inclusion. Some even argue that if instructional strategies such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) are implemented, even the general education students could benefit from the inclusion of special education peers in their classrooms.  (Sailor & McCart, 2014)  If the proper supports and policies are in place, inclusion can be successful in meeting the needs of all students.

Special Education and Inclusion Policies

In early special education, students with disabilities were almost always placed in special education classrooms and often even segregated schools. Many had the view that students with disabilities were “uneducable”. Dudley-Marling and Burns (2014) use the words segregation and exclusion to describe the history of United States special education. These words began to fade when Public Law 94-142 was put into place. This law required that all students were given “a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment.”  (Dudley-Marling & Burns, 2014, p. 15) With this, there was a movement towards educating students with special needs in public schools and with their typically developing peers. Even today, however, this looks different in every state and in every school.

The question then becomes “What is the least restrictive environment for students with special needs?” The answer to that is one that many people disagree on. Ryndak et al. (2014) argues that the term least restrictive environment is vague and leads to a wide range of interpretations depending on the state or even school district. The author states that some even percieve least restrictive environment as accepting of segregated learning environments. Some see the general education classroom is something a student with special needs must “earn” when they prove that they are able to perform the academics and exhibit the appropriate behaviors. Others feel that some students just would not benefit from being in a regular classroom setting and learning general education standards. Instead, students should focus less on academic skills like math and reading and more on life skills that they will need to function independently. Since there is not a clear cut definition of what this should look like, there continues to be a variety of opinions on how inclusion should look and be carried out within the school setting.

Perspectives on Inclusion

Dudley-Marling and Burns (2014) define two main perspectives that are taken when it comes to inclusion. The first perspective they discuss is the deficit stance. In this view, the desired outcome of inclusion is to give students with special needs the tools they need to function properly in a part of the “normal” environment. The deficit standpoint argues that students may be placed in the general education classroom if they can function relatively independently without changing the curriculum or expectations that are given to all students in the class. Otherwise, students with special needs are seen to be taking up more of the teacher’s time and therefore taking away from the learning of the other students.

This deficit perspective also looks at the difference between general education and special education teachers. From this view, regular classroom teachers may not have the knowledge and skills required to teach students with special needs. For this reason, it is seen as beneficial for these students to spend at least some of their day in a specialized classroom as they will have instruction from a teacher who has the training and flexibility to meet their individual learning needs. People with this viewpoint argue that the most important thing is the quality of what the students are learning, not where they are learning it.

The other viewpoint the authors discuss is the social-constructivist stance. In this viewpoint, students are seen first as students and they are not defined by their disabilities. People with this mindset hold “the belief that all children, regardless of their differences, are smart, competent, learners.”  (Dudley-Marling & Burns, 2014, p. 23) Social-constructivst educators feel as though the regular classroom should always been the default setting where children are learning. They believe that inclusion is not just about education but about social justice and the fact that the students have the right to be in the general education classroom setting, learning the same material as their same-age peers.

There is, of course, still the understand that students with special needs will need more assistance or different adaptations. In this viewpoint, however, instead of changing the child, the learning ennvironment and classroom structure is what should be adjusted. This means having additional special education teachers in the classroom to support student needs or adapting lessons in ways that could benefit all students. Sailor and McCart (2014) urge that there should be a shift from looking so heavily at the placement of the students and instead focusing on changing the education environment as a whole.

These are only two of many different views on inclusion and how it should be carried out. While it is clear that there are many different standpoints, it is also clear that none of these options will be sucessful unless schools and teachers are on the same page and working together to meet the needs of these students.

 

Key Roles in Inclusion

In order for any variation of inclusion to be successful, all stakeholders play an important role in the process. Obiakor (2011) outlines the roles that each person plays and how each one is important to ensuring student success. It is crucial for families to be involved in the education of their child. This means being knowledgeable about special education and the options available for inclusion. Parents must advocate for their children and ensure they are getting the best available resources to meet their needs. The author also urges the importance of student involvement in the process. It is important that the child is taught early on to advocate for themselves as well so that as they get older they already have experience and know what to do.

The school also plays a role in ensuring that inclusion is successful. Schools must be organized and have plans in place to ensure that the inclusion process is seamless and meets the students’ needs. This includes having the appropriate staff in place and making sure that they are properly trained. The author discusses the role that the community plays in the inclusion of students with disabilities as well. Inclusion does not only happen in the classroom setting but out in the community as well. Programs should be available where students with disabilities are able to participate and play with all other children.

 

Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs

Another key stakeholder in the inclusion process is the teacher. Teachers are the ones responsible for providing the education to their students. They are involved in the process from beginning to end and their involvement is critical. One study looked at the effects of teacher attitudes on the success of inclusion and found that the more positive attitudes teachers have towards inclusion, the more satisfaction and less friction their students felt in the classroom.  They stated that “the success or failure of implementing inclusive education policy and practice is dependent upon what the classroom teacher believes about such initiatives.”  (Monsen, Ewing, & Kwoka, 2014, p. 114) The way a teacher feels about inclusion will impact how they run their classroom, how they teach, and ultimately how the students in their room feel about their classmates as well. Reasearch found that teachers with positive attitudes had happier students and more positive learning environments as a whole.  (Monsen, Ewing, & Kwoka, 2014)

One way that teacher attitutdes are kept positive is through support and collaboration. Galvish and Shimoni (2011) found that many teachers feel as though they have a lack of knowledge about inclusion law and preparation for implementing it in the classroom. If teachers were able to work alongside their peers and learn from eachother, they would be more likely to feel successful in their positions. The school’s readiness for inclusion also impacts the teachers’ attitudes. A school must be well equipped and well prepared in order to implement a successful inclusion program. If teachers feel as though they do not have the resources or the support they need to meet their students unique learning needs, they will not feel positive and in turn the program will not be succesful.

If teachers do not have a positive attitude towards inclusion, the risk is teacher burnout and frustration. One common coping mechanishm that often results is the general education teacher removing themselves from the situation and passing the responsibility on to special education teachers who may seem more knowledgeable.  (Gavish & Shimoni, 2011) This is a disservice to both the teachers and the students involved.

 

Successful Inclusion

Throughout the research, no matter the issues found or the perspectives taken, there is one common thread that can be found. “Collaborative effort is required for successful inclusion to occur.”  (Monsen, Ewing, & Kwoka, 2014, p. 124) All of the stake holders, teachers, families, schools, communities, and even students must work together in order to find the appropriate placement for the child’s success. Galivish and Simoni (2014) urge that inclusion should be about all members taking actions and a sense of ownership to work together for the common goal of properly educating students. It is cricual that all parties are involved and working together to ensure success.

It is easy to see how drastically teacher’s attitudes can impact the success of inclusion as well. Since this factor is already known, it is important that work is done to keep teachers’ positive. This included frequent collaboration with peers and support from administration. Additionally, pre-service teachers should be taught early on strategies for working with students with disabilities. This could help avoid the feelings of inadequacy and the unknown that Galvish and Shimoni (2014) disucss. If the proper steps are taken ahead of time, the negative views and lack of progress can be avoided.

Since there are so many benefits to inclusion, it is important to discover the best ways to implement inlcusion in the classroom. Programs like the Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation (SWIFT) Centers help schools and teachers begin to create that positive inclusion environment and relationship with parents.  (Ryndak, et al., 2014) Implementing teaching styles like UDL that will reach all students no matter their needs can also help make the inclusion more successful.  (Dudley-Marling & Burns, 2014) Sailor and McCart (2014) state that there are many positive benefits to implementing educational supports in general education classrooms for all students.

While there is still much debate on what may constitute the least restrictive environment and how inclusion should be carried out, it is important to keep in mind that the end goal is to make all students successful. “Fairness does not consist of educating all children in the same place at the same time [and with the same curriculum] but is ensuring that the student has basic needs met and is traveling toward a well-thought-out career and satisfying life style.”  (Dudley-Marling & Burns, 2014, p. 20)

 

References

Dudley-Marling, C., & Burns, M. B. (2014). Two Perspectives on Inclusion in the United States. Global Education Review, 1(1), 14-31.

Gavish, B., & Shimoni, S. (2011). Elementary school teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about the inclusion of children with special needs in their classrooms. Journal of Internation Special Needs Education, 1-12.

Monsen, J. J., Ewing, D. L., & Kwoka, M. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, perceived adequacy of support and classroom learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 17, 113-126.

Obiakor, F. E. (2011). Maximizing access, equity, and inclusion in general and special education. The Journal of Internation Association of Special Education, 12(1), 10-16.

Ryndak, D. L., Taub, D., Jorgensen, C. M., Gonsier-Gerdin, J., Arndt, K., Sauer, J., . . . Allock, H. (2014). Policy and the impact on placement, involvement, and progress in general education: Critical issues that require rectification. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(1), 65-74.

Sailor, W. S., & McCart, A. B. (2014). Stars in Alignment. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(1), 55-64.

 

About the Author

Lauren Vivar is an Exceptional Student Education teacher in Palm Beach County, Florida. She has a Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree in Education from the University of Florida (Go Gators!) as well as a Master’s Degree in special education from Florida International University. She has a passion for education and believes all students should have the opportunity to reach their highest potential.

Changing the Education Paradigm to Achieve Better Student Outcomes N. Alexandra Cooper Florida International University

N. Alexandra Cooper

Florida International University

 

Less than a decade ago, the Apple iPhone revolutionized mobile communication.  In an instant, people were able to replace multiple devices and gain accessibility to a vast number of applications.  The availability of this new technology to the masses, shifted the paradigm of many fields, such as marketing, business, entrepreneurship, telecommunication, retail, international relations, science, entertainment, and even education among others.  Small businesses can use their phone as a POS (point of sale) device. Face to face business meetings can be conducted virtually from anywhere in the world.  Even people with various disabilities can use accessibility features and apps for independent living and communication.  This instant shift in paradigm reflects the ability for people to adjust to changes, particularly when the change improves their quality of life.  It also reflects the fact that once a new more efficient technology is understood and adopted, it immediately replaces less efficient ways of doing things.  To achieve this reach to consumers, all stakeholders (engineers, programmers, marketing, consumer groups, telecommunication companies, retailers, etc.) collaborated in effective ways.

In education, there seems to be a history of disassociation between cutting edge evidence-based methodologies and the actual classroom teaching practice, particularly when it comes to students with disabilities and minorities (mcLeskey, 2011).  It seems like education researchers strive to find practical and effective solutions to real issues faced by general and special education and yet their findings take a very long to time to be incorporated into everyday practice (2011).  Many education systems seem to remain stagnant even in the face of changing populations and the remarkable technological innovations that were developed to improve the quality and ease of information communication exchanges among SD (students with disabilities) and CDL (culturally diverse learners) (Harris, Owen & DeRuiter, 2012).  This brings to light the need to change the current education paradigm into one that can dislodge the obsolete ways of delivering education services and make room for the incorporation of modern and much more efficient methodologies that have already been discovered.

Changing the paradigm has the potential to create an environment of collaboration and accountability in which the ultimate goal is reaching all students so that they can achieve their full potential.  A new paradigm would destroy the current model where teachers bear the majority of the accountability responsibility.  For evidence-based practices to fulfill their goal, the education paradigm would have to hold all stakeholders accountable for student success. This would translate into teachers being accountable to familiarize themselves (through professional development) in cooperative learning techniques, universal design for learning, assistive technologies and culturally responsive teaching (“11”).  Leaders and administrators would be accountable to promote evidenced-based professional development and provide the leadership and motivation necessary to achieve that goal (Correa & Wagner, 2011; McLeskey, 2011).  Policy makers would be accountable to make policies in collaboration with education professionals, including both researchers and practitioners (Ryndak et. al., 2014).  Communities would be accountable for providing advocacy services, training and access to adequate resources to the families they represent (Harris, Owen & DeRuiter, 2012).  Finally, families would be held accountable to reach out and become active participants and advocates in their children’s education (Burke, 2013).

The research suggests that when all stakeholders collaborate and share the responsibility of educating ALL students, student achievement increases and even at-risk populations can improve their performance and meet and exceed standards (Irvine, 2012;Calderon, Slavin & Sanchez, 2011;Harris, Owen & DeRuiter, 2012;Cancio, Albrecht & Johns, 2014;Correa & Wagner, 2011;mcLeskey, 2011;Burke, 2013).  Perhaps a change in paradigm that distributes accountability among all stakeholders is the missing piece to finally place evidence-based best practices effectively into the daily teaching practice across schools.   When all the pieces are connected, perhaps education will revolutionize all other fields in more exponential ways than even an iPhone has done.

Perhaps, achieving collaboration among all stakeholders holds the key to finally replace and extinguish the obsolete and ineffective ways of teaching all students, including underrepresented groups such as students with disabilities and culturally diverse learners.

Why should there be a paradigm shift?

The simple answer to why a paradigm shift in education is important is because students, families and communities matter to all.  Communities are directly affected by the perceptions, education, and culture of the individuals they represent.  The population represented in schools has dramatically changed in the last few decades.  Schools’ populations used to be comprised of primarily white students from similar cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Calderon, Slavin & Sanchez, 2011).  Today, those students make up just over half of the population instead, and in some urban districts, they even become the minority (2011).  Teaching a changing population using the same paradigm from 50 years ago, has led to many issues such as disproportionality.  Minority students tend to be underrepresented in gifted and higher level educational programming and overrepresented in special needs programs and (Irvine, 2012; Calderon, Slavin & Sanchez, 2011; Zhang, Katsiyannis, Ju & Roberts, 2014; Ryndak et. al., 2014 & Togut, 2011).  Togut (2011) argues that “there appears to be a correlation between the discriminatory treatment of black children in school discipline and the overrepresentation of minorities in special education” (p.178).  Moreover, the author goes on to say that even if unintended, these issues “contribute to racial stratification in school and society” (p.178).  Essentially, using an old paradigm with a changing population, could be responsible for some of the social racial tensions and animosity among groups seen more and more frequently in today’s news.

Using an old paradigm, which places the bulk of the accountability responsibility on teachers, is also creating teacher attrition in general and special education.  Teachers feel a lack of support coming from principals and leaders who do not understand the programming needs of students with disabilities (Cancio, Albrecht & Johns, 2014).  Teachers feel ineffective in meeting the demands of the changing student population and also feel frustrated that they do not receive effective professional development opportunities (Cancio, Albrecht & Johns, 2014).  Finally, ineffective policies continue to inadvertently segregate students and limit the efforts of special education teachers towards inclusion (Ryndak et. al., 2014).  The old paradigm creates issues that are leading to teacher burnout and more and more teachers leaving special education and general education (Cancio, Albrecht & Johns, 2014 & Correa & Wagner, 2011).  Students need the most qualified teachers.  Teachers need to feel like what they do matters and makes a difference in the lives of their students.  To teachers, better student outcomes means more than an arbitrary test score, it means a better quality of life that makes a difference in the community.

Finally, a paradigm shift is important because the current one creates a huge divide between schools and families.  The lack of collaboration between all stakeholders has led to policies and practices that make families and schools feel like they are opponents instead of partners.  Often times, families of students with special needs feel alienated, targeted and mistreated by schools (Irvine, 2012).  They do not feel welcomed and respected as equal members of IEP or learning teams (Calderon, Slavin & Sanchez, 2011).  They feel they have many barriers to overcome in communicating with schools, such as time, power differential, feeling intimidated and seen as if they lack the legitimacy of an expert (Burke, 2013).  Once again, policies such as procedural safeguards, which are supposed to protect parents’ and students’ rights, end up being inaccessible and out of reach for families (2014).  Schools, on the other hand, end up missing important information from families, which leave them feeling like they do not know how to reach the students (Irvine, 2012).

A Paradigm Shift as the Proposed Solution

The research shows that the solutions have already been found to most of the above mentioned problems.  The question remains as to how to bring it all together.  A change in the education paradigm would distribute accountability amongst all stakeholders, with the students at the center of every decision and accountability measure (see Figure 1).  The solution lies in teachers being held accountable to use collaborative approaches, culturally responsive pedagogy, universal design for learning and assistive technology in their daily practice.  It continues by expecting policy makers and leaders to be held accountable in the training, motivation and provision of resources to their teachers and staff.  And finally, it includes holding communities and families accountable to educate others about their needs, advocating and collaborating with their local schools.

A new paradigm demands that all stakeholders remain active participants, who are held accountable for their part in ensuring the best outcomes for all students.  While achievement tests are part of student outcome measures, they can no longer be the only means of accountability.

 

Teachers

The research literature is vast in providing examples of practices that improve student outcomes.  Cooperative learning, culturally responsive pedagogy, universal design, and effective use of assistive technology are some of the ways to reach all students (Irvine, 2012; Calderon, Slavin & Sanchez, 2011; Togut, 2011).  If relevant and effective professional development opportunities are available, teachers can then be held accountable for learning evidenced-based practices, address their beliefs and understanding, and stay current of new policies and laws (McLeskey, 2011).  Research indicates that improvements in teacher practice leads to better student outcomes (2011).  Moreover, improvements in teacher practice and better student outcomes are also correlated to teacher retention and teacher satisfaction (2011).  Addressing teacher accountability to student outcomes is only one facet of the paradigm.

Leaders and Policy Makers

As mentioned before, teachers who receive meaningful and effective professional development opportunities impact student outcomes.  It is evident that teachers need more training (Irvine, 2012).  But most importantly, teachers need learner-centered professional development opportunities, in order to make the best use of them in the classroom (McLeskey, 2011).  This type of professional development opportunities is correlated with personal/professional growth and higher tendencies towards collaboration (2011).  Leaders and policy makers have the power and responsibility to provide the best professional development opportunities for their faculty and support staff.  Another way in which principals and leaders are responsible for teacher performance in by providing the best work environment.  Research indicates that administrators who are knowledgeable, meet regularly with their staff and stay on top of issues create a work environment in which teachers feel supported (Calderon, Slavin & Sanchez, 2011; Correa & Wagner, 2011).  In the best working environments, principals assume the responsibility in creating conditions that foster collaboration among all stakeholders, which also leads to teachers feeling supported (Correa & Wagner, 2011).

Policy makers on the other hand, have the responsibility to be accountable to their taxpayers and communities.  There have been several policies that have brought to light many issues in special education and have served to provide safeguards to underrepresented groups.  However, the lack of collaboration in delineating the policies and developing comprehensive systems of accountability, have led to policies inadvertently perpetuating segregation (Ryndak et. al., 2014).

It is good when policies attempt to safeguard some students or groups, but it is much more powerful and greatest when all students and stakeholders work collaboratively to make sure all student are represented and included and all are involved in the decision making process.

Families and Communities

Two of the groups that may be underrepresented in accountability measures are families and communities.  Families and communities often seem to take a more passive role as stakeholders.  To demand a better education for students with special needs and for all other students, families and communities need to become active participants who bring their input into the decision making process in education.  Policy makers, leaders/administrators and teachers must understand that families and communities have a responsibility to share information and teach the other stakeholders how to better serve them (Irvine, 2012).  While schools should be held accountable for making sure parents feel welcomed and participate more actively in their children’s education, parents also need to take on that role and assert the significance of what they have to contribute (Calderon, Slavin & Sanchez, 2011).  Parental involvement directly and indirectly affects student success (Burke, 2013).  Parents can influence whether policies are being followed.  They can influence their child’s dropout rates, attendance, behaviors, and even higher expectations (Burke, 2013).  Parental involvement is so important that it can “transcend seemingly impermeable layers of financial and educational backgrounds and provides a method for student achievement” (p. 23).  While there are many factors that influence parental involvement, one way to hold parents accountable is to make sure they exhaust all resources available to be involved in their children’s education.  Today’s technology can connect people from across the globe.  There is no reason why technology (virtual meetings, translation software, online information sharing, etc.) could not be used to foster parental involvement and promote communication between home and school.

Communities can play an integral part in education by being responsible to provide advocacy training and services.  While the current paradigm places the burden on school districts and teachers to provide advocacy training, it often creates conflict of interest situations or places parents and teachers at odds.  A proposed solution would be for communities to take over the role of advocacy training and providing advocacy services for their members.  Special education advocacy training offers a forum in which schools and families can collaborate with each other (Burke, 2013).  Advocacy and the availability of technology for students and families with special needs can empower them to impact policy making, and giving them a voice to choose what needs are priorities (Harris, Owen & DeRuiter, 2012).  When families and students are empowered and given the tools to advocate for themselves, they can directly impact policies in more powerful ways than well-meaning leaders and policy-makers who are not necessarily experiencing the issues themselves (Harris, Owen & DeRuiter, 2012).

Discussion

The current paradigm in education seems to have become obsolete.  Problems such as disproportionality, teacher attrition, inadvertent segregation and animosity among groups in society at large; are evidence that the current paradigm is no longer supporting the people it represents.  Much like a faulty family system, teachers are bearing the symptoms of an ineffective paradigm and student best interests are being left out of the equation.  Students are more than test scores.  The measure of a great teacher is much more than what test scores can provide.  While standardized tests should still be considered for practical purposes, they should not be only accountability measure expected in education.  There have to exist accountability at all levels.  Teachers, leaders/administrators, policy makers, families and communities all play a part in the education of a student.  By developing a system where students are at the center and stakeholders collaborate and keep each other accountable, it creates checks and balances.  When all are responsible, all the research about best practices can become accessible and practical in generating student success.  It is time to demand that the old ways be extinguished to make room for scientifically proven ways of improving student outcomes.  By impacting the education of ALL students, society at large is impacted and issues such as the current animosity among groups can be prevented.  Changing the paradigm of education accountability can improve the quality of life of students, families and teachers; in fact, it can change the quality of life for everyone.

References

Burke, M. M. (2013). Improving parental involvement: Training special education advocates. Journal of Disability Policy Studies,23(4), 225-234. doi:10.1177/1044207311424910

Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The Future of Children,21(1), 103-127. doi:10.1353/foc.2011.0007

Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2013). Combating the attrition of teachers of students with EBD: What can administrators do?. Intervention in School and Clinic,49(5), 306-312. doi:10.1177/1053451213513953

Correa, V. I., & Wagner, J. Y. (2011). Principals’ roles in supporting the induction of special education teachers. Journal of Special Education Leadership,24(1), 17-25.

Harris, S. P., Owen, R., & De Ruiter, C. (2012). Civic engagement and people with disabilities: The role of advocacy and technology. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarships,5(1), 70-83.

Irvine, J. J. (2012). Complex relationships between multicultural education and special education: An African American perspective. Journal of Teacher Education,63(4), 268-274. doi:10.1177/0022487112447113

McLeskey, J. (2011). Supporting improved practice for special education teachers. Journal of Special Education Leadership,24(1), 26-35.

Ryndak, D. L., Taub, D., Jorgensen, C. M., Gonsier-Gerdin, J., Arndt, K., Sauer, J., Allcock, H.

(2014). Policy and the Impact on Placement, Involvement, and Progress in General Education: Critical Issues That Require Rectification. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,39(1), 65-74. doi:10.1177/1540796914533942

Togut, T. D. (2011). The Gestalt of the School-to-Prison Pipeline: The Duality of Overrepresentation of Minorities in Special Education and Racial Disparity in School Discipline on Minorities. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law,20(1), 163-181.

Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., Ju, S., & Roberts, E. (2012). Minority Representation in Special Education: 5-Year Trends. Journal of Child and Family Studies J Child Fam Stud,23(1), 118-127. doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9698-6

Phoebe Jones

Florida International University

 

Abstract

The following is a book review on leadership in the classroom as well as strategies that can be implemented in the classroom. As an instructor it is something that would be beneficial for teachers whether they have been teaching for many years or are just getting started in the field.

 

In order to be a good leader one must possess many qualities. As stated in a diagram in the Leading in a Culture of Change, Fullan shows a diagram that has qualities that one must possess such as being enthusiastic, having hope and having energy. With that being said leaders must be flexible, able to build relationships, as well as knowledgeable (Fullan, 2001). With that members must show or exhibit some type of commitment in order to see results. When people work well together there are positive and good results, when things do not work out well together then results will not be as positive and there is a chance that there will not be that great of an outcome.

When being a leader especially in the education field, it is important to possess all of these qualities. In the book Teaching Outside the Box: How to Grab Your Students By Their Brains is written by Louanne Johnson. The purpose of this book is to give teachers whether they are first years, or even veterans the techniques as well a tools to use in their classroom in order to teach their students better, as well as how to handle situations of behavior, bullying and many other matters (Johnson).

Louanne Johnson is an author of nine books in the field of education as well as books for young readers. She was active in the military as well a degree in psychology and an EdU in educational leadership. After teaching high school for six years, she returned to graduate school and became an instructor at a community college. In addition to teaching, Johnson has designed as well as presented workshops in the field of classroom management and motivation for teachers all across the country.

As teachers, we come into a classroom with hopes such as what Fullan explained, energy. This is hard to manage when you are presented with a group of students who do not feel the same way. With that being said if students do not have those qualities, then it is hard as an instructor, to manage a classroom. It is hard to motivate the students. With this book by Johnson, it shows way for teachers to keep the students engaged, as well as keep positive behavior in the classrooms so that all students are able to learn. Johnson said “When students believe success is possible hey will try” (xiv). This is completely true you are giving the students hope that they are capable of being successful and not giving them the label that they will not do well. When you give students that validation that they are capable of doing whatever they choose to set their minds to you are setting the tone for students being successful in the classroom and in society.

All of the themes that are discovered throughout the book all revolve around how to manage a classroom. As an instructor it is better to control your classroom not your students. When students see that you are able to manage the classroom their behaviors will slowly fall into place. If you give students the opportunities to take responsibilities for how they act in the classroom as well as their other actions that they may take on can work wonders. What students want to feed off is your anger and frustration that you may exhibit in the classroom instead the best way to react is to not react at all.

These are the same types of qualities that Fullan explains in his book as well on how to be a good leader in a culture and society that is constantly changing.

In addition there are tips and tricks for the first day of classes so that both the teacher as well as the students are able to make a first good impression on one another. In addition as Fullan states in his book that “Effective leaders listen”, same goes for teaching. As an instructor it is highly important to listen to students on what they have to say. If we choose not to listen then we may be missing out on valuable information that can help students become successful in the classroom. By being an effective teacher it is important to let students know your definition of discipline in the classroom as well as explain the rules and procedures in your classroom, and how to be a successful student. If students see that as an instructor that you want your students to succeed then they will be more willing to participate and have a positive outlook in your class.

Some of the important aspects in this book include how to deal with negative classroom behavior as well as how to discipline the students in the classroom. In addition how to deal with those tough subjects such as the Shakespeare and other types of poetry and the readers that do not like to read (Johnson). One thing as an instructor that goes unseen is how much lighting in a classroom is able to affect the students, and can be linked to their reading comprehension. Studies have shown that this can be a potential reason as to why students do not participate in reading because it simply bothers them and can seriously affect them (Johnson). For an instructor with this book you will be given the resources on how to handle students that may fall into this category as well as signs and symptoms students may exhibit if they have light sensitivity.

Some of the weak points in this do not really talk about how to manage if working with the elementary school population. That is completely okay. If you fall into this category then this may not be the best book for you. But if you are looking for something along the lines of middle school and high school age students, then this is the perfect book for you. Since these age groups are sometimes the most challenging due to puberty as well as other changes that might be going on with life, this is a good book that will help you deal with those types of situations.

With both books by Fullan and Johnson, you can take some of those qualities such as being hopeful and enthusiastic and take them into the classroom or school depending on if you fall into the administration category or the teacher category. Fear not, if you love what you do, do it whole-heartedly.

References:

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, L. (n.d.). Teaching Outside the Box: How to Grab Your Students By Their Brains.

Tanya Moorehead, Eastern Connecticut State University

Tracy McKinney, Georgia State University

Tiphanie Gonzalez, State University of New York at Oswego

Jessica Hunt, North Carolina State University

Bobby Jean Jeanpierre, University of Central Florida

Lisa Dieker, University of Central Florida

 

Abstract

Five to seven percent of students within the United States have disabilities specific to mathematics, and 3.5 percent have disabilities specific to reading.  Many more students navigate educational systems undiagnosed.  For those who have identified disabilities in reading and mathematics, many programs are available through national and local networks and programming in and out of school contexts. The programs often employ interventions in the form of tutoring programs that assist students in building necessary skills to cope with and grow academically in spite of their disability.  Which is the case with this particular clinic, where a community noted a void and collaborated with a local university to bridge the gap.  In this article, authors will discuss the development and implementation of a tutoring program designed to work with middle school students with high incidence disabilities (HID) in mathematics and/or reading.

 

The Toni Jennings Exceptional Education Institute: Community Based Partnerships and Tutoring in Mathematics and Reading

Establishment and Funding

The TJEEI was created in 2000 as a result of efforts from a family, a state senator, and the Florida Legislator for whom it was named.  Toni Jennings, who started her career as a 5th grade teacher, moved into politics in the Florida House of Representatives and became the Lieutenant Governor of Florida in 2006.

The Toni Jennings Exceptional Education Institute (TJEEI) was created to ensure collaborative learning opportunities and supportive services for individuals with exceptional needs and their families. Goals and objectives of the Teaching and Research Tutoring Clinic were carefully aligned with the mission statement of the TJEEI, which is “with a commitment to equity and excellence, Toni Jennings Exceptional Education Institute provides opportunities for lifelong learning and support for children and adults with exceptional needs and their families through interdisciplinary practice, professional development and partner collaboration” (TJEEI, 2016, para. 1).  As a result, the university’s Teaching and Research Tutoring Clinic was established in 2006 by a grant from the institute.

The TJEEI supports the research of doctoral students (counselor education and exceptional education).  Additionally, the TJEEI funds four faculty research projects.  Each of the faculty research projects furthers the mission of the institute by providing learning and support for individuals with exceptional needs.  TJEEI also began the inclusion of an ‘Educator in Residence,’ who comes from one of the local school districts and is selected from a pool of applications and an interview process.  The Educator in Residence spends one year at the TJEEI to bridge the gap between the College of Education and the local school districts.  The Educator in Residence provides various workshops to aid in the preparation of preservice teachers.  Preservice teachers are encouraged to develop relationships with the Educator in Residence and request advice or other education related assistance.  The Educator in Residence is an integral part of delivering professional development and building partner collaborations with the local school districts.

With this mission statement in mind, an interdisciplinary partnership was formed between faculty, doctoral scholars, and undergraduate scholars in exceptional education, science education and mathematics education, all working together to achieve three primary goals: (1) to implement research-based content area reading strategies and mathematics learning strategies for secondary students with learning disabilities (LD) in a one-on-one tutorial setting; (2) collaborate with local school personnel and families to disseminate information and enrich learning outcomes for students with disabilities in reading and mathematics; and (3) provide leadership and research opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration among graduate scholars in special education, mathematics education, and science education, including providing guidance in the use of research-based practices for undergraduate scholars.

The TJEEI tutoring clinic began with two students in 2006.  In the first half of its beginning year, time was spent planning and preparing for student arrival.  The three goals were conceptualized during the first semester planning phase of the tutoring clinic and were designed to continue to form the framework of the tutoring clinic in the years to come. Efforts toward achieving the first goal focused on identifying research-based practices for use with the target population, and establishing routines for implementation. Doctoral scholars leading the development of the tutoring clinic assessed the students’ strengths, needs, and self-perceptions, and then based on those results targeted individual reading or mathematical deficits through direct instruction in research-based learning strategies. University students collaborated across disciplines, at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. Participants engaged in exchanges of knowledge related to reading, mathematics, and science as well as state-of-the-art practices for students with LD.  Doctoral students took leadership roles in their respective content areas, including several presentations on the work of the tutoring clinic that took place at the 2007 Council for Exceptional Children convention in Louisville, Kentucky. One undergraduate student was trained by the doctoral students to take an active role in the tutoring sessions. The training consisted of the doctoral students guiding the undergraduate students through various scenarios that may occur during the tutoring process.  If the tutoring included computer usage, the doctoral student introduced the computer program to the undergraduate students and ensured they were comfortable using them.  The doctoral students provided the undergraduate students with activities that may be helpful during the tutoring sessions. Additionally, the doctoral students ensured the undergraduate students had back up activities planned in the event the computer program was not functional or there was extra time at the end of the tutoring session.

The following years were filled with a mix of doctoral students working with a mix of graduate level students to provide services for middle and high school aged students with disabilities.  As the collaboration continued and grew throughout the university’s education department, the tutoring clinic hired three undergraduate students.  In addition to hiring students, the tutoring clinic provided service-learning hours for undergraduates through collaboration with department faculty members. The plan was to increase the number of undergraduates employed and the amount of service learning opportunities in the upcoming years.

Simultaneously, as the tutoring clinic developed an official service-learning component its’ footprint in the College of Education grew.  This new addition to the College provided consistent opportunities for students to gather service-learning hours through the tutoring clinic.  Additionally, as the tutoring clinic continued to grow its collaboration extended within the university education department to include family counseling sessions.

The Tutoring Environment

Setting

The TJEEI tutoring clinic was located on the first floor of the University of Central Florida’s Teaching Academy building.  The tutoring rooms were all equipped with 2-way mirrors and video recording equipment, which made observations convenient.  The video recording system was equipped with two cameras to get two different angles in each room.  There was a single observation room for each of the three tutoring rooms.  There were also three television screens, fitted with headphones, located in the observation rooms.  This was convenient for parents who wanted to watch the tutoring sessions.

Assessments

Academic assessments were administered prior to initiating tutoring.  A sample of assessments included the Woodcock Johnson III (reading tests) and the Key Math 3.  The Woodcock Johnson III is a standardized achievement assessment made of 22 tests in 5 areas: Reading, Math, Written Language, Knowledge, and Oral Language (Mather, Wendling, & Woodcock, 2001).  There are three tests in the area of Reading.  They include Letter Word Identification, Reading Fluency, and Passage Comprehension.  Letter Word Identification inspects reading decoding through the identification and production of isolated letters and words (Mather et al., 2001).  Reading speed is measured in the Reading Fluency test by reading a series of simple sentences and indicating whether they are true or false statements.  The comprehension of contextual information was assessed in the Passage Comprehension test.  The individual was instructed to read a passage and insert the missing word that made sense (Mather et al., 2001).

The Key Math 3 is a norm-referenced test designed to measure essential mathematics concepts and skills typically taught in kindergarten through ninth grade.  The test is comprised of 11 subtests in 3 areas: Basic Concepts, Operations, and Applications.  There are five subtests in the area of Basic Concepts, including Numeration, Algebra, Geometry, Measurement, and Data Analysis/Probability.  There are three subtests in the area of Operations:  Mental Computation and Estimation and Written Computation (addition and subtraction).  Foundations of Problem Solving and Applied Problem Solving are the subtests that comprise the area of Applications.  Scores provided by the Key Math include scale and standard scores, percentiles, age and grade equivalents, and growth values.

These assessments helped determine which specific areas in reading and mathematics to focus on.  Prior to exiting the tutoring clinic, an alternative form of the previously delivered assessment was administered.  This provided a measure of growth during the tutoring process.

Students

Through the course of the tutoring clinic we have served a total of 21 students.  Of the total students served, we have tutored 19 native English speakers and two native Spanish speakers.  There have been 9 males and 12 females between the ages of 10-21.  We have served African Americans, Caucasians, Hispanics and individuals with mixed race.  Table 1 depicts the breakdown of participant demographics by school year.

 

Table 1.  Participant demographics

Year	Native Language	Gender	Race	Age
2006-2007	English	2 Male 2 Female	Caucasian, Hispanic, and Mixed Race	12-16
2007-2008	English	2 Male 2 Female	Caucasian and Black	13-14
2008-2009	English and Spanish	2 Males 2 Females	Caucasian and Hispanic	12-13
2009-2010	English and Spanish	2 Male 3 Female	Caucasian and Hispanic	12-15
2010-2011	English	1 Male 2 Female	Caucasian	10-12

Mathematics Instruction

Students participated in a mathematics lesson lasting 60 minutes 1 time per week.  Each of the mathematics intervention lessons used a sequence of assessment and teaching prompts indicative of a clinical interview (Ginsburg, 1997).  During each lesson, the teacher employed features of explicit and systematic instruction (e.g., meaningful practice opportunities, concrete and visual representations, and feedback) (Coyne, Kame’enui, & Carnine, 2011); and elements of conceptual instruction (e.g., purposefully sequenced problem types, active involvement in mathematical tasks, verbalization of strategies; contextualized situations) (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007).

In each lesson, the teacher presented the student with a specific problem task (usually, one to three problems per session) and read the task to the student.  The teacher observed as the student solved the problem and encouraged the student to think aloud, noting the representations and strategies the student used to solve the problem and giving feedback on whether the student correctly or incorrectly solved the problem.  The teacher constantly evaluated students’ strategy and representation use; instructional decision-making and the supports given differed based on how the student solved the problem.  If the student produced an incorrect solution with no evidence of a viable strategy or representation, the teacher explicitly modeled the problem solution utilizing a think aloud, strategy type, and representation.  If the student produced an incorrect solution but showed evidence of a viable strategy or beginning representation, the teacher used a series of prompts to aid the student in correctly solving the problem.  Prompts included asking the student what varying aspects of their drawing or model represented, how their drawing related to the problem, repeating the student’s own solution of their answer, or suggesting an alternate representation or strategy if the student’s seemed problematic.

Reading Instruction

Students participated in a reading lesson lasting 60 minutes 1 time per week.  Each session began with a review of words that presented as a challenge during the previous tutoring session. (Data were collected electronically to help lead instruction.)  Next, students interacted with a reading fluency computer program.  The program used a highlighting function to indicate the section the student was expected to read.  The highlights moved as the students read.  The computer program required students to use a microphone as they read passages.  The computer program analyzed the words as the students decoded.  If the student misread a word, the highlighting did not move until the student corrected the reading mistake.  Each session concluded with the student creating a PowerPoint focusing on the words they missed on the reading program.  In addition to typing words, the students developed sentences using the target words.  The students also typed definitions and found pictures depicting the target words.  The final piece of the tutoring program appeared to be the part most students enjoyed most.  This part consisted of the students using transitions and various effects to make their Power Points visually appealing.  At the conclusion of the session, the students were allowed to check out a book (that included an audio CD of the text) from our reading library.

Collaboration

The tutoring clinic began operating as a partnership between several College of Education departments in the university, including Exceptional Education, Science Education, and Mathematics Education. The tutoring clinic had several layers of partners. The faculty members involved in the tutoring clinic provided a strong partnership between the content areas of mathematics and science with a focus on special education.

An external partnership was also formed with an area Middle School through a university organization. The middle school worked closely with the tutoring clinic to provide students for tutoring sessions. Additionally, doctoral students created a link with families by educating the parents of the students whom were served in their important role of collaborating with their child’s school to achieve successful results for students attending the tutoring clinic.  The tutoring clinic offered undergraduates the opportunity to work with students in a one on one environment where they could get feedback from doctoral students.  They were also provided with rich tutoring experiences that would enhance their resumes when they are looking for employment as well as provide experiences for them to pull from when they entered into their first classroom.  (Haverback, 2009; Baker, Rieg, & Clendaniel, 2006).  Additionally, these opportunities provided possible venues for future research including dissertations.

Partnerships were an integral part of TJEEI.  One of the most important partnerships was with the Holmes partnerships, which was hosted by the university.  The Holmes partnership consists of universities, K-12 schools, community agencies and national professional agencies who work together to provide enriching professional development opportunities which will in turn improve the education for all students (College of Education and Human Performance [CEHP], 2016).

Parents

Parental support of students struggling with disabilities was an important part of the work done in TJEEI tutoring clinic. Parents were required to be present in the clinic and observe their child’s tutoring session through a two-way mirror looking directly into the tutoring rooms or watch their child’s tutoring session through a video feed from the tutoring classroom into the control room. Parents’ were also provided the opportunity to interact with each other and share stories and common experiences.  In 2008 the tutoring clinic staff included focus groups for parents. A Counselor Education doctoral student and staff member led these focus groups; these groups explored the challenges and needs of both the children and parents in schools. They focused on topics such as the parents’ role during the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meeting, strategies for aiding children with their homework and their experiences working with their child’s school.

Through these focus groups we were able to learn the specific needs of both the students and parents. The tutoring clinic staff was then able to tailor future discussions and programming with these specific needs in mind (Kitzinger, 1995). An added benefit of these focus groups was an open dialogue created between the parent and child. Also camaraderie developed between parents who found other families having similar experiences as their own.

This was evident when conducting future programming in which both the parents and at times their children, would take part in psychoeducational groups. Parents were provided with information on how to work with their children while building coping skills for navigating obstacles associated with the child’s learning disability.  The focus of these psychoeducational groups included issues pertaining to child behavior in and out of the classroom, student/parental frustration and relationships with schools and school faculty. After a discussion on these topics parents shared their personal stories with one another while connecting what they learned during the session and how they would incorporate those lessons into future situations.

Conclusion

The TJEEI tutoring clinic served 20 students over 5 years.  The tutoring clinic was made up of multiple components that made it a successful entity.  The students were exposed to high quality academic instruction and their parents had the opportunity to receive counseling services.   The tutoring clinic is no longer in operation, however the students and parents who received services are forever grateful.  Additionally, the doctoral students who helped operate the clinic gained valuable experience that helped prepare them for their jobs in academia.

While the tutoring clinic is no longer in operation, the commitment to community remains.  Currently the tutoring clinic has been transformed into a literacy center led by a university reading and language arts faculty member.  The center provides literacy instruction throughout the school year and literacy camps during the summer to individuals in kindergarten through 8^th grade.  The faculty and students at the university believe in community collaboration.  As such, enrichment opportunities have been offered to the community through two different programs over a period of time with the same goal: education for all.

References

Baker, J. D., Rieg, S, A., Clendaniel, T. (2006). An Investigation of an after School Math Tutoring Program: University Tutors + Elementary Students = A Successful Partnership Education, v127(2) p287-293.

College of Education and Human Performance. (2016). Who are Holmes scholars?                  Retrieved from www.education.ucf.edu/hsscholar/hs_whoweare.cfm

Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J. & Carnine, D. W. (2011). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ginsburg, H.P. (1997).  Entering the child’s mind:  The clinical interview in psychological research and practice.  Cambridge, U.K.:  Cambridge University Press.

Haverback, H. R. (2009). Situating pre-service reading teachers as tutors: implications of teacher self-efficacy on tutoring elementary students Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning v17(3).

Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371-404). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Jackson, J. & Dixon, M.R. (2007).  A mobile computing solution for collecting functional analysis data on a Pocket PC. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 359–384. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.46-06

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. Bmj,311(7000), 299-302.

Mather, N., Wendling, B. J., Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Essentials Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement Assessment. Itasca, Illinois: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Knopf.

Toni Jennings Exceptional Education Institute [TJEEI]. (2016). TJEEI  mission. Retrieved from tjeei.ucf.edu/mission.cfm

About the Authors

Tanya Moorehead is an Assistant Professor for the Department of Education at Eastern Connecticut State University, all correspondence regarding this article can be sent to mooreheadt@easternct.edu.

Tracy McKinney is a Clinical Assistant Professor for the Department of Educational Psychology, Special Education and Communication Disorders at Georgia State University.

Tiphanie Gonzalez is an Assistant Professor for the Department of Counseling and Psychological Services at the State University of New York at Oswego.

Jessica Hunt is an Associate Professor in the Department of Teacher Education and Learning Sciences at North Carolina State University.

Bobby J. Jeanpierre is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Human Sciences at the University of Central Florida.

Lisa Dieker is a Professor in the Department of Child, Family and Community Sciences at the University of Central Florida.

Perry A. Zirkel

© November 2016

This monthly legal alert provides, as a two-column table, highlights (on the left) and practical implications (on the right) of major new legal developments.  This November update identifies two relatively recently recognized forms of alleged denials of IDEA’s central obligation of “free appropriate public education” (FAPE), which have emerged beyond the procedural and substantive dimensions of FAPE originally established in Board of Education v. Rowley (1982).

1. The first of these two relatively recent judicially recognized forms of FAPE is implementation—specifically, a denial of FAPE based on the failure to implement the IEP fully.  The three competing approaches for such failure-to-implement cases are as follows, with the majority of jurisdictions not yet having clearly chosen among them:
First, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the two-part approach in Bobby R. (2000), requiring (a) a substantial or significant failure to implement the IEP, and (b) a resulting deprivation of educational benefit.  Less clearly, the Third Circuit appears to have subsequently followed this approach.	Thus, LEAs in the states within the Fifth Circuit (Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) and the Third Circuit (Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) have more latitude in due process hearings and court proceedings for failure-to-implement cases; however, both best practice and the state complaint investigation process favor more rigorous compliance.
Second, the Ninth Circuit adopted in Van Duyn (2007) the more strict materiality approach, which approximates the first part of Bobby R. alone: “A material failure occurs when there is more than a minor discrepancy [in the IEP’s implementation] regardless of [whether] the child suffer[ed] demonstrable educational harm.”  The courts in the District of Columbia have followed this approach.	Courts and, as a result, hearing officers hold the LEAs in the Ninth Circuit (nine states in the West) and the District of Columbia to a more strict standard, which does not require a loss of educational benefit for the child.  However, again, other enforcement mechanisms and best-practice considerations, including parental trust, weigh against less than complete implementation.
Third, none of the circuits at this point in time have adopted a strict 100% implementation approach, but the state education agencies’ (and, for Section 504’s overlapping coverage, OCR’s) complaint investigation process often follows it with an exception for de minimis discrepancies.	For LEAs in the many states beyond the jurisdictions identified with the other two approaches, advice of legal counsel and attention to considerations favoring full implementation are of particular importance.  For any LEA that misses more than de minimis implementation, initiation of voluntary compensatory services and possible due revision of the IEP merit consideration.

 

 

2.  The most recently recognized and least clearly settled claim for denial of FAPE is based on the capacity of the placement to implement the IEP.  This claim that the school is not able to implement the child’s IEP has elements of the procedural, substantive, and implementation dimensions but is ultimately separable from them.
This form of FAPE has been subject to a long line of federal court cases in New York starting approximately three years ago.  For example, in D.S. v. N.Y.C. Department of Education (2013), the court held that the district denied FAPE because its proposed placement was not capable of implementing the IEP provision for a seafood-free environment, which was based on the child’s life-threatening seafood allergy.	This line of cases not only extends to other, more common IEP implementation issues, such as class size and staff qualifications, but also the fuzzy meaning of “placement” in the FAPE context.  As the federal district court in New York recently observed, this new FAPE challenge is an “expanding, but still opaque, subject-matter area.”
Courts in other jurisdictions are starting to face and address this latest form of FAPE claims.  For example, the Fourth Circuit, in a recent brief opinion in S.T. v. Howard County School System (2016) recognized and, based on the evidence in the case, rejected a claim of “the ability of the school placement to provide [the IEP] services.”  Moreover, District of Columbia has had at least three court decisions within the past three years ruling that the proposed school placement was not able to provide the services that the child’s IEP specified.	Thus, in all of the jurisdictions, even more strongly than the failure-to-implement claims, this fourth branch, focusing on the capacity to implement the IEP, merits careful consideration because it is increasing in its incidence and is still far from crystallized in its contours.  Moreover, the applicable approaches for evidence, including the prevalent “snapshot” and the less common “four-corners” approaches, reinforce the need to consult with local legal counsel.

Executive Director

Andover, MA

Job Category: Executive Director

Description:

The Professional Center for Child Development (the Professional Center), a comprehensive agency helping children ages 1-10 of all abilities fulfill their potential, seeks nominations and applications for the position of Executive Director. The Professional Center’s highly skilled and professional staff provide a range of services to support the growth and development of children including: developmental day school for children with disabilities; early intervention for children from birth to three years old with disabilities or who are at risk; preschool for both children with and without disabilities; play groups; pediatric therapy programs; and regional consultation.

Building on a 43-year-old legacy of serving local families and their children within a diverse community, the Professional Center is at a significant moment of transition after decades of leadership under its founding executive. The Board of Directors seeks an individual who has an understanding of, and a passion for the unique needs of the children we serve, to carry the agency into a new era of success and growth. Specifically, the incoming Executive Director will leverage the talents of the exceptional professional staff to help the agency become more agile, efficient, and responsive both to the changing landscape of the broader human services environment and the needs of those it serves. S/he will push boundaries for expanding the programmatic work of the agency while establishing clear timelines and expectations for success and developing mechanisms for ongoing communication and feedback within the organization to ensure a cohesive effort.

The agency’s comprehensive services concentrate in the North Shore region of Massachusetts as well as into Southern New Hampshire and serve over 1,400 children with and without disabilities. The Professional Center’s Early Intervention program, supported by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, is recognized as a best-in-class integrated development service within the state of Massachusetts. The agency’s original and longest running program, the Developmental Day School, provides a comprehensive education and therapeutic programs for children ages 3-10 with multiple disabilities, moderate to severe developmental delays and complex care and/or medical needs. This program is licensed by both the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care. The Professional Center’s staff members are deeply committed and passionate about their work, and the agency enjoys extraordinary stability in its management and financial well-being.

Reporting to the Board of Directors, the Executive Director will be responsible for leading and managing all aspects of the agency in its transition and beyond. The Executive Director will serve as a trusted and engaging leader, fostering and developing deep relationships across the agency and with key funders, partners, advocates, and political entities. With a personal commitment to early education and human services and a dedication to operational and programmatic excellence, the Executive Director will uphold a culture of collaboration and transparency to ensure operations are always supporting exceptional quality and the highest ethical standards.

To Apply:

The Professional Center for Child Development is working with Katherine Jacobs and Nureen Das of Nonprofit Professionals Advisory Group in the recruitment effort. Candidates are strongly encouraged to apply as soon as possible. Applications including a cover letter describing your interest and qualifications, your resume (in Word format), salary history and where you learned of the position should be submitted to:

PCCD-ED@nonprofitprofessionals.com

 

*******************************

 

Tenure-Track Assistant Professor in Special Education

Penn State Erie, The Behrend College

Job Category: Faculty

Penn State Behrend invites applications for Early Childhood Education Faculty Positions starting Fall 2017. A doctoral degree in Special Education is required for the position; candidates with a doctorate completed by early summer 2017 will be considered. The position will be housed in the early childhood education PK-4 program in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, but will also teach special education for the secondary math education program housed in the School of Science. The ideal candidate will have a minimum of two years of experience working in the schools with a broad age range of students across PK-12. The successful candidate will possess a record of research and scholarly productivity; a commitment to excellence in college-level teaching and advising; classroom experience in early childhood settings and a strong commitment to diversity, social justice, and advocacy. The area of research is open; research in collaboration with peers and undergraduate students is valued.

The college provides support for research and travel to scholarly conferences. Penn State Behrend is a comprehensive four-year and residential college of Penn State in Erie, PA. The college prides itself on the balance it achieves between teaching and research. Located on a beautiful, wooded hilltop campus, Penn State Behrend offers its 4,350 undergraduate and graduate students an inspiring and technologically-advanced environment characterized by close student/faculty interaction. For more information about the college, please visit our Web site (www.behrend.psu.edu). To apply, go to http://psu.jobs/. For job location, choose “Penn State Erie, The Behrend College.” For type of job, select “Academic.” Then click “Search for Jobs.” Select job #67654, Tenure-Track Assistant Professor in Special Education and then select “Apply On-line.” If you have never applied for a Penn State job before, you will need to create a Friends of Penn State Account. Thereafter, you will be able to upload the required materials: a letter of application summarizing your experiences and educational philosophy, curriculum vitae, and list of professional references. Review of applications will begin immediately and continue until the positions are filled.

CAMPUS SECURITY CRIME STATISTICS: For more about safety at Penn State, and to review the Annual Security Report which contains information about crime statistics and other safety and security matters, please go to http://www.police.psu.edu/clery/ , which will also provide you with detail on how to request a hard copy of the Annual Security Report.

Penn State is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer, and is committed to providing employment opportunities to all qualified applicants without regard to race, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability or protected veteran status.

Job URL: http://apptrkr.com/915680

 

*******************************

 

Special Education Teacher

Timonium, MD

Job Category: Special Education Teacher

Description:

Teaches in a Level V educational setting, serving children with severe emotional and behavioral disabilities, often accompanied by learning disabilities. Within assigned grade level and/or content area, the Special Education Teacher is responsible for developing and implementing plans for meeting the educational needs of students and for improving psychosocial development.

Job Duties / Responsibilities:

• Respects children and family rights by recognizing the dignity of each individual and maintaining the confidentiality of all client information.
• Contributes to Performance Improvement at the individual, department, and agency levels.
• Accurately applies knowledge of treatment approaches appropriate to the physical and developmental age of clients served.
• Attends all required training and in-service courses (CPR, Crisis Intervention, Emergency Procedures, Infection Control, Trauma Informed Care, etc.).
• Develops and implements lesson plans to meet established curriculum guidelines and individual student needs.
• Documents student progress including grading papers, workbooks, class participation, homework, etc. and maintains files related to student work as necessary.
• Incorporates an “affective curriculum” by introducing activities to develop social awareness, appropriate social behaviors, and constructive expression of individual experiences into the instructional program.
• Prepares and submits annual comprehensive progress reports, monthly Treatment Team Educational reports, IEP and academic report cards and high school transcripts at the end of each term.
• Establishes behavioral limits and maintains order within the classroom to ensure the safety of all children and to promote an effective learning environment.
• Enforces the Behavior Management System.
• Monitors children’s behavior and maintains Behavior Management documentation by completing point sheets in prescribed time limits, calculating daily behavior management levels, calculating monthly goal percentages, and completing behavior logs to ensure that children are treated fairly and that the Behavior Management System is implemented consistently.
• Special Education Teacher I: Bachelor’s Degree in Special Education or related field, with certification in Special Education by the Maryland State Department of Education.
• Special Education Teacher II: Master’s degree in Special Education or related field, with Advanced Professional Certification.
• Requires the ability to walk and stand up to 85% of the time. Requires physical ability to intervene and restrain children in crisis situations including the ability to run, lift and transport children to another location.
• Experience with emotionally disturbed children preferred. Provisional employment may be offered to otherwise eligible candidates actively pursuing completion of their certification requirements.

Requirements:

• Special Education Teacher I: Bachelor’s Degree in Special Education or related field, with certification in Special Education by the Maryland State Department of Education.
• Special Education Teacher II: Master’s degree in Special Education or related field, with Advanced Professional Certification.
• Requires the ability to walk and stand up to 85% of the time. Requires physical ability to intervene and restrain children in crisis situations including the ability to run, lift and transport children to another location.
• Experience with emotionally disturbed children preferred. Provisional employment may be offered to otherwise eligible candidates actively pursuing completion of their certification requirements.

THIS IS A 12-MONTH POSITION.

Contact:

Please apply on our website at www.cc-md.org/careers
Please contact Britney Niebuhr, Talent Acquisition Partner for any questions. bniebuhr@cc-md.org

 

*******************************

Special Education Teacher

Linden and Memphis, TN

Job Category: Special Education Teacher

**Multiple Locations**
**Ask us about relocation assistance**

Program Overview

Youth Villages’ Residential Treatment programs serve children with emotional and behavioral problems. Our residential campuses provide the setting for an intensive treatment program that combines the unique balance of structure and freedom. This enables children and their families to identify, understand and cope with their individual needs and develop the skills necessary to succeed in less restrictive settings. The majority of these youth attend the fully accredited schools which are located on our residential treatment campuses.

Deer Valley, our residential treatment facility in Linden, TN, is situated on 1,029 acres of wooded and gently rolling hills. A flowing stream helps create a picturesque setting for the nature paths, which wind throughout the campus

Position Overview

LINDEN

Manage Special Education programs including:

• Teaching Special Education students
• Leading IEP meetings
• Completing paperwork and making sure files are up to date.

MEMPHIS

• Plan for individual and group activities to stimulate growth in language, social, and other skills.
• Participate in training and in-service activities.
• Administer and interprets testing to determine academic needs.
• Develop and uses a variety of teaching techniques.
• Produce lesson plans that reflect the individual educational needs of students.
• Prepare reports in compliance with school guidelines.
• Maintain progress notes, attendance records, and grade scores in a timely manner.
• Other essential duties as needed.
• Candidates may have the opportunity to teach in specialized subjects
  Monday – Friday, 7:30am to 3:30pm.

In addition:

• Participate in training and in-service activities.
• Administer and interpret testing to determine academic needs.
• Develop and use a variety of teaching techniques.
• Produce lesson plans that reflect the individual educational needs of students.
• Prepare reports in compliance with school guidelines.
• Maintain progress notes, attendance records, and grade scores in a timely manner.
• Other essential duties as needed.

Additional Information

Schedule is Monday – Friday, 7:30am to 3:30pm.
Tuition & Licensure reimbursement, and training for your career growth and advancement
Our schools operate year-round

Requirements:

• A Masters degree in education or a specialized area is preferred (Special Education, Math, Science, History, and English)
• A Bachelors degree in education or a specialized area is required.
• Candidates who have taken the Praxis and are licensed (or eligible for licensure) are preferred.
• Special Education Certification or interim license while enrolled in a Special Education degree program is required.
• Experience in special education or teaching experience in a clinical environment.
• Experience teaching high school students is required
• Experience working with at-risk youth

EOE

Benefits:

Experience growth and development through our continuous training, as well as tuition and licensure reimbursement, or pursue opportunities to advance both clinically and administratively with Youth Villages.

ADDITIONAL BENEFITS

• Medical, Dental, Prescription Drug Coverage and Vision
• Retirement Savings Pension Plan
• 403 (b)
• 2 weeks paid vacation
• 12 paid sick days per year
• 10 paid holidays
• Mileage & Cell Phone Reimbursement (when applicable)

Contact:

Tarekia Dentley
Staff Recruiter
901-251-4972
Tarekia.Dentley@youthvillages.org
www.youthvillages.org/joinourteam

 

*******************************

 

Teacher Mild/Mod. & Mod./Sev. (Elem. & MS)

Palo Alto, CA

Job Category: Education Specialist

Description:

The Education Specialist, will serve as classroom teacher in both general education settings as a co-teacher and leading a Learning Center to support students with IEPs in the least restrictive environment. Case management, professionalism, communication, and ability to co-teach/collaborate with colleagues are cornerstones to this position. The FUTURES learning center teacher will coordinate with support staff, district behaviorist to support the learning, social-emotional, behavioral and educational needs of students with significant disabilities. The candidate should have a rich knowledge of best practices and evidenced based instruction and supporting students to develop resiliency, independence/self-advocacy, communication and self-regulation and vocational skills to be successful across multiple environments. The Futures Services prepare young people to live, work, plan and learn at school and in the community through meaningful community-based instruction and micro enterprises on campus. The Education Specialist will provide a warm and welcoming classroom environment to ensure students are safe and belong to the school/classroom community.

Requirements:

• Valid appropriate Moderate to Severe California credential, required.
• Possession of an English Learner certificate (CLAD or BCLAD), as per by Board policy, may be required
• Within 60 days of hire, provision of TB (tuberculin) clearance, as mandated by the California Education Code
• Engage and support all students in learning
• Case management
• Creating and maintaining effective environments for student learning
• Planning instruction and designing learning experiences for students
• IEP preparation
• Assessing Student Learning
• Other duties as assigned

Benefits:

Work stability with great union, medical, dental and vision benefits.

Contact:

Certificated Human Resources
25 Churchill Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94306
Phone: (650) 329-3785
Fax: (650) 323-5162

 

*******************************

 

Assistant/Associate Professor – Special Education

Philadelphia, PA

Description:

Drexel University was founded in Philadelphia in 1891 to provide educational opportunities for women and men of all backgrounds. Now, as a comprehensive research university with over 26,000 students across its 15 colleges and schools, Drexel’s strength in co-operative education, experiential learning, and translational research provides its students and faculty with excellent opportunities for career success. Known for innovation and dramatic growth, Drexel has earned top rankings from U.S. News & World Report, appearing among its Top 100 National Universities for the past seven years and on its Best Colleges list for the past 11 years.

POSITION TITLE: ASSISTANT/ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR – SPECIAL EDUCATION

Job Overview:

The Department of Teaching, Learning and Curriculum (TLC) in the School of Education of Drexel University seeks to appoint an Assistant or Associate Professor tenure-track or tenured faculty member in the area of Special Education. The individual should hold expertise to conduct or have an established record of scholarly or applied research in any of the following specialty areas: Addressing the special needs of diverse K-12 learners (including English Language Learners); identification and assessment of multilingual learners; communicating Special Education law and processes with diverse families; research-based instructional strategies; high incidence disabilities, or behavior and emotional disabilities. In alignment with Drexel University priorities, this position will play a valuable role in Drexel University’s commitment to being an academically comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and civically engaged urban research university, dedicated to advancing knowledge and providing every student with a valuable, rigorous, experiential, technology-infused education.

Essential Functions:

The successful candidate will teach and develop courses, engage in appropriate program development, collaborate with other faculty, and advise students in the School of Education’s undergraduate and master’s level courses, including students on campus and online. The development of a research program in Special Education is also an expectation for the position.

The individual will also be expected to seek external funding as well as fulfill the professional obligations of a faculty member within a research-intensive university.

Requirements:

1. The successful candidate must hold an earned doctorate (Ph.D or Ed.D) in Special Education or expect to earn one by June 2017.
2. The candidate should demonstrate evidence of scholarly activity in Special Education (e.g. dissertation chapters, published articles, books/book chapters or presentations).
3. Preference will be given to candidates who can provide evidence of one or more of these additional desirable qualifications:
4. Training and expertise associated with the delivery of Special Education services, law and state regulations, and pre-service, and in-service teacher preparation
5. Experience with teacher education including supervision and coordination of field and clinical experiences and teaching online and on campus courses
6. Previous experience with local districts and agencies serving culturally and economically diverse children as well as service to the university and the profession,
7. Experience conducting research based instructional strategies
8. Knowledgeable about high and low Incidence disabilities, behavior and emotional disabilities

Benefits:

Drexel University offers an attractive benefits package including tuition remission, a generous retirement package with matching funds (up to 11 percent) and an opportunity to join a talented team of professionals directly helping the University achieve its record growth and quality reputation.

Drexel is an EOE/AA employer. Background checks are required as a condition of employment.

Application Process:

All applicants must apply online through DrexelJobs to be considered. All applicants should provide a cover letter describing their professional experience and research agenda, a curriculum vitae, and a list of three references. In addition, applicants should provide two examples of their scholarship (e.g., dissertation chapters, journal articles, book chapters) or other written work addressing matters of special education.
Interested candidates should review the following pertinent information about SOE: http://drexel.edu/soe/ and http://drexel.edu/soe/about/strategic-plan/.

Please apply online at:www.drexeljobs.com/applicants/Central?quickFind=81703

 

*******************************

 

Special Education Teacher

Littlestown, Pennsylvania

Job Category: Full Time

Description:

The Hoffman Academy is a special education, private, academic school for students identified with social and emotional disorders. The school is aligned with, and located on the grounds of, Hoffman Homes for Youth- a psychiatric residential treatment facility outside Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

The Hoffman Academy educates approximately 100 students. The mission is to offer a learning environment combined with a therapeutic component. Teachers, therapists and direct-care staff work together to assist the children-in-care with achieving their treatment goals.

The Hoffman Academy is accepting applicants for Special Education Teacher positions. The Special Education Teacher is a full-time position with benefits.

The Hoffman Academy is looking for teachers to work in a creative and versatile environment geared toward educating and treating at-risk youth. The goal is to allow teachers the flexibility to deliver curriculum in the most effective manner. Teachers, at the Hoffman Academy, must be able to work as part of a treatment team (i.e. the student, therapist, direct-care staff, parents, etc.) and assist the student in defining and achieving successful outcomes. Teachers are encouraged to use the support of the therapists and direct-care staff. The principles of Sanctuary® and Trauma Informed Care are expected to be applied within the daily routines, interactions and interventions of the school day. Overall, teachers for the Hoffman Academy must exhibit an enthusiasm for educating distressed young people while coaching them toward a safe and productive lifestyle.

Salary: Starting at $45,000

Duties of the position include, but are not limited to:

• Develop and implement IEPs and NOREPs as well as facilitate meetings with regard to these plans and the student’s overall treatment program
• Plan and teach appropriate and engaging lessons according to the students’ ability and need
• Collect and analyze student data
• Participate as an active member of each student’s treatment team; Assist the team in developing and implementing successful approaches for the student.
• Maintain records and make reports as required by State Law, the State Board of Education, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, and the School.

Requirements:

Applicants must have Pennsylvania Certification in Special Education (7-12; N-12; and PK-8). Proper clearances, as defined by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, are required.

Equal Opportunity Employer

Benefits:

• Comprehensive Major Medical Plan with Prescription Plan
• Dental
• Vision
• 403(b)
• Paid Time Off

Contact:

Interested applicants may forward a resume to Walter Smith, Director of Education, via Email: wsmith@hoffmanhomes.com, Fax: 717-359-2600, or Mail: 815 Orphanage Rd., Littlestown, PA 17340. http://www.hoffmanhomes.com/menu/About/careers

 

*******************************

 

Special Education Specialist

Dover, NH

Job Category: Full Time

Description:

This position is contingent upon a contract award (expected September, 2016).  The preference for this position is to be based in Dover, NH; however, individuals with extensive professional, industry-based alternate assessment experience who are able to travel onsite for program orientation and training may be considered.

The Special Education Specialist (SPED) provides technical assistance across one or more contracts in administering assessment programs for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Develops special education content materials for professional development, item development and the administration of alternate assessments.  Additional responsibilities include the following:

• Under the supervision of program leadership and/or the Senior Special Education Specialist:
• Collaborate with and provide technical assistance to Measured Progress Program Manager(s), subcontractors, and/or the state education agencies regarding the program’s design, planning and implementation.
• Conduct in-state professional development workshops with educational professionals on the implementation and scoring of alternate assessments.
• Develop and write administration manuals, resource guides, scoring guides, and presentation materials as needed.
• Collaborate with Measured Progress Curriculum and Assessment staff to develop and refine alternate assessment items as needed as well as the overall assessment design.
• Act as the main liaison with Measured Progress staff and the state agencies on all development issues for the contract, conducting in-state development meetings as required.
• Collaborate with the Measured Progress Program Managers and/or subcontractors with communicating the program’s design, objectives, deliverables, budget, and deadlines to internal personnel to ensure the contract is carried out on time and according to specifications.
• Assist with the creation of contract specific test designs and specifications for current contracts and/or proposals.

Requirements:

Master’s Degree in Education and a minimum of four (4) years teaching experience in special education (preferably with students with significant cognitive disabilities); or two (2) years special education teaching experience (preferably with students with significant cognitive disabilities), plus two (2) years directly applicable professional level alternate assessment experience.

Contact:

http://www.measuredprogress.org/about-us/careers/employment-opportunities/

 

*******************************

 

Special Education Specialist

Multiple Locations

Description:

The primary responsibility of the Special Education Specialist is to provide instruction and other related services to Special Education students. The Special Education Specialist will also facilitate diagnostic assessment including administration, scoring and interpretation. Will review and revise IEP’s as needed. Will support instruction in reading, math, and written language for students, tutor individual and small groups of students, administer and score academic testing, write individualized education plans and support other academic programs as needed. The Special Education Specialist will work under the leadership of the Program Specialist and the Director of Special Education. This position will be available to provide direct instruction to students 6 hours a day.

Essential Functions include, but are not limited to the following:*

• Provide instruction to students with special needs and identified learning disabilities in a special education program.
• Tutor individual and small groups of students, reinforcing language and reading concepts.
• Administer and score individual and group tests.
• Schedule IEP meetings, coordinating schedules with parents, general education teacher(s), administrator, and all appropriate special education staff.
• Conduct IEP meetings.
• Communicate and coordinate special needs evaluation and testing with speech teacher, psychologist, and other service providers.
• Communicate with parents regarding individual student progress and conduct.
• Maintain progress records and record progress toward IEP goals.
• Record progress within the independent study program.
• Perform other duties in support of the Special Education Specialist program.
• Support other academic programs offered within the independent study program.

Various openings in Burbank region, San Gabriel region, Victor Valley region, Inland Empire region, San Bernardino region, and San Juan region.

Knowledge, Skills and Abilities Required:

• Special Education Specialist Certificate or ability to obtain Mild/Moderate Certificate.
• Ability to teach students of grades K-12.
• Ability to work with children of all ages.
• Ability to understand, adopt, and support the independent study program, concepts and their philosophies.
• Ability to organize and present ideas effectively in oral and written form.
• Ability to make skillful decisions.
• Ability to work under pressure and meet deadlines.
• Ability to operate a PC computer, word processor, copier, FAX, and other office machine

Education/Experience:

• BA/BS Degree
• Valid California Teaching Credential in Special Education (Mild/Moderate)

Contact:

Nehia Hearn
Human Resources Assistant
Direct: 626) 204-2552 Fax: 626) 685-9316
nhearn@ofy.org

 

*******************************

 

Special Education Teacher

Washington, DC

Job Category: Special Education Teacher

Description:

Under general supervision of the House Manager, the incumbent is responsible for teaching and supervising a class of special needs students utilizing various techniques to promote learning. Duties include planning, organizing, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating class activities, developing Individualized Education Plans (IEP) and working with assigned staff, therapists and students to achieve the IEP goals and objectives. The incumbent is responsible for supervising assigned students and classroom staff insuring that students and staff are compliant with all school policies and procedures. This position requires close supervision of students which includes the ability to keep up with running children and or to lift or assist with lifting students is essential to perform this task. An important aspect of the job is gaining knowledge of and implementing the assigned student’s Individual Education Plan goals and objectives as well as ensuring accurate data collection and documentation of same.

Requirements:

The ideal candidate has a Bachelor’s degree in Special Education, and holds or is eligible for District of Columbia teaching certification with appropriate endorsement. Prior teaching/instructional experience with individuals with special needs is preferred.

Contact:

St. Coletta of Greater Washington
Human Resources Department
1901 Independence Avenue SE
Washington DC 20003
202-350-8680

Applications accepted online ONLY at www.stcoletta.org

 

*******************************

 

Special Education Teacher

Barstow, California

Job Category: Full Time

Job Description / Essential Elements:

Special Education Teacher is sought by Barstow Unified School District in Barstow CA. At present there is a single job opening for a full time position for 7 hours a day 185 days per year. Applications will be accepted until the position is filled.

Minimum Qualifications:

Eligible or holds appropriate California Teaching Credential for Special Education.

Major Duties & Responsibilities:

Provides individual and small group assistance related to the pupil’s specific learning disabilities, educational problems, and total educational adjustment. Other Duties: Evaluates pupils’ academic and social growth, keeping appropriate records and communication progress with parents. Participates with the I.E.P. team to develop the individualized education program for each student placed in the class.

Requirements for Applying:

California Education Specialist Instruction Credential: Mild/Moderate (M/M) and/or Moderate/Severe (M/S) Minimum of three (3) years successful classroom contract teaching experience in a special education setting EL Authorization VPSS NCLB Certification in Subject (Verification Process for Secondary Teachers in Special Settings) Autism

Authorization SIGNING BONUS AVAILALBE (must possess Level I or Level II credential)

• Attach copies of credentials
• attach copies of testing (CBEST, CSET…)
• please attach no more than three (3) signed letters of reference dated within the last three (3) years

Application Deadline: Until Filled

Upon hire ~ submit to a fingerprint background check, submit official transcripts and original official test scores, submit valid TB and physical

*SIGNING BONUS AVAILABLE TO FULLY CREDENTIALED SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS

To apply: https://www.edjoin.org/Home/JobPosting/848934

 

*******************************

To top

Acknowledgements

Portions of this month’s NASET’s Special Educator e-Journalwere excerpted from:

• Center for Parent Information and Resources
• Committee on Education and the Workforce
• FirstGov.gov-The Official U.S. Government Web Portal
• Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP)
• National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, an electronic newsletter of the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET), available online at http://www.ncset.org/enews. NCSET is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
• National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth
• National Institute of Health
• National Organization on Disability
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
• U.S. Department of Education
• U.S. Department of Education-The Achiever
• U.S. Department of Education-The Education Innovator
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• U.S. Department of Labor
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration
• U.S. Office of Special Education

The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) thanks all of the above for the information provided for this edition of the NASETSpecial Educator e-Journal.

---

To top

To learn more click on the image above or – Click here

---

Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal

To Download a PDF file for this issue of the Special Educator e-Journal – CLICK HERE

NOTE: To save on your computer – Right Click and use “Save As” or “Save Target As”.