April 2017 – Special Educator e-Journal

Table of Contents

• Teaching Parents to Advocate: A Review of the Literature By Christina Aleman

• Co-Teaching in Rural Middle Schools: An Exploration By Anthony Friedman, M.Ed. and Dr. Brooke Blanks

• The Impact of Advocacy Training and Teacher Development on Parent-School Collaboration: A Review of Literature. By Gloria M. Gonzalez

• Book Review:  If You Don’t Feed The Teachers They Eat The Students! By Michelle Noviot

• Let Their Voices Be Heard: Self-Determination and Elementary Student Participation in the Individual Education Plan. By Theresa A. Pedersen, M.A.T., E.D.S

• Parental Involvement and Advocacy in Latino Families of Children with Disabilities: A Review of the Literature. By Pilar Villegas

• Parent-School Collaboration: A Driving Force for Success in Special Education– Literature Review. By Kellecia West

• Special Education Legal Alert. By Perry A. Zirkel

• Latest Employment Opportunities Posted on NASET

• Acknowledgements

• Download a PDF Version of This Issue

By Christina Aleman

The notion of parental advocacy has been a fundamental component in the progression of special education for the last 40 years through the implementation of the mandate known as the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), which outlines the parental rights and accountabilities relating to the identification, evaluation-related processes, and subsequent placement in special education programs (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006). Legislation fuels and aims to protect the rights of parents as well as increase the quality of education students with disabilities receive. Namely, special education legislation calls for parents to grant permission to schools prior to conducting evaluations, requires that parents receive notifications for meetings and cooperate with schools for the purpose of shared-decision making, and provides safeguards so that students with disabilities can receive the proper services according to their individualized needs (Burke, 2013; Epstein, 1994; Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006). Hence, parents are encouraged to become co-creators to the roadmap where the destination is the educational outcomes of their children. Given that providing special education services demands extensive collaboration, parental involvement is central and critical according to the existing policy. However, the key tenets of collaboration, which are participation and advocacy, are often not taking place as stated and described in policy.

According to LaRoque, Kleiman & Darling (2011), “family involvement can be generally defined as the parents’ or caregivers’ investment in the education of their children (p. 116). Parental participation has shown to be significant when attempting to achieve academic student success (Burke, 2013; Epstein, 1994; Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006; LaRoque, Kleiman & Darling, 2011). As evidence, without parental consent, many steps within the diagnostic processes cannot take place. Specifically, parental consent is needed to conduct evaluations, place students in special education programs, as well as to exercise the option of waiving certain services. Other legislation such as that of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has magnified the need for family involvement through emphasizing the demand for families to be conscious of what is occurring in schools. More recently, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) which replaced NCLB also requires similar family-school collaboration.  Schools are responsible for assisting with helping parents actively participate in their child’s education since they are vital players in the establishment of safe and nurturing learning environments (Epstein, 1994; LaRocque et al., 2011).

Advocacy isn’t something that is automatic or innate. It requires two-way communication between schools and families in order to promote effective parental involvement. Advocating for their children is a role that many parents are required to assume based on the requirements of U.S. mandates; this particularly impacts the families of children with a disability status (LaRocque et al., 2011). Involvement and advocacy are crucial, as these have been found to minimize incidences of retentions, endorse higher test scores, and increase student attendance (Epstein, 1994; LaRocque et al., 2011). Advocacy begins with parental involvement in other realms of education, including early childhood experiences, and ideally should be exercised before the child begins to struggle and special education becomes a topic of discussion at parent-teacher conferences.

Advocacy is often cited as being a major constituent in the education of all children, especially those with disabilities. It can providea voice to the families of children who need the most support. Thus, it is crucial that parents be prepared to partake in the decision making process of their child’s education. In order for academic success to take place, all stakeholders involved in a child’s education must collaborate efficiently, assume active roles, and have a clear understanding regarding the roles others play in the education of their children and subsequent outcomes (LaRocque et al., 2011). Active involvement helps establish a more positive working relationship between families and educators for the shared goal of helping children succeed.

It often molds positive attitudes about teachers, and helps to increase learning expectations for students (LaRoque, Kleiman & Darling, 2011). Schools are responsible for constructing the bridge that will lead parents to better safeguard their children’s education.

According to LaRoque, & colleagues (2011), “Given that increased level of parental involvement in schools and in the education of their children is positively correlated with increasing educational achievement, it is important to devise ways to increase parental involvement” (p. 115). Essentially, parental involvement is valuable for families, as they become more knowledgeable about the learning goals and the individual needs of their children (LaRocque et al., 2011). Parents have special insight and more intimate knowledge about their children that can help eliminate barriers that may be present due to factors such as culture (LaRocque et al., 2011).  Parental insight can be a resource used to tackle obstacles in the classroom ranging from academic challenges to extinguishing problem behaviors that may otherwise hinder learning for the student and peers. It can also help the teacher establish more valuable relationships with their students where they are no longer bodies occupying seats, but individuals with passions, dislikes, dreams and aspirations. Taking parent perspectives, beliefs, and values into account, generally helps families feel valued and empowered because educational professionals take their collaboration efforts seriously. Family collaboration can also help teachers to work  better with other students through the implementation of identified successful strategies. This may particularly benefit students who may share some similarities in their learning styles and disability-related behavioral characteristics. Extensive research supports that parental involvement and advocacy are fundamental ways to improve educational and functional individual outcomes (Burke, 2013; Epstein, 1994; Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006; LaRocque et al., 2011). However, despite the intense level of impact that families can have on their children’s education, the act of advocating seems like an unattainable goal to many parents due to a myriad of reasons (Fish, 2008; LaRocque et al., 2011). Generally, parental participation is at the core of the current legislation. Yet, family involvement rates are lower in special education than in other educational programs (Harry, 1992). Thus, it is imperative that parental advocacy be fine-tuned to the degree where parents play active roles in their child’s educational journey; ranging  from school-wide functions to Response to Intervention (RTI) ,and into special education program placement and beyond.

Influences Negatively Affecting Parental Advocacy

Much of the research supports the premise that the lack of parental advocacy in schools is due to a variety of reasons ranging from inadequate knowledge of jargon and rights, passive parental participation, cultural barriers and scarce resources  (e.g., Abernathy & Bingham, 2009; Burke, 2013; Burke, Mello & Goldman, 2016; Chen & Gregory, 2011; Dowd-Eagle, 2008; Epstein, 1994; Fish, 2008; Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006; LaRocque, Kleiman & Darling, 2011; Leiter & Krauss, 2004; Mandic, Rudd, Hehir, & Acevedo-Garcia, 2010; Valle, 2011). Many of these underlying issues must be addressed in order for families to effectively participate and advocate for their child’s education. Upon addressing of these concerns more open and meaningful conversations can take place between important stakeholders. According to LaRocque and colleagues (2011), “Schools, even well-intentioned ones, cannot educate every child on their own. They need the active support of community and family (p. 115). The education of a child, regardless of gender, race, ability or cultural background is a team effort. The expertise of a variety of individuals is needed to best service the unique needs of each child as an individual.

Background Knowledge, Jargon and Procedural Safeguards

The literature in the field of a special education finds that legal and educational jargon and limited knowledge of rights or procedural safeguards are barriers that greatly hinder the act of parental advocacy (Burke et al., 2016 ; Fish, 1994; Mandic et al., 2010). Additionally, the procedural safeguards are composed at a grade level beyond high school, which may make it a challenge for many families to decipher (Mandic et al. 2010). Lack of comprehension of rights may leave parents in an abyss when attempting to fight for their child’s education. Furthermore, this may leave parents feeling that learning their rights in special education is farfetched and unattainable (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006; Imber & Radcliffe, 2003; Mandic et al., 2010). In reference to due process and litigation, hearings tend to take extensive amount of time, which may include delays past 45 days and high court costs (Burke, 2013). Due process (even with the notion that parents have rights) is risky if they are not well versed in the law or lack proper representation. Financial burden and the lack of access of information can make due process a further stressor when parents fight for their child’s education.

Furthermore, families tend to only be successful in approximately 28.6% of hearings (Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education, 2004). According to the National Council on Disability (1995), many parents expressed that pre-prepared IEPs presented at meetings created a feeling of isolation within the process and further undermined their advocacy efforts.

Many families walked out of meetings at schools with the idea that because their background on educational policy, general rights, and special education vocabulary was limited, their presence was not viewed as meaningful or valued by school personnel. The educational jargon used is foreign to many parents and creates a sense of exclusion of the entire picture. Limited parental involvement and advocacy as a result of inadequate knowledge needed to provide sound input and make important decisions, can place students at risk for inappropriate educational settings and related services (Burke, 2013). Specifically, an estimated 70% of parents of children with disabilities believe that their children will not receive adequate and appropriate education and related services due to them not being well versed on their rights (Public Agenda, 2002). Moreover, parents are not always aware of the available services their children may qualify for, which creates a considerable barrier to advocacy (Leiter & Krauss, 2004; Silverstein, Springer, & Russo, 1992). Options in regards to evaluation, placement and related services,as well as assistive technology may not even be appropriately addressed because many parents are unaware that such services are available  The national data studied by Leiter and Krauss (2004) found that many of the problems posed relating to special education related services, could have been eliminated if increased information were provided by schools.

Recommendations for Improving Parental Advocacy

Enabling parents to feel important in the educational venture that their children undergo is essential in promoting advocacy. Building a strong and trustworthy interpersonal relationship between the home and school is required so that all stakeholders can feel comfortable enough to provide genuine feedback as well as express honest concerns that would best assist the child’s academic progress.A study by Stanley (2015), examining the advocacy efforts of African American mothers found that when mothers were able to openly communicate with school personnel, advocacy was fascilitated. The study also found that when the feelings and concerns of parents were validated, it encouraged the relationship between families and schools creating a more positive relationship assisting with advocacy efforts (Stanley, 2015). Stanley (2015) added, “Open lines of communication helped develop mutual respect and trust between mothers and school professionals” (p. 14). Open communication and creating a relationship prior to the IEP conference is necessary in advocacy. Parents need to feel safe and confident when providing input about their child. Additionally, they need to feel comfortable enough to voice any concerns pertaining to their child’s success. Ways that teachers can facilitate open communication can be by organizing informal mixers or coffee nights at school where parents have the opportunity to get to know the teacher and other school personnel.

When schools communicate parental expectations about involvement, it may help diminish cultural barriers regarding school participation that may vary from culture to culture and negatively affect collaboration between home and school. Based on a survey, 67% of parents reported that teachers never communicated with them informally (Epstein, 1994). The parent’s potential educational barriers may deteriorate the confidence needed to speak up for their children. Thus, parents need to feel reassured by school personnel that they are not expected to know content-specific information, but do have an influential presence in the education of their children. Examples tcan range from assuring that homework is completed each night, to attending meetings and requesting conferences often to follow up on academic performance. Parents also need to express their expectations and be provided with translators via other teachers to assure that the line of communication between both parties is clear and discourse is successful (LaRoque, et al., 2011). Schools can detail parental expectations in writing. Also, monthly workshops can be held to teach parents about procedural safeguards, so that parents are more aware of their rights.

Advocacy trainings such as the Special Education Advocacy Training (SEAT) and Volunteer Advocacy Project (VAP) exist and can be first steps to bettering the relationship between families and school stakeholders. A study by Burke et al. (2016), discovered that regarding cost, attendance, satisfaction and participation, the VAP was a viable program to use for advocacy training. Advocacy programs aid individuals in writing letters to schools, promoting active participation in IEP meetings, reviewing records, and teaching parents about rights while encouraging them to voice their viewpoints on their child’s education (Burke, et al., 2016). These training programs may be an option to propose to parents as the study on the VAP did show increased knowledge of special education and advocacy skills (Burke, et al., 2016). While the SEAT did require over 200 hours for completion, the VAP was completed in a 36-hour training, which would be easier for families with other responsibilities. The VAP also showed more feasibility as to completion rates, satisfaction, and organizational support and costs (Burke, et al., 2016). Research shows both programs are easy to use and help prepare parents in determining if their children are receiving a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) (Burke, 2013; Burke, et al., 2016).

The review of literature supports the premise that parental advocacy is a critical component in academic success in students with disabilities. More research is needed on training families to effectively advocate for their children. Facilitation by school personnel is a helpful way to aid parental advocacy in informal ways. However, evidence-based practices need to be put into place in order to assure that parents are prepared enough to assure their children are receiving FAPE and all stakeholders are respecting legal mandates on parental advocacy.

References

Abernathy, T. V., & Bingham, A. (2009). PATH: Parent activities toward healthy self-determination. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 6(1), 1-11.

Burke, M. M. (2013). Improving Parental Involvement: Training Special Education Advocates. Journal Of Disability Policy Studies, 23(4), 225-234. doi:10.1177/1044207311424910

Burke, M., Mello, M., & Goldman, S. (2016). Examining the Feasibility of a Special Education Advocacy Training Program. Journal Of Developmental & Physical Disabilities, 28(4), 539-556. doi:10.1007/s10882-016-9491-3

Chen, W., & Gregory, A. (2011). Parental Involvement in the Prereferral Process: Implications for Schools. Remedial & Special Education, 32(6), 447-457. doi:10.1177/0741932510362490

Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education. (2004). National Dispute Resolution Use and Effectiveness Study. Eugene, OR: Author

Dowd-Eagle, S. (2008). Pre-referral intervention with parents as partners (PIPP): An investigation of efficacy, implementation fidelity, and parent involvement in team-based problem solving procedures. ProQuest Information & Learning. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68, 4194-4194.

Epstein, J. L. (1994). Theory to practice: Schools and family partnerships lead to school improvement and student success. In C.L. Fagnano & B. Z. Werber (Eds.), School, family and community interaction: A view from the firing lines (pp. 39-52). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP Meeting: Perceptions of Parents of Students Who Receive Special Education Services. Preventing School Failure, 53(1), 8-14. doi:10.3200/PSFL.53.1.8-14

Fitzgerald, J. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2006). Parents’ Rights in Special Education: The Readability of Procedural Safeguards. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 497-510.

Goldstein, S. (1993). The IEP conference: Little things mean a lot. Teaching Exceptional Children, 26(1), 60-61.

Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2004). Disproportionate Representation of Minority Students in Special Education: Academic, Demographic and Economic Predictors. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 185-199.

Harry, B. (1992). Cultural diversity, families, and the special education system. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Imber, S., & Radcliffe, D. (2003). Independent educational evaluations under IDEA ’97: It’s a testy matter. Exceptional Children, 70, 27-44.

Kroth, R. L., & Edge, D. (1997). Strategies for communicating with parents and families of exceptional children (3rd ed). Devnver, CO:Love.

LaRocque, M., Kleiman, I., & Darling, S. M. (2011). Parental Involvement: The Missing Link in School Achievement. Preventing School Failure, 55(3), 115-122. doi:10.1080/10459880903472876

Leiter, V., & Krauss, M. W. (2004). Claims, Barriers, and Satisfaction. Journal Of Disability Policy Studies, 15(3), 135-146.

Mandic, C. G., Rudd, R., Hehir, T., & Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2010). Readability of special education procedural safeguards. Journal of Special Education, 30, 1-9.

McNaughton, D., & Vostal, B. R. (2010). Using Active Listening to Improve Collaboration With Parents: The LAFF Don’t CRY Strategy. Intervention In School & Clinic, 45(4), 251-256. doi:10.1177/1053451209353443

National Council on Disability. (1995). Improving implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act: Making schools work for all of America’s children. Washington, DC: Author.

Public Agenda. (2002). When it’s your own child: A report on special education from the families who use it. New York, NY: Author.

Sheridan, S. M., Eagle, J. W., Cowan, R. J., & Mickelson, W. (2001). The effects of conjoint behavioral consultation results of a 4-year investigation. Journal Of School Psychology, 39(5), 361-385. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00079-6

Silverstein, J., Springer, J., & Russo, N. (1992). Involving parents in the special education process. In S.L. Christenson & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), Home-school collaboration: Enhancing children’s academic and social competence (pp. 383-407). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Stanley, S. G. (2015). The Advocacy Efforts of African American Mothers of Children with Disabilities in Rural Special Education: Considerations for School Professionals. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 34(4), 3-17.

U.S. Census Bureau (2004). 2000 Census of population and housing: Population and housing unit counts, PHC-3-1, United States summary.Washington, DC: Author.

Valle, J. W. (2011). Down the Rabbit Hole: A Commentary About Research on Parents and Special Education. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(3), 183-190. doi:10.1177/0731948711417555

 

About the Author

Christina Aleman is a Miami native of Cuban heritage, who earned a Masters degree in Special Education with a specialization in Autism from Florida International University. She proceeded to work with students with special needs in the inclusion setting as a special education teacher and exceptional student education program specialist. She later opted to take her expertise into the general education classroom teaching 2^nd grade math and science. Christina is married to husband Miguel and mother to sons Mason and Madox and daughter Madison. In her free time, she enjoys traveling with her family, reading and baking.

To top

By Anthony Friedman, M.Ed.

Dr. Brooke Blanks

Abstract

Co-teaching is an increasingly popular service delivery option to increase access to the general curriculum for students with and without disabilities in public schools. This exploratory case study investigation of rural middle school co-teachers’ experiences reveals their lived experiences as they work to implement the model. Lessons learned are described and discussed.

Introduction

Co-teaching, the practice of two professionals who co-plan, co-instruct, and co-assess to meet the needs of all students in a general education classroom (Murawski & Berhardt, 2016) is an increasingly popular choice for special education service delivery in secondary content classrooms. The literature is clear that co-teachers need ongoing professional support and practice with the model to become effective co-teachers who positively impact student learning. Although this is a challenge across the country, some divisions are more experienced than others. As researchers, we are interested to understand what rural co-teachers with supports described in the literature (administrative buy-in, professional development, effective teacher preparation to co-teach) can add to the conversation based on their lived experiences. Our experience with a local rural school division in the heart of Appalachia provides a fairly unique opportunity to do exactly that. With their 20+ years of experience with inclusion and co-teaching, this division should be the perfect setting in which to find practitioners from general and special education who are effective, knowledgeable co-teachers. Our qualitative investigation of what well-supported working co-teachers know about co-teaching and how they implement the model in their practice follows.

Conceptual Framework

Researchers in special education have investigated the school-based teacher teams for the purpose of problem solving and improving instruction for students with disabilities. (Lee-Tarver, 2006). Co- teaching has also been studied to examine student outcomes, to explore the inclusion of students with disabilities, to analyze the relationships between teachers who team or co-teach, and to research mentoring new teachers (Keefe & Moore, 2004). Studies have explored essential components of collaboration and benefits thereof to students and teachers. (Brownell, Adams, Sindelar, Waldron, & Vanhover, 2006).

 

A gap exists in the research in that few descriptive studies explore and describe rural co-teachers have to say about co-teaching from their own teaching experiences. The purpose of this study is to explore how middle school co-teachers from inclusive rural middle schools perceive and describe their knowledge and experiences of co-teaching.

Review of the Literature

Why Rural?

The unique challenges associated with implementing co-teaching in rural schools are underexplored in the literature. At least one in five children in the United States attend rural schools and one-third of all public schools are located in rural areas (Tieken, 2014).

Yet, the literature on co-teaching implementations in rural schools is sparse. Our teacher preparation program is located in the heart of Appalachia and we enjoy long-standing partnerships with our rural schools and cooperating professionals. Our participants are all teachers in rural schools have had significant professional development on co-teaching. And thus, we went into the investigation aware that “rural” might be a factor in our participants’ experiences with co-teaching.

Co-teaching Defined

Historically, a belief that students with disabilities require unique resources and instruction substantively different from that provided to students in the general setting has meant that special education students received the majority of their instruction in separate classrooms, from special educators who are experts in learning strategies but not necessarily experts in content. However, recent research has called this ‘specialness’ into question. Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Orsati, and Cosier (2011) observed self-contained special education classes and, rather than SDI (specially designed instruction), which is supposed to be the hallmark of special education, they found instead a lack of structure, a context-free/meaningless curriculum, limited time with certified special education teachers, and increased behavioral issues” (Murawski, W. W., & Goodwin, V. A. 2014, p. 296). Is it any wonder that students in special education have consistently failed to perform at the levels of their peers on content area summative assessments? In contrast, however, co-teaching, the practice of two professional sharing responsibilities for co-planning, co-instruction, and co-assessment, allows all students to receive content instruction in the general education classroom.

Benefits of Co-teaching

Co-teaching is important because it allows for a heterogeneous group of students to be taught by multiple educators that bring different views, backgrounds, and specialty areas into instruction (Friend & Cook, 2017). Multiple professionals provide a range of instructional opportunities to meet the needs of all students in the classroom. These options could include something as simple as the way information is presented during instruction or as complex as a variety of differentiated assessments at the end of the lesson. Integrated classrooms allow for more social interaction between students with disabilities and their same-age peers. Professionals benefit from collaborative problem solving and shared expertise.  Co-planning allows for shared problem solving. Co-instruction provides opportunities to reduce student-teacher ratios, increase instructional intensity, and differentiate content delivery to meet diverse learning and behavioral needs (need reference). Furthermore, co-teaching, when it works, provides professionals with a day-to-day support system when working with challenging student behaviors. At our most candid and honest, teachers know that behavioral challenges are not limited to students with disabilities!

Common Challenges in Co-teaching

Planning time is an ongoing challenge. Finding common planning time is difficult, especially given the reality that in days of limited resources and budgets, middle school special educators are often serving students across multiple grade levels and multiple content areas. All teachers struggle to meet their instructional responsibilities and administrative duties during the school day as it is. Without protected common planning periods, co-teachers are challenged to find time to speak to one another, let alone plan together.  Ownership of the classroom is an important issue in co-taught classrooms. Shared responsibility for all students is often a new idea for general educators under pressure to maximize student performance on high stakes assessments. The general educator’s content knowledge and pedagogical expertise often supersedes that of the special educator, at least initially.

By default, in an assessment driven school culture, power and ownership may default to the content expert in a shared classroom unless both teachers intentionally and overtly disrupt this dynamic through careful planning.

 

Research on the impact of co-teaching has been limited, and has yielded mixed results. Overall, there is a general lack of quantitative data on co-teaching; studies have tended to focus on the emotional (as opposed to academic) benefits of the method, or on perceptions of effectiveness. Such studies indicate that students generally have a positive response to co-teaching, while teachers’ opinions tend to be mixed. Some teachers may be unsure of the feasibility and practicality of co-teaching, or may question its appropriateness for some students (Murawski, 2016). However, teachers’ knowledge of whatever co-teaching model their division and building administrator requires is surely an important factor and one researchers sought to understand in the context of two rural middle schools from a division with a firm and long-standing commitment to co-teaching.

Method

In this qualitative exploratory investigation, the researchers used a case-study approach to understand what practicing general and special educators understand about the co-teaching practice they implement every day. The two rural middle schools each serve approximately 400 students in sixth to eighth grades.

Participants

Ten teachers from general education and special education backgrounds with a range of professional experience agreed to participate in open-ended interviews. The teachers longevity in the classroom ranged from very experienced to just a year out of their teacher preparation program. Teachers in their first four years of teaching are hereafter referred to as “novice”, all others are referred to as “experienced”. All teachers worked in rural middle schools.

Interview Questions

A review of the literature and the researchers’ experiences with co-teaching and teacher preparation informed the development of the following open-ended interview questions.

1. Are you teaching now as a special educator or general educator?
2. How many years have you been teaching since you graduated and at what grade levels, specialty areas?
3. What can you tell me about your experiences with general educator/special educator collaboration as a teacher in the schools? (Positive or negative)
4. What kind of impact has your experience or lack of experience with collaboration had on your students, including your gifted learners, typical learners, struggling learners or your students with disabilities?
5. What do you feel are the basic skills needed for a successful co-teaching relationship?
6. What have you done within your co-teaching partnerships to problem solve when issues have risen?
7. If you had to describe the perfect co-teaching relationship, what would be the traits of this relationship?  How would you measure success or failures?
8. Do you prefer to co-teach or teach alone? Why?
9. In your opinion, are students more successful in co taught classrooms?

Analysis

The researcher used pattern matching, the preferred strategy for case study analysis (Yin, 2015). Coding procedures and a data analysis plan provided categories of information, which formed the basis of the emerging themes of the study (Creswell, 2018).  The following steps were used in the coding procedures: (a) classifying data into preliminary, general categories, (2) grouping of data into categories of developing themes, (3) reexamining data to look for clarification of categories of information; (4) establishment of reliability with a second reader with 100% agreement on emerging themes (Yin, 2015). Data were collected from each data source and analyzed, and the emerging themes allowed the researcher to triangulate the data. Reoccurring topics became themes and data were arranged to give meaning to the study.

Results

The purpose of this exploration was to understand how general and special education teachers from inclusive rural middle schools perceive and describe their experiences with co-teaching. The researchers interpreted the teachers’ experiences to understand what knowledge they had of co-teaching and how this knowledge influences their self-described practice. Three recurring topics emerged from the analysis of the interview data.

Theme 1. Co-teachers from both disciplines focus on the impact of co-teaching on the adults when reflecting on co-teaching as a model for instructional delivery.  However, there were differences between the general and special educators in what aspects of the adult relationships they emphasized. Special educators focused on how they felt about their professional position in co-taught classrooms. The following statement is representative of what we heard from the special educators, regardless of their levels of experience.

It all has to do with personalities and how much they are willing to give up in the classroom. There is a stigma around special ed teachers that we are not as competent as [content area teachers]. They don’t believe in us.

On the other hand, the general educators largely discussed the professional benefits of having someone to work with who has different training. The following comments are representative of

For the most part it’s been positive, because we play off of each other and I’m geared towards lecture so they bring in the hands on stuff.

I tend to pull in higher level thinking skills in and he can knows how to use manipulatives and graphics.

All of the teachers interviewed rated effective communication between partners in the top three important characteristics of co-teaching, but seemed unaware of these differences in perceptions of each other’s experiences in the actual classroom. Yet, it is clear that regardless whether they are thinking about the affective or professional aspects of co-teaching, the teachers’ primary focus is on issues with the adults rather than on the impact of their practice on student learning.

Theme 2. Co-planning is an ongoing challenge. This finding is consistent with our review of the literature. It is important to remember that the vast majority of teachers were trained to plan alone for instruction delivered by one professional. Both general and special educators have to revise their understanding of who does what in a classroom, particularly when a special educator may not have mastery of the content during the initial year or years of the co-teaching partnership and may be working with multiple teachers across multiple content areas and grade levels. We heard from every teacher that time together for planning is extremely limited if it exists at all.” Unfortunately we only work one period together this year and lack common planning.”

 

The researchers are concerned that without support for co-planning as a new way of thinking about how and what instruction is planned for the individual students currently in classrooms, it is all too easy for busy teachers from both general and special education to default to more of a “parking lot planning” approach in which little planning occurs at all. “ I have worked with one teacher in my four years, which is magnificent. We are to the point now that we don’t need to plan.”

 

Highly individualized planning for specific learner differences, regardless of special education status, is a hallmark of differentiated instruction. Without ongoing commitment to planning, the researchers question the extent to which effective instruction is possible. This is particularly important given that when asked what was important to an effective co-teaching partnership, the majority of the general educators ranked content knowledge as essential and none of the special educators did. This finding suggests that what planning does occur is not focused on the content of the curriculum or the delivery thereof to all students in their co-taught classrooms.

Theme 3. Understanding of shared responsibilities in the co-taught classroom is limited. This theme was one of the most interesting to the researchers. At the time of the research, all of the teachers spoke about the role of the special educator as primarily for behavior management. “I co-teach mostly math, I usually see my role as a disciplinarian”

 

None of the teacher participants spoke about the benefits of sharing different areas of professional expertise for more effective instruction. Indeed, the following statement by a general educator is representative of the overwhelming expressed belief that parity requires “sameness” in practice. “There is no differentiation of [what we do]…. We are equals in the classroom”. While effective co-teaching partnerships require parity in terms of power and authority for all aspects of instruction in a classroom, the point of co-teaching is to bring together experts from multiple disciplinary backgrounds in order to more effectively differentiate to meet diverse student needs.

 

However, what is most concerning to the researchers is that despite ongoing professional development in co-teaching for teachers and significant administrative support for the model, the teacher participants in this investigation do not seem to “get” what co-teaching really is. The following statement by a special educator captures the general sentiments of this group of participants. “To me the perfect [co-teaching partnership] is I can teach the curriculum 50 percent of the time” Nowhere in the literature or in the professional development the researchers know teachers in this division have received, has the amount of time spent “teaching the curriculum” been described as an indicator of effective co-teaching for student learning. Without deep and meaningful understanding of what basic co-teaching is and support for the practice required to implement the model effectively, the benefits to students with and without disabilities is questionable.

Discussion

The rural context did not appear to influence the participants’ experiences with co-teaching. The results of this small investigation were consistent with both the literature (Murawski & Bernhardt, 2016) and our professional experiences in schools across geographic contexts. Although, overall, the researchers were surprised (and if we are bring honest, disappointed) in the outcomes of our investigation, the results speak to the need for close attention to the needs of teachers asked to implement co-teaching as a model of inclusive service delivery in middle schools. It is important to note that these interviews occurred in schools located in a division that has been committed to inclusion and co-teaching for over two decades. The teacher participants have received extensive professional development on co-teaching and have administrators who are knowledgeable and supportive of the model. Additionally, nearly half of the teachers have direct ties to a teacher preparation program in which pre-service teachers spend an entire semester in a co-placed field experience. In other words, many of the conditions the literature describes as supportive of effective co-teaching, administrative support, ongoing professional development, and effective teacher preparation, are in place and the teachers continue to struggle with their understanding of best practice. The researchers feel that this is instructive for all involved, however. Teachers don’t know what they don’t know. Thus, administrators, professional developers, and teacher preparation faculty know we still have work to do to increase committed teachers’ understandings of what co-teaching means and how to implement it effectively for optimal impact on students’ learning in co-taught classrooms.

 

References

Brownell, M. T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., Waldron, N., & Vanhover, S. (2006). Learning from collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 169-185.

Causton-Theoharis, J., Theoharis, G., Orsati, F., & Cosier, M. (2011). Does Self-Contained Special Education Deliver on Its Promises? A Critical Inquiry into Research and Practice. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(2), 61-78.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Friend, M. P., & Cook, L. (1992). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. New York: Longman.

Keefe, E. B., & Moore, V. (2004). The challenge of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms at the high school level: What the teachers told us. American Secondary Education, 77-88.

Lee-Tarver, A. (2006). Are individualized education plans a good thing? A survey of teachers’ perceptions of the utility of IEPs in regular education settings. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(4), 263-273.

Murawski, W. W., & Bernhardt, P. (2016). An Administrator’s Guide to Co-Teaching. Educational Leadership, 73(4), 30-34.

Murawski, W. W., & Goodwin, V. A. (2014). Effective inclusive schools and the co-teaching conundrum. Handbook of Effective Inclusive Schools: Research and Practice, 292-296.

Tieken, M. C. (2014). Why rural schools matter. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press Books.

Yin, R. K. (2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. Boston, MA: Pearson.

 

About the Authors

Anthony Friedman, M.Ed. is a 2015 graduate of Radford University in Southwest Virginia. He graduated with a Master’s Degree in Special Education with an endorsement in Social Sciences. Currently, he is a Special Education Teacher at Occoquan Elementary in Prince William County Public Schools for Students with Autism. Anthony is in his second year at Occoquan. He won the 2016 National Title I Distinguished Award in his first year. He teaches a culturally diverse group of students, In addition to being a classroom co-teacher, Anthony has started a Community Based Instruction program for elementary special education students at Occoquan that focuses on social and life skills.

Dr. Brooke Blanks is an Associate Professor of Special Education in the School of Leadership and Teacher Education at Radford University. Dr. Blanks’s interests include literacy, Response-to-Intervention, inclusive education in rural schools, collaboration and to-teaching, and policy-to-practice issues. She teaches courses in assessment, instructional methodology, and supervises interns in K-12 settings.   Her 15+ years of service in the helping professions have included K-12 special education in a variety of public and private settings, clinical reading education, and social work with community based service-learning programs serving at-risk youth and their families.

Phenenlope Gonzalez

 

Abstract

Special education teachers have a high retention rate than general education teachers. Over the past couple of years these educators have demands from their schools and districts that lead to high stress and anxiety to low motivation which results in job displeasure and retention. These educators that chose to continue on the path of special education must become fully aware of the demands of the position prior to committing to the position. School districts and administration should continue to implement a mentor to rookie teachers throughout their first five years of teaching. As well as providing support to these teachers inside and outside the classroom.

 

Introduction

There is an expression that says that certain people are not born but they are made. Some believe that they were born to become teachers, for others they made a decided to take on teaching as a second or third career. Many special education teachers are not born or make a decision whether or not to be a special education teacher they choose the path of becoming one.

Special education teachers are now being recruited due to their high retention rates.  Despite the fact that these teacher choose the special education field and display a deep desire for this field of teaching there are many factors that contribute to their retention. These factors include job dissatisfaction, high stress and low motivation (Major, 2012). These factors can be attributed to administration not fully describing all the job requirements and demands of the position. Another factor is not having a teacher or administrative mentor to guide rookie teachers throughout their first five years in the classroom. And finally lack of support from administration and their school districts in professional developments and classroom assistance.

 

Retention and its Importance

The student population that special education teachers serve ranges from mild to significant cognitive disabilities, emotional and behavioral disabilities and any other disabilities in between. It is critical for a special education teacher to be fully informed of the ranges of disabilities of students so they can have a better understanding of the demands of their classroom.

Before one becomes a teacher they must complete field experience hours under their undergraduate programs. During these years future teachers are exposed to all areas of special education instruction. There are three types of ways to facilitate student learning for special needs students. Special education classroom delivery instruction methods that educators must become aware of are differentiated instruction, practical instruction and inclusion instruction. (Morewood & Condo, 2012). Special education teachers are then more aware of the case load of instruction they would most likely relate more to when it comes to looking for a teaching position. When a teacher takes the position of a teaching instructor that they are not familiar with this is when retention takes place. This is why professional preparation is imperative for future educators because it affects the retention rates.

Special education teachers that teach students with emotional and behavior challenges hold the most retention of exceptional student education (ESE) teachers. (Major, 2012). This is due to a lack of skills and experience with these students. Stress is then induced with the work load. All ESE teachers are required to maintain and develop individualized education plans (IEP) for every ESE student. In their IEP’s teachers are required to develop goals and benchmarks each student must master during that school year. Modifications and accommodations are then required by the teachers to use during instructional delivery. If a teacher is not fully trained and guided during the process of an IEP and how to manifest the strategies in the classroom it can create a cycle of stress for the teacher and the students as well.

Aside from professional preparation attrition can also come in these forms for ESE teacher, working conditions, role conflicts and administration and colleague assistance (DeMik, 2008). In the article Experiencing Attrition of Special Education the teachers in the study stated that the working conditions such as the paper work of an ESE teacher in reference to the IEP’s, behavior plans, and transition plans cause a great amount of stress When it comes time to writing lesson plans, school required meetings, take a break and even eating lunch (DeMik, 2008) affects the working conditions of a special education teacher.

Special education teachers battle with role conflicts in the work place that leads to retention. The ESE teachers in the study mentioned how they struggle to collaborate with general education teachers especially when it comes to collaborating for their inclusion students. The teachers also felt that they receive professional support from their administration but not emotional support. Also when it comes to high stakes testing ESE students are required to participate which reflects the teachers, this also brings along stressors that lead to retention.

Solutions to Lower Teacher Retention

There is never a perfect or a single solution to minimize the retention of special education teachers. However there are multiple strategies and suggestions by scholarly educators that suggest a decrease in retention. First and foremost professional preparation and awareness to the upcoming and future ESE teachers during the undergraduate years, administrative support and mentorship.

Professional Preparation

During those critical years as an undergraduate student, future special education teachers must have an individual understanding of content knowledge, curricular knowledge and instructional knowledge of a special education classroom. (Morewood & Condo, 2012). This is why field experience hours are so critical, so that the future teacher become familiar with their line of work. During the years of college these future teachers need to become knowledgeable on the fundamental laws of special needs education. Successful teachers are categorized by the way they display their knowledge during and throughout instruction. Knowledge of for practice, in practice and of practice (Morewood & Condo, 2012). These future ESE teachers can develop their instructional practice not just during field experience hours but in many other ways. Becoming a substitute teacher is one way to get exposure, volunteering or working in afterschool sites, volunteering at community centers etc.

Administrative support

Many studies have indicated when there is a positive school climate and supportive administration there is less retention (Cancio, PhD1, Albrecht , & Jones , 2014).  This is the role of a principal in any school. Administration sets the tone for their teachers and other instructional staff. They create instructional leadership that assists them and in return creates a collaborative environments for their school. Administrations role is to be supportive and listen to their teachers. In the study mentioned in article Combating the Attrition of Teachers of Students With EBD: What Can Administrators Do? , teachers mentioned that their principal’s awareness, care, understanding and availability are major factors for them when it comes to retention (Cancio, PhD1, Albrecht , & Jones , 2014).

These educators continued to mention professional development opportunities are extremely important to their professional growth and they wish to be supported by an administration that provides these training opportunities and resources. Staff acknowledgment is also important to reduce retention rates for ESE teachers. A simple verbal praise or a pat on the back from time to time can be motivating for these teachers (Cancio, PhD1, Albrecht , & Jones , 2014).

Mentoring

The final strategy for reducing the retention rates in special education teachers is mentoring. Peer mentoring has proven to be effective when teachers who have more years of experience to those rookie teachers who have five years of less in the field. A beginning teacher is paired with a mastery teacher (Wasburn, Wasburn-Moses, & Davis , 2012). The more experienced teacher mentors the beginning teacher supporting and assessing their teaching skills.

These mentorships between the experienced teacher and rookie teacher is to bridge the gap for these new teachers on issues that rookie teachers feel they need guidance. These beginning teachers mentioned issues such as seclusion, confusion over new job tasks and responsibilities and lack of support (Wasburn, Wasburn-Moses, & Davis , 2012). The mentor teachers also give suggestions and recommendations to the beginning teachers of professional developments they should attend and participate in order to grow professionally. They follow up with their mentees periodically in order to assist and give suggestions on daily teacher tasks such as completing lesson plans, classroom organization and one on one guidance during high stakes testing.

 

Conclusion

In education there is never a perfect solution for any of the many issues that surround those that have chosen a career in education. For special education, the journey may come with many challenges that differ ESE teaching from general education teaching. What is certain is that educators are needed, educators that believe in the power of teaching and making a difference.  If the focus is placed on the common goal, being educators then the suggested solutions can make a difference for those beginning and future special education teachers.

 

References

U.S. Department of Education. (2014, October 29). Building a Legacy: IDEA 2004. Retrieved from ED.gov: idea.ed.gov/explore/home

Wasatch School District . (2014, October 30). Video Surveillance Policy. Retrieved from Wasatch School District: www.wasatch.edu/cms/lib/UT01000315/Centricity/Domain/2/Article_III_Video_Surveillance_Policy.pdf

Alicia F. Saunders, K. S. (2013). Solving the Common Core Equation: Teaching Mathematics CCSS to Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 24-33.

An Overview of Related Services Under IDEA. (2013, 12 1). Retrieved from Education.com: www.education.com/print/Ref_Related_Services/

ASCD. (n.d.). The Common Core State Standards Initiative. Retrieved from ASCD.org: www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/policy/CommonCoreStds.pdf

Baker, L., Dreher, M. J., Shiplet, A. K., Beall, L. C., Voelker, A. N., Garrett, A. J., . . . Finger-Elam, M. (2011). Children’s comprehension of informational text: Reading, engaging, and learning. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 197-227.

Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the Achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 502-530.

Behrent, M. (2011). In Defense of Public Education. Retrieved from New Politics: newopol.org/content/defense-public-education

Belva C. Collins, J. K. (2010). Teaching Core Content with Real-Life Applications to Secondary Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52-59.

Blaska, J. K. (1996). Using children’s literature to learn about disabilities and illness. Moorehead, MN: Practical Press.

Bodrova, D. J. (2012, January). Play and Children’s Learning. Retrieved from National Association for the Education of Young Children : www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/201201/Leong_Make_Believe_Play_Jan2012.pdf

Brown, J. (2013, January 22). National dropout, graduation rates improve, study shows. Retrieved from USATODAY.com: www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/22/education-high-school-dropout-rate/1855233/

Bush, T. (2007). Educational leadership and management: theory, policy, and practice. South African Journal of Education, 391-406.

Butrymowicz, S. (2010, September 1). National crisis: Not much training for some special-ed teachers. Retrieved from The Hechinger Report, Independent Educational News: hechingerreport.org/content/national-crisis-not-much-training-for-some-special-ed-teachers_4189/

Cancio, PhD1, E., Albrecht , S., & Jones , B. (2014). Combating the Attrition of Teachers of Students With. Intervention in School and Clinic 2014, Vol. 49(5), 306-312.

Carolan, J., & Guinn, A. (2007). Differentiation: lessons from master teachers. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 44-47. Retrieved 12 04, 2016, from www.ascd.org/premium-publications/books/110058e4/chapters/Differentiation@-Lessons-from-Master-Teachers.aspx

Caruana, V. (2015). Accessing the Common Core Standards for Students with Learning Disabilities: Strategies for Writing Standards-Based IEP Goals. Preventing School Failure, 237-243.

Collins, B. C., Karl, J., Riggs, L., Galloway, C. C., & Hager, K. D. (2010). Teaching Core Content with Real-Life Applications to secondary Students with Moderate to severe disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(1), 52-59.

Constable, S., Grossi, B., Moniz, A., & Ryan , L. (2013). Meeting the Common Core State Standards for Students with Autism the Challenge for Educators. Teaching Exceptional Children , 45(3), 6-13.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010, Oct). What we can learn from Finland’s successful school reform. Retrieved from National Education Association: www.nea.org/home40991.htm

Darrow, A.-A. (2014). Applying Common Core Standards to Students with Disabilities in Music. General Music Today, 33-35.

DeMik, S. A. (2008). Experiencing Attrition of Special. Valparaiso University.

Development, T. O. (2012, March 13). OECD calls for new approach to tackle teacher shortage. Retrieved from OECD: better policies for better lives: www.oecd.org/newsroom/oecdcallsfornewapproachtotackleteachershortage.htm

D’Orio, W. (2013). Finland is #1!,Finland’s education success has the rest of the world looking north for answers. Retrieved from Administrator Magazine: Curriculum: www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp

Dr. Moira Konrad, D. S. (2014). Setting Clear Learning Targets to Guide Instruction for All Students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 76-85.

Dr. Sarah J. Watt, J. R. (2016). Teaching Algebra to Students with Learning Disabilities: Where Have We Come and Where Should We Go? . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 437-447.

Duncan, A., & Posny, A. (2010, Nov). Thirty-Five Years of Educating Children With Disabilities Through IDEA. Retrieved from ED.gov: www2.ed.gov.print/about/offices/list.osers/idea35/history/index.html

Edutopia: Finland’s Formula for School Success (Edcation Everywhere Series). (2012, January 24). Retrieved from Edutopia.org: www.edutopia.org/reduction-everywhere-international-finland-video

English, J. (2013, Oct 24). US Teacher Gets Finnish Lesson in Optimizing Student Potential, Part 2. Retrieved from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) : oecdinsights.org/2013/09/24/us-teacher-gets-finnish-lesson-in-optimizing-student-poetential-part-2/

Essex, N. L. (2008). School Law adn he Public Schools: A Practical Guide for Educational Leaders. Boston: Pearson.

Finland, T. T. (2008). Teacher Education in Finland. Helsinki: Forssan Kirjapaino.

Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2010, July 20). The Special Education Referral, Assessment, Eligiblity, Planning, and Placement Process. Retrieved from Education.com: www.education.com/reference/article/special-education-referral-assessment/

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

Gale Encyclopedia of Education: special Education: Preparation of Teachers. (2013, 11 23). Retrieved from Answers.com: www.answers.com/topic/special-education-preparation-of-teachers

Gray, J. (2008, 12). The implementation of differentiated instruction for learning disabled students included in general education elementary classrooms. La Verne, California, United States.

Hancock, L. (2011, September). Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from Smithsonian.com: www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html

Hayes, G., Gardere, L., Abowd, G., & Truong, K. (2008). CareLog: A Selective Archiving Tool for Behavior Management in Schools. CHIP 2008 Proceedings-Tools for Education, (pp. 685-694). Florence .

Heavey, S. (2013, Nov 6). U.S. Poverty rate remains high even counting government aid. Retrieved from Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News/ Reuters.com: www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USBRE9A513820131106

Hesselbein, F., & Shinseki, G. E. (2004). Be-Know-Do: Leadership the Army Way. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hilyard, V. M. (2004, Fall). Teachers’ understanding and use of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Saint Louis, Missouri, United States.

History: twenty Five Years of Progress in Educating Children With Disabilities through IDEA. (n.d.). Retrieved from U. S. Office of Special Education Programs: www.ed.gov/offices/osers/osep

Huff Post. (2012, 01 27). Best Education in the World: Finland, South Korea Top Country Rankings, U.S. Rated Average. Huff Post.

IES. (2013, 04 11). Fast Facts. Retrieved from National Center for Educational Statistics: nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64

Irma Suovirta, R. H. (2013, November 15). Statistics Finland: Pre-primary and comprheensive school education 2013. Retrieved from Statistics Finland: www.stat.fi/til/pop_2013_2013-11-15_tie_001_en.html

Itkonen, T., & Jahnukainen, M. (2009, August 8). Disability or Learning Difficulty? constructing Special Eduaiton Students in Finland and the United States. Retrieved from All Academic Research: citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/3/0/7/6/5/pages307659/p307659-1.php

J. McLeskey, N. T. (2004). The Supply of and Demand for Special Education Teachers: A Review of Research Regarding the Chronic Shortage of Special Education Teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 5-21.

Kamenetz, A. (2014, October 30). UPDATED: New Details On Bill Gates’s $5 Billion Plan To Film, Measure Every Teacher. Retrieved from Creative Conversations: www.fastcompany.com/3007973/creative-conversations/updated-new-details-bill-gatess-5-billion-plan-film-measure-every-tea

Kelley, S. (2014, October 30). Interview with Shawn Kelley. (A. Ivie, Interviewer)

Key Provision on Transition: IDEA 1997 compared to H.R. 1350 (IDEA 2004). (n.d.). Retrieved from National Center on Secondary Education and Transition: www.ncset.org/premium-publications/related/ideatransition.pdf

Kieffer, M. J. (2013). Morphological awareness and reading difficulties in adolescent Spanish-speaking language minority learners and their classmates. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44-53.

Kinlan, C. (2011, January 21). Rethinking Special Education in the U. S. Retrieved from Hechinger Report: hechingerreport..org/content/rethinging-special-education-in-the-u-s

Konrad, M., Keesey, S., Ressa, V., Alexeeff, M., Chan, P., & Peters, M. (2014). Setting Clear Learning Targets to Guide Instruction for all students . Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(2), 76-85.

Labor, D. o. (2013, 09 28). U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Web: stats.bls.gov. Retrieved from Info please: www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719

Lepi, K. (2013). How 12 Countries Spend Education Money (And If It Makes A Difference). Edudemic; connecting education & technology.

Levy, H. M. (2008, Mar-Apr). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: helping every child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House, 81(4), 161-164. doi:10.3200/tchs.81.4.161-164

Logan, B. (2008). Examining differentiated instruction: Teachers respond. Research in Higher Education Journal, 1-14.

M. Friend, W. D. (2013, 11 17). The Special Education Referral, Assessment, Eligibility, Planning, and Placement Process. Retrieved from Education.com: www.education.com/print/special-education-referral-assessment/

Major, A. E. (2012). Job Design for Special Edcuation Teachers. Current issues in Education Volume 15.

Martinez, A. M. (2011). Explicit and differentiated phonics instruction as a tool to improve literacy skills for children learning English as a foreign language. GIST Education and Learning Research Journal, 25-49.

Maxwell, J. C. (2011). The 5 Levels of Leadership. New York: Center Street Hatchette Book Group.

Morewood , A., & Condo, A. (2012). A Preservice Special Education Teacher’s. American Council in Rural Special Educatian.

Muffler, A. (2014, October 2014). Interview with Andrew Muffler. (A. Ivie, Interviewer)

NICHCY. (2012, 03). Categories of Disability Under IDEA. Retrieved from National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities: nichcy.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/gr3.pdf

Pardini, P. (2013, 11). The History of Special Education. Retrieved from rethinging schools. org: www.rethirngingschools.org/restrict.asp?path=archive/16_03/Hist163.shtml

Parent Brief Promoting Effective Parent Involvement in Secondary Educaiton. (2002, July). Retrieved from National Center on Secondary Education and Transition: ncset.org/premium-publications/printresource.asp?=423

Parsons, S. (2012). Adaptive teaching in literacy instruction: case studies of two teachers. Journal of Literacy Research, 44, 149-170.

Patrick, D. (2014, October 30). SB 1380 House Committee Report Version. Retrieved from Texas Legislature Online: www.capitol.state.tx.us/Search/DocViewer.aspx

Phipps v Clark County School District, 2:13-cv-00002 (United States District Court for the District of Nevada January 25, 2013).

Plock v Board of Education of Freeport School District , 07 c 50060 (United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division December 18, 2007).

Prater, M. A., Dyches, T. T., & Johnstun, M. (2006). Teaching students about learning disabilities through children’s literature. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(1), 14-24.

Rambin, J. (2014, October 30). Bill Requiring Surveillance In Special Education Classes Heads to House. Retrieved from Austinist: austinist.com/2013/04/08/bill_requiring_surveillance_in_spec.php

Rehabilitation, V. (2013). Vocational Rehabilitation Services for High School Students with Disabilities. Retrieved from Executive Office of Health and Human Services: www.mass.gov/eohhs/consumer/family-services/youth-services/youth-with-disabilities/vocational-services.html

Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). The effects of Differentiated Instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 462-501.

Rubin, C. M. (2013, Jan 14). The Global Search for Education: What Will Finland Do Next? Retrieved from Huff Post Education: www.huffingtonpost.com/c-m-rubin/finland-education_b_2468823.html

Sahlberg, P. (2012). A Model Lesson; Finland Shows Us What Equal Opportunity Looks Like. American Educator, 20-40.

Salem, L. C. (2006). Children’s literature studies: Cases and discussions. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Saunders, A. F., Spooner, F., Browder, D., Wakeman, S., & Lee, A. (2013). Teaching Common Core in English Language Arts to Students with Severe Disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Students , 46(2), 22-33.

Saundres, A. F., Bethune, K. S., Spooner, F., & Browder, D. (2013). Solving the Common Core Equation Teaching Mathematics CCSS to students with moderate and severe disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(3), 24-33.

Servillo, K. L. (2009). You get to choose! Motivating students to read through differentiated instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 2-11.

Short, K., Evans, A., & Hildebrand, K. (2011, August/September). Celebrating International Books in Today’s Classroom: The Notable Books for a Global Society Award. Reading Today, pp. 34-36.

Springer, B. (2014, October 31). Inteview with Ben Springer. (A. Ivie, Interviewer)

Stanford, B., & Reeves, S. (2009). Making it happen: Using differentiated instruction, retrofit framework. and Universal Design for Learning. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 1-9.

Stanford, P., Crowe, M. W., & Flice, H. (2010). Differentiating with technology. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 2-9.

Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal, 935-947.

Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated Instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal, 7(7), 935-947. Retrieved 12 02, 2016, from files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854351.pdf

Sullivan, K. (2011, October 27). Book Award Celebrates Awareness for Disabilities. Inside Eau Claire.

The Council of Chief State School Officers. (2014, October 30). Educational Leadership Policy Standards. Retrieved from ISSLC 2008: www.vide.vi/data/userfiles/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_2008%20(1)(1).pdf

Thomas E. Scruggs, F. J. (2013). Common Core Science Standards: Implications for Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 49-57.

Tomlinson, C. (2009, July 24). What is differentiated instruction? Retrieved from Reading Rockets: www.readingrockets.org/article/what-differentiated-instruction

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 12-16. Retrieved 12 03, 2016, from blog.elanco.org/gsgsteacherresources/files/2015/01/Mapping-a-Route-Towards-Differentiated-Instruction-1synvr0.pdf

University of Michigan: SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION . (2013). Retrieved from Unversity of Michigan; Department of Psychology: sitemaker.umich.edu/delicata.356/funding_for_special_needs_education

Utah State Office of Education. (2014, October 31). LRBI Guidelines. Retrieved from Utah State Office of Education: www.schools.utah.gov/sars/DOCS/resources/lrbi07-09.aspx

Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003, Fall). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 140-147. Retrieved 12 02, 2016, from files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ785943.pdf

Wasburn, M., Wasburn-Moses, L., & Davis , D. R. (2012). Mentoring Special Educators:. Hammill Institute on Disabilities, 59-66.

Washburn-Moses, L. (2005, January). How to Keep Your Special Education Teachers. Retrieved from Managing Your School: www.nassp.org/portals/0/content/49169.pdf

Winzer, M. A. (2006). Confronting difference: an exursion through the history of special education. In M. a. Winzer, The SAGE Handbook of Special Educaiton. SAGE Publications.

By Gloria Gonzalez

 

Abstract

This review of literature explored and various perspectives of stakeholders in special education systems and the significance of creating a strong parent-school collaboration.  The review studied five academic journal articles and scientific studies regarding parental perceptions of the special education system, barriers to parental involvement, two examples of advocacy training programs, teacher training and professional development, and parent-school collaboration.  The goal of this review is to bring awareness of the critical role of a healthy parent-school collaborative relationship in special education.

Introduction

It is certain to say that parenting a child is the greatest job of all.  While parenting typically developing children brings trials and challenges, parenting a child with disabilities can be daunting.  Parents strive to provide their special needs child with support and services that will help them to become more independent, behave in socially appropriate ways, and create meaningful relationships.  In many instances, especially with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), these goals may seem unattainable.  Children with ASD, have complex needs requiring a broad range of medical, educational, and social supports (Boulet et al. 2009).  Challenging behaviors are common among children with ASD (Tomanik et al. 2004) and can present an impediment to socialization and learning (Matson and Nebel-Schwalm 2007).

 

Parents rely on teachers to help mold typical children through effective academic and social instruction.  As challenging behaviors in special needs students persist at home and at school, parents and teachers may struggle to establish and maintain a positive connection.  Upholding consistent parent-teacher collaboration throughout the school year will benefit children to progress academically and socially.  More often than not, parents are unaware of their rights or that they have a voice in their child’s special education path.  In this review of literature, five academic journal articles were examined to answer the following questions-

 

• What are actual parent perceptions on the special education system?
• Why is parent-school collaboration lacking among families of students with disabilities, and is it from a lack of understanding from school teachers, and therefore, lack of assistance for parents and students?
• Is training available for parents and volunteers to become advocates for disabled students?
• How can parent-school collaboration improve for families of children with disabilities?

 

It is important to research and analyze these topics because too many students and families struggle to attain services for a child with disabilities.  Too many times, untrained teachers have students with disabilities in their classroom.  Even special education teachers may struggle to provide adequate services to students with disabilities.  The research explored will show the importance of sustaining a healthy parent-teacher collaboration, through teacher professional development and advocacy training for parents and others who want to advocate for families of individuals with disabilities.

 

Parent Perceptions of Special Education

In two separate studies based in Canada, the authors examined parental perceptions of the special education system and the parents’ unmet needs, specific to children with ASD.  Similar to the United States, a continuum of placements is available for students with disabilities in Ontario.  Parents verbalized their preference for the least restrictive environment including the general education classroom, part-time resource room, or a self-contained special education classroom.  Unlike the United States, there are no federal laws overseeing special education in Canada. Each province has its own Education Act that governs school law and policy (Starr & Foy, 2010).  At the time of the first study, a Safe Schools Act in Ontario existed, establishing a zero-tolerance approach.  As a result of this policy, suspensions of students with special needs and those of racial minorities were disproportionately high (Bhattacharjee, 2003).

 

In a qualitative study conducted by Starr and Foy (2010), 144 parents of students with ASD were surveyed regarding their perceptions of and satisfaction with the education their children were receiving.  The researchers used an instrument containing 106 questions, including both Likert-type scale and open ended questions.  The following research questions were addressed:  What did parents perceive to be the factors contributing to suspensions of their children from school?  In what ways did they perceive fear, resentment, or prejudice from either parents or school personnel?  What were the primary factors contributing to parental satisfaction and dissatisfaction with their child’s education?  What did parents perceive to be educational priorities for maximizing their child’s education?  What were parents’ ultimate goals for their children with ASD?  Responses showed common themes in parent concern regarding the ability of school personnel to effectively manage children’s behavior, teacher education and understanding of the disability, and effective communication and collaboration between parents and school personnel.

 

The second study explored the association between children’s functioning and parents’ perceived unmet needs.  Brown et al. (2010) conducted a cross-sectional study using various instruments to survey 97 families of school-aged children with ASD.  Based on the Canadian system of services for ASD (Madore, 2006), and consistent with their hypothesis, the relationship between functional independence and perceived unmet need appeared to change depending on the extent to which families perceived their child’ disability to be a burden.  Findings showed specifically, among families who experienced high levels of impact, those who had a child with high functional independence had an increased risk for unmet need compared to those with a child with moderate functional independence.  This finding is consistent with previous literature showing that families cope with disability in different ways (McConachie, 1994).

 

Despite efforts to expand support coverage for children with ASD (National Research Council, 2001; Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology, 2007), parents continue to report significant difficulty navigating the service system (Kogan et al., 2008).  The ability to identify characteristics of families who experience greater unmet need has the potential to aid policy makers in rethinking eligibility criteria for services and identifying subgroups who may require increased support (Brown et al. 2010).  However, researchers are only beginning to examine characteristics associated with perceived unmet needs among families of children with ASD (Kogan et al. 2008; Siklos and Kerns 2006).

 

Barriers to Parental Involvement

Lack of parental participation often leads to inappropriate and unsound educational programs for students with disabilities (Fish, 2008).  Notably, parents have expressed concern when navigating the special education system.  Although the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), enables parents to advocate for their children with disabilities, parents are typically faced with challenges that make such advocacy difficult (Stoner et al., 2008).  Many parents feel that they must participate in school functions, but must also challenge authority and ask difficult questions (Soodak & Erwin, 2000).  Logistical issues such as transportation, childcare, and being a working parent who cannot attend daytime IEP meetings are also barriers (Friesen & Huff, 1990).  The power differential between large school system and an individual parent, generally causes the parent feelings of intimidation by the school system (Leiter & Krauss, 2004).  Parents may also feel that they are inadequate or lack the legitimacy of an expert (Kalyanpur, Harry, & Skrtic, 2000).  In the end, parents feel like they are not equal partners.  Parental feelings of inadequacy accounts for an immense obstacle in facilitating parent-school collaboration (Burke, 2013).

 

Ineffective and inaccessible procedural safeguards presents yet another obstacle parents face when wearing the advocate’s hat.  At a glance, the reading level of the safeguards is very high, making parents feel that they are inaccessible (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006; Mandic, et al., 2010).  It has been documented that the average reading level of the procedural safeguards was 16^th grade (Mandic et al., 2010).  The high reading level makes it difficult for any parent getting to know the special education system, and poses a bigger threat to non-English speaking families- and those with lower levels of education.

 

Given the magnitude of the barriers listed above, it is no surprise that parents are not equal partners on IEP teams (Turnbull et al., 2010).  Although parents attend IEP meetings, they generally listen rather than participate meaningfully (Childre & Chambers, 2005; Esquivel, Ryan, & Bonner, 2008; Hess Molina, & Kozleski, 2006).  Even when trying to express discontent with their child’s education, parents are often met with gestures and comments- being referred to as “just a parent” or being called “mom” or “dad” instead of by their first names- which makes the power differential that much greater (Kalyanpur, Harry, & Skrtic, 2000).

 

Advocacy Training

Many parents find the task of understanding relevant special education regulations and supportive advocacy techniques intimidating (Stoner et al., 2005).  Without an advocate, parents must learn the academic jargon and ask questions in hopes of understanding their rights, procedural safeguards, and other hurdles the special education system may pose.  Advocacy training is one way to improve the parent-school relationship.  Advocates prepare to assist parents in ensuring that their child with disabilities receives a free a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) and to work collaboratively with the school.

 

Burke (2013) examined two special education advocacy training models: the Special Education Advocacy Training (SEAT) and the Volunteer Advocacy Project (VAP).  Both are training programs that seek to prepare individuals who want to be a positive driving force in educating families and helping individuals with disabilities.  The study found that although, advocacy training is a step in the right direction, there are barriers that remain.  The first barrier is supporting the need for special education advocates.  Both SEAT and VAP showed increasing numbers of participants as the studies progressed, and the need is palpable.  The second barrier is determining the best way to train advocates.  Both VAP and SEAT trained interested candidates to be advocates, but each training course is completely different.  Because of the newness of each of these trainings, it remains unknown how its’ graduates impact families and individuals with disabilities. The third barrier is bridging the two worlds (i.e., schools and families) of disability.  Special education advocacy training can offer a venue in which these two worlds are able to collaborate with each other.  The last notable barrier is the lack of research regarding special education advocacy.  Although models of parent-school collaboration exist for general education students (Green et al., 2007), more research needs to be collected to develop an effective model of parent-school collaboration in the field of special education.

 

Teacher Training

One way to think about individuals with disabilities is by the services they receive.  In order to provide high quality services, university special education departments train future teachers, administrators, and service providers.  Since the primary recipient of training is the preservice teacher, the knowledge and skills the teacher gains can be relayed to the student (Burke, 2013).  ASD has the most rapidly increasing prevalence rate of any disability (Boyle et al., 2011).  This rapid growth in autism intensifies the need to provide high-quality educational services through implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP).  The National Professional Development Center on ASD, or NPDC, incorporated the principles of implementation science in order to enhance program quality and teachers’ use of EBPs for students with ASD (Odom, Cox, & Brock, 2013).

 

According to Odom, Cox, and Brock (2013), one approach to improving services to students with ASD enrolled in public school programs, is through professional development.  Merging knowledge of effective intervention practices available from scientific literature with knowledge from implementation science that supports the adoption and use of innovation in real work settings, can be established in an “enlightened” system of professional development (Odom, 2009).  This system, as demonstrated by the NPDC, requires identifying the content, planning for an infrastructure of support at the state and community levels, providing direct training for service providers, and establishing ongoing coaching and technical assistance to support teachers and other service providers (Odom, Cox, & Brock, 2013).

 

Parent-School Collaboration

The ecological systems theory describes multiple levels of influence on child development in which the home and the school utilize unique and combined forces on the growth of an individual (Bronfrenbrenner, 2005).  A few studies have examined the effects of the home-school partnership on academic outcomes of students identified as having academic, behavioral, or social difficulties.  These studies suggest that interventions that effectively help students progress are those interventions implemented by parents and school staff working together (Cox, 2005; McNamara, Telzrow, & DeLamatre, 1999).

 

Mandated largely through IDEA (2004), parental notification of rights and responsibilities, and invitations to participate in any processes regarding identification, evaluation, and placement in special education are guaranteed (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006).  Prereferral Intervention Teams, or PIT, bring together teachers, counselors, service providers and parents as a problem solving team and use Response to Intervention, or RTI, as a new paradigm in identifying students in need of special education services (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).  Bringing the team together allows the expertise of many to be combined and enables a multifaceted assessment of struggling students’ needs.  Parents are valuable stakeholders in their children’s schooling.

 

Researchers Chen and Gregory (2010) conducted a study that examines whether parental involvement in the prereferral intervention process is associated with PIT intervention alignment with the target child’s present problems, and with the child’s eventual referral for special education evaluation.  The study participants included 88 PIT cases from the 2005-2006 school year that were selected for a retrospective and anonymous records review.  Each PIT team used a standardized set of forms that included referral concerns, team-selected goals and intervention at the initial meeting, and documentation of the follow-up meetings that were held after interventions had been implemented and student progress had been assessed.  The forms indicated who attended each meeting and who was responsible for implementing selected interventions.  The findings showed that greater parental participation was related to higher process quality in the form of better alignment between PIT interventions and the target child’s problems, and eventual student outcome in the form of reduced likelihood of special education evaluation.  Parents who attended meetings were more likely to take on an intervention role, but not all parents who attended intervened. Parent advocacy is one possible mechanism that may explain the positive results (Chen & Gregory, 2010)

 

Conclusion

Creating a healthy parent-school relationship is a vital stepping stone in the personal success of all students, especially those with disabilities.  Many times, parents are discouraged and dissatisfied with the current educational system.  They are unaware of how to handle their child’s diagnosis and educational planning.  The public school systems provide rules and regulations found in the procedural safeguards, which are difficult to understand, especially for those who do not have a college reading level or whose primary language is not English.

 

Parents are in need of support and advocacy training that is available to those who are ready to learn about the special education system.  However, often times parents are unable to attend classes, or their schedule and/or finances simply do not allow them to be trained as advocates.  Fortunately, volunteer advocates are trained to help families who need it. However, the need for more advocates is rising as the rate of diagnoses such as ASD continue to surpass the available advocates.  Parents’ unmet needs can be reduced through education and knowledge of the special education system and through support from the school itself.  Increasing parental involvement and building their confidence to become advocates will likely show increasing numbers of student success stories.

 

Building a healthy parent-school collaboration, attending meetings, and providing interventions at home will help students meet the goals set at IEP meetings.  Teachers should undergo consistent professional development in order to learn the science and evidence based practices, which are effective practices and have shown success in students with disabilities.

 

There are a number of potential areas for future research. One recommendation is further research on the topic of enhancing parent-school collaboration.  Although this literature review mainly explored the parent perspective in schools in Canada, it would be interesting to research the parent perspective in the United States, specifically those parents of children with ASD.  It would also be interesting to note the perspectives of parents with younger students versus those of older students.

 

Another recommendation is the replication of the studies reviewed here.  Documenting more evidence that supports the importance of advocacy training, teacher professional development, parent involvement, and enhancing parent-school collaboration would bring worlds together.  Epstein et al. (2002) called the two seemingly separate settings of school and home as “overlapping spheres of influence,” with distinct roles but common goals.  Reducing parental stress and increasing their knowledge, combined with sustaining a strong school system whose primary drive is individual student growth, is the ultimate goal for all stakeholders in special education.

 

References

Brown, H. K., Ouellette-Kunts, H., Hunter, D., Kelley, E., Boigo, V., Lam, M. (2011). Beyond an autism diagnosis: Children’s functional independence and parents’ unmet needs. Journal of Autism and Development Disorders, 41, 1291-1302

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

Odom, S. L., Cox, A. W., Brock, M. E., NPDC. (2013). Implementation science, professional development, and autism spectrum disorders. Council for Exceptional Children, 70(2), 233-251.

Starr, E. M., & Foy, J. B. (2012). In parents’ voices: The education of children with autism spectrum disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 33(4), 207-216.

Wei-Bing, C., Gregory, A. (2011). Parental involvement in the prereferral process: Implications for schools. Remedial and Special Education, 32(6), 447-457.

 

Other References

Bhattacharjee, K. (2003). The Ontario Safe Schools Act: School discipline and discrimination.  Retrieved from http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/discussion_consultation/SafeSchoolsConsultRepENG

Boulet, S. L., Boyle, C., & Schieve, L. A. (2009). Health care use and health and functional impact of developmental disabilities among US children. 1997-2005. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 163(1), 19-26.

Boyle, C. A., Boulet, S., Schieve, I. A., Cohen, R. A., Blumberg, S. J., Yeargin-Allsopp, M., Kogan, M. D. (2011). Trends in prevalence of developmental disabilities in U.S. children, 1997-2008. Pediatrics, 127, 1034-1042. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-2989

Brown, H. K., Ouellette-Kuntz, H., Hunter, D., & Kelley, E. (2010). Assessing need in school-aged children with an autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4(4), 539-547.

Childre, A., & Chambers, C.R. (2005). Family perceptions of student centered planning and IEP meetings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 217-233.

Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships: Your Handbook for Action (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Esquivel, S. L., Ryan, C. S., & Bonner, M. (2008). Involved parents’ perceptions of their experiences in school-based team meetings. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 18, 234-258.

Fish, W. W. (2008).  The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who receive special education services.  Preventing School Failure, 53, 8-14.

Fitzgerald, J. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2006). Parents’ rights in special education: The readability of procedural safeguards. Exceptional Children, 72, 497-510.

Friesen, B. J., & Huff, B. (1990). Parents and professionals as advocacy partners. Preventing School Failure, 34, 31-39.

Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 532-544.

Hess, R. S., Molina, A. M., & Kozleski, E. B. (2006). Until somebody hears me: Parent voice and advocacy in special educational decision making. British Journal of Special Education, 33, 148-157.

Kalyanpur, M., Harry, B., & Skrtic, T. (2000). Equity and advocacy expectation in special education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 47, 119-136.

Kogan, M. D., Strickland, B. B., Blumberg, S. J., Singh, G K., Perrin, J. M., & van Dyck, P. C., (2008). A national profile of health care experiences and family impact of autism spectrum disorder among children in the United States. 2005-2006, Pediatrics, 122(6), 1149-1158.

Leiter, V., & Krauss, M. W. (2004). Claims, barriers, and satisfaction: Parents’ requests for additional special education services. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15, 135-146.

Madore, O. (2006). Provincial and territorial funding programs for autism therapy. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0622-e.htm.

Mandic,C. G., Rudd, R., Hehir, T., & Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2010). Readability of special education procedural safeguards. Journal of Special Education, 30, 1-9.

Matson, J. L., & Nebel-Schwalm, M. (2007). Assessing challenging behaviors in children with autism spectrum disorders: A review. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 28(6), 567-579.

McConachie, H. (1994). Implications of a model of stress and coping for services to families of young disabled children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 20(1), 37-46.

National Research Council. (2001). Educating children with autism. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Siklos, S., & Kerns, K. A. (2006). Assessing need for social support in parents of children with autism and Down syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(7), 921-933.

Soodak, L. C., & Erwin, E. J. (2000). Valued member or tolerated participant: Parents’ experiences in inclusive early childhood settings. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 25, 29-41.

Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology (2007). Pay now or pay later: Autism families in crisis. Retrieved from http://parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/soci-e/rep-e/repfinmar07-e.htm.

Stoner, J. B., Jones Bock, S., Thompson, J. R., Angell, M. E., Heyl, B. S., & Crowly, E. P. (2005). Welcome to our world: Parent perceptions of interactions between parents of children with ASD and education professionals. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 20-39.

Tomanik, S., Harris, G. E., & Hawkins, J. (2004). The relationship between behaviors exhibited by children with autism and maternal stress. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 29(1), 16-26.

Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Erwin, E. J.,Soodak, L. C., & Shogran,  K. A. (2010).  Families, professionals, and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Book Review: If You Don’t Feed The Teachers They Eat the Students! By Michelle Noviot

By Michelle Noviot

Introduction

The book If You Don’t Feed the Teachers They Eat the Students! by Neila A. Connors emphasizes that effectively  administrating a school is difficult and can only be achieved through the collaboration of administrators and teachers. Throughout the book, Connors gives examples of qualities that school leaders must possess and actions that school leaders must follow through with in order to manage a school. Connor’s objectives for this book are to outline the job requirements of administrative and instructional school staff; to compare and contrast teachers whom are hungry (i.e. yearning for recognition) from teachers whom are satisfied; to teach administrators the importance of maintaining a healthy school environment; to introduce beliefs that all administrators should internalize and make visible; to identify stressors and how to handle stress and to give explain of how to handle coworkers who criticize and impede success from occurring.

This book is a great tool for both administrators and teachers alike. I love the fact that this book is not research-based, it is not focused on the results of surveys, nor is it theoretically driven. This book is packed with data that is based on actual observations, interviews, and personal experiences. This book is inspiring.

Purpose and Thesis

The author’s purpose for writing this book was to reflect on the effect that the leadership of successful administrators has on a school and to state the different ways in which administrators “feed” their teachers. Further, the author reflects on different ways in which administrators can ask for teacher guidance; guide their instructional staff; get to know their instructional staff on a personal level; and to encourage risk taking of teachers.

The following review of Neila A. Connors’s book, If You Don’t Feed the Teachers They Eat the Students!, will include a summary of the book’s contents along with an explanation of the book’s main themes, key quotes, strong points, weak points, and a comparison of this book to other educational leadership books and articles.

Main Themes

The book, If You Don’t Feed the Teachers They Eat the Students! has multiple themes. The main themes of this book are empowerment, leadership, and change.

Examples of empowerment can be found throughout the book. On page 13 Connors writes “…teaching is difficult and teachers need continual appreciative acts. Whenever we can provide positive experiences to promote teachers and their efforts, we are on a winning track”. This quote makes me as a teacher feel great. Due to changes in our school systems such as Common Core and high-stakes testing teachers’ attempts to implement change while putting their students first is often misunderstood and criticized by many. It is reassuring to know that another human being understands that teaching is difficult and even believes that teachers need to be shown appreciation. The fact that Connors says that when teachers are gifted with positive experiences to promote their efforts society as a whole wins is quite flattering and so true!

Teaching is the profession that teaches all other professions. If overworked, tired, and overall burnt out teachers are the ones educating our children, then our children will not be inspired and will not want to further themselves. On the other hand, if a hard working teacher who got very little sleep the night before because she was planning a fun thematic unit to engage her students receives a small token of appreciation from an administrator then that teacher will be re-energized and will teach with passion and care. If students are taught by energetic teachers who care for them, society wins for we will have passionate and dedicated professionals in every field.

Leadership is another theme that is present throughout the length of this book. On page 15 Connors writes, “School leaders should have the ability to think logically”. Teachers often tell their students to “think before they speak” but as much as they’d like to, they wouldn’t say this to an administrator. The truth of the matter is that administrators are human and stress sometimes does not allow for them to think logically. Effective leaders are those who take the time to examine every decision with care, commitment, and connections. Effective leaders are those who always think about how their decisions will affect their school.

A second quote that focuses on leadership comes from page 23 where Connors writes “The best leaders ask for the services of great teachers when it comes to meeting with community groups and organizations”.  Society is accustomed to school administrators who make all decisions single handedly but the truth of the matter is that the best administrators are those who see teachers as valuable resources and treat them as such. Through newsletters, web pages, e-mails, bulletin boards and community service projects teachers communicate school information to the community.

The third and final main theme of If You Don’t Feed the Teachers They Eat the Students! is change. “Leaders need to recognize that to have effective change, people must change; and for people to change, their realities and/or perceptions must change.” (Connors, 2010, p. 45). Change is a phenomenon that has been affecting our schools for many years and will continue to affect our schools for many more years to come. The best administrators recognize that change is not easy but that it is necessary to grow and improve. When change hits a school, administrators need to become change agents and encourage and nurture innovation, collaboration, and creativity.  Being open to change enriches personal and professional lives.

Key Quotes

The goal of this book is to inspire school leaders who want to make a difference by implementing the suggestions that are present throughout the book. Hence, the key quotes from this book either inspire or guide school leaders.

On page 22 Connors writes “The best thinkers spend 5% of their time discussing the problem and 95% of the time identifying solutions”. This quote is so important that it is first introduced on page 22 but it is repeated numerous times throughout the book. As human beings we tend to worry so much about our problems that it is difficult for us to move from the worrying stage to the solutions stage. Problems are often the result of mishandled change. Unlike most people, teachers are accustomed to handling change because change is manifested in all classrooms. As a result, when teachers are given a challenge they will brainstorm through a number of solutions. When handling a challenge, the best administrators discuss the issue/s with a group of teachers and they end up with many creative solutions.

Another key quote from this book is “Fun is imperative in building a great school.” (Connors, 2010, p. 79). Though fun is not one of the main themes of this book, Connors does stress that leaders need to have fun at work in order to be effective. The jobs of school leaders are often so demanding that teachers and administrators fall into a fast-paced routine and forget to have fun. When a principal feels bored, her teachers are bored and when the teachers are bored, students are bored and bored students cannot learn. Administrators have to bring fun to their schools by implementing fun activities such as Field Day, Walk-a-Thon, Spelling Bees, etc. into regular school days. Small activities such as these make days less predictable and more fun.

A third key quote from If You Don’t Feed the Teachers They Eat the Students!  is “Successful schools provide a time at the end of the day for closure to take place”. (Connors, 2010, p. 80). In the typical classroom when the end of a school day is drawing closer teachers and students alike start to feel restless.

When students and teachers see that there are five (5) to seven (7) minutes remaining in the school day they start to pack up and as soon as the dismissal bell rings they rush out of school to begin their afternoon activities. Although a time frame of five to seven minutes may seem insignificant, this is precious time that teachers can be allocate to help students transition to their afternoon activities in an organized and calm fashion. Many successful schools across the globe provide a few minutes of closure at the end of each day. During this time, teachers could remind students of what books they have to take home in order to complete their home learning activities, they could make some final announcements, or give a treat to students who made their day’s points. Having closure at the end of the day helps students reflect on their day and plan for the following day. In the long run, dedicating a few minutes to closure each day can help students become organized, productive, and successful individuals.

A fourth key quote from this book can be found on page 83 and reads “The best leaders meet only when necessary and they do whatever possible to motivate the staff to be there”. All teachers are exhausted at the end of the day. These teachers are just as eager to get out of school as the students. Due to the overwhelming amount of paper work, behavior issues, and the number of hours spent teaching, teachers are generally not enthusiastic about attending meetings at the end of the day. It is important for administrators to be sensitive about the needs of their teachers by hosting brief, effective, and engaging meetings. In order for faculty meetings to be effective Connors suggests that administrators provide an agenda at the beginning of the meeting, that administrators let faculty know of the meeting ahead of time, that opportunities to mention solutions are given, that all teachers are engaged in the meeting, that door prizes and icebreakers are included, the meetings start and end on time, that food is provided, that a verbal summary is provided at the end of a meeting, and that a summary sheet is given for all to take and to review on their own time.

A fifth and final key quote from If You Don’t Feed the Teachers They Eat the Students!  is “A school-wide discipline plan must be developed with a focus on appropriate behavior and effective strategies”. (Connors, 2010, p. 86). Some teachers believe that the principal and assistant principal are to handle all behavior issues. This view point stems from history when principals or the dean of students would punish students either physically or by suspending them. Although the administrative team sometimes has to handle behavior issues, teachers have to realize that they cannot send students to the principal’s office for minor reasons such as coming to class unprepared, forgetting to do their home learning assignments, or for not wearing their uniforms. Administrators need to develop a behavior plan that promotes the improvement of student behavior and lessens teacher frustration. Behavior plans should be positive and reward good behavior. Students should only be sent to the office when a teacher cannot de-escalate the inappropriate behavior of a student.

Strong Points

Connors makes many strong points throughout her book. The first strong point I found was “Effective leaders visit classrooms”. (Connors, 2010, p. 31). Connors explains that the teachers whom she interviewed when writing this book shared with her that effective administrators take the time to visit as many classrooms as possible. Connors’s perception is that the best teachers enjoy having administrators come into their classrooms and observing daily activities. I personally agree with this. While it is true that I wish that I could control when administrators come in, I do like having them come by. In an article written by Steve Flores, an elementary school principal he states that he enjoys visiting classrooms and that when he does so he focuses more on student behavior and interaction than on the teacher and the strategies that she’s implementing in her lessons. Steve goes on to explain that he listens for evidence of previously learned skills, emerging skills, and where the community learner is headed. Mr. Flores explains “When I am not clear on a particular aspect of what is happening in the classroom, I go straight to a primary source: I ask students to explain what is happening and how it came to be”. Like Connors, Flores believes that effective leaders visit classrooms and that this is the best way for him to become and active learner of a community.

A second strong point that Connors makes is “Effective leaders see teacher evaluations as extremely important”. (Connors, 2010, p. 31). The same way that Connors believes that a closed door would never prevent a caring leader from entering a classroom, she believes that as those leaders visit classrooms they should regularly evaluate teachers. The best leaders acknowledge that there is a need to evaluate teachers and they make a plan to schedule them throughout the year so that they avoid doing them at the last minute. My research supports Connors’s position on teacher evaluations.

“Evaluation systems may improve the quality of teaching via two key mechanisms. First, they may identify and promote effective teaching practices that help teachers to improve (Masters, 2013). Second, they may facilitate personnel practices and policies that support the retention of more effective teachers and the dismissal of less effective teachers, as well as more optimal assignment of teachers to jobs in which they can have the most positive effect (Masters, 2013). While Connors does not explain how principal evaluations improve the quality of teaching, she does state that “..evaluations need to be a positive and growing experience with time for reflection and self-assessment” (Connors, 2010, p. 31). Similarly, in Master’s results he found that teacher evaluation systems are more effective when they weigh teachers’ coordinated efforts in addition to their individual expertise and provide meaningful feedback.

The final strong point that I found in If You Don’t Feed the Teachers They Eat the Students is “…awareness and definition make up 80% of dealing successfully with stress” (Connors, 2010, p. 98). By this Connors means that leaders need to be aware of their levels of stress to determine whether or not their stress level is healthy or unhealthy. Connors explains that school leaders have three ways of handling stress: they could modify the situation that is causing them stress, they could eliminate the situation that is causing them stress, or they can learn to be unaffected by the stress-causing situation. Walter Gmelch, chair of the department of education of Washington State offers a similar way of handling stress he believes that rather than avoiding stress, you need to control it and use it to your advantage which differs a little from Connors’s perspective. However, the four-stage stress cycle that he provides contains a framework for action that is similar to that of Connors. Gmelch identifies stage one stressors as a set of specific demands such as meetings, interruptions, and confrontations but he explains that stressors at this level can simply be ignored which is what Connors refers to as “learn to be unaffected by the situation. In stage two of his framework he states that if you do not have the physical or mental resources to meet the demand, you perceive the demand as a stress trap and if you reach this level of stress you can either ignore the stressor or modify it. In stage three he explains that an individual starts to feel the negative health effects of stress and in the fourth and final stage a person has to commit to eliminate the stressor completely in order to reverse the already occurring health complications that stress brings about. Although Gmelch’s framework and Connors’s ways of handling stress are not completely compatible, what both authors agree on is that one has to be aware of one’s level of stress in order to deal with it.

Weak Point

I only found one weak point in If You Don’t Feed the Teachers They Eat the Students! Which is: “The most responsive administrators do whatever it takes to hire assistants for tedious duties (hallway, bus, cafeteria, after-school discipline, etc.) when possible”. (Connors, 2010, p. 86). I personally do not agree with this statement at all. I understand that administrators have a hectic agenda but I do not believe that they should hire assistants for hallway, bus, and cafeteria duty. I work at a school where the principal, assistant principal, priest, and special education program director help students out of their car or bus every morning. It puts the students in a good mood to be warmly welcomed by administrators who chat with them and even help them take their lunch bags, projects, and other items that they’re having trouble carrying to their classrooms. I know that the students at my school wouldn’t consider bus and car line duty a tedious duty. The authors of Leadership Qualities Found In Administrators Performing Simultaneous Duties Identified By Teacher Experiences agree with me. Berry, Everts, Rodriguez, and Song conducted a study on the effectiveness of principals in small rural communities who had multiple duties. One of the principals was a principal and a superintendent and still shared some of the same duties that teachers in his school shared such as riding the bus with the students and monitoring the hallways during dismissal. Since this particular principal worked alongside the teachers they

saw him as an equal rather than an administrator. “According to the findings, all educational stakeholders identified leadership qualities in the same three whereas. The administrators, district and community stakeholders determined that Tolerance of Freedom was the most vital component that makes up an effective administrator that has multiple duties. Tolerance of Freedom was defined as the administrator’s ability to provide others opportunities for inventiveness, opportunities to practice decision-making, and affording an opportunity to take action. The second best practice quality was Representation and Consideration. Although this was the case for superintendent/principals and board members, teachers identified representation at the forefront as the most vital quality in effective leadership styles of a multiple responsibility administrator” (Berry, Everts, Rodriguez, & Song, 2014). If principals whom also carried the burden of being a superintendent made the time for duties that Connors refers to as tedious duties then any principal could fulfill these duties without having to hire anyone to do so. Helping out around the school is certainly not a tedious task; it is actually of great importance.

The few minutes that administrators dedicate to these duties every day are very important for during those few minutes administrators are making themselves available to students and teachers. Great leaders make themselves accessible; they don’t hide behind closed doors.

Comparing and Contrasting Connors’s Theories

The most important theory that Connors introduces in her book If You Don’t Feed The Teachers They Eat The Students! is her theory on change. The same applies to Michael Fullan author of Leading in a Culture of Change. Both Connors and Fullan view change as something that is inevitable and must be accepted. Connors says “We hear over and over that change is a process, not an event, and the best administrators recognize that to grow and improve one must change. Change, however is not easy…Openness top change enriches personal and professional lives”. Fullan views change as a disturbance that must be accepted. “Leaders need to accept this condition [change] as a given, recognize its potential value, and go about coherence making while also retaining the awareness that persistent coherence is a dangerous things” (Fullan, 2001, p. 108).

When it comes to change, Connors and Fullan differ in that Connors views change as an issue that one must deal with following a series of steps. Fullan on the other hand views change as a natural and positive phenomenon. Connors says that the best administrators address the issue of change using the following ten steps: first, administrators need to discuss what programs or practices need change. Second, administrators should identify a team of change agents to analyze the present status of a school and the possible outcomes as a result of change. Third, administrators should establish a vision and a strategy through the change team and communicate it to all who request input. Fourth, administrators should attempt to do away with any impediments to change. Fifth, administrators should encourage risk-taking and acknowledge gains. Sixth, administrators should implement a plan and monitor benchmarks of growth throughout the process. Seventh, administrators should continually assess and report the status of effectiveness. Eighth, administrators should readjust, monitor, revise, and start over if necessary. Ninth, administrators should communicate about the effects of the change that is occurring and tenth, administrators should celebrate and reward any success brought upon by change. From Connors’s steps it is evident that she believes that change should be accepted and handled.  On the flip side of things, Fullan believes that change is difficult but good. He says “The basis of the new mind-set for leading in a culture of change is the realization that the world is not chaotic; it is complex” (Fullan, 2001, p. 108). Fullan has a theory for change that he summarizes using four principles. The first principle is equilibrium which he says is the precursor to death. He explains that when a living system [he considers schools to be living systems] is in a state of equilibrium it is less responsive to change that is taking place around it. His second principle is that living things move towards the edge of chaos and as a result fresh new solutions come about. His third principle is that living systems self-organize and new forms and repertoires emerge from thr turmoil. His fourth and last principle is that “Living systems cannot be directed along a linear path. Unforeseen consequences are inevitable. The challenge is to disturb them in a manner that approximates the desired outcome. Overall, Connors and Fullan both agree that change is inevitable and that it is not easy. However, Fullan has a more optimistic view on change for he sees the good that comes out of change while Connors focuses on ways to manage change. Connors is so much into managing change that she goes further onto describing the rate in which people usually accept change she says: “…through any change 5% of the people will accept immediately, 25% will slowly adapt and accept, 60% will take a “let’s wait and see” approach and will eventually accept the new idea if it works to their advantage, and 10% will never accept any change”. (Connors, 2010, p. 47) With this Connors is saying that the majority of people adapt and accept change over time which is encouraging. However, Fullan ends his section on change in the book Leading in a Culture of Change more optimistic than Connors by stating “…taking on all the innovations that come along or trying to reengineer people is not the kind of disturbance that is going to approximate any desired outcome” (Fullan, 2001, p. 109). Fullan knows that change disturbs people and that this is inevitable but he encourages leaders to disturb those they oversee in a manner that leads them to the end result they’d like to arrive at.

Final Thoughts

The book If You Don’t Feed The Teachers They Eat The Students! is worth reading. As Connors states in the beginning of the book “…this book is for anyone who agrees that teaching is the most important profession there is. It needs to be read by individuals who recognize that teaching is difficult and teachers need continual appreciative acts…This book is for all grade levels, all genders, all types of leaders, and all geographic locations. Most importantly, it is for anyone wanting to make a difference” (Connors, 2010, p. 13). This book is easy and pleasant to read. The messages within this book are so empowering that it can inspire anyone in the field of education to give it their all.

References

Berry, B.S., Everts, S. J., Rodriguez, A., & Song, H. (2014). Leadership qualities found in administrators performing simultaneous duties identified by teacher experiences. ProQuest Dissertations 7(1-125). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/eric/docview/1512217375/fulltextPDF/9CEC168B2D924322PQ/1?accountid=10901

Connors, N, A. (2014). If your don’t feed the teachers they eat the students!. Chicago, IL: World Book.

Flores, S. (1999). Classrooms as cultures from a principal’s perspective. Primary Voices K-6, 7(3), 54. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/eric/docview/221662006/fulltext/E83B9EF9C7CF44A2PQ/1?accountid=10901

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Imprint.

Gmelch, W. (1992). Strategies for dealing with stress: Taking care of yourself. Research in Higher Education, 20(4), 477-490. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED354632

Masters, B. (2013). Using subjective teacher evaluations to examine principals’ personnel management priorities. Conference Abstract Template, 38(2), Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED564090.pdf

About the Author

Mrs. Michelle Noviot is a special education teacher at Saint Brendan Elementary Catholic School in Miami, Florida. She earned her Bachelor of Science in Exceptional Student Education from Miami Dade College in December of 2012 and will graduate with a Master in Special Education from Florida International University in spring 2017. Mrs. Noviot’s mission in life is to help children with special needs achieve their academic best through the implementation of research-based strategies and a dose of love and compassion.

Let Their Voices Be Heard: Self-Determination and Elementary Student Participation in the Individual Education Plan By Theresa A. Pedersen, M.A.T., E.D.S

By Theresa A. Pedersen, M.A.T., E.D.S

Abstract

IDEA 2004 requires that the student has something to contribute to the IEP process and goal-setting for the future. Research indicates that students with disabilities require specific instruction of strategies to improve and inspire self-determination, advocacy and mindfulness for authentic participation to occur. In addition, explaining the special education process is the key to making the student feel comfortable and confident that adults on the team are working together.Using the ten teacher actions as a guide (Hart & Brehm, 2013), I have designed a program where resource time is used to inspire self-advocacy for IEP accommodations and prepare my elementary school students to participate in the special education process.

Keywords: special education, IEP, self-determination, student participation

 

Introduction

The first time “Sarah”, a seventh-grade student with a specific learning disability, attended her Individual Education Plan (IEP) meeting was eye-opening! I am ashamed to admit it took several years as an upper elementary/middle school special education teacher before I decided to include my students in their IEP meetings.  I agreed with many professionals that an IEP meeting was an inappropriate place for a student younger than high school. But at her parent’s request, I invited Sarah to the meeting.  I am grateful that no one videotaped that first meeting. It was messy, awkward, uncomfortable…but thrilling! For the first time, Sarah had a (small) voice in her IEP.  My eyes were opened and I started to research ways to successfully integrate my upper elementary/middle school students into their IEP meetings in a meaningful way.

 

Winterman shared research indicating that students with disabilities require specific instruction to participate and advocate for themselves in IEP meetings for authentic participation to occur (2014).  I am embarrassed to admit that my version of specific training for that meeting consisted of Sarah and I briefly browsing her IEP, giving her a pep-talk, and reminders to listen and watch for the “signal” if I felt that she was off-task.  Already a convert to the direct instruction of strategies to improve and inspire self-determination, advocacy, and mindfulness skills in elementary school students, I set out to generalize these skills for effective engagement of elementary school students in their own IEP meetings.

IDEA 2004 and IEP Meetings

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004 (IDEA 2004) is a law that governs services to children with disabilities in the United States.  It outlines how agencies provide special education and related services to eligible infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities (IDEA, 2014). IDEA 2004 operates under the premise that each student has something to contribute to the IEP process and goal-setting for the future.  The law provides for a child’s inclusion in, and participation on, the IEP team if it is appropriate for the student (IDEA, 2014).

 

As an experienced high school and university special education teacher, I understood that my students must attend IEP meetings to discuss transition goals and services. The success of these meetings varied.  A student’s engagement in his or her meeting was dependent on the preparation, motivation, cognitive, and language skills of the student (IDEA, 2014).  A strong team that valued the role of the family also seemed to set the tone for stronger integration of the student into the nuts and bolts of IEP development and discussion.  Family involvement in education is mandated in IDEA 2004.  Meaningful family involvement in the special education process improves school attendance, leads to higher grades and reduces disciplinary referrals (Ludlow, 2012).

 

The decision to include any student in an IEP meeting lies first in the hands of the parent. Only the parent has the authority to make decisions about their child’s education (IDEA, 2014). Unfortunately, many parents are afraid to involve their children in the special education process. I noticed that most of my upper elementary school students had no idea why they were coming to the resource room for academic assistance.  Few had heard of an IEP, and most were unaware that their parents were coming to school to meet with me and the team to plan for their education.

 

When asked, many special education teachers are hesitant to include their students “before they were ready”, and most waited until the student reached the age of 14 to attend an IEP to discuss transition issues only.  I started to wonder how these students would magically come to the table ready to participate, especially if they were not given a voice and the opportunity to use it in the IEP process during upper elementary school/middle school.  What would the research say about children in upper elementary school/middle school attending IEP meetings? How soon should a child be encouraged to have a strong voice in his own education? Do specific materials exist to get the student ready to lead their meeting in the future? I had thrown Sarah into the deep end of the pool when I invited her to attend her meeting.  She deserved a swimming lesson. I jumped into the research.

The Literature About Student Participation in IEP meetings

The literature that addresses student participation in IEP meetings is focused on middle school and high school students, primarily to meet the IDEA 2004 regulation demands for transition planning.  There is some research, though not recent work, that provides teachers with evidence-based strategies to teach both elementary and secondary students to take an active role in their education (Hart & Brehm, 2013).  IEP meetings are a natural and practical way to apply self-determination skills to concerns about the special education services.  In one study, students expressed ownership of their IEP and the desire to be kept in the loop because “they are talking about me!” (Danneker & Bottge, 2009).

 

Agran and Hughes piloted a qualitative survey instrument designed to interview students with disabilities.  The purpose of the survey was to assess the level of input each student has in the development of their IEP and assess self-determination strategies (Agran & Hughes, 2008). The convenience sample was made up of seventeen high school students and fifty-six junior high school students in an urban school district.  A staggering 80% of the high school students and 96% of the middle school students surveyed had not been directly taught to lead their IEP meetings and over 60% could not explain their IEP goals (Agran & Hughes, 2008).  On the flip side, students were receiving instruction in self-determination strategies, such as evaluating, instruction, problem solving, and advocacy.  Nearly 50% of the middle school students had been taught to review their progress toward IEP goals, which was more connected to self-determination than the IEP process.  The authors recommend that students need to be taught to read their IEP and lead meetings, as these are a natural and practical experience for students to apply their self-determination shills to the problems and concerns that matter to them (Agran & Hughes, 2008).

 

In another study, the researchers turned their lens on elementary school students. Danneker and Bottge used a multiple-case design with purposeful sampling in a rural elementary school to investigate six 20-minute lessons to prepare students to run their IEP meeting (2009).  The purpose was to further develop a training package to develop student leadership during IEP meetings (Danneker & Bottge, 2009).  Research stated that student participation has the potential to improve IEP meetings and increase compliance with IDEA mandates.  The teachers interviewed for the study shared a belief that elementary students could not understand information shared during the IEP meeting or might be upset to hear about their lack of progress (Danneker & Bottge, 2009).

One of the main barriers to student participation was the teacher’s unwillingness to relinquish control to the student.  This negatively impacted student empowerment and self-efficacy (Danneker & Bottge, 2009).

 

Without specific IEP meeting instruction, students are lost in the shuffle of paperwork, acronyms, test results and adults speaking to adults.  After a three-year study of almost 400 teacher-directed IEP meetings in 2004), Martin and his team concluded “It seems naïve to presume that students attend their transition IEP meetings will learn how to participate…through serendipity (Martin et al, 2006, pg. 300).  The authors believe in the Self-directed IEP strategy developed in 1997 and decide to catapult the tool to the level of an evidence based intervention by conducting a randomized experimental study.  The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of the Self–directed IEP strategy.  Martin et al used a pre/post control and intervention design with random assignment of students to the control or intervention conditions. Observations indicated that students who were trained in the 11 steps of the program attended more meetings, spoke more during the meeting, and focused more during the transition planning process.  The results were compelling because the IEP meeting is a way to teach student self- determination skills such as self-advocacy, goal-setting, and reflection (Martin et al, 2006).

Making choices, acting on those choices and experiencing the results

Direct instruction of self-determination skills by students with intellectual and other disabilities is positively related to desirable learning and transition outcomes (Ludlow, 2012). Secondary school students with disabilities need these skills because self-determination positively impacts participation in class, academic performance and future employment (Hart & Brehm, 2013).  I have come to believe that students should be involved in the IEP process regardless of age. The role will increase as the student ages.  Planning and discussion of annual goals gives the student practice articulating their strengths and weaknesses.  This knowledge empowers the student and makes the expectations for achievement and behavior crystal clear.

 

Hart and Brehm made a wonderful case for teacher and parent actions that can prepare upper-elementary school/middle school students to participate in their IEP meetings (2013). Explaining the special education process is the key to making the student feel comfortable and confident that adults on the team are working together (Hart & Brehm, 2013).  After reading about the importance of linking direct instruction of self-determination strategies to student participation in their IEP meetings, I became convinced that my fourth and fifth graders needed to be brought into the process.  In the long run, future transition meetings will be more powerful because the students are used to addressing their goals, evaluating strategies and advocating for support.

 

Using the ten teacher actions as a guide (Hart & Brehm, 2013), I have designed a program using resource time to inspire self-advocacy for IEP accommodations and increased student participation in the special education process.  During the initial IEP meeting for a new student on my caseload, I spend time sharing with the team the importance of self-regulation, self-determination, and self-advocacy skills for my students diagnosed with specific learning disability attention deficit disorder, and emotional impairment.  I require parents to communicate with me daily in the student agenda, via text message or email.  I share my plan and obtain consent to work on these skills at school and at home.  I am planning to invite students to come to the beginning of the meeting and introduce themselves to the team.  I will to ask the team in advance to draw the student out with questions illuminating interests, needs and concerns.

 

Once the students begin meeting with me in the resource room, we discuss IEP goals, objectives, and accommodations.  I also help each student set some reasonable, personal SMART goals. Hart & Brehm believe that goal-setting is an integral component of self-determination (2013).  Even an elementary school student can begin considering college or career aspirations by learning to connect work at school to the “real world”.  I share the IEP accommodations and present level of performance in the academic areas requiring support.  I explain each and we model what it looks like in the classroom.  As recommended by Hart and Brehm, my students must understand their accommodations to advocate for help in the classroom (2013).

 

Once we do this, I make an appointment with the student’s classroom teacher to talk about the student needs, IEP accommodations and goals.  I prepare the student to speak to the teacher about his or her goals, accommodations and needs in the classroom.  For my fifth-grade students, this is the precursor to participating in the transition IEP meeting to prepare for middle school each spring.

 

The last step is to continually check-in with the student, monitor the progress, and troubleshoot any problems (Hart & Brehm, 2013).  I ask the student to keep track of which accommodations were offered, accepted, delayed or refused.  This takes time to become a habit, but pays off as my fifth-graders get ready to transition to middle school.

 

Honestly, sometimes it brings tears to my eyes when I see my student sharing their learning needs and brainstorming a “best fit” accommodation during our discussions.  Impacting a student’s self-determination while they are young reduces the negative impact of postsecondary or quality of life outcomes as a person with learning challenges (Hart & Brehm, 2013). Empowering an upper elementary/middle school student means that he or she will be at the IEP meeting at age 14 with a powerful, determined voice during transition planning.

Resources

Agran, M. & Hughes.  (2008).  Asking student input: Students’ opinions regarding their individualized education program involvement. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31(2), 69-76.

Danneker, J. & Bottge, B.  (2009).  Benefits of and barriers to elementary student-led individualized education programs. Remedial and Special Education, 30(4), 225-233.

Hart J. & Brehm, J.  (2013).  Promoting self-determination: A model for training elementary students to self-advocate for IEP accommodations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(5), 40-48.

IDEA-the individuals with disabilities education act. (2014, May). Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home.

Ludlow, B.  (2012).  Teachers + families = success for all students.  Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(3), 4.

Martin, J., Van Dycke, J., Christensen, W.R., Greene, B.A., Gardner, J.E., Lovett, D. (2006).  Increasing student participation in IEP meetings: Establishing the self-directed IEP as an evidenced-based practice, 72(3), 299-316.

Winterman, K.G. (2014). IEP checklist: Your guide to creating meaning and compliant IEP’s. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing. Retrieved from www.ebrary.com.

 

 

About the Author

Theresa Pedersen is a graduate of Rockford University with a Masters of Arts in Teaching, leading to certification in both special education K-12 and general education K-8.  She recently completed an Ed.S in Leadership from Liberty University College of Education and is currently in the dissertation phase of her Ed.D program.  Pedersen currently works as a special education teacher at Netzaberg Elementary School, Department of Defense Education Activity, Europe East District.  This article was prepared by Theresa Pedersen in her personal capacity.  The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the view of the Department of Defense Education Activity, the Department of Defense, or the United States Government.

Parental Involvement and Advocacy in Latino Families of Children with Disabilities: A Review of the Literature By Pilar Villegas

By Pilar Villegas

Abstract

Considering the importance of parental involvement in education, particularly within the scope of special education, policy has been passed to encourage collaboration with families regarding access to specialized services for children with disabilities. Parents must assume a significant role in the decision making process regarding services and educational outcomes for their children. Despite the fact that parental involvement is required by educational policy, several limitations such as language barriers and cultural differences, can make it difficult for Latino parents to understand and fulfill their roles as advocates in their children’s education.  This review focuses on the ability of Latino parents to advocate in their children’s education, and their perspectives in the context of disability.

Keywords: Advocacy – Latino parents – Disability – Diversity – ASD – Disproportionality – Overrepresentation – Services

 

Parental Involvement and Advocacy in Latino Families of Children with Disabilities: A Review of the Literature

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau, 2010), as of July 1^st, 2017 people that identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino, constitute the largest ethnic or racial minority. People of Latino or Hispanic origins represent 17.6 percent of the US total population. The Bureau estimates that by the year 2060, this growing ethnic group will constitute 28.6% of the nation’s population.

Research has shown (Muller, & Callahan, 2010; Sullivan, 2011; Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher & Ortiz, 2010) that over identification of learning disabilities among subgroups, such as Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos, is a persistent problem in the educational system. Being of a language minority is a predictor of identification with a learning disability, especially when paired with low socioeconomic status. Thus the importance of considering the needs of the largest and fastest growing group in the nation within the context of disability and advocacy is crucial.  Parental involvement and advocacy can ameliorate the impact of overrepresentation in special needs groups and increase educational outcomes (Cohen, 2013).

Latino families in special education

Several studies have been conducted about the importance of parent collaboration, including the involvement of culturally and linguistically diverse parents. However, less has been researched about the participation in education of parents whose first language is not English and have a child with a disability. Lasky & Karge (2011), reviewed the engagement of minority parents of children with disabilities in school, the requirements under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) for parent participation. Parental involvement is more likely to occur with an open and friendly school climate.  Their study found that collaborative involvement depends on parents being aware of the importance of their participation, in addition to understanding the laws that protect and enable them to be an active participant in their child’s school experience.  Becoming active advocates in their children’s education has become a need for Latino parents, especially those who have children with disabilities.

Advocacy of Latino families and communication barriers with school personnel

Cross-cultural misunderstandings and preconceptions of school personnel may lead to parental withdrawal and generate obstacles to implementing effective collaboration tools between education stakeholders.  Research states the importance of involving parents in all aspects of the decision-making process by school staff (Lasky & Karge, 2011). Parent advocacy requires specific skills, understanding of the process, and attitudes. Linguistic differences, cultural beliefs about disability, and deference to educators as experts, affects Latino parents’ approach and involvement in Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meetings, and school-home interactions.  Lasky and Karge (2011), found that Latino parents perceived that communication styles affect their success as advocates. As per the study, the parents felt that teachers were not receptive to parents that are demanding and hold teachers accountable for implementing the IEP.  They also measured their advocacy success with their level of understanding and access to resources and information.  Additionally, socio economic status (SES) was reported as an important factor in the school’s approach to parents of children with special needs, exceeding the importance of cultural differences.  Research has shown (Harry, 2008) that although culture should be taken into consideration when writing IEPs and planning for children’s education, it is important to understand that belonging to a group does not necessarily dictate cultural practices.  Preconceptions and biases by teachers and school personnel have been reported as interfering factors in establishing positive and effective communication channels with culturally and linguistically diverse parents (CLD).

Latino families: Access to diagnosis and treatment

In a study conducted by Magana, Lopez, Aguinaga & Morton (2013), comparing Latino and non-Latino White mothers of children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), results showed that Latino children were diagnosed at least one year later than White children.  Both group noticed differences in their child’s development and behavior at the same time, reporting to health specialists during the same timeframe.  However, Latino mothers reported having less resources and access to second opinions thus delaying their child’s access to evaluation and services.  Latino mothers also reported a lower level of knowledge than non-Latino White mothers regarding their child’s disability. White mothers generally reported having received more information from health care professionals and support groups than Latino parents. Based on these knowledge differences that can impact access, Latino children were less likely to receive early intervention and special education government funded services. In addition, White children with ASD were more likely to receive additional services such as recreation, psychological, respite, and intensive therapy than their Latino counterparts. In conclusion, Latino children were diagnosed at a later age, were less likely to receive early intervention services, and had more unmet needs than non-Latino White children.  It is important to note that Latino mothers that participated in this study had lower educational levels that the White mothers participating, which in turn may have affected the results of the study.

Advocacy programs for Latino families

The increasing proliferation and importance of advocacy programs in the United States have gradually provided more access to groups that teach, advocate for, and support parents of children with disabilities.  However, none of these programs are targeting Latino families. Yet,  Burke, Magana, Garcia, & Mello (2016), found that Latino families that participated in an advocacy program designed to assist the needs of this group, demonstrated significant increase in empowerment, stronger relationships between family and school, and higher levels of knowledge in special education. Specifically, forty participants from Latino families with children with ASD between the ages of 3 to 19 years of age participated in an advocacy program.  At the end of the intervention phase, Latino families reported higher levels of educational knowledge and empowerment.  Increased knowledge of special education and services was also reported.  As a result, families felt enabled to become better advocates to their children with disabilities.

Other difficulties encountered by Latino families revolve around language barriers. During IEP meetings, documentation is provided mainly in English and the educational jargon used in these meetings further relegate Spanish-speaking families to listening roles. In addition, as previously discussed in this report, Latino families are less likely to have adequate information about their child’s disability and accessibility to services (Magana et al., 2013).

Conclusions and Limitations

The families of children with disabilities often face many challenges related to their child’s unique needs. When raising a child with special needs, parents need to undertake additional tasks such as learning about their child’s disability, finding resources for services, and advocating in school to ensure that their child’s needs are met. Latino families have the additional task of having to overcome potential language barriers and cultural differences. Failure to overcome these barriers may hinder their ability to effectively advocate for their children.

Several studies have concluded that Latino children have less access to services, report lower levels of knowledge, and have more unmet educational needs.  The importance of developing and implementing advocacy programs targeting minority groups such as the Latino community, is instrumental in improving the educational outcomes of children with disabilities within this community.  Additional studies should be conducted isolating socio-economic factors like levels of education and income from the cultural and language factors, to be able to present results that are directly related to this group as a culture. These confounding variables can represent a limitation to the results of the reviewed studies.

References

Bureau, U. C. S. (2010, October 5). American FactFinder – results. Retrieved November 28, 2016, from http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., Trent, S. C., Osher, D., & Ortiz, A. (2010). Justifying and explaining Disproportionality, 1968-2008: A critique of underlying views of culture. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 279–299.

Burke, M. M., Magana, S., Garcia, M., Mello, M. P., 2016. Brief Report: The Feasibility and Effectiveness of an Advocacy Program for Latino Families of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46:2532-2538.

Cohen, S. R. (2013). Advocacy for the “Abandonados”: Harnessing cultural beliefs for Latino families and their children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 10(1), 71–78.

Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality.Exceptional Children, 74(3), 372-388.

Lasky, B., & Karge, B. D. (2011). Involvement of language minority parents of children with disabilities in their child’s school achievement.Multicultural Education, 18(3), 29-34.

Magaña, S., Lopez, K., Aguinaga, A., & Morton, H. (2013). Access to diagnosis and treatment services among Latino children with autism spectrum disorders. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51(3), 141-53.

D., Muller, C., & Callahan, R. (2010). Disproportionality and learning disabilities: Parsing apart race, socioeconomic status, and language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(3), 246–257.

Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317–334.

 

About the Author

Pilar Villegas was born and raised in Colombia, and came to the United Stated in 1999.  She is the proud mother of three young adults. Her work with special needs students started in 2005, mostly in the area of Autism.  Currently, Ms. Villegas is the Autism Coach at a cluster site for children with autism in Broward County.  Her article in this edition of the Special Educator e Journal was written as part of her Masters Degree in Special Education.

Parent-School Collaboration: A Driving Force for Success in Special Education – – Literature Review By Kellecia West

By Kellecia West

Abstract

Parent-School collaboration is one of the most significant contributors to improved student achievement in Special Education. When parents are involved in their child’s education, the students tend to be more successful and their attitude towards learning is reflected in a positive manner.Despite the many benefits that parent-school collaboration hold, it is often not exercised or put into practice. As a result, the education system continues to fall into the downward spiral of poor parent- school relationship, overrepresentation of minority groups and academic failures. Lack of parental participation may lead to inappropriate and unsound educational programs for students with disabilities. The dynamics of a sustainable parent -school collaboration can offer many benefits. Such collaborations can help to foster improved relationships between the home and the school, and help the child within the learning environment.

Introduction

The role of the family cannot be undermined within the educational process. Family involvement plays a pivotal part in the dynamics of learning. Parents and school have the most direct and lasting impact on a child’s learning and development. When parents and school collaborate effectively, students achieve more, exhibit more positive attitudes and behavior, and feel more comfortable in their learning environment. A collaborative parent-school relationship is based on mutual respect, to include an understanding each other’s perspectives and realities.  The dynamics of a sustainable parent -school collaboration can offer many benefits. Such collaborations can help to foster improved relationships between the home and the school, and help the child within the learning environment. Sometimes, it can be a very challenging task to parent a child or children with a disability. The parents may be faced with various strains associated with caring for that child or the children with the disability. Collaborating with these parents to become informed advocates is the key; as it will empower them to get all the help needed to become pioneers in their child’s life. Without a doubt, sometimes it can be a challenge to establish a positive communication between parents and school. Factors such has language differences, availability of time, culture and beliefs can pose a challenge when trying to build a cohesive school-home relationship. Despite these and many other challenges, it is of utmost importance that these bridges are mend, whereby developing a positive and good communication.

Despite the many benefits that parent-school collaboration hold, it is often not exercised or put into practice. As a result, the education system continues to fall into the downward spiral of poor parent- school relationship, overrepresentation of minority groups and academic failures. Lack of parental participation may lead to inappropriate and unsound educational programs for students with disabilities. Ineffective communication between parents and teachers can also become major obstacle when trying to create a wholesome learning environment that caters for the needs of students. For the purpose of this Literature Review, the topic that will be covered is: “Parent- School Collaboration: A driving force for success in Special Education”. As a part of this topic, I will seek to highlight the benefits of Parent- School collaborations and innovative strategies that can be explored to foster Parent-School collaboration. It  is envisioned that through the exploration of this topic many schools and administrative personnel will seek to embrace parent- school collaboration and use it as a key strategy to empower change in Special Education. It is also envisioned that this information can be used to assist schools and policymakers in decision-making matters related to parental involvement in schools, provide missing links between parents and schools, increase awareness for all stakeholders, and add to the literature on parental involvement.

 

Literature Review

Perspectives and Analysis

Without a doubt, Parent- School collaboration is one of the most significant contributors to improved student achievement in Special Education. When parents are involved in their child’s education, the students tend to be more successful and their attitude towards learning is reflected in a positive manner. With the enactment of various laws protecting the rights of children with disability, parental involvement stand at its hallmark and many school personnel have moved towards improved parental involvement because they have seen the results that such collaboration can hold for the development and academic functioning of these children. Schools that foster a positive parent- school relationship have better reputations in the community and tend to experience better community support. Likewise, school programs that encourage and involve parents usually do better; as it is supported by the parents and the school community. Parents and school collaboration can hold many profound benefits to students, parents and the school. Often times, students with disabilities may feel alienated from the norms of the general education classroom. With improved parental involvement and parent-school collaboration, these students’ self-esteem will blossom and will gradually display a positive attitude towards school. Children from diverse cultural backgrounds tend to do better when parents and school work together to create a wholesome learning environment that appeals to how they learn; and employing cultural responsive practices to help them in the classroom environment.

 

It is important that educators understand that education is entwined in various disciplines and that the key to successful outcomes in education is parent- school collaboration. In a research conducted by Burke (2013), the researcher postulates that parents of students with disabilities often encounter difficulties navigating the special education system. The researcher iterated that lack of parental- school collaboration can result in “inappropriate and unsound educational” programs for students with disabilities. Often times, parents may feel a sense of inadequacy which may constitute to a tremendous obstacle to facilitating parent–school collaboration. Parental involvement also influences other, more indirect factors, which in turn improve student academic achievement. Within the framework of the research, two key strategies were explored as a means to help parents to become advocates in the life of their children. These includes the use of Special Education Advocacy Training (SEAT) and the Volunteer Advocacy

Project (VAP). As stated by the researcher, the “SEAT and VAP advocacy trainings are important first steps in understanding and improving parent–school collaboration in special education. By preparing advocates to assist parents in both securing FAPE for their children with disabilities as well as working collaboratively with the school, advocacy trainings offer one way to improve the parent–school relationship.”

 

Parent- school collaboration also plays an important role in the pre-referral intervention team (PIT) process. PITs is collaborative in nature and  utilizes group problem solving to attend to the needs of the struggling child in the general education setting before consideration of a more restrictive environment. Although the PIT process is widely used, and they represent a promising model in which home–school collaboration can offer great results for struggling learners, very few studies have examined parental involvement in PITs and little is known about the rates of parental participation in PIT processes.  Few studies to date have investigated the relationship between participation and PIT process quality or student outcome. Many researchers have examined PITs and its role, but most studies have focused directly on student outcomes.

In a study conducted by Chen & Gregory (2011), the role of parental participation in the PIT process was examined. Data gathered from the research revealed that when parents were involved in the PIT meetings, there was a decreased likelihood of referral for special education evaluation. As a result, the children were better placed in appropriate interventions where needed, instead of being placed in special education programs that didn’t quite fit their need. Chen & Gregory (2011), “suggest that parent presence at PIT meetings, and the associated provision of a home component to interventions, is related to the PIT team recommending interventions that better address the scope of the child’s difficulties.”

 

Varying cultural complexity is found in modern-day families and may impact the education and services provided to students with disability. Families of different culture may hold conflicting values, norms, customs and practices which may impact the services they choose to accept or the services that may be provided to them.

The disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic minorities in special education and the inequities in educational opportunities are among some of the trending issues impacting the educational system. When a careful examination is made of today’s world, minorities and cultural diversity goes hand in hand. Similarly, students from some racial and ethnic minority backgrounds are more likely to be disproportionately placed in special education programs and classes; impacting the education and services provided to these students. Also, a family’s culture may influence their belief system,  and may not readily accept special services that are provided for a disabled member of their household; which will therefore impact and limit the services provided to that student with disability. A family’s culture may influence the language they speak and may pose a challenge as they enter a new culture that speaks a different language.  Due to diversity in language, these parents may not readily communicate factors affecting their disabled child and as a result may impact the education and services that are provided to them. Parent- school collaboration brings family and school together, making it easier to provide students with the services they need; while bridging gaps that culture and diversity may create.

 

In a study conducted by Griner & Stewart(2013), teachers are implored to use culturally responsive teaching practices to bridge the achievement gap and disproportionality in special education. When the school and the teachers work closely with parents, they can better understand the students, and by extension use culturally responsive teaching practices that appeal to the learning of diverse culture. From the research conducted if was evident that culturally responsive practices in schools and classrooms can be used as an effective means of addressing the achievement gap as well as the disproportionate representation of racially, culturally, ethnically, and lin­guistically diverse students(RCELD) in programs serving students with special needs- Griner & Stewart(2013). Schools and teachers who have adopted a culturally responsive pedagogy have the ability to act as change agentsin their schools to help bridge the divide and encourage more equitable schooling experiences for RCELD students. To fulfill the characteristics of Culturally Responsive Teaching, educators need to use various strategies and tools, and implement curricula to meet the needs of their students, especially those coming from RCELD backgrounds. The school must also seek out and include the “voices of parents, community members, and other cultural experts and stakeholders”, to understand how to meet the needs of the children represented within their schools and communities.

 

In a study conducted by Hedeen, Moses & Peter (2011), meaningful parent-educator collaboration is encouraged. Within this study, a review of various literature relating to parent-school collaboration was discussed and analyzed. The data gathered from the study was “consistent, positive and convincing: families have a major influence on their children’s achievement in school and through life.” Despite the many benefits that parent-school collaboration holds, schools may often restrict participation opportunities, perhaps unwittingly channeling great potential energy to lighter tasks. Parent involvement is determined in large part by parent motivation and schools need to provide various opportunities for parents to feel valued and play and integral role in school activities. Within the study, it was noted that the parents of children with special needs complained that “they had not been informed or given suggestions until it was too late”. Communication is the key, and it must be done within a timely manner so that parents can be in tuned with various school developments and activities; whereby maintaining a meaningful parent-school relationship. As a part of the collaborative process, all stakeholder must initiate a deeper partnership between families and schools, but all involved must work to sustain it.

Conclusion

Recommendations/Suggestions

Parent- school collaboration is an integral part of the teaching and learning process. It motivates students to learn and brings the family within the learning environment. It is vitally important that all stake holders play their part if sustainable parent- school collaboration is to be initiated and maintained. Identified below are specific recommendations that can be used to foster parent- school collaboration and maintain positive relationship between the home and the school.

 

Training goes a long way in helping parents to understand various challenges that their child may face. The school can offer support to the parents by helping them to learn about issues relating to their child’s needs or disability, to include ways they can foster a positive parent-school relationship. The parents of a child who has a disability may undertake many roles that are unlike the roles typically associated with parenting. The roles of being an advocate and a Case Manager are two roles these parents may assume. As an advocate, that parent will be responsible for lobbying for the best and key interest of the child. So that parent will need to ensure that all the benefits and care under the various “acts” are being accessed by their child. As a case manager, the parent will have to ensure that services to include educational, medical, transportation, accessibility and other related services for the purpose of communicating and coordinating the care of his or her child are being accessed. By assuming these roles and many others, the parents can be assured that the individualized needs of the child is being met and that the child’s best interests are also placed on the forefront. Without a doubt, the school can collaborate with the parent on this regard so the will be able to manage key issues relating to their child.

It is highly recommended that teachers employ culturally responsive practices; whereby building a positive parent- school relationship with families of diverse cultures.  By being culturally responsive, teachers will seek to incorporate various strategies and techniques to accommodate diversity in the classroom; whereby making the lessons culturally interactive and appealing. Cultural differences and cultural dynamics are always at play in the classroom. Children within the classroom setting may come from different backgrounds. Barriers in communication and diversity in culture can create bridges, paving gaps between parents and the school. It is highly recommended that teachers embark on initiatives to be familiar with the families of their students. When teachers have a better understanding of the student’s family setting, they can better plan for the needs of the child. Communication is the key to any fruitful relationship, hence it is essential that parents find innovative ways to foster positive communication between the home and the school.  In the event where families may face challenges with language; the school community must seek solutions to this barrier so communication can be encouraged.

It is important that parents feel valued as key components of the teaching-learning process; and one such way that this can be developed is by incorporating them in the planning of specific school activities. Schools can organize various parent conferences and parent-teacher meeting to get the inputs of parents. School personnel can also organize various school wide activities to get parents involved. When parents are valued, they contribute more to the school and by extension their child’s overall academic achievements. Research suggest that students perform at a higher level when parents-school collaboration is present. Communication is a two-way process, and parents also have a pivotal part to play in the collaborative process. Parents need to be involved in their child’s academic life. Parents can also become active members of the Parent Teachers Association-PTA and school outreach programs.

Without a doubt, parent- school collaboration is a driving force for success in Special Education. By bridging the gaps and building positive relationships, we can help children succeed. Parent- school collaboration also acts as  an instrumental mode through which the school and the family can work towards the academic growth and development of the child. It open doors that allows parents to better understand the needs of their children; noting ways and strategies that can be used to help their children succeed. It fosters a greater awareness of factors affecting children with disabilities and forges bounds needed to help parents help them within the home setting. Parents-School Collaboration: Teacher, parents and the school administration should seek to employ various strategies to foster and maintain parents-school collaboration so that success can be achieved in Special Education.

 

References

Adams, S.K., & Baronberg, J. (2005). Positive Behavior: Guidance Strategies for Early          Childhood Settings. Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall

Burke, M. (2013). Improving Parental Involvement: Training Special Education Advocates. Retrieved on November 20, 2016 from fiu.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-5036742-dt-content-rid-48815840_1/courses/1168-EEX6756XDB1168_msspeol98244/PDF%27s/6848%20Disability%20Advocacy%20Improving%20Parental%20Involvement%20Training%20Special%20Education%20Advocates.pdf

Chen, W., & Gregory, A. (2011). Parental involvement in the prereferral process: Implications for schools. Remedial and Special Education, 32(6), 447-457. Retrieved from ezproxy.fiu.edu/login=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/docview/964178622?accountid=10901

Griner, A. C., & Stewart, M. L. (2013). Addressing the achievement gap and disproportionality through the use of culturally responsive teaching practices. Urban Education, 48(4), 585-621. Retrieved from ezproxy.fiu.edu/login=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/docview/1509085370?accountid=10901

Hedeen, T., Moses, P., & Peter, M. (2011). Encouraging meaningful Parent/Educator collaboration: A review of recent literature Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE). P.O. Box 51360, Eugene, OR 97405-0906. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fiu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/docview/1312421274?accountid=10901

Perry A. Zirkel

© March 2017

This monthly legal alert provides, in the usual format of a two-column table, highlights (on the left) and practical implications (on the right) of major new legal developments.  To sign up to automatically receive these monthly alerts, go to perryzirkel.com

 

1.  The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on Feb. 22, 2017 that demarcated the scope of the IDEA’s exhaustion provision, which concerns whether parents must complete the impartial hearing process before proceeding in court.
In Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools (2017), the Supreme Court held that when the parents file suit on behalf of their child with a disability under the Constitution, Section 504, or the ADA, exhaustion is necessary when the “gravamen,” or crux, of their claim is denial of FAPE.	This decision is another one of the Supreme Court’s modern IDEA rulings that were about the adjudicative process (e.g., who has the burden of proof and whether the parents may proceed in federal court without an attorney) rather than the special education process.  Yet, it is practically significant because it tends to make it easier to file lawsuits under Section 504 and the ADA on behalf of students with disabilities.  In contrast, at the immediately lower level in this case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals required exhaustion based on the broader barrier requiring exhaustion where the complained-of-harms were educational in nature.
The focus is the substance of the complaint, even if it does not expressly refer to “FAPE,” “IEP,” or other such magic words.  Three indicators of the exhaustion gravamen are: The parents could not have brought essentially the same claim if the alleged conduct had occurred at public facility that was not a public school. An adult (e.g., an employee) at the school could not have pressed the same grievance. The parents started mediation or filed for a due process hearing before switching midstream to invoke the court process.	The parents in this case filed suit in federal court under the ADA, without first exhausting the impartial hearing process under the IDEA, concerning school access for the service dog of their child with severe cerebral palsy.  The first two indicators contributed to their argument that the exhaustion provision did not apply, but the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court to determine the answer to the third indicator, which was not clear in the record.  The odds are more likely than not that the parents did not first initiate the IDEA’s dispute resolution procedures, thus exemplifying the narrower barrier from direct litigation than the one that had stopped them at the lower court.
This Court left for another day the issue of whether exhaustion is required if the gravamen of the complaint is denial of FAPE but the parents specifically requests the remedy of money damages for physical or emotional distress.	Here, the parents sought not only declaratory relief, but also money damages for their child’s emotional distress. If they avoid exhaustion, which is likely, the reserved issue will not apply to them, but it causes further exhaustion litigation for parents who seek this relief for what in substance is a denial of FAPE claim.

 

 

2.   In the absence of a second major legal development during the past four weeks, this month’s Alert provides the attached Section 504 eligibility form, which may be customized for local use with due acknowledgment per the asterisked note at the bottom of the form.
This form includes grey and blue-green highlighting reflecting the successive relevant refinements of the ADAAA of 2008 and the subsequent ADAAA Title II regulations, which became effective in the fall of 2016.  Although useful for professional development, the highlighting should be removed as one of the customizations for local use in eligibility determinations under Section 504 and its sister statute, the ADA.	The highlighting reveals a successive liberalization of the standards for eligibility, specifically with regard to the second and third essential elements—major life activities and substantial.  Nevertheless, certain caveats and limitations are suggested: • the “record of” and “regarded as” prongs provide protection from discriminatory exclusions, including procedural safeguards for disciplinary changes in placement, but that do not serve as an entitlement for a 504 plan • the exclusion of mitigating measures for determining eligibility (specifically, the “substantial” element) but their inclusion in determining the subsequent FAPE contents of the 504 plan may mean an effective reduction or, in some cases, elimination of services and/or accommodations.
The form at the top reminds users of the need for a knowledgeable team, although not necessarily as numerous or specific as the roles of an IDEA eligibility team, for this determination.  Moreover, a procedural safeguards notice, similarly more streamlined than its IDEA counterpart, that conforms to the applicable Section 504 regulation (34 C.F.R. § 104.36) should accompany this form upon its implementation.  Probably the most significant ingredient of the procedural safeguards notice is that the parents have the right to an impartial hearing for identification, evaluation, and placement, which—depending on the state—is often separate from the IDEA’s impartial hearing process.	The publications list on my website included the citations and, where copyright allows, copies of various relevant articles, such as the following examples: •    Zirkel, P. (2012). Impartial hearings for public school students under Section 504: A state-by-state survey. West’s Education Law Reporter, 279(1), 1–17 Zirkel, P., & Weathers, J.M. (2016). K–12 students eligible solely under Section 504: Updated national incidence data. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 27(2), 67–75. Zirkel, P. (2016). Impartial hearings under Section 504. West’s Education Law Reporter, 332(3), 51–54.

 

 

 

Perry A. Zirkel

© March 2017

This monthly legal alert follows the usual format of a two-column table, with the highlights (on the left) and practical implications (on the right).  However, this special issue is a second one for March due to the Supreme Court’s first centrally significant IDEA decision in many years.  To sign up to automatically receive these monthly alerts, go to perryzirkel.com

1.  For the substantive dimension of FAPE under the IDEA, the Supreme Court recently issued its major decision in Endrew F. on the required substantive standard for an IEP.
On March 22, in Endrew F. v.Douglas County School District RE-1 (2016), the Supreme Court unanimously held that the substantive standard for FAPE under the IDEA is that the IEP be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Neither the parents nor district in this case conclusively won, because the Supreme Court remanded this issue to the lower court to apply this standard within the established multi-part test for tuition reimbursement, which the parents seek for their private placement of their child with autism.	According to the Court, this standard is “markedly more demanding” than the some, or more than de minimis, benefit standard of the Tenth Circuit in this case but less than the commensurate, or substantially equal, opportunity standard that the parents proposed.  It is an ad hoc, individualized standard rather than a bright-line formula.  It will mean a more careful focus on progress and, inevitably less predictability and more litigation until the lower courts moderate this growth by developing the multiple factors for application of this standard.
Although retaining the flexibility and deference of Rowley, at a more nuanced level the Endrew F. Court further emphasized the role of parents in the IEP process, observing that (a) “this fact-intensive exercise will be informed not only by the expertise of school officials, but also by the input of the child’s parents” and (b) judicial deference to school authorities will depend on their having provided parents in the IEP process with the opportunity to “fully air their … opinion[] on the requisite degree of  progress” and, upon dispute resolution in cases of disagreement, to provide “a cogent and responsive explanation” of the district’s IEP decision.	For the parallel increased weighting of role of parental participation on the procedural side of FAPE in both in the 2004 amendments and the subsequent case law, see the following article: •  Zirkel, P. A. (2016). Parental participation: The paramount procedural requirement under the IDEA? Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, 15, 1–36. In any event, these Endrew F. Court comments, or “dicta,” are—in addition to its substantive ruling—likely to further increase the amount and moderate the pro-district outcomes trend of FAPE litigation.
2.For the procedural dimension of FAPE, the part of the lower court’s ruling in Endrew F. that was not on appeal serves as a reminder of the continuing case law trend that shows the difference between professional best practice and judicial requirements for FBAs and BIPs when the child’s behavior impedes the learning of the child or other children.
The unchanged Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Endrew F. illustrated the two-part, harmless-error approach regarding FBAs and BIPs as procedural FAPE issues.  In the more recent examples of and the more recent, lower court examples of Department of Education v. Leo W. (2016) and C.M. v. New York City Department of Education (2017), federal district courts ruled the lack of an FBA or BIP in the IEP of a child with disabilities who exhibited the requisite learning-impeding behavior was a harmless procedural violation not amounting to denial of FAPE where the IEP as a whole, including its behavior-related provisions, met the substantive standard for FAPE.	Two recent articles provide more comprehensive analyses of this continuing and rather consistent district-deferential trend: • Collins, L.W., & Zirkel, P. A. (2017). Functional behavior assessments and behavior intervention plans: Legal requirements and professional recommendations. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. doi: 0.1177/1098300716682201 •  Zirkel, P. (2017). An update of judicial rulings specific to FBAs or BIPs under the IDEA or corollary state laws. Journal of Special Education. doi:10.1177/0022466917693386 Thus, a fuller view of Endrew F. serves as a reminder of the interrelated procedural and substantive sides of FAPE in the IEP process and resulting litigation.

Special Education Teacher

Chandler Arizona

Job Category: SPED Teacher Positions

Description:

Provide individualized instruction to all Special Education Students based on service needs identified in students’ Individualized Education Plan. Maintain compliance on all Special Education paperwork.

Essential Duties and Responsibilities:

• Meets and instructs assigned students at designated locations and specific times.
• Creates a classroom environment that is conducive to learning and appropriate to the maturity and interests of the students.
• Encourages students to set and maintain standards of classroom behavior.
• Guides the learning process toward the achievement of curriculum goals and–in harmony with the goals–establishes clear objectives for all lessons, units, projects and the like. Communicates these objectives to students.
• Employs a variety of instructional techniques and instructional media; consistent with the physical limitations of the provided location and the needs and capabilities of the individuals involved.
• Strives to implement, by instruction and action, the district’s philosophy of education and instructional goals and objectives.
• Assesses the accomplishments of students on a regular basis and provides progress reports as required.
• Recognizes and evaluates the learning and other disabilities of students on a regular basis; seeks the assistance or referral of district specialists as required.
• Maintains accurate, complete, and correct records as required by law, district policy, and administrative regulation.
• Makes provision for being available to students and parents for education-related purposes outside the instructional day when required or requested to do so under reasonable terms.
• Maintain compliance on all Special Education paperwork.
• Create and maintain a service schedule for all SPED Students.
• Create a service schedule for all SPED Students.
• Create and maintain a service schedule for all Special Ed Aides (if applicable).
• Manage caseload of up to 28 Special Education students.
• Communicate effectively with parents on student progress.
• Write IEP’s for all Special Education Students on caseload.
• Complete all evaluations (initial and re-eval) for all Students.
• Performs other necessary duties as assigned.
• Bachelors degree in education
• Current Arizona SPED Teaching Certificate
• Must be highly-qualified in subject area (Cross-Categorical Special Education Teaching Certificate)
• Arizona Department of Public Safety Fingerprint Clearance Card

Qualifications:

• Bachelors degree in education
• Current Arizona SPED Teaching Certificate
• Must be highly-qualified in subject area (Cross-Categorical Special Education Teaching Certificate)
• Arizona Department of Public Safety Fingerprint Clearance Card

Application Procedure:

Apply Online – careers.legacytraditional.org

Salary:

From $38,000 DOE (FT Annual Salary)

Contact:

hr@legacytraditional.org
480-270-5438

 

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

 

Special Education Teacher

Rochester, NY

Job Category: Special Education Teacher

DESCRIPTION

Since 1949, our client has been serving children with multiple and complex disabilities that public and private schools aren’t able to accommodate. By providing a safe and nurturing environment and expert staff, children are learning and growing everyday.

We are currently sourcing for professional, compassionate and motivated Certified Teachers to join this growing education team.

Ideal candidates will have certification from the State Education Department to teach children with special needs.

Direct Hire– $38,474 (10 months) – $44,598 (12 months)
242 working days per year, enjoy holidays and school breaks off.
Hours: Monday-Friday 8:45a-4:00p

QUALIFICATIONS

Bachelor’s degree (B. A. or B. S.) from a four-year college or university required. Six (6) months to one (1) year related experience and/or training; or equivalent combination of education and experience.
Must be certified by the State Education Department to teach children with special needs.
Must be able to pass a Drug Test and Criminal Background check

BENEFITS

Standard Medical/Dental and vacation

CONTACT

Brian Harding 585-698-1016
info@tesstaffing.com

 

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

 

Teacher-Various Positions – $2300-$4400/Month

Istanbul, Turkey

Job Category: Special Education, Early Childhood, Primary, Middle School

Description:

All positions are for Sept. 2017-2018 Academic year.
We are a top job placement company in Turkey.
We are fulfilling vacancies in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Vietnam, and Portugal.

We require, Special Education teacher, Mathematics Teacher, English teacher, Physics Teacher, Design Teacher, IT teacher, Music Teacher, Principal, Curriculum coordinator, V. Principal, Student Counselor, French teacher, Early childhood teacher, Humanities teacher.

Teachers must have a minimum of bachelor’s degree in education.

Teachers must have more than two years of teaching experience in the relevant subject.

We do not collect any fees from teachers.

Requirements:

• Bachelor’s degree in Special Education
• Ability to obtain Mild/Moderate Certificate.
• Ability to teach Kindergarten, Primary, Middle.
• 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.
• Salary range from $2300-$4400 USD net/month
• Fully Furnished Apartment
• Round trip airfare once a year
• Airfare from Destination to Istanbul
• Baggage Allowance
• Renewal contract bonus
• Private Medical insurance
• Work/Residence permit
• Full year round pay with summer off

Benefits:

• Salary range from $2300-$4400 USD net/month
• Fully Furnished Apartment
• Round trip airfare once a year
• Airfare from Destination to Istanbul
• Baggage Allowance
• Renewal contract bonus
• Private Medical insurance
• Work/Residence permit
• Full year round pay with summer off

Contact:

Mr. Shan Haider
Head of Consulting
Prudential First Education

Please email your resume/CV to career@prudentialfirst.com

A picture on resume/cv would be a bonus

For available vacancies detail please visit
https://www.prudentialfirst.com/apply_for_jobs

 

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

 

Special Education Teachers for NYC P-TECH Schools

New York, NY

Job Category: Special Education Teacher

Description:

The NYC P-TECH schools are six-year high schools (spanning grades 9 through 14) where students have the opportunity to earn a high school diploma, an Associate degree—at no cost—and work experience in a growing industry field. Through a program designed in collaboration with industry and college partners, NYC P-TECH schools redefine traditional school experiences for students by seamlessly integrates rigorous academics, college coursework, and career exploration for personal growth.

Requirements:

We’re looking for candidates who are passionate about making college and careers a reality for all students! NYC P-TECH staff members are eager to be part of a cross-disciplinary professional learning community that includes their college and industry counterparts. Our schools support learners from all backgrounds and seek educators who can meet students where they are through effective teaching styles using technology, their colleagues, and their community. Our schools seek individuals who will be proactively involved in the development of the school’s unique design and development, from its sequence of courses to the work-place learning component.

Benefits:

Working for a P-TECH School is an experience that no other educational institution could possibly offer. We are looking for experienced, educated, innovative, and forward thinking teachers with a passion for youth development.

Contact:

Are You a Match? Find out by applying to our speed-interviewing event, where qualified candidates will be selected to interview with principals, faculty and staff based on their content area.

 

In order to be considered for this opportunity, please follow these instructions:

1)     Submit your application at this link: https://goo.gl/forms/hfgH0wU8AxnHSjQF2
2) Submit your resume to nycptechschools@gmail.com by April 1st, 2017.
Applications received without a resume submission will not be considered.

 

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

Arizona: Special Education Teacher

Phoenix metropolitan area, Arizona

Job Category: Special Education Teacher

Description:

$46,000/school year (180 days). Summers off with year round pay. Special Education Teachers needed in Arizona (Phoenix and surrounding cities). Needs are in the self-contained and resource settings serving students with emotional disabilities (ED), Autism (A), Severe/Profound (S/P), and Intellectual Disabilities (ID). STARS is the largest school contract agency in AZ. STARS is owned and operated by Occupational Therapists. You will be an employee and receive full benefits (see below). With a proven track record, STARS is able to offer you an unbeatable support system and resources. STARS is hiring for the 2017-2018 school year. STARS places Special Education Teachers throughout the Phoenix, Tucson and the surrounding area public schools.

Requirements:

Certification through the AZDOE, in Special Education. Arizona Fingerprint Card through AZDPS. We will help you get the credentials needed and reimburse you for the cost.

Benefits:

Salary: $46,000/school year, based on 180 days. STARS also offers a fantastic benefit package including: 16 weeks off, 100% Company paid Health, Dental, Vision, and Life Insurance, $1,000/year Continuing Ed Money, Paid DOE Certification Fees, Paid NASET Dues, Spanish Immersion trip, Hawaii Trip for two, 401K, 125 Plan, Direct Deposit, Evaluation tools and treatment supplies, Two company sponsored parties with professional entertainment, Company newsletter, STARS sponsored dinner meetings with national/local speakers, Yearly raises, Referral bonuses, Moving $, Birthday gifts and other appreciation throughout the year, Genuine Appreciation. YOU WILL FEEL LIKE A STAR!!!

Contact:

Brian Paulsen, COO #480.221.2573; Please email your resume to Jobs@StudentTherapy.com; Apply Online at StudentTherapy.com, we would love to hear from you!

 

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

 

Special Education Teacher

Kotzebue, Alaska

Job Category: Special Ed. EBD, CI, VI, ECE, El, Sec.

Description:

Provide special education services in small community/ies in northwest Alaska. Work with team, complete required paperwork, follow IEPs, assist with assessments.

Requirements:

• Masters in Special Education preferred.
• EBD/Autism or VI endorsement preferred.
• Child and Special Education focused
• Supportive of District and Team Staff
• Lifting 50+ pounds
• Walking in Extreme Weather.
• Salary DOE
• Housing Allowance
• Travel Assistance to Site
• PD Specific to IEPs District/State Requirements
• Mentors
• IEP assistance and support

Benefits:

• Salary DOE
• Housing Allowance
• Travel Assistance to Site
• PD Specific to IEPs District/State Requirements
• Mentors
• IEP assistance and support

Contact:

Terry Martin,
Director, Human Resources

Cheryl Schweigert,
Director, Special Programs
Email:cschweigert@nwarctic.org
Telephone: 907-442-1815

 

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

 

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

Education and 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

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

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 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”.