|
Working Together for Special Education
By Lynne Hamer and Willie
McKether
Guest Column
Throughout its short
history, as chronicled in this column, “Community
Conversations” has focused on the achievement gap between
students of color and white students in both K-12 and
postsecondary education.
While we make no claim
that Special Education accounts for the gap, it deserves
attention as a potent contributing factor in K-12 education,
particularly when research shows that children of color are
often over-diagnosed into particular types of special
education categories, such as “emotional behavior disorder.”
Here, we see an important
opportunity for action that needs to involve all
stakeholders in schools: parents, community members,
teachers, administrators, and students.
At our November 23
meeting, D.L. Adams, Ph.D, shared extensive knowledge about
special education laws and practice. Adams recently received
a doctoral degree
in Special Education, Disability Studies, and Gender Studies
from Syracuse University in New York, and has been a
participant in Community Conversations for over a year.
Adams’s research interests are in the critical study of
special education, as well as school-to-prison pipeline, the
over-representation of kids of color in special education,
supporting LGBTQ students in schools and school-wide
behavior management.
Adams explained how since the passage of public law “PL
194-142” in 1975, our country has guaranteed the right to
free and appropriate education designed to promote progress
for all students with disabilities.
PL 194-142 was later revised and renamed The Individuals
with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Reauthorized and amended in
2004, IDEA “applies to children who have particular
disabilities which affect the child’s learning, from
preschool aged children to young adults, age 21.”
“Under the IDEA,” Adams explained, “children are entitled to
an education designed to produce educational progress (not
the best possible education).” “Progress” instead of “best”
can set a low threshold of expectation. This has meant that
parents have regularly, across the country, had to advocate
for their children to receive the best education they can
have.
The referral of a child to be considered for special
education, and an initial evaluation of the child including
numerous tests, starts the process. A child might be
referred by a parent/guardian or by a teacher.
Adams emphasized that it is important for the
parent/guardian to be receive a thorough understanding of
the tests and results. Nationally, however, “that is the
problem: they don’t. When they get the test results, they
are supposed to have someone there to help them interpret,
but they don’t.”
How that education will take place is determined in the
student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP), which, Adams
explained, is a legally binding contract. “The IEP is a
written statement between the parent and the district that
specifies the specially designed instruction, related
services, accommodations, modifications and supports that a
school will provide for a student with a disability.”
Most important, according to Adams, is that the process for
the IEP must by law involve the parent or guardian in making
the plan. That is why the IEP team must by law include
the parent/guardian of the child, at least one of the
child’s regular education teachers, at least one of her/his
special education teachers, a school district representative
knowledgeable about the curriculum and available resources
and, if possible, the child her/himself.
Too often, however, the process of making the plan does not
involve the parent/guardian, let alone the child, in a
meaningful way. Again, this is a problem across the nation,
though some districts do better than others. Adams stated,
“Often the plan is made before the parent comes in [to the
IEP meeting], even though the parent is supposed to come to
the planning meetings.”
By law, Adams explained, the parent is supposed to be
notified 10 days prior to the IEP meeting, and the parent
has the right to request the meeting be rescheduled if s/he
cannot attend. Schools are supposed to tell parents that
they can participate by phone, but often schools do not.
In our conversation about Adams’s presentation, some
participants wondered how realistic it was to expect
parents’ active involvement. Others expressed that it was
entirely appropriate, and noted that in their experience, if
parents are educated about the law and made to feel welcome,
they usually attend the meetings.
General consensus held that if the IEP is supposed to be a
joint effort, it should be. Several parents present
expressed the belief that parents want to participate, and
that they should participate because they know the child
best.
Participants questioned, where do parents get knowledge
about the IEP and their roles, rights, and responsibilities?
To which Adams replied, again speaking of the general
situation nationally, “That’s the problem: they don’t.”
This conversation demonstrates the best of what can happen
when individuals
come together to freely discuss matters of common concern.
Adams provided research-based information from national,
peer-reviewed studies, that showed local concerns are not
unique to Toledo, but are concerns shared in many, many
communities and districts.
Participants who had
experience as parents or teachers or students with special
education locally and regionally were able to share with
individuals who lacked experiences. In the process, local
concerns were contextualized nationally, and national
concerns were seen at the local level, where individual
children’s futures are at stake.
Participants were
concerned that they saw our inner-city kids failing
academically, and wondered if that was because of the
lengthy evaluation process. There was also concern about
students being “passed along,” promoted from grade to grade
despite not being able to read. And throughout this all,
there was the concern that we as a society are treating some
children as “disposable kids,” not taking seriously the need
to help every child, from every community, be the best they
can be.
So, in the spirit of
moving from conversation to action, as discussed in our last
column, what do we do? The following ideas emerged from the
conversation:
Schools
could educate parent/guardians effectively about laws
regarding the creation of the IEP as a collaborative
process. Schools could assure that parent/guardians receive
help understanding what the tests say about their children’s
needs. Schools could also be sure to invite parent/guardians
to the meetings where IEPs are actually discussed and made,
with the whole team, and communicate that they believe the
parent/guardian’s insights are essential and appreciated.
Colleges of Education
could provide easily accessible information about the tests
that are used in the evaluation of students for special
education. Colleges could provide accessible instructions
for parents to interpret the results of tests. In addition,
they could provide accessible discussion of research on
cultural biases in the tests and on the reliability of tests
in assessing a child’s emotional state and ability to learn.
Community Centers
could provide materials for parent/guardians to know their
rights and responsibilities. Centers could even provide
typed form letters for parent/guardians to fill in and sign
requesting, for example, that their child receive an IEP and
making clear that they know the school is under a legal
obligation to provide the IEP within a specified time frame,
once it is requested. Centers could provide coaching for
the parent/guardian to take two signed copies of the letter
to their child’s school principal, leaving one with the
principal and getting the other date-stamped to ensure the
start of the process.
Parent/Guardians and Teachers
could work together as allies, sharing information about
what they’ve observed with the child, and strategizing how
to get needed supports. Either a parent/guardian or a
teacher could initiate this conversation. What is important
is that each communicates to the other that their input is
appreciated—and each is patient with the process, believing
in the good intentions of the other.
Citizens
could become more educated about the detrimental effects of
laws and acts, such as No Child Left Behind, that tie
teachers’ pay and job security to children’s test scores,
which can have a negative effect on children’s being
included in classrooms. Citizens could then vote for
candidates that support teacher-friendly and
student-friendly legislation. (Colleges of Education also
could provide accessible information about these matters.)
Clearly, there is
something for everyone to do. Participants agreed that part
of the time at our next “Community Conversations” will be
devoted to reviewing these ideas and discussing next steps.
This is in the spirit of
our intent to create a free and democratic space—a place
where people can try out ideas and collectively select the
ones most important to act on—as well as to develop smart
ways to act. As Martin Luther King famously observed, “We
must learn to live together as brothers or perish together
as fools.” Conversation is essential if we are to learn to
live together—and work together—for the common good of our
students, our society, and our selves.
Everyone is welcome to join in the Community Conversations,
alternate Mondays, 6:30-8:00 pm, at the Kent Branch of the
Toledo-Lucas County Public Library, 3101 Collingwood Blvd.,
Toledo. The next conversation will take place on December
7; we will then observe a winter break with conversations
resuming January 11, 2016.
The authors of this column are faculty at the University of
Toledo and facilitate the group “Community Conversations for
School Success.” Lynne Hamer, Ph.D, is professor of
Educational Foundations and Leadership and directs UT@TPS.
Willie McKether, Ph.D, is associate dean in the College of
Language, Literature and Social Science, and associate
professor of Sociology/Anthropology. Email
lynne.hamer@utoledo.edu or
willie.mckether@utoledo.edu to get on the
Community Conversations email list, or join our public
Facebook page at “Community Conversations for School Success Toledo.”
On Monday, December 7, at 6:30 our program will be “Schools
as Community Hubs.” This will provide an opportunity for
participants to learn about the valuable resources available
through the “hubs” programs at Pickett and Robinson schools,
as well as to brainstorm how the hubs can be locations for
more community conversation to occur. Please join us! |
