An inclusive environment ensures the least restrictive environment for the individual with disabilities to the greatest extent appropriate and beneficial. The major goal for inclusion is the child with disabilities integrated with children with no disabilities, receiving instruction in the general education classroom. There are many inclusive settings to support and engage children with disabilities, and teachers are committed to providing the adequate resources and supports for them. In addition, practical strategies in general education are emphasized for inclusion such as the following: using a team approach with other teachers or related professionals and supportive services, teaching acceptable classroom behaviors, and practicing and planning for being accepted socially by peers in the general education classroom. These strategies are key factors for inclusion, and must be utilized and supported being that the number of students with disabilities continues to increase, as well as the number of students placed in alternative settings.
Good Shepherd Catholic School provides two alternative services, which are the general education classrooms and resource room. “The concern is that one size does not fit all, and lumping all students with learning disabilities in the general education classroom ignores the notion of individualized instruction” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 115). Fortunately, I utilize parent volunteers for four hours, two days each week. In addition, I have an instructional aide for the entire school day of every day. As my paraprofessional helps to meet the needs of each student academically, she does not share the same philosophy for classroom management and behavioral plans. Thus, the steady and continual support for students with behavioral issues are not met and reinforced by her.
Teaching Tips 4.3 chart titled “Suggestions for Parents and Families” on page 128 provides many ways parents can strengthen their role in the educational, decision-making process of their child (Lerner & Johns, 2012). Some examples of these suggestions are to simplify complex and stimulating situations and routines, to be explicit and supportive, and to teach the importance of being a contributing member of the family, school, etc. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 128). These suggestions provide a key resource and reminder for all Catholic school parents, being that they are the primary educators of their children.
Another form of establishing healthy parental attitudes and ensuring parent-teacher communication and collaboration is parent support groups and family counseling. Support groups allow parents to relate and understand similar encounters that other families experience. In doing so, parents are reduced from the feeling of isolation and loss, and learn ways to perceive their children differently and understand their difficulties more effectively. The diocese provides workshops, adult groups, etc. to discuss, pray, learn, and be proactive about Catholic faith and today’s issues. Ultimately, supportive communities and parishes provide opportunities for families to acquire the tools to help their child meet his/her goals. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 132)
Likewise to the parent support groups, National Center for Learning Disabilities’ podcast, titled “Multiple Children, Multiple Challenges”, provides the parents’ insight of truly helping parents to embrace the family experience with children with disabilities. Parents must effectively communicate with one another to move forward for the better to help their children. Likewise to the Catholic school philosophy, parents are the primary educators. Thus, it is important for parents to look for the strengths of their children, and make a conscious effort that provides a proactive and positive environment inside and outside the home.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Activity 1.3 Ch. 3 Clinical Teaching
“What is important is the teacher’s ability to integrate feedback information and be ready to make decisions, modify the teaching plan, and be sensitive to the individual student’s interests, preferred way of learning, level of development, and personal feelings” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 79).
Clinical teaching is about effective bridging assessment and instruction in a continuous and purposeful manner. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 77). To structure clinical teaching, there are five stages within this cycle designed for the teacher to continually make decisions, differentiate instruction, apply specific, preferred strategies based on integrated feedback information, personal emotions and feelings, level of development, and interests. The five stages of the clinical teaching cycle are: (1.) assessment, (2.) planning of the teaching task, (3.) implementation of the teaching plan, (4.) evaluation of student performance, and (5.) modification of the assessment (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 78). It is important for teachers to have many strategies at their disposal to ultimately meet the needs of individual students with unique needs (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 83).
Clinical teaching uses a variety of teaching methods to effectively teach the unique child within each class. Some key methods include differentiated instruction, multiple intelligences, cognitive processing, direct instruction and mastery learning, and psychotherapeutic teaching. Psychotherapeutic teaching, for example, centers on the students feelings and building a relationship with the teacher. Building a relationship with each student has been difficult this year because many students view consequences within the classroom as the teacher being mean. The correlation of words or actions that make a student unhappy leads to them responding back rather than implementing the conflict resolution tools we role play, model, use, and practice on a daily basis. As the goal of psychotherapeutic teaching is to “let the student know that the teacher understands the problem and has confidence in the student’s ability to learn and succeed,” my students continue to view consequences for their actions as my fault (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 87). This example of many students’ viewpoints reflects the many controlling instructional variables that must be implemented as a clinical teacher.
Teachers must use careful considerations on the controlling instructional variables because they are the key factors that help lessen elements contributing to the learning problem. The controlling instructional variables are the difficulty level, space, time and language. The difficulty level of material this year has been modified for several students in my class, meeting their present performance and tolerance levels. Within the difficulty level, the concept of readiness, in particular, focuses on the maturational development being imminent for certain skills to be learned. There is a boy who turns seven-years-old next August and is maturing at much slower rate than his peers. He struggles remaining seated, listening, remaining in his body space, and talking at appropriate times. I have taught him how to use a hand-held timer, which he receives a smiley face every ten minutes that he remains seated and talks at appropriate times. Ten minutes is at his own maturational level of development being his zone of proximal development (ZPD) according to Vygotsky’s theory of development (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 87). In doing so, I am not “[e]xpecting a student to perform a task far beyond their present level,” which “can result in a complete breakdown in learning” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 87). Thus, by controlling the task difficulty for the student, the intervention shifts the internal consciousness from cognitive to habitual (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 88).
Fostering motivation for several students in my first grade class has been very difficult. Lavoie’s basic tenets of motivation pinpoints the forces of motivation these students have, such as needing friends, independence, control, recognized, have affiliations and/or belong to a group, and to know what is going on. “A healthy relationship implies compassion without over-involvement, understanding without indulgence, and a genuine concern for the student’s development.” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 90) This quote emphasizes the good rapport teachers must have with their students. I admit to the over-involvement I have with the several students with behavioral issues, and the need to be more aware of this. I plan to develop visual records of progress through charts/graphs, which makes the students conscious of their success and progress (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 92). Another strategy I plan to implement is bibliotherapy because students identify themselves with characters in books, and learn how to find resolution to the character who suffers similar problems.
“There is no magic formula for teaching a child” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 83). That quote emphasizes the need for educators to better understand the world of their children with learning disabilities. “The Social and Emotional World of Children with Learning Disabilities” podcast discusses some effective strategies and organizations to better help children with LD. Some key strategies include the following: practice the struggling material more with lots of encouragement; use role play at home to practice social interactions with family members; attend group therapy meetings with other peers with LD to instill good feelings and positive social skills, and; contact private schools and www.ld.org for more information and organizations nearby. In the end, there are no magic formulas for teaching; however, there are effective strategies, organizations, instructional methods and factors teachers must implement and use to better tailor the learning experiences for each individual’s unique needs.
Clinical teaching is about effective bridging assessment and instruction in a continuous and purposeful manner. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 77). To structure clinical teaching, there are five stages within this cycle designed for the teacher to continually make decisions, differentiate instruction, apply specific, preferred strategies based on integrated feedback information, personal emotions and feelings, level of development, and interests. The five stages of the clinical teaching cycle are: (1.) assessment, (2.) planning of the teaching task, (3.) implementation of the teaching plan, (4.) evaluation of student performance, and (5.) modification of the assessment (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 78). It is important for teachers to have many strategies at their disposal to ultimately meet the needs of individual students with unique needs (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 83).
Clinical teaching uses a variety of teaching methods to effectively teach the unique child within each class. Some key methods include differentiated instruction, multiple intelligences, cognitive processing, direct instruction and mastery learning, and psychotherapeutic teaching. Psychotherapeutic teaching, for example, centers on the students feelings and building a relationship with the teacher. Building a relationship with each student has been difficult this year because many students view consequences within the classroom as the teacher being mean. The correlation of words or actions that make a student unhappy leads to them responding back rather than implementing the conflict resolution tools we role play, model, use, and practice on a daily basis. As the goal of psychotherapeutic teaching is to “let the student know that the teacher understands the problem and has confidence in the student’s ability to learn and succeed,” my students continue to view consequences for their actions as my fault (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 87). This example of many students’ viewpoints reflects the many controlling instructional variables that must be implemented as a clinical teacher.
Teachers must use careful considerations on the controlling instructional variables because they are the key factors that help lessen elements contributing to the learning problem. The controlling instructional variables are the difficulty level, space, time and language. The difficulty level of material this year has been modified for several students in my class, meeting their present performance and tolerance levels. Within the difficulty level, the concept of readiness, in particular, focuses on the maturational development being imminent for certain skills to be learned. There is a boy who turns seven-years-old next August and is maturing at much slower rate than his peers. He struggles remaining seated, listening, remaining in his body space, and talking at appropriate times. I have taught him how to use a hand-held timer, which he receives a smiley face every ten minutes that he remains seated and talks at appropriate times. Ten minutes is at his own maturational level of development being his zone of proximal development (ZPD) according to Vygotsky’s theory of development (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 87). In doing so, I am not “[e]xpecting a student to perform a task far beyond their present level,” which “can result in a complete breakdown in learning” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 87). Thus, by controlling the task difficulty for the student, the intervention shifts the internal consciousness from cognitive to habitual (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 88).
Fostering motivation for several students in my first grade class has been very difficult. Lavoie’s basic tenets of motivation pinpoints the forces of motivation these students have, such as needing friends, independence, control, recognized, have affiliations and/or belong to a group, and to know what is going on. “A healthy relationship implies compassion without over-involvement, understanding without indulgence, and a genuine concern for the student’s development.” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 90) This quote emphasizes the good rapport teachers must have with their students. I admit to the over-involvement I have with the several students with behavioral issues, and the need to be more aware of this. I plan to develop visual records of progress through charts/graphs, which makes the students conscious of their success and progress (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 92). Another strategy I plan to implement is bibliotherapy because students identify themselves with characters in books, and learn how to find resolution to the character who suffers similar problems.
“There is no magic formula for teaching a child” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 83). That quote emphasizes the need for educators to better understand the world of their children with learning disabilities. “The Social and Emotional World of Children with Learning Disabilities” podcast discusses some effective strategies and organizations to better help children with LD. Some key strategies include the following: practice the struggling material more with lots of encouragement; use role play at home to practice social interactions with family members; attend group therapy meetings with other peers with LD to instill good feelings and positive social skills, and; contact private schools and www.ld.org for more information and organizations nearby. In the end, there are no magic formulas for teaching; however, there are effective strategies, organizations, instructional methods and factors teachers must implement and use to better tailor the learning experiences for each individual’s unique needs.
Activity 1.2 RtI and Discrepancy Model
“One of the most controversial issues in the comprehensive evaluation of students with suspected learning disabilities is the evidence of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and the student’s actual achievement” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 46).
RtI
• Universal screening of all students in a comprehensive evaluation provides data indicating learning disabilities. (NCEE, 2009, p. 1)
• Screening measures/misidentifies some students as needing assistance when they don’t need it or not needing it when they do need it. (NCEE, 2009, p. 16)
• Teachers follow the discrepancy formulas that state and school districts use to identify students with learning disabilities. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 47)
• The assessments provide data that emphasizes the need for intervention materials. (NCEE, 2009, p. 20)
Discrepancy Model – Determining the existence of a learning disability
• Student’s achievement of what he/she has learned does not reflect what the student is potentially capable of learning (intellectual ability). (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 46)
• Teachers need to identify students who are at-risk (sensitivity) and not at-risk (specificity) providing interventions to students who need assistance. (NCEE, 2009, p. 17)
• A child may not be identified as having a learning disability in one state and denied services in different states. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 47)
• These interventional materials may not be necessary for the adequate progress, nor assist the students’ proficiency. (NCEE, 2009, p. 20)
RtI
• Universal screening of all students in a comprehensive evaluation provides data indicating learning disabilities. (NCEE, 2009, p. 1)
• Screening measures/misidentifies some students as needing assistance when they don’t need it or not needing it when they do need it. (NCEE, 2009, p. 16)
• Teachers follow the discrepancy formulas that state and school districts use to identify students with learning disabilities. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 47)
• The assessments provide data that emphasizes the need for intervention materials. (NCEE, 2009, p. 20)
Discrepancy Model – Determining the existence of a learning disability
• Student’s achievement of what he/she has learned does not reflect what the student is potentially capable of learning (intellectual ability). (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 46)
• Teachers need to identify students who are at-risk (sensitivity) and not at-risk (specificity) providing interventions to students who need assistance. (NCEE, 2009, p. 17)
• A child may not be identified as having a learning disability in one state and denied services in different states. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 47)
• These interventional materials may not be necessary for the adequate progress, nor assist the students’ proficiency. (NCEE, 2009, p. 20)
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Activity 1.2 - Ch. 2 Accommodations Made for Testing Students with Exceptionalities
Activity 1.2
Discussion Prompt: Describe several accommodations that can be made for testing students with disabilities.
The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA—2004) sanction the need for accommodations in statewide testing for students with disabilities (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 65). These accommodations for students with disabilities must be stated within their individualized education plan (IEP). However, students must be assessed, whereby critical information must be gathered about them in order to make meaningful and purposeful decisions for instructional strategies and teaching methods (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 72). In addition, teachers must support and guide students when implementing effective accommodations, holding all students fairly accountable. Thus, several accommodations that can be made for common assessments are timing, presentation, presentation, and response. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 66)
An accommodation that I receive for testing is the extension of time to complete the test. During college, I received double the amount of time to complete a test as the class received. Some other examples for timing accommodations are altering the time of day a test is taken, providing frequent breaks during the tests, and/or administering the test in several periods or days. I found this accommodation very helpful for my disability because my auditory processing makes it longer to process. Thus, the extension of time provided an ample amount for me to comprehensively complete the test. As a teacher that administers test, I sometimes administer the test at a different time of day or in several sessions of the day for a student with a high hormonal imbalance. This student was diagnosed to have a high hormonal imbalance this month, and allowing a break or altering the time for her has improved her test score and overall testing experience. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 66)
A second accommodation that is made during testing is the change of or alteration to the setting. For all tests in my classroom, students have individual privacy shields, which make the environment less distracting for them. Some other forms of accommodations to the setting are administering the test in a different room without distraction. For example, I completed my tests in a white room without other people or posters to distract me. There was an ample number of scratch paper, sharpened pencils, pens, and utensils permitted to ease the stress and anxiety I already had of retaining, comprehending, and delivering of the information taught on the test provided. A frequent form of assessment within the first grade is small group assessments. I have my students teach one another and demonstrate their knowledge during centers. This form of assessment allows for me to adapt to the needs of each child, and continually monitor the mastery of skills. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 66)
Presentation is a key accommodation because it allows students to effectively demonstrate their knowledge of the information. The presentation of the test may not provide accurately measured scores. Thus, CDs or audiocassettes, enlarged print, computers to read the test, or magnification devices are some ways the presentation can be accommodated. As a teacher of first grade students, many students struggle with listening skills. To accommodate this weakness I repeat the direction, restate the directions in two formats, and/or read the test aloud. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 66)
The response of assessments is accommodated in several ways. The accommodated responses of testing must allow students with disabilities to use separate sheets or assistive technology to record answers, for example. Using a word processor, tape recorder, booklet, and dictation are examples of accommodated responses for students with disabilities. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 66)
In summary, it is important to implement the timing, presentation, presentation, and response of assessments. Individualizing assessments for the unique individuals within one’s classroom is key. By using theses accommodations for assessments, students are monitored effectively and monitored on individual progress and measurement.
Discussion Prompt: Describe several accommodations that can be made for testing students with disabilities.
The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA—2004) sanction the need for accommodations in statewide testing for students with disabilities (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 65). These accommodations for students with disabilities must be stated within their individualized education plan (IEP). However, students must be assessed, whereby critical information must be gathered about them in order to make meaningful and purposeful decisions for instructional strategies and teaching methods (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 72). In addition, teachers must support and guide students when implementing effective accommodations, holding all students fairly accountable. Thus, several accommodations that can be made for common assessments are timing, presentation, presentation, and response. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 66)
An accommodation that I receive for testing is the extension of time to complete the test. During college, I received double the amount of time to complete a test as the class received. Some other examples for timing accommodations are altering the time of day a test is taken, providing frequent breaks during the tests, and/or administering the test in several periods or days. I found this accommodation very helpful for my disability because my auditory processing makes it longer to process. Thus, the extension of time provided an ample amount for me to comprehensively complete the test. As a teacher that administers test, I sometimes administer the test at a different time of day or in several sessions of the day for a student with a high hormonal imbalance. This student was diagnosed to have a high hormonal imbalance this month, and allowing a break or altering the time for her has improved her test score and overall testing experience. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 66)
A second accommodation that is made during testing is the change of or alteration to the setting. For all tests in my classroom, students have individual privacy shields, which make the environment less distracting for them. Some other forms of accommodations to the setting are administering the test in a different room without distraction. For example, I completed my tests in a white room without other people or posters to distract me. There was an ample number of scratch paper, sharpened pencils, pens, and utensils permitted to ease the stress and anxiety I already had of retaining, comprehending, and delivering of the information taught on the test provided. A frequent form of assessment within the first grade is small group assessments. I have my students teach one another and demonstrate their knowledge during centers. This form of assessment allows for me to adapt to the needs of each child, and continually monitor the mastery of skills. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 66)
Presentation is a key accommodation because it allows students to effectively demonstrate their knowledge of the information. The presentation of the test may not provide accurately measured scores. Thus, CDs or audiocassettes, enlarged print, computers to read the test, or magnification devices are some ways the presentation can be accommodated. As a teacher of first grade students, many students struggle with listening skills. To accommodate this weakness I repeat the direction, restate the directions in two formats, and/or read the test aloud. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 66)
The response of assessments is accommodated in several ways. The accommodated responses of testing must allow students with disabilities to use separate sheets or assistive technology to record answers, for example. Using a word processor, tape recorder, booklet, and dictation are examples of accommodated responses for students with disabilities. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 66)
In summary, it is important to implement the timing, presentation, presentation, and response of assessments. Individualizing assessments for the unique individuals within one’s classroom is key. By using theses accommodations for assessments, students are monitored effectively and monitored on individual progress and measurement.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Jacquelyn Truxaw -NCLB in Education (Activity 1.1)
Discussion Prompt: Discuss what you think are the biggest problems/challenges with NCLB, IDEA and/or other federal mandates in education.
Chapter 1: Learning Disabilities and Related Mild Disabilities
There are many problems with NCLB, or No Child Left Behind Act, in education. After working in public school districts as I obtained my Bachelors degree and teaching credential, I found the stress placed on teachers and students to be remarkably high. The teachers had to “teach for the test” to students who primarily didn’t speak English. To make it more frustrating, there were comprehension stories using cultural contexts for students who were unfamiliar with the words or stories.
Also at this time, I worked in a Special Day classroom with students identified with moderate to severe disabilities. During the testing times mandated by NCLB, these students cried because they could not fill-in the circles. One boy with ED hid under the table and cried because it was a change in the schedule; he was confused, and; became very aggressive and overwhelmed by the atmosphere. This was my first experience teaching for the test, and I could not comprehend, nor rationalize how the school could be measured by one form of assessment. Who said that all learners test one way? Who said that assessment could only be based on circles being filled in and creative or analytical thinking are discouraged? This post reflects upon the many problems with education and NCLB.
“Data for 3- to 5-year-old children are not counted by category of disability (e.g., learning disabilities), but 5% of all children receiving special education services are in the 3 to 5 age group (U.S. Department of Education, 2008)” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 16). Children between the age of 3 and 5 have been shown to have many developmental, behavioral, cognitive and other psychological factors that are significant to a positive growth. However, if there is a discrepancy of establishing categories of disability for children at this age level, then how are elementary teachers efficiently going to determine the student’s potential for learning?
Secondly, students with Learning Disabilities are most commonly within the general education classroom. Unfortunately, the NCLB bases the assessment on student’s proficiency, which is not an effective form of providing teachers what they need to teach their students. Particularly, if the student with learning disabilities struggles on tests, then the data is not an accurate form of assessment.
“Learning Disabilities is the largest category, accounting for 46% of all disabilities, Mental Retardation accounts for 8.4%, and Emotional Disturbance accounts for 7.9% of all disabilities” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 23). This is an astounding statistic that should be reflected in special education services and resources. This statistic should be a beaming light for the legislation to federally mandate an allocated amount of money for effective interventions, strategies, methodologies and curriculum-based education that is fundamentally effective for all learners in the classroom. If almost half of the student population at schools has students with learning disabilities, then why is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) basing education on strict academic standards and curriculum guidelines (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 25)? As described on pages 16 and 17, the elementary level and secondary level clearly demonstrates the failure to acquire and continue to acquire academic skills (Lerner & Johns, 2012). Yet, as Lerner and Johns describe on page 27, NCLB measures student’s progress through reading and math proficiency tests (2012).
NCLB requires schools and school districts to meet educational needs all of children, but with strict and stringent standards and requirements. On another note, Lerner and Johns state on pages 26 and 27 that “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act requires that accommodations be made for individuals with disabilities in institutions that receive federal funds” (2012). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act does demonstrate the need for the implementation of accommodating lesson plans and the curriculum for learners with disabilities. However, the NCLB does not hold achievements on the unique individual differences of our student population. Rather, the student achievements are based on the progress of reading and math proficiency tests. These tests provide funding for the schools, which only widens the gap for students with minimum proficiency to receive a high-quality education.
The gap is widening as students are based on proficiency rather than yearlong assessments to hold teachers and students effectively accountable. Students are not challenged and doing the bare minimum. Students at Good Shepherd Catholic School are tested formally, but the national percentile demonstrates the failure to provide an on-going, assessment-based curriculum. The curriculum at Good Shepherd Catholic School has funds based on tuition, and all curricular areas encouraged. NCLB is an example of the failure “teaching to the test” has caused, and absence of potential within our education. In the future, may our federal mandates measure individual growth on the whole person.
Chapter 1: Learning Disabilities and Related Mild Disabilities
There are many problems with NCLB, or No Child Left Behind Act, in education. After working in public school districts as I obtained my Bachelors degree and teaching credential, I found the stress placed on teachers and students to be remarkably high. The teachers had to “teach for the test” to students who primarily didn’t speak English. To make it more frustrating, there were comprehension stories using cultural contexts for students who were unfamiliar with the words or stories.
Also at this time, I worked in a Special Day classroom with students identified with moderate to severe disabilities. During the testing times mandated by NCLB, these students cried because they could not fill-in the circles. One boy with ED hid under the table and cried because it was a change in the schedule; he was confused, and; became very aggressive and overwhelmed by the atmosphere. This was my first experience teaching for the test, and I could not comprehend, nor rationalize how the school could be measured by one form of assessment. Who said that all learners test one way? Who said that assessment could only be based on circles being filled in and creative or analytical thinking are discouraged? This post reflects upon the many problems with education and NCLB.
“Data for 3- to 5-year-old children are not counted by category of disability (e.g., learning disabilities), but 5% of all children receiving special education services are in the 3 to 5 age group (U.S. Department of Education, 2008)” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 16). Children between the age of 3 and 5 have been shown to have many developmental, behavioral, cognitive and other psychological factors that are significant to a positive growth. However, if there is a discrepancy of establishing categories of disability for children at this age level, then how are elementary teachers efficiently going to determine the student’s potential for learning?
Secondly, students with Learning Disabilities are most commonly within the general education classroom. Unfortunately, the NCLB bases the assessment on student’s proficiency, which is not an effective form of providing teachers what they need to teach their students. Particularly, if the student with learning disabilities struggles on tests, then the data is not an accurate form of assessment.
“Learning Disabilities is the largest category, accounting for 46% of all disabilities, Mental Retardation accounts for 8.4%, and Emotional Disturbance accounts for 7.9% of all disabilities” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 23). This is an astounding statistic that should be reflected in special education services and resources. This statistic should be a beaming light for the legislation to federally mandate an allocated amount of money for effective interventions, strategies, methodologies and curriculum-based education that is fundamentally effective for all learners in the classroom. If almost half of the student population at schools has students with learning disabilities, then why is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) basing education on strict academic standards and curriculum guidelines (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 25)? As described on pages 16 and 17, the elementary level and secondary level clearly demonstrates the failure to acquire and continue to acquire academic skills (Lerner & Johns, 2012). Yet, as Lerner and Johns describe on page 27, NCLB measures student’s progress through reading and math proficiency tests (2012).
NCLB requires schools and school districts to meet educational needs all of children, but with strict and stringent standards and requirements. On another note, Lerner and Johns state on pages 26 and 27 that “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act requires that accommodations be made for individuals with disabilities in institutions that receive federal funds” (2012). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act does demonstrate the need for the implementation of accommodating lesson plans and the curriculum for learners with disabilities. However, the NCLB does not hold achievements on the unique individual differences of our student population. Rather, the student achievements are based on the progress of reading and math proficiency tests. These tests provide funding for the schools, which only widens the gap for students with minimum proficiency to receive a high-quality education.
The gap is widening as students are based on proficiency rather than yearlong assessments to hold teachers and students effectively accountable. Students are not challenged and doing the bare minimum. Students at Good Shepherd Catholic School are tested formally, but the national percentile demonstrates the failure to provide an on-going, assessment-based curriculum. The curriculum at Good Shepherd Catholic School has funds based on tuition, and all curricular areas encouraged. NCLB is an example of the failure “teaching to the test” has caused, and absence of potential within our education. In the future, may our federal mandates measure individual growth on the whole person.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
How is Everyone? Post
I hope all is well with everyone. Would love to know how you are! Leave comments!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)