SpedPro

Edward G. Carr, 1947-2009

By John Lloyd on Jun. 22, 2009.

Ted Carr

Edward Gary Carr, professor of psychology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, died 20 June 2009 in an automobile accident. Professor Carr, who was know as “Ted” to friends and colleagues, conducted foundational studies about the functions that self-injurious behaviors served and contributed substantially to the development and refinement of methods known as “positive behavioral supports.” In addition, he assessed the benefits of teaching sign language to children with serious language problems such as Autism.

Professor Carr completed a doctoral degree at the University of California San Diego in 1973, worked briefly at the University of California Los Angeles, and then joined the faculty at Stony Brook where, in 2000, he was accorded the honor of an appointment as Leading Professor. During his tenure at Stony Brook he authored or co-authored scores of articles, chapters, monographs, and books; mentored many students; worked with organizations in the US and abroad; and founded and directed the Research & Training Center on Positive Behavior Support for Autism & Developmental Disabilities. His many publications include the books Communication-Based Intervention for Problem Behavior and How to Teach Sign Language to Developmentally Disabled Children.

Early in his career, Professor Carr began examining alternative explanations for self-injurious behavior among individuals with Autism, publishing “The Motivation of Self-injurious Behavior: A Review of Some Hypotheses” in the prestigious journal, Psychological Bulletin in 1977. Over the ensuing years he and colleagues increased the understanding of how self-injurious and other problem behavior might operate on the children’s environments, in effect serving a communicative function. He and others used this knowledge to develop and refine the procedures of functional behavior assessment. The work on humane means of reducing problem behaviors led Professor Carr and others to promote the methods of positive behavioral supports.

Link to biographical information about Professor Carr, a university-maintained page about him, and the Research & Training Center on Positive Behavior Support for Autism & Developmental Disabilities.

Do Chicago schools hide special ed students?

By John Lloyd on Jun. 19, 2009.

One of the on-going concerns about high-stakes testing and special education is whether scores of students with disabilities should be included in a school’s or local education agency’s average on tests. If they do, won’t they drag the average to lower levels? If they don’t isn’t that counter to the advocacy position of some organizations (e.g., National Center on Learning Disabilities)?

The issue’s complicated by the change in the US government. People are looking carefully at the records of the newly appointed officials in the US Obama Administration. And, low and behold, US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s record is under the magnifying glass. As Christina Samuels reports in “Chicago Schools Come Under Fire for Special Education Progams,” the actions of schools that were under Mr. Duncan’s oversight are in the crosshairs.

Because U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan was the superintendent of Chicago Public Schools, I keep an eye out for special education news originating from the city. This article, in the Chi-Town Daily News, is about an accusation from a principal that students with special learning needs are barred from evaluations because it’s too expensive to educate them.

A Chicago Public Schools principal yesterday accused district officials of routinely denying disabled students access to specialized help, and at times even barring them from evaluation for learning disabilities.

As is common with Ms. Samuels’ report, this is a valuable recitation of the situation. I recommend it to folks who are concerned about high-stakes testing and special education. Link to the article.

NCD meeting 20 July 2009

By John Lloyd on Jun. 18, 2009.

National Council on Disability (NCD) has invited people to attend a meeting and contribute to a discussion of policies, practices, and etc. that affect individuals with disabilities. Although this meeting is not precisely centered on special education, I’ve posted it here for the benefit of those of us who work with families, on transition issues, or are concerned with other aspects of special education where larger issues of public policy intersect with special ed.

June 17, 2009
Dear Friends and Colleagues:

On behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD), it is my pleasure to invite you to attend NCD’s next quarterly meeting, which will take place at the Minneapolis Marriott City Center, 30 South 7th Street, Minneapolis, MN, beginning at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, July 20, 2009, and ending at 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, July 22, 2009. This meeting is open to the public.

NCD is an independent federal agency, composed of 15 members appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the U.S. Senate. NCD’s purpose is to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities, and that empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society. To carry out this mandate we gather public and stakeholder input, including that received at our public meetings held around the country; review and evaluate federal programs and legislation; and provide the President, Congress, and federal agencies with advice and recommendations.
Read the rest of this entry »

Fall Learning Disabilities conference

By John Lloyd on Jun. 12, 2009.

The Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children will hold its annual conference in October of 2009 in Coronado (CA, US) near San Diego. There’s an all-star lineup of presenters who don’t just spray and pray; they conduct 3-hour workshops so that participants know how to implement practices in clinical and school settings.

Learn more: Click here.

WVU position

By JohnLloyd on Jun. 11, 2009.

West Virginia University announces the availability of 2 tenure-track faculty positions in special education beginning in August 2009. Position descriptions and details for submitting an application are available here. Review of applications will begin on July 1.

FMI: Barbara Ludlow, Professor and Chair, Barbara.Ludlow _at_ mail _dot_ wvu _dot_ edu or 304-293-3835.

Does retention protect kids from special ed?

By John Lloyd on Jun. 2, 2009.

Michael Silverstein and colleagues reported interesting data about whether children who are retained during the early grades later require special education. Exploring the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K, ), they found that many children who were retained continued to experience academic difficulties, but never received an IEP.

Receipt of Special Education Services Following Elementary School Grade Retention
Michael Silverstein, MD, MPH; Nicole Guppy, MD; Robin Young, MA; Marilyn Augustyn, MD
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(6):547-553.

Objective To estimate the proportion of children who receive an Individualized Education Program (IEP) following grade retention in elementary school.

Design Longitudinal cohort study.

Participants Children retained in kindergarten or first (K/1) grade and third grade, presumably for academic reasons, were followed up through fifth grade.

Main Outcome Measure Presence or absence of an IEP.

Results A total of 300 children retained in K/1 and 80 retained in third grade were included in the study. Of the K/1 retainees, 68.9% never received an IEP during the subsequent 4 to 5 years; of the third-grade retainees, 72.3% never received an IEP. Kindergarten/first-grade retainees in the highest quintile for socioeconomic status and those with suburban residence were less likely to receive an IEP than retained children in all other socioeconomic status quintiles (adjusted odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.62) and in rural communities (0.16; 0.06-0.44). Among K/1 retainees with persistently low academic achievement in math and reading, as assessed by standardized testing, 38.2% and 29.7%, respectively, never received an IEP.

Conclusions Most children retained in K/1 or third grade for academic reasons, including many of those who demonstrated sustained academic difficulties, never received an IEP during elementary school. Further studies are important to elucidate whether retained elementary schoolchildren are being denied their rights to special education services. In the meantime, early-grade retention may provide an opportunity for pediatricians to help families advocate for appropriate special education evaluations for children experiencing school difficulties.

Should retention be a flag for special education evaluation? Some folks argue that it should. For example, using data from a study by Margaret Beebe-Frankenburger and colleagues (2004), Ryan Kinlaw answers, “Yes”:

Most students at risk of retention can be identified on the basis of ability measures and teacher perceptions at least by second grade. Possible strategies for minimizing the likelihood of retention include… focused and individualized assessment of their special education needs.” (Kinlaw, 2005, p. 5)

How does all this fit into the response-to-instruction efforts that are popping up in so many schools around the US? If we had a database of the progress-monitoring data that we could connect to data about teacher ratings, retention in grade, evaluation for special education, and so forth, what would we be able to learn? Would we learn that when a child has been retained, then he’s protected from being referred for special education? If so, is that a good outcome?

My hunch is that we’d find some students (~5-10%; not counting those who have physical disabilities) who started at the low end of the distribution on measures of literacy and had progress rates that were lower than most of their peers. They would very likely be among students who received tier-2 services. And they would be significantly more likely to be retained, evaluated for special education, etc.

Sources

Beebe-Frankenberger, M., Bocian, K. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Sorting second-grade students: Differentiating those retained from those promoted. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 204-215.

Kinlaw, C. R. (2005, Fall). Sorting out student retention: 2.4 million children left behind? Durham, NC: Center for Child and Family Policy and Sanford Institute of Public Policy Policy Briefs. [link]