Writing in the New York Times, Sharon Otterman reviews some of the challenges encountered in providing educational services to students with multiple and severe disabilities. In her extended article, Mr. Otterman uses the case of Donovan Forde, a 20-year-old youth who is nearing the end of mandated educational services in the US, to explain how teachers must weigh provision of academic experiences and functional living needs.

And yet, because of his cognitive disabilities brought on by a traumatic brain injury at nearly 6 months old, it is almost impossible to know what he comprehends and retains. After 15 years in the New York City school system, he is less reserved and more social, but otherwise has shown almost no progress, his mother said.

Once predominately isolated in institutions, severely disabled students have been guaranteed a free, appropriate public education like all children since the passage of federal legislation in 1975. In the years since, school districts across the country have struggled to find a balance between instruction in functional skills and academics while providing basic custodial care.

Read to Ms. Ottermn’s article. It would be a worthwhile one for discussion in courses about teaching students with disabilities.

Reading is Fundamental, the US nonprofit organization devoted to promoting reading and literacy, is soliciting proposals from university graduate students who would be willing to help conduct some research. The student who receives the award must analyze data and write a report of a study being conducted at Brooklyn (NY, US) Public Library. The study is to investigate the feasibility and impact of providing audio books to children with reading and developmental disabilities.

Upon completion of the project, the grantee will receive $3,000 in compensation. Digital media and special education majors are encouraged to apply. Proposals are due March 26. Direct questions to Patricia Oholeguy at 202.536.3476 or poholeguy [at] rif [dot] org. Learn more about RIF. Download a copy of the RFP.

Camp Baker Services in Chesterfield (VA, US) provides residential summer camp, day summer camp, weekend respite services, emergency respite services, day support services and an after school program for over 590 individuals with disabilities each year. Officials at Camp Baker Services have opportunities for people interested in working with children, youths, and adults, including summer jobs and spring, summer, and fall internships.

“We operate 24 hours a day for 365 days of the year,” Shirley O’Brien, the Senior Director at Camp Baker Services, reports. “The individuals who attend our programs range from 6-80 years of age and from mild intellectual delays to severe intellectual and physical delays. We are a fully barrier-free, modern facility on 22 acres.”

Most of the currently available jobs—counselors, lead counselors, head counselors, and activity leaders as well as program director and staff manager—are for the residential summer camp that, according to Dr. O’Brien, is attended by 320 individuals with disabilities. “Our summer programming includes wellness, swimming, sport and games, archery, arts and crafts, music and drama, horticulture, nature, camping, and cooking. Additionally, we have internship positions open for the Summer of 2010 that includes free room and board.”

Visit Camp Baker Services at the Richmond (VA, US) ARC.

Over on Squidalicious, a guest post by Lea Cuniberti-Duran about “Special Needs Children and Public Education” appears under the title “We Are Not Sparta: The Real, Justified Costs of Educating Kids With Special Needs.” Ms. Cuniberti-Duran recounts the argument that schools are hamstrung by the costs of providing special education services.

I have attended many school district budget meetings in which officials blurted to their audience, “We cannot pay for XYZ because of our financial responsibility toward children with special needs: to educate one special needs student can cost the district $100,000 a year.” I also hear about how the district has “an unfunded mandate to educate children with special needs, and how this results into an encroachment to the general fund.”

She then proceeds to provide a clear and powerful dismissal of the canard that special education’s costs harm others. Not only does she show how the costs argument leaks (at least with regard to the local education agencies in her geographic area of the US), but also she explains how beneficial special education has been to society as a whole over the past 35 years. Read it!

Jim Kauffman drafted an editorial expressing his concern that special education has been so substantially undermined that it is near collapse. Here’s his lead (‘lede?’):

I think we’re approaching the end of special education. By analogy, we’re nearing the final scene of a stage play. Special education is, I think, very near its “curtains.” And we’re perilously close to being unable to rewrite the play while it’s in progress.

You may download a full copy of “Curtains for Special Education: An Open Letter to Educators.”

The US President Barack Obama announced that he plans to nominate Alexa E. Posny for the position of Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the Department of Education. Dr. Posny, who currently serves as commission of education for the state of Kansas, will return to US ED where she previously served as Director in the Office of Special Education Programs.

OSERS claims its mission is to “promote academic excellence, enhance educational opportunities and equity for all of America’s children and families, and to improve the quality of teaching and learning by providing leadership, technical assistance and financial support.” In the role of Assistant Secretary for OSERS, Ms. Posny will oversee policies related to achievement in schools, educational improvement, and financial assistance for local education agencies.

The White House press release provided background information about Commissioner Posny:

Alexa E. Posny currently serves as the Commissioner of Education for the state of Kansas. As Commissioner, she is responsible for helping over 450,000 students meet or exceed high academic standards, licensing over 45,000 teachers, and overseeing a state education budget of a little over $4.5 billion dollars. Prior to this, Posny was appointed as the Director of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) for the U.S. Department of Education, a position in which she assisted state and local efforts to effectively educate all children and youth with disabilities. Other positions that Posny has held included the Kansas Deputy Commissioner of Education , Kansas State Director of Special Education, Director of Special Education for the Shawnee Mission School District, Director of the Curriculum and Instruction Specialty Option as part of the Title 1 Technical Assistance Center (TAC) network of TACs across the United States, and a Senior Research Associate at Research and Training Associates in Overland Park, KS. Posny earned her bachelor’s degree from the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point, a master’s degree in behavioral disabilities and a doctorate in educational administration both from the University of Wisconsin Madison. Currently she serves on the Board of Directors for the Chief State School Officers, the National Council for Learning Disabilities, and chairs the National Assessment Governing Board’s Special Education Task Force. Most importantly, she has been a teacher at the elementary, middle and high school levels and remains a teacher today, serving as adjunct faculty with the University of Kansas.

Links for:

• The White House press release;
• More information about OSERS;
• Commissioner Posny’s background and resume (PDFs from Kansas State Department of Education; they may go 404 when she moves)

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.

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.

NCD believes it is vital to hear from communities around the country on what works and what does not for people with disabilities. This meeting will provide another opportunity for that exchange. The agenda will include, among other things, sessions on emergency preparedness, housing, workforce infrastructure, access to outdoor recreation, international development, the Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act, strategic planning, and NCD’s 2010 National Summit on Disability Policy.

Specific times are also designated to receive public comment, supported by a toll-free call-in line, and input is encouraged and greatly appreciated. Individuals or organizations can also provide written comments by e-mail, fax, or mail. Public comment sessions will be held Monday, July 20, 11:30 a.m. until noon and on Tuesday, July 21, 4:30 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. The toll-free call-in number is (888) 790-6568, and the pass code is “NCD Meeting.”

You are also invited to join us for a reception at the hotel for meeting participants, audience members, and stakeholders from the disability community on Tuesday, July 21 from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., immediately following our session for the day. Additional details about the meeting will be posted on the NCD website at www.ncd.gov as soon as they become available. You will also find the meeting agenda posted there approximately 10 days before the meeting is scheduled.

For more information, please contact NCD’s Director of External Affairs, Mark S. Quigley, at mquigley@ncd.gov or by telephone at 202-272-2004 (V), 202-272-2074 (TTY). Updates about this meeting are also available on the NCD Website at www.ncd.gov.

We hope you will attend and participate.

Sincerely,

[signed]

John R. Vaughn
Chairperson

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]

Siegfried Engelmann, the developer of Direct Instruction, has revised his Web site. If you’re a teacher educator concerned about preparing people to help students with disabilities, you almost certainly know about Zig’s DI programs and you’ve probably read some of his writings. His revised site has videos as well as previously un-published papers that are worth reviewing. The site is available a Zig Site.