special education: where are we and where do we need to be?

Special Education:

Where Are We and Where Do We Need to Be?

Where is Expert Instruction in 2010 (and Why Should We Care)?

Doug Fuchs, VanderbiltOSEP’s PD Conference

July 20, 2010

Overview

• 2 influential views on GE/SE reform. Different names; we’ll call them A and B

• I’ll briefly describe each and how they are similar and different

• Main pt: Neither seriously addresses how schools will provide for children and youth with serious learning problems

• A proposition

Major Views (“A” and “B”) of GE and SE in an RTI Context

• General agreement on:– RTI can be important school reform– Tiered general education instruction– Progress monitoring– General education’s necessary role

“A” on RTI’s Purpose

• RTI should promote both early intervention (prevention) and more valid methods of disability identification. These two aims are inextricably connected.

“A” on GE Instruction

• Evidence-based, explicit, and top-down.• Tier 1: “research principled” core curricula and

evidence-based class-wide instructional programs (e.g., DI, CWPT, CIRC).

• Tier 2: Small-group tutoring with validated, standard instructional protocols.

Instruction is the “Test”

• Tier 2 should accelerate the progress of many at-risk students as well as identify candidates for multi-disciplinary team evaluation for special education.

• Like all tests, the tutoring protocol should be standard, replicable, implemented with fidelity, and time sensitive.

“A” on Special Education

Implicit is that SE is important and distinctive; and special educators should provide most intensive instruction

• But little discussion of what “most intensive” means, nor who trains whom to ensure its delivery to children with severe learning needs.

View B on RTI’s Purpose

• Uniform challenging standards for all.• Assessments are aligned with the standards.• Virtually all (including most SWD) participate in the

assessments.• Student performance is the basis of accountability.• Standards will close the achievement gap and

eliminate nearly all high-incidence SWD.• Emphasis on instruction, not evals or labels or SE• Most “high-incidence” will disappear

Problem Solving is to “B” as Standard Protocols Are to “A”

• Problem solving is the engine of instruction at the various tiers, like standard protocols are the engine in the A view. Problem Solving is personalized, not standardized

• (Caveat: Hybrid forms)• Multiple meanings of problem solving:

– Differentiated instruction (Tier 1; e.g., co-teaching)– Team collaboration (Tier 2; e.g., TATs, ISTs)– Behavioral Consultation (Tier 2 or 3)

View B and the Blurring SE• Resources connected to SE, compensatory ed, and

other funding streams are to “fuel” the problem solving engine

• Blurring SE into GE makes GE more resourceful, capable of accommodating all

• Special educators co-teach, tutor students with and without disabilities, and sit on school teams

• SE does not have a distinctive or lead role in reform. It must be “blended” into GE’s multi-tiered instruction

How Effective Is Problem Solving?

• Differentiated instruction; building-based teams; Behavioral Consultation

• Summary:– Surely effective for some, maybe for many. But not

intensive enough to be effective for all, esp. students with very serious learning probs.

– With a “blurred” SE who at the bldg level will instruct these children? Who will be the experts?

How Effective Are the Standard Protocols in View A?

• Strong evidence of effectiveness for some…not all

• With researchers, 3% to 5% of general population are NRs; with teachers 10%? 15%?

• Again, where is the expertise at the bldg. level to help NRs?

Experimental Teaching (“Data-Based Instruction”)

• One way to think about “intensive” instruction and “expert” instruction

Case Study • Sam developed sizeable reading deficits by the end

of 2nd grade, despite strong Tier 1 and 2.

• In 3rd grade, he entered Tier 3. In his school, it was delivered as part of special education.

• Given Sam’s large reading deficits, his teacher, Mrs. Hayes, set his IEP goal as competent 2nd-grade performance at the end of 3rd grade.

Sam’s Case

• She began with the Wilson program, but conducted sessions more intensively (twice daily, each time for 30 minutes, on a 1:1 basis).

• She also implemented CBM. Each weekly test assessed overall competence in the 2nd-grade reading curriculum using passage reading fluency.

• The score on each week’s CBM test is an overall indicator of reading competence at 2nd grade.

Reading Graph for Kelsey

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

. 4-Oct

5-Oct

6-Oct

11-Oct

13-Oct

18-Oct

20-Oct

25-Oct

27-Oct

2-Nov

4-Nov

9-Nov

11-Nov

16-Nov

18-Nov

1-Dec

3-Dec

8-Dec

10-Dec

Date

Nu

mb

er o

f w

ord

s re

ad c

orr

ectl

y in

1 m

inu

te

Baseline

Goal Line

After Seven Weeks with Intensified Wilson Program…

• Mrs. Hayes studied Sam’s progress.

• On his graph, Sam’s scores were all below his goal line. Research tells us that with this pattern, he is not likely to achieve the year-end goal.

• So Mrs. Hayes needed to revise her student’s instructional program to foster greater progress.

Sam: Time to Make A Change

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

.

4-Oct

5-Oct

6-Oct

11-O

ct

13-O

ct

18-O

ct

20-O

ct

25-O

ct

27-O

ct

2-Nov

4-Nov

9-Nov

16-N

ov

21-N

ov

30-N

ov

1-Dec

8-Dec

15-D

ec

18-D

ec

22-D

ec

Date

Nu

mb

er o

f w

ord

s re

ad c

orr

ectl

y in

1 m

inu

te

Baseline

Goal Line

Initial Instruction

Instructional Change

Sam

• To determine the nature of this instructional change, Mrs. Hayes conducted a Quick Miscue Analysis during Sam’s next CBM testing.

• Quick Miscue Analysis is one strategy for diagnosing Sam’s reading strategies, determining what might supplement the Wilson program, and building Sam’s individualized program.

Larry was very excited! His father 6

had just brought home a new puppy. Larry’s 14

brother and sister were going to be very 22

surprised, too. 24

The little puppy was black and brown 31

with a few white patches. Her ears were long 40

and floppy. Her tummy nearly touched the 47

ground. Dad said this dog was a beagle. 55

Larry thought their new dog was cute. 62

He couldn’t decide what he wanted to name 70

saw him (T provided)

our b

for much His hair was

pup blue

mother was much

sorpray

funny teeth were torn

growl our puppy boy

Word Written Word Spoken

Grapho-phonemic

Syntax Semantics

was saw no yes no

very him no no no

excited ----- no no no

just our no no no

brought b minimal no no

brother mother yes yes no

were was minimal yes yes

very much no yes yes

surprised sorpray yes no no

puppy pup yes yes yesQuick Miscue Analysis 30% 50% 30%

Sam’s Instructional Change• Given Sam’s inadequate reliance on the semantics of the

passage, Mrs. Hayes decided to introduce a tape recorder activity, whereby Sam monitored semantic miscues in his own reading.

• Given Sam’s poor use of grapho-phonemic strategies, Mrs. Hayes also conducted a diagnostic assessment of Sam’s decoding skills. Because he had difficulty with vowel teams, she decided to target this for intensive review in and out of contextualized reading.

• These changes were incorporated into the Wilson program.

After Seven Weeks with This Revised Wilson Program…

• Mrs. Hayes again studied Sam’s progress.

• She drew a line of best fit through his CBM scores to characterize his rate of progress. His rate of progress had improved substantially with this revised Wilson program.

• However, his most recent 4 CBM scores all fell below his goal line. Research tells us that with this pattern, Sam is not likely to achieve his year-end goal.

Reading Graph for Sam

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Date

Nu

mb

er o

f w

ord

s re

ad c

orr

ectl

y in

1 m

inu

te

Baseline

Goal Line

Guided-reading

Guided-reading + decoding practice

Guided-reading + decoding practice + comprehension

• Experimental Teaching is a technology of instruction that was developed and validated on SWD by SE researchers and teachers.

• It is an intensive form of instruction that’s being overlooked by the very field that produced it.

• We must embrace it again as it was embraced 20+ yrs ago in Minnesota, Kansas, Utah, and elsewhere.

• But embraced in a way that connects it to recent advances in instruction and assessment, thereby making it more powerful than years ago.

• Training a new generation of expert instructors, capable of working intensively, methodically, knowledgably, inventively, with most DTT children should be this field’s focus, purpose, and inspiration.

Perspectives on Serving Students with Sensory Disabilities

-Blind/Visually Impaired-Deaf/Hard of Hearing-Deaf-Blind

Jay Gense

Special Education and Related Services…

For students who are blind/visually impaired

• General Core Curriculum

• Expanded Core Curriculum

• Access


For students who are deaf/hard of hearing



• Access


For students who are deaf-blind



• Access

1. Assessment

2. Program Development

4. Direct Instruction

3. Materials Development

5. Training and Coaching

6. Follow-up and Program Monitoring

Identifying Needs - - -

Designing and Implementing Specially Designed Instruction

Summary Thoughts

The Future ofSpecial Education for Students with Extensive Support Needs

Issues, Difficulties, and/or

Misunderstandings to Address

Diane Ryndak

Outcomes for Adultswith Extensive Support Needs

• Meaningful outcomes and existing outcome data– Quality and normal rhythm of life – Independence and participation– Use of general and extended curriculum– Community living– Employment outcomes– Self-advocacy & self-determination– Natural support network outcomes

• Beyond traditional outcomes and data sets

Regular or modified diploma

Natural support network

Normal rhythm of

life


• Lessons learned about outcomes, marginalization, and devaluing– Social justice– Institutionalization– Use of restraints, punishment, and

seclusion

• Future special education needs to be based an abilities model and a presumption of competence.


• Short- and long-term data support the importance of content and context

• What combination of variables leads to improved outcomes?

• What structures/systems provide flexibility for individualization of content and contexts while allowing for accountability?

Intensive Expert Instructionfor Students with ESN

• “The students with the greatest needs receive services from those with the least expertise.” (Lou Brown, 1979)

• Robust pedagogy exists that supports interventions across heterogeneous groups of students

Ryndak & Sommerstein, TASH 2002

42


• Is a licensed Special Education teacher highly qualified or an expert?

• If so, at what?


• What is expert instruction for students with extensive support needs, who provides it, where, and when?

• The future needs collaborative expertise, not expertise that isolates and divides.

• The future needs expertise used by collaborative teams with shared desired outcomes for all students.

“Education System” -- Lack of Harmony and Connection

• Across concepts and initiatives – LRE & transition across services– Access to general curriculum– State standards / individualized needs– Accountability and alternate assessment– School-wide PBS– RTI

“Education System” -- Lack of Harmony and Connection

• Across stages– Conceptualization and development– Presentation to policy makers, service

providers, and families– Implementation and monitoring across

states– Practice in the field– Research and personnel preparation

• Future needs all initiatives or models to address the needs of all students.

RTI and Students with Extensive Support Needs

• Tiers 1-2-3– RTI is as “only for students going for the

regular diploma”

– Role of supports, accommodations, modifications for students with disabilities in Tiers 1-2-3

– RTI for students with extensive support needs

Reg

ular

Dip

lom

a

Spec

ial D

iplo

ma

Reg

ular

Dip

lom

a

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

Bottom Line - Accountability• In the future we need to determine:

– the actual outcomes for adults with extensive support needs; and

– which combinations of variables lead to which types of outcomes.

• Not doing so demonstrates a lack of:– concern for their outcomes; – value for their role in society; and– respect for the adults, themselves.

Bottom Line - Collaborative Specialized Expertise

• The future needs practitioners with various types of expertise who are ready and able to collaborate with others who have differing expertise, to meet the needs of ALL students.

• Not doing so:– Denies students with extensive support needs the

services they need for a FAPE in the LRE; and– gives practitioners permission to maintain isolated

roles that limit the possibility of meeting the needs of all students.

Bottom Line - Discussions for Clarity of Purpose

• The future needs ongoing meaningful discussions among academics, policy makers, and monitoring groups that facilitate an understanding of the issues we collectively face across all sets of students

• Not doing so maintains status quo.

Bottom Line - All Means All• The future needs “school-wide”

initiatives to embed the needs of all students in models, practice, materials, and discussions.

• Not doing so is interpreted as implicit permission for teachers, schools, districts, and states to exclude subsets of student, especially students with extensive support needs.

special education: where are we and where do we need to be?

Documents