Follow-up to: “Read on Public Education’s Growing Problems”, “Read on Special Education”
CAUTION: “White elephant in the classroom” discussions.
by Christopher Clanton, father of two and special education teacher
Topics:
Expand Model and Path.
Like Students Find Each Other.
Careful with Technology.
Vocational No Longer Voluntary.
Community Leaders as Optimal Educators.
Thinking Differently.
Summers Hold Solutions.
Expand Model and Path.
Expanding school models and graduation paths would greatly improve public education. Without grand change in funding from our Federal and State Government, public schools will press on with old ideas and all the growing problem situations are about to get worse. The United States of America has the financial means and ethics to make grand change in Education important. Education leaders seem to be moving forward with the idea that we are doing all we can even though the experience and the data disagrees. The attitude of our voters and congresspersons should be that there is no limit to the length we will go to take notice of the need to dramatically improve our schools.
It’s time to completely rethink general education and special education. A growing percentage of students are letting public educators know that schools are not reaching them. The traditional school model is no longer sufficient. From my experience, it is not an overestimation that, more than half of our students are now not having success in an appropriate way.
Currently, all classrooms are bound by current special education principles. In practice, special education or IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) is composed of six elements: Individualized Education Program (IEP); Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE); Least Restrictive Environment (LRE); Appropriate Evaluation; Parent and Teacher Participation; and Procedural Safeguards. These laws are in place to ensure that every student receive an education with equal opportunity to learn.
Learning standards can no longer be generalized for all students. The way the law is written, if a student with an IEP or ELP isn’t having success within their gradebook, it’s the fault and liability of the teachers, the school and the perspective State. Period. As professionally as I can, I’m reconsidering the ways in which educators have been so determined. Special education laws encourage inclusion, diversity, and all student’s rights to an education. They hold high expectation for all and promote an equal opportunity to achieve. These laws also force schools to spend large amounts of time preparing to protect themselves. As an executor and promotor of these laws, I can attest that they have been a solid effort but they have become logistically not possible to manage properly at the scale student populations have become.
Student equity is a great thing, but it means that each individual deserves to learn in a way that is best for them. In this special education teacher’s opinion, “equity” can now be thought of differently. What is best for an individual should be important and influential determining what is equitable. My experience tells me that striving to serve every student in the same way simply isn’t working for many. When so many are not having success, as a culture, we must redefine what is “free and appropriate”. We must reconsider public education’s responsibility to educate our youth. How can the meaning of “equitable” change from the meaning of the word “equal”?
Learning and graduation approaches should become as vast as our students are unique. Education leaders should go after change and development with the attitude that this question can never be fully answered, never be fully realized. The posture of public education should wish to always find new ways to expand successful graduation paths.
Having one school model for all students stems from an old effort to treat all students the same. Let us remember that our school system is not even 200 years old. Controversy and fear stops healthy conversation about our schools and equity. Allow me to jump right in. 🙂 Why wouldn’t public education leaders consider having leveled schools and graduation paths that students must “qualify” for? One answer: Because it’s a difficult conversation to approach after so many years of being careful regarding equity. Educators have been working tirelessly to make sure there is no room for being racist or insensitive in any way. But public education officials seem stuck motivated by fear and political agenda. They seem stuck in thinking about budgets and the idea that we are doing all we can.
What schools are doing isn’t working for many and our highest functioning students deserve more optimal learning as well. It is time to reconsider further insights into what “appropriate and equitable” mean. It is of great cultural importance that our dear public education system take responsibility for the students we aren’t reaching.
How does public education go about expanding in method? Why wouldn’t there be focused schools: arts, vocational, business, technology, humanities, nature, agriculturally, culinary, engineering construction, welding and mechanic, physical education, behavioral and judicial, etc? Why couldn’t schools develop instructional accountability and graduation methods different from the traditional credit and grading scale approach?
It’s curious why it has become taboo to talk about leveled schools. Meaningful content and method for one student isn’t necessarily meaningful for another student. For some, self-care and social skills learning are of primary equitable importance. For these types of learners, executive functioning skills and a more remedial style of learning remain paramount through high school. For some, a student-driven project-based learning model is optimal. Some are finding that Rites of Passage learning methods support their development best. Some thrive with the presence of technology, while for others technology is a serious obstacle. It’s time for many different types of schools to surface. Alternative middle schools could become preparatory trial schools for specific high school graduation paths. High School teachers are complaining about the readiness of 9th grade students as they arrive. I’m curious how integrating varying secondary school paths would impact the overall preparedness of students that are transitioning from 8th to 9th grade.
Like Students Find Each Other.
In this teacher’s opinion, students absolutely should learn together when they are supported by learning together. This is a learning strategy that a student decides for themselves. Currently, teachers are legally responsible to avoid grouping special needs students together in classrooms. We are also obligated to avoid grouping at-risk students together. Teachers also attempt to not group the Hispanic students together, or the African American students together, etc. It has become very taboo to group like students together. My suggestion, is that it is ok to change our thinking around this. There is something positive that occurs grouping like learners together that are already choosing to group themselves together. If learning with their closest peers is their personal learning style they will seek that out. It’s ok to talk about this. Traditional public education goes overboard encouraging teachers to treat all students equally. The language of the effort is to “group students into positive peer groups“. Teachers attest to “rotating positive learning partners for project work and learning activities“. This is a constant legally obligated burden on all teachers. This approach is sufficient and maybe at times appropriate within a highly competitive academic environment, with learners that are academically at or above grade level and are behaviorally high functioning. In my experience and observation, this approach is not effective for all types of learners.
Like students make plans to attend specific schools together. When the “cohort” approach is having such powerful results within college education, why hasn’t this wisdom trickled down to secondary education? High schools are already known by their community, some are known to have a favorable reputation within specific ethnic communities. Hispanic parents know what schools work well with Hispanic families. African American parents know what schools work well with African American families. They talk about it!
All high functioning students that demonstrate the interest and aptitude for a specific graduation path, should have a right to earn and learn in any competitive learning environment offered by a school district. What about students that are academically and behaviorally challenged, but still have a genuine desire and inspiration, for example, to enter a medical and science based graduation path. The academic rigor of this program is much higher than this student’s “independent levels of ability”. Still the family and student support this path and the student’s learning comes alive in these classrooms. Is there a leveled opportunity that would get that student closer to “appropriate”? Is full inclusion in this highly competitive learning environment, with support, what is appropriate for the student? This is for a teacher team, administrator, student and parent team to decide together.
A change of thinking must happen on the legal level. Our at-risk students, our students not having success, don’t require “free and appropriate” they deserve much more. They require “optimal”. The word “appropriate” is what bounds legal obligation for our at-risk. The word “appropriate” is minimal and not sufficient.
Student engagement and buy-in is a huge part of learning at the secondary and post-secondary levels. When a student and family is advocating for a successful graduation path, this is a student-driven and family supported approach. Having many different secondary school graduation paths with different accountability and assessment strategies would better support today’s student in a realistic way, and would better support post-graduation learning paths. Aptitude is a factor in leveled placement, but it doesn’t have to be the most important or heavily weighted factor. Inclusion principles are possible while the equitable leveled path is individually determined and earned. As our students enter college, they choose a school for the opportunity to study a specific major and acquire a specific degree. They take ownership. This wisdom can trickle down the our secondary public education system.
Careful with Technology.
As much as it doesn’t jive with my learning and teaching style, technology and social media based learners, deserve something more. These pioneers of the social media age continually remain connected to themselves, to their learning, to their family, and to their student community through social media. Social media absolutely should expand into the classroom environment for these types of learners. For technology-based learner, to not have a device present, and that continuous connection to social media is becoming physically uncomfortable. Its strange. Shouldn’t educators consider ways a classroom can be more accommodating to our social media based learners? The old model of a private quiet classroom, everyone doing their own work, is no longer functional or adequate for these students. These learners will face all the many benefits and unhealthy discoveries of such a lifestyle. School Districts should lead the way understanding all we can about these learners.
Vocational No Longer Voluntary.
Vocational and business learning should no longer be voluntary for our at-risk students. Solutions are many. Our learning community includes the ever-growing community psychologies and commerce. Community involvement, family involvement, is important to expand and utilize more and more. It makes sense, to involve the community in the legal obligation to educate our youth. Expanding vocational placement as a graduation requirement would help public education leaders gauge and own “responsibility to educate”. To involve the whole learning community in the accountability of the school builds relationships with the community. Schools can be facilitators of instruction, partnering with the community educators, and actual vocational networking within the community is supported. The definition of “appropriate” must account for a future calculated result vocationally. There is a personal sustainability element to the word appropriate.
The GED process is an opportunity for change of accountability to occur. How can this learning standard assessment change? How can graduation paths and the GED process better support individuality, and better facilitate vocational and continued education results?
Community Leaders as Optimal Educators.
Funding community involvement is a solution. Accessing our important community leaders for our niche learners will take money. Yes there are many well educated volunteers in the world. There is an army of experienced “baby boomer” teachers retiring and moving to part-time or volunteer positions. But serving at-risk students requires the support and wisdom of our most knowledgeable community professionals. The special community leaders I’m attempting to describe are already in place, and are the natural community based resources available for school districts to turn to. Public education must find and motivate these special people with money! We need their expertise to instruct, to guide the further learning of especially our at-risk youth. Our government must motivate these leaders with tax incentives and funding.
If public education truly is motivated to reach and educate students that are driven by learning agriculture, our communities’ best leaders in agriculture give us the most optimal solution to reach these learners. If schools want to reach students impacted by drugs and alcohol, there are special community educators in place. If schools want to better reach our transgender students, there are special leaders. Teachers can not effectively simulate the instruction, the leadership, the knowledge and skill of these individuals. These community leaders are expert educator resources. For public education to adequately educate students includes having the human resources students deserve. How can public education access these educators in a way that isn’t overly cumbersome? How can this happen without them being “certified teachers”? Could there be a provisional, community leader screening and certification process? Of course there could be.
In a similar way, if schools want to reach the students impacted by violence and gangs, to involve our best community leaders makes sense because they are the most optimal educators for those students. I’ve witnessed our best community leaders who work with gang members. These amazing educators are often former gang members from families involved in gangs for generations. As brilliant as our teachers are, they honestly cannot reach out to our gang inflicted youth or simulate with any integrity the instruction and support these educators can facilitate.
Thinking Differently.
A Physical Education school model would be interesting. Some learn best with constant movement. Sitting at a desk or a table is only beneficial for very small durations of time. For these learners, life is very physical, tactile, hands-on, and requires doing. These students very much struggle in a traditional classroom model and receive all sorts of unnecessary negative feedback for not fitting in. What was once thought of as an alternative approach is quietly being integrated in a politically correct way. For example, educators within most learning environments are incorporating different forms of body/psychology learning. Somatic and meditation practices are popular with students. “Movement breaks” are just the beginning. This is an example of a small positive change already happening.
How about a relational nature-based, rites of passage (RoP) school model? Formalizing learning using a RoP learning methods is gaining popularity. With nature as the great example of transition, change, and renewal, we study our interbeing as a lasting learning support for life’s transitions. How we care for our environment, our wilderness, ourselves, our community psychology landscapes is becoming important in everything we do. To have a sense of ecological identity and a relationship to landscapes and ecosystems is to have a healthy relationship with ourselves. My imagination stretches in outdoor education directions.
Thinking differently always gets me wondering about utilizing secure classroom cameras. Allowing classroom cameras would give the inadequacies of our schools nowhere to hide. Applications classroom-to-classroom cross-disciplinary would become possible. When cameras are such a big part of everyday life, why aren’t secure video cameras in our classrooms? Podcasts are growing in popularity, recording concentrated instructional information. It seems obvious that there could be a significant benefit, especially when considering more accountability for teachers and students. Classroom cams would have a positive effect on student behaviors. Classroom cams could create online learning opportunities for absent students, students traveling for family reasons, and for students that have a learning benefit of a reduced on-campus school day. Good teachers would feel better supported. Teacher performance reviews would be more efficient accomplished, would come from larger sample sizes, making evaluations more meaningful and less cumbersome for administrators. Classroom cams could help parents feel more welcomed and included in their student’s learning. Any conversation I’ve had with an education professional about classroom video cameras is quickly and strangely shut down. This is somehow another unapproachable politically incorrect taboo topic. I suppose cameras are viewed by some teachers as another legality and something that could lead to punitive action if they make a mistake.
When I suggest we thinking differently, I don’t wish to abandon what we’ve learned. The principles that make up special education have been applied to a small degree within the current school model and are a methodology that has a place. The point is that the “one-size-fits-all” approach is holding us back from needed improvements.
Effectively expanding school model and graduation paths aggressively must come from the top, from our Congress persons and our Education Leaders. From us, the voters. Huge Tax breaks for businesses and organizations that support the learning of our youth is an answer. Funds for education needs to change on a scale that is planning for population growth 50 years from now. When States and school districts are struggling to find small amounts of funding, it is clear that grand change in public education’s scope must come from our state and federal governments. As soon as there is money attached to new thinking, change and growth will become popular.
Summers Hold Solutions.
Summers hold solutions to so much learning deficit. Field Trips and vocational learning opportunities are naturally more abundant during the Summer months. Summers are time to educate! Summers are also the best time to connect with families.
Current Summer School practices are nothing short of pathetic. There is something about the Spring and Summer months that exposes technology. Doesn’t it feel more not-right to bury ourselves in technology during spring and summer months than it does during the Fall and Winter months? Fall and Winter are seasons that lend themselves to technology. During these months we naturally go into deep contemplation and thoughts of preparation, etc. Spring and Summer are something else. Summer School ethics must change.
How can school districts justify sitting students in front of screens for hours on end during Summer months? An answer: This is a school district’s way of covering themselves for not serving the student in the first place. It is a trend that school districts “give” students another opportunity to digest the curriculum and learning standards during “Summer School” if they’ve failed classes. They are sat in front of a digital curriculum, there is no reteaching. Quality teachers are present but they are simply monitoring students on computers. This is so sad. How can public education officials justify sitting students in front of screens for hours on end during Summers? An answer: school district’s place their liability in front of what is best for student learning. Curriculum that generates protective data continues to be the priority of a school and is learning becoming more digital.
Field Trips are a much deeper learning opportunities and more authentic learning experience. Continual justification for reduced field trips is supported in the language of our administrators and teachers. Field trips continue to be increasing devalued. There is an idea that transportation costs are too high and the reason why. This is an example of how public education is going backwards. Technology is a poor substitute for a quality authentic learning experiences. Technology is a poor substitute for a learning environment.
Summers are the best opportunity to reach out to families. The support that schools provide a family during the school year is greatly missed during the Summer months, especially for our at-risk families. The impacts of that support not being present during Summer months is something to learn from. The support that a school does provide an at-risk family during the school year is greatly missed during the Summer months. Summers are an opportunity for our schools and educators to build relationships with these families because we all naturally come out of our homes and screens and gather in community ways.
In my opinion, having Summers off needs to be a thing of the passed. And of course this will cost money.