Cognitive Abilities are the over all determinant of success...

[tradrockrat]

And herein lies the layman's problem: the vast majority of students in special education do NOT have low cognitive abilities; they have learning disabilities. By definition, cognitive delay is NOT a learning disability; it falls under a different definition entirely, and accounts for less than 1% of students identified for special education. The legal definition of a learning disability is:

[SIZE=-1](A) IN GENERAL- The term "specific learning disability" means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](B) DISORDERS INCLUDED- Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](C) DISORDERS NOT INCLUDED- Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.​

Also, remember that in order to be defined as Special Ed. the student needs to be 2 or more years behind his / her peer group grade level.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
​

When discussing inclusion and segregation, this definition is vital. As a special education teacher, students with learning disabilities are the ones I work with the most. They are NORMAL kids who have difficulty learning for one or more reasons. The two most common learning differences are

Specific learning disability: A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. This term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. This term does not include children who have learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; mental retardation; or environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage.
Speech or language impairment: A communication disorder such as stuttering, impaired articulation, language impairment, or a voice impairment that adversely affects a child's educational performance.
​

These kids need additional instruction - not DIFFERENT instruction.

I think it's important for the layman to understand that - in context of this discussion thread - that both regular education and special education should involve teaching to different learning modalities such as we have been discussing. It is also worth pointing out that Special Ed. Students often benifit greatly from implimenting these strategies.

The vast majority of them are able to learn the same material as their peers, but they may need extra time, may not be able to read as well as their peers but can demonstrate competence/understanding verbally, and so on - but as long as they are segregated from their peers, they will have only each other to model and learn from. It has been proven that if students are placed only in ability-homogeneous groups, the average and below-average students will only achieve at the level of the highest student in the grouping; if they are placed in heterogeneous groups for most of the day and provided additional instruction where needed, the average performance of the group as a whole improves. High achieving students achieve well regardless of the grouping. The key is to provide heterogeneous grouping for general instruction, and homogeneous grouping for additional instruction, during which time students who need extra help recieve it, and students who don't need extra help can recieve enhancement to improve their skills beyond the grade standard.

What is being refered to here is a "semi-inclusive" setting that seems to be at times the best of both worlds. Most often the inclusive classes are NOT core ciriculum classes such as science or math, but generally classes with more social interaction such as P.E., Art, etc.

Even for students who are cognitively delayed, inclusion is a legal requirement. The two key phrases are "least-restrictive environment" - that is, it is legally required that disabled students be educated in an environment as close to that in which their non-disabled peers are educated as possible, and "free and appropriate public education", which is just what it sounds like. The overlap between "least-restrictive" and "appropriate" is where inclusion and segregation exist - even for the most cognitively delayed students (and there is a student at my school with a tested IQ of 37) can benefit from inclusion in classes such as art. Will this student ever draw like her peers? Not likely... but they will model appropriate behavior for her in a way not possible if she spent all day, every day, in a room with only other cognitively-delayed students... and likewise, her peers learn from her about the range of human ability, and the need for empathy. Less-impacted students benefit from inclusion in PE, Health, Choir, and so on. Learning disabled students and speech/language students, by definition, have normal intelligence, and, if they experience difficulty reading, writing, and/or doing math, can still learn the concepts through participation in oral discussions in all subjects, and can be assessed through alternative means.

And this is the meat of the issue. Let me be honest here. I am not a fan of blanket inclusion - at all. Luckily, the means exist - if the administration is willing to use it and not abuse it - to individually plan out every childs education to best suit there needs. This starts by defining the student's Special Needs, and deciding what is in fact the least restrictive environment for that child. Some children find themselves being placed in a non-public school or Self Contained classes because that is in fact the environment they need to succeed. My students fit this category. I teach Children on the Asperger spectrum with Behavioral issues and / or Emotional Distrubance. Inclusion fror these children is simply not possible AT THIS TIME. However, the main goal of my class is to get these children back into our "General Autistic Population", which is what my campus specializes in In other words, we want them to have a less restrictive environment that they can function in. After that, our goal is dual enrollment at a public school, then transfer to that school for the full day. Some make it, some do not, but i believe that ALL of our students belong on our campus.

Sorry to go on so long, but I live with this argument every day.

Yeah, me too.

 

[Kacey]

Also, remember that in order to be defined as Special Ed. the student needs to be 2 or more years behind his / her peer group grade level.
[/size][/font]

Actually, this isn't true - it used to be; when I started teaching SpEd it was having achievement scores below the 11th percentile, but now it is based on a formula comparing the student's IQ (theoretical ability) to the student's performance on a standardized acheivement test (demonstrated ability). The higher the student's IQ is, the larger the discrepancy required. Unfortunately, a discrepancy criteria will qualify a student with an IQ of 130 who is performing on grade level, and not qualify a student with an IQ of 70 who is 3-4 years behind in all areas... and we have both at my school. The latter child, who is much more in need of help, is classed as a "slow learner" and is not qualified for services under a label of "learning disabled" - luckily for said student, she DID qualify for services under a speech/language label.
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

[/indent]
I think it's important for the layman to understand that - in context of this discussion thread - that both regular education and special education should involve teaching to different learning modalities such as we have been discussing. It is also worth pointing out that Special Ed. Students often benifit greatly from implimenting these strategies.


What is being refered to here is a "semi-inclusive" setting that seems to be at times the best of both worlds. Most often the inclusive classes are NOT core ciriculum classes such as science or math, but generally classes with more social interaction such as P.E., Art, etc.

Um... maybe not where you are, but where I am (Colorado) by both law and district policy, all students are included in content-based classes - and that includes the cognitively-delayed students, who DO go to Science, Social Studies, Math, and English, where they receive work on their level but in the subject of the class they are attending. Not all students attend all classes - but all students are SOME grade-level content classes at some point in their day.

And this is the meat of the issue. Let me be honest here. I am not a fan of blanket inclusion - at all. Luckily, the means exist - if the administration is willing to use it and not abuse it - to individually plan out every childs education to best suit there needs. This starts by defining the student's Special Needs, and deciding what is in fact the least restrictive environment for that child. Some children find themselves being placed in a non-public school or Self Contained classes because that is in fact the environment they need to succeed. My students fit this category. I teach Children on the Asperger spectrum with Behavioral issues and / or Emotional Distrubance. Inclusion fror these children is simply not possible AT THIS TIME. However, the main goal of my class is to get these children back into our "General Autistic Population", which is what my campus specializes in In other words, we want them to have a less restrictive environment that they can function in. After that, our goal is dual enrollment at a public school, then transfer to that school for the full day. Some make it, some do not, but i believe that ALL of our students belong on our campus.

There are no "special needs" schools in my district, except for the Adolescent Day Treatment program, which is predominately non-special ed students; in fact, it is very difficult to get special ed students into that program. Nor do we have center schools - and our students, across the spectrum of ability and disability, are doing very well in most classes - and where they aren't, it is the fault of the teacher, for not following the guidelines of the IEP. This is the clash between IDEA and NCLB - the former REQUIRES that students be taught with the modifications and accommodations necessary for them to succeed, and the latter REQUIRES that they be assessed without those modifications and accommodations. This is just one of the many problems with NCLB. My district is moving towards a response-to-intervention model, and my school already has one in place. As I said, ALL students (with the exception of the 9 in the severe needs program - out of the 837 currently enrolled) attend all 4 grade level content-based classes (Math, Language Arts, Science, Social Studies) - and even the severe needs students are in at least 2 content-based classes (these students include two with autism, one with a childhood-onset schizophrenia, and 6 with abilities ranging from an IQ of 37 up to about 60). They are in these classes with support, but they are with their peers - and we have had great success with this level of inclusion. These classes are heterogeneous. Students who performed in the lower 50% on the CSAP and/or who are recommended by teachers are needing additional assistance are placed in an extra class, in Math, Language Arts (or Reading, if necessary) or both. This program was implemented last year. While it has it's problems, it has also been very successful - and by very successful, I mean our failure rate is down, our attendance is up, behavior referrals are way down, our composite scores on the district assessment have risen significantly, and we had the second highest gain in NCLB-legislated assessments for secondary schools in our district. We are an at-risk school, with unsatisfactory scores - but we improved our students' performance by 11% last year, and if the program continues to work as it seems to be doing, we will be in the Average range this year.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems - but I lean toward inclusion, if only because these children will have to live in the world someday - and the sooner they begin to learn how, the more time they have to perfect those skills. There is no single easy, clear, or obviously correct answer to this problem... but either way, it is still better than warehousing children because they are "defective" - or worse still, the old-style treatment for mental or physical defect: exposure. However bad the current system is, and however much debate there is, it is still better than it has been in the past.

Yeah, me too.

Those of us who know the problems and continue to work for the good of the children - measured in the success of individual children and aggregrate groups of children - are the only ones who truly understand the difficulties that face both children and educators.

 

[Makalakumu]

And herein lies the layman's problem: the vast majority of students in special education do NOT have low cognitive abilities; they have learning disabilities. By definition, cognitive delay is NOT a learning disability; it falls under a different definition entirely, and accounts for less than 1% of students identified for special education. The legal definition of a learning disability is:

[SIZE=-1](A) IN GENERAL- The term "specific learning disability" means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](B) DISORDERS INCLUDED- Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](C) DISORDERS NOT INCLUDED- Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.[/SIZE]​

​

When one considers Gardners multiple intelligences, the definition of SLD written in IDEA becomes obsolete. If one had difficulties in certain academic areas because of "delays" or "imperfections" in visual/spatial, verbal/linguistic, and/or logical/mathematical, there is no other way to describe it other then saying that the individual has a lower ability in one or more of those domains. IMO, interpreting a learning disability with Gardner's model is fundamental in correcting the current model which lets too many slip through the cracks.

When discussing inclusion and segregation, this definition is vital. As a special education teacher, students with learning disabilities are the ones I work with the most. They are NORMAL kids who have difficulty learning for one or more reasons. The two most common learning differences are

Specific learning disability: A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. This term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. This term does not include children who have learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; mental retardation; or environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage.
Speech or language impairment: A communication disorder such as stuttering, impaired articulation, language impairment, or a voice impairment that adversely affects a child's educational performance.

​

These kids need additional instruction - not DIFFERENT instruction.

If one considers that these students have low abilities in one of Gardner's domains then it become apparent that no amount of additional instruction will allow certain kids to learn certain things. Just as I will never be an olympic weightlifter no matter how hard I work out, these kids can NEVER learn certain subjects. Thus there is a need different instruction. Additional instruction may get some kids back up to grade level, but it does not always work. And this, IMO, reflects the environmental vs genetic, things we can change vs things we can't, dichotomy. The bottom line is that a certain amount of ability in these domains is predetermined...and this thought just may change everything about how we teach kids.

The vast majority of them are able to learn the same material as their peers, but they may need extra time, may not be able to read as well as their peers but can demonstrate competence/understanding verbally, and so on -

What would happen if you scheduled your kids into an AP physics class with the general population of students? Most would be unable to learn the material.

...but as long as they are segregated from their peers, they will have only each other to model and learn from.

This is not a bad thing when one considers Gardner's domains. We already separate kids with low abilities in the kinesthetic domain. We call that Adaptive PE. Why is this done? Because these kids can't keep up with other kids with kids with higher abilities. What do they learn from being separated? They learn to try their hardest at what they can do...and that is a very important lesson because it cuts alot of resentment stemming from false personal expectations.

It has been proven that if students are placed only in ability-homogeneous groups, the average and below-average students will only achieve at the level of the highest student in the grouping; if they are placed in heterogeneous groups for most of the day and provided additional instruction where needed, the average performance of the group as a whole improves. High achieving students achieve well regardless of the grouping. The key is to provide heterogeneous grouping for general instruction, and homogeneous grouping for additional instruction, during which time students who need extra help recieve it, and students who don't need extra help can recieve enhancement to improve their skills beyond the grade standard.

The average performance of the group will not improve. The average performance of the group will, however, be higher then what a low ability student can acheive on his/her alone. The simple truth is that the high acheiving students will drag the low ability kids along and many will resent the weight holding them back. Thus, while it may be true that high acheiving students still do well in heterogeneous groups, it is also true that they are not doing as well as they could be doing if they were homogeneously grouped. The end result is that heterogeneous grouping is negative for both high ability and low ability students. The high ability students are being held back and the low ability students aren't really learning what is supposed to be going on in the group.

Even for students who are cognitively delayed, inclusion is a legal requirement. The two key phrases are "least-restrictive environment" - that is, it is legally required that disabled students be educated in an environment as close to that in which their non-disabled peers are educated as possible, and "free and appropriate public education", which is just what it sounds like.

First of all, if we consider Gardner's theory of intelligences, then we need to change the laws that were written thirty years ago...and this should come as no surprise because we know so much more now. Labeling a student with low abilities in one of Gardner's domains as "disabled" really disempowers that student. They are what they are and perhaps it would be better for people to realize this, quit trying to make them "normal" and give them what they really need.

Further, the "least restrictive environment" isn't something that should apply to "disabled" students. It is something that should apply to everyone. If this is the case, then why do we hold our high ability kids back with inclusion? It can (and has) easily been demonstrated that high ability students function even better when grouped homogenously. Thus, wouldn't inclusion be giving them a "restrictive environment?"

The overlap between "least-restrictive" and "appropriate" is where inclusion and segregation exist - even for the most cognitively delayed students (and there is a student at my school with a tested IQ of 37) can benefit from inclusion in classes such as art. Will this student ever draw like her peers? Not likely... but they will model appropriate behavior for her in a way not possible if she spent all day, every day, in a room with only other cognitively-delayed students... and likewise, her peers learn from her about the range of human ability, and the need for empathy. Less-impacted students benefit from inclusion in PE, Health, Choir, and so on. Learning disabled students and speech/language students, by definition, have normal intelligence, and, if they experience difficulty reading, writing, and/or doing math, can still learn the concepts through participation in oral discussions in all subjects, and can be assessed through alternative means.

Inclusion has a place in social settings within a school. Certain domains identified by Gardner like the interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences can be bolstered by contact with dissimilar individuals. Yet, in other areas inclusion is detrimental.

 

[Makalakumu]

As an MAist, I know that there are certain individuals that can learn how to do a jump spinning hook kick and certain individuals that cannot. I sense a lot of reluctance in people to say that mental abilities are similar to this.

 

[arnisador]

Inclusion can be very good for the included child. It can have some benefits for the other children, but those benefits are not academic. The abilities and interests of the students make a big difference to the level at which a class is conducted. Bringing in less-prepared students tends to slow down the class, but more so, it tends to make the class as a whole less responsive. Those who are doing poorly and are less interested/capable in the material are less interactive (on topic) and more likely to be disruptive, even in the small way of looking obviously bored and thereby distracting other students. Give the same lecture/lab. to the top 20% of the class vs. a mixed-ability group and you'll see in the former much more questioning, discussion, and attention being paid. They reinforce one another...in a positive direction or in a negative direction.

So, for the included child the benefits/costs analysis is perhaps simpler, but for the other children, the benefits to their developing empathy and social skills must be weighed against the lowered level of academics they are receiving. We saw this type of thing--not inclusion exactly, but the effects of differing abilities--first-hand in moving from California to Indiana. In addition to all the other reasons why the class level was different, it quickly became apparent that in the rural area to which we had moved, expectations were different because fewer kids came to school prepared to read, etc. The level of your fellow students has a big impact on the education you receive.

 

[tradrockrat]

The whole argument (IMHO) boils down to this. Every student is an individual, with completely individual needs. No one system of education is going to satisfy every students needs. Therefore, opportunity for the student to seek and find their most effective learning environment is essential. To me, this means that there need to be inclusive schools, but that there also needs to be selfcontained classes as well. IDEA 97 may have provided for the least restrictive environment, but it also recognizes those environments as viable - all the way from full inclusion to hospital settings.

NCLB is a travesty of a plan that has essentially forced many schools to choose their student population based on test score potential. It is the main reason why our non-public school has gone from 120 students to over 400 in the last five years.


Kasey - I'm surprised and not at all happy about the change in Special Ed. classification you describe. As of 11 months ago when I took my assessment class for my masters, they were still teaching that the two year lag was the guideline. Also, I have heard of some great success in Colorado (and N. Carolina I believe?) concerning inclusion, but it was a travesty here in California and in Maryland where I started my teaching career. It was misunderstood, poorly implemented and most importantly, the teachers did not buy into the program - a recipe for disaster, I'm sure you'll agree. And in California, there are still some schools that place their special needs students in Core classes with seperate work more geared toward their level, but for the most part, the schools have slowly gone back to grouping like ability students in the same classrooms, so a good mathematician might be in with the regular ed classes, but in a lower functioning reading program, but the main focus of inclusion has become the social aspect, not academics. Personally, I have no problem with it as long as the student is experiencing success.

 

[Kacey]

[/indent]When one considers Gardners multiple intelligences, the definition of SLD written in IDEA becomes obsolete. If one had difficulties in certain academic areas because of "delays" or "imperfections" in visual/spatial, verbal/linguistic, and/or logical/mathematical, there is no other way to describe it other then saying that the individual has a lower ability in one or more of those domains. IMO, interpreting a learning disability with Gardner's model is fundamental in correcting the current model which lets too many slip through the cracks.

I've read much of Gardner's work, and I agree with a fair amount of it. However, I don't agree with your interpretation, because people who have no natural talent for things have been known to learn them through sheer determination - because for some reason, they want to learn the information badly enough to overcome lack of a natural bent for it. To use MA as an example, I was an uncoordinated and non-athletic child; I hated PE, and hated the time it took away from things I would rather be doing or learning. When I was in college, I was talked into trying a TKD class. I was horrible. I had no coordination, no stamina, no understanding of body movements... the list is endless. I certainly did not have an aptitude for it. Nineteen years later, TKD is the focus of my life, and I cannot even speculate what my life would have been without it - because I decided I was interested in it, and persevered despite difficulty and even repeated failure before eventual success with various activities and requirements. But based on a strict reading of Gardner, I should never have been let in in the first place. I know a young man who was diagnosed as dyslexic in 4th grade, placed in special ed, and provided with direct instruction to bolster his strengths... his teachers repeatedly told his mother he would be lucky to make it out of high school, never mind any farther, because he just "wasn't a school kind of kid". Reading and writing came hard to him. He is now a graduate fellow in the Cornell School of Fine Arts - because he wanted it badly enough to do what was necessary, lack of aptitude with reading and writing notwithstanding.

The same concept goes for much of the rest of what you said. Is inclusion the best method? Not for everyone, no. But I think it's a lot better than the mysterious corner room in the back of the school where "those kids" went when I was in middle school, about the time the first special ed law, PL 92-142, was passed - which was itself a massive improvement over the total lack of public education available before that.

Is the legal definition appropriate to every child's learning style? Of course it's not... but it's what we have, and what we have to deal with... blurred as it is by the fact that laws are written by legislators, many of whom have never stepped inside a public school, because neither they nor their children ever attended one, and who cannot comprehend the difference between the average public school and the preselected sample that attends private and parochial schools - preselected because, no matter what else the parents do or do not do for the rest of their educations, they CHOSE to put the time, effort, and money into placing their children into a different setting - thereby setting up an environment containing only students whose parents are interested and invested enough in their education to put them there - and in a setting that can, and does, kick out any child who does not meet the academic or behavioral, and often financial, standards of the institution. This is segregation - legal because it is not a public organization. There are benefits and deficits to this - as there are to public education. Modification for all students' needs is best teaching practice - that is the concept behind the response-to-intervention (RTI) model, one of the better ideas (in concept, if not in execution) to come up in education theory - and with some work, properly executed, RTI will lead to seamless inclusion of students with all sorts of needs - ELL, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed (long- and short-term), physically disabled, and so on.

The educational system isn't perfect, and Gardner has some good insight into why - but his ideas are not the be-all and end-all of educational theory and need, and placing too much weight on any one theory or implementation method, his or anyone else's, leads, in my opinion, to rigidity and inappropriate responses to children's needs.

The whole argument (IMHO) boils down to this. Every student is an individual, with completely individual needs. No one system of education is going to satisfy every students needs. Therefore, opportunity for the student to seek and find their most effective learning environment is essential. To me, this means that there need to be inclusive schools, but that there also needs to be selfcontained classes as well. IDEA 97 may have provided for the least restrictive environment, but it also recognizes those environments as viable - all the way from full inclusion to hospital settings.

True - and this is what we do, to an extent; we are using a response-to-intervention model. It's not perfect, but it's better than some of what it's been in the past.

NCLB is a travesty of a plan that has essentially forced many schools to choose their student population based on test score potential. It is the main reason why our non-public school has gone from 120 students to over 400 in the last five years.

I agree wholeheartedly - NCLB, while well-intentioned, is badly written, nearly impossible to implement, and not understood by the majority of the legislators who wrote it. I'm all for accountability - but students, as discussed, are individuals, and make progress in a variety of ways and at different speeds - high-stakes annual testing is a rotten way to test achievement, especially when a school or district can simultaneously be failing under the definition of NCLB and yet be considered one of the best schools in the state - something that is happening all over the place. In addition, NCLB is a punitive law - and the cost of the assessments has driven many school districts, especially smaller ones, to choose to not take federal funding because the loss of federal funding is less than the cost of administering the assessment.

Kasey - I'm surprised and not at all happy about the change in Special Ed. classification you describe. As of 11 months ago when I took my assessment class for my masters, they were still teaching that the two year lag was the guideline. Also, I have heard of some great success in Colorado (and N. Carolina I believe?) concerning inclusion, but it was a travesty here in California and in Maryland where I started my teaching career. It was misunderstood, poorly implemented and most importantly, the teachers did not buy into the program - a recipe for disaster, I'm sure you'll agree. And in California, there are still some schools that place their special needs students in Core classes with seperate work more geared toward their level, but for the most part, the schools have slowly gone back to grouping like ability students in the same classrooms, so a good mathematician might be in with the regular ed classes, but in a lower functioning reading program, but the main focus of inclusion has become the social aspect, not academics. Personally, I have no problem with it as long as the student is experiencing success.

I don't know why you were taught the 2 year lag, unless it was a misunderstanding on someone's part; for a child of average intelligence, the qualification equation comes out to about 2 years, but it varies based on the child's IQ. For the most part, what we've seen is not a lessening of the number of kids in sped (which was the intent of the change) but a shift from PCD (which requires a discrepancy) to speech/language (which is a cutoff score).

As far as placing sped kids in core classes and modifying their work - this is the ideal scenario, and falls under best teaching practice - good teachers modify for ALL students, regardless of identified needs. Bad teachers don't - again, regardless of identified needs. This is a lack in the system educating teachers - one that, I am happy to say, seems to be getting fixed. My school is in a partnership with a university, and we get teacher candidates in all areas of the school every year - and the newer teachers both in that program and coming from others are MUCH better at modifying than the older ones, which I find very encouraging.

 

[tradrockrat]

As far as placing sped kids in core classes and modifying their work - this is the ideal scenario, and falls under best teaching practice - good teachers modify for ALL students, regardless of identified needs. Bad teachers don't - again, regardless of identified needs. This is a lack in the system educating teachers - one that, I am happy to say, seems to be getting fixed. My school is in a partnership with a university, and we get teacher candidates in all areas of the school every year - and the newer teachers both in that program and coming from others are MUCH better at modifying than the older ones, which I find very encouraging.

I agree completely that good teachers modify for all students. Gardner as well as many others are a great starting point for modification strategies. I find it heartening to see first year teachers entering the school year with strategies and new modifications that they can teach us. I guess where I draw the line on inclusion is when the class would contain several students of significantly different cognitive / processing abilities or "learning speeds" because the teachers are then in effect teaching several lesson plans a period that are not complimentary. TA's or not, it's just not viable. Last year, I had 11 students in my class - self contained all day - grades 9-12. I am required to teach to the state standards which is something I am glad to do because I agree with it. However, that meant literally teaching six different math classes in one period. I had one TA. Now this is of course an extreme example, but it's because of things like this that I think inclusion - especially at the highschool level - is a tricky proposition. I wrote a minimum of 21 lesson plans for every day of school. Servicing my students needs was near impossible, and I had to threaten to quit before the pressure was relived and I was able to actually be a teacher.

Now, another thing about me is that my students have severe emotional / social issues and I consider it my primary job to develop these skills with them. This is something that seperates me a little from "mainstream teachers" and public school thinking, so my opinions and beliefs are a little different from most, but in this pursuit I can't imagine NOT creating an inclusive setting for modeling purposes at the least.

 

[Kacey]

I agree completely that good teachers modify for all students. Gardner as well as many others are a great starting point for modification strategies. I find it heartening to see first year teachers entering the school year with strategies and new modifications that they can teach us.

I agree completely.

I guess where I draw the line on inclusion is when the class would contain several students of significantly different cognitive / processing abilities or "learning speeds" because the teachers are then in effect teaching several lesson plans a period that are not complimentary. TA's or not, it's just not viable.

I think this depends on the system and how well teachers can work together; if you go into it with one or both teachers have decided that it is not possible, then it won't be. I have had some awesome successes team teaching with content teachers, and seen incredible growth in every student in the class, regardless of the level of the students, from SLIC (IQ below 70) to the gifted/talented kids in the same class. I have also seen it bomb horribly when the other teacher does not buy in to the concept of inclusion, and either ignores the SpEd teacher entirely or treats him/her as another paraprofessional (teacher's aide) present in the room. As far as students of different learning speeds, I have never written separate lesson plans - I have chosen the concepts from the lesson that are most key and then chosen the repsonse options that demonstrate at least a basic understanding of those concepts - but every child was participating in the same lesson; only the method of demonstrating understanding was different, and, when the content teacher cooperates, it works quite well. When it doesn't work, then every special needs child (be the need cognitive, learning disability, second language issues, visual or hearing disability, emotional disability, etc.) will flunk, because the content teacher refuses to provide modified work for students who won't even try work... the fact that the work is too hard notwithstanding. Happily, I have encountered fewer of those rather than more, and my administration is very supportive of special needs students (the principal has a child who was identified as special ed all through school) and keeps forcing the issue with those uncooperative teachers.

Last year, I had 11 students in my class - self contained all day - grades 9-12. I am required to teach to the state standards which is something I am glad to do because I agree with it. However, that meant literally teaching six different math classes in one period. I had one TA. Now this is of course an extreme example, but it's because of things like this that I think inclusion - especially at the highschool level - is a tricky proposition. I wrote a minimum of 21 lesson plans for every day of school. Servicing my students needs was near impossible, and I had to threaten to quit before the pressure was relived and I was able to actually be a teacher.

See previous.

Now, another thing about me is that my students have severe emotional / social issues and I consider it my primary job to develop these skills with them. This is something that seperates me a little from "mainstream teachers" and public school thinking, so my opinions and beliefs are a little different from most, but in this pursuit I can't imagine NOT creating an inclusive setting for modeling purposes at the least.

The students I work with are primarily evenly split between learning disabilities and speech/language disabilities, with a few students with emotional disabilities and a few with cogntive delays, plus a couple with physical disabilities (cerebral palsy) and one with a vision disability (legally blind but with some working vision, very constricted field and acuity). Most of them are doing quite well in inclusion settings; the ones who aren't are having the problem I described above - because they are given work they cannot do, and therefore do not complete (or complete incorrectly - and the teacher I'm thinking of will give no credit for effort if over half the answers are wrong - so why try? I wouldn't), the teacher will not modify because they are, in the teacher's view, lazy; this generally leads to motiviation problems that can spill over into other classes. This is the fault of the teacher, not the student. I have provided alternate assignments for many of these teachers, and they can't be bothered to use them - even when I provide packets of ready-to-assign work that have been successful in the same content with a different teacher in the building, some teachers cannot be bothered - but again, that is the teacher's fault, not the student's, and while it makes inclusion ineffective, it is not the fault of the inclusion concept.

Are there some kids who should never be included? Maybe a very small percentage... but we have a lot of high needs kids in my school who are very successfully included in a large percentage of school activities, including sports, lunch, electives, and content classes - more in content classes, for some kids, than in the more social aspects, because that is where they are most successful; others are the reverse.

To go back to the original question that began this thread, "Cognitive Abilities are the over all determinant of success..." I don't think so. I think that motivation, resilience, parent and community involvement and support, good relationships with at least one teacher or other adult in the school (the head custodian at my school probably knows by name, and is liked by, more students than any other adult in the building), interest in a subject, involvement in extracurricular activities, and so on all help children become successful, well-rounded adults with good social skills, and the ability to be successful in any area in which they are sufficiently interested. The only exceptions I see to this are children who are so disabled (emotionally, cognitively, and/or physically) that they are unable to lead independent lives - and even for those, a good educational experience can lead to a more positive outcome for the rest of their lives than a poor experience. Resilience, which can be an internal trait, but which can also be fostered, is as much of a key to success as cognitive ability - and like any other aspect of personality or ability, cognitive ability does not exist in a vacuum.

A student with strong cognitive ability who does not learn, for whatever reason, will be at a disadvantage compared to a student with average cognitive abilities, and in some cases below-average cognitive abilities, who choose to spend the time and effort necessary to improve their abilities. This is where motivation plays a part in success.