On Special Education

The Perkins School for the Blind in Watertown, Mass., has released a resource to help teachers trying to adapt science lessons for students who are blind or visually impaired.

At www.perkins.org/accessiblescience, the school has gathered video Webcasts, illustrated classroom activities, product suggestions, and links to online and hard-copy resource materials that "all aim to help teachers bring science to life for students with impaired vision," the school said in a press release.

I've watched the Webcast called "Making Life Sciences Accessible to Students with Visual Impairments,” with secondary school science teacher Kate Fraser, and it demonstrates some useful practical changes to a science curriculum. For example, using a three-dimension model of a cell that allows students to feel various cellular structures can be useful for an entire class, not just students who are visually impaired.

More Webcasts are to come to the site, Perkins says.

Posted by Christina Samuels at 3:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. Eric London, who served on the scientific-affairs committee of the advocacy organization Autism Speaks, announced yesterday he plans to resign from that position because of the organization's stance on vaccines as a possible cause of autism.

London was a co-founder of the National Alliance for Autism Research, which merged with Autism Speaks in 2006. In his resignation letter, London said he was stepping away from the New York-based Autism Speaks because it continues to push for research into an autism-vaccine link, and that his continued participation would lend support to an organization "whose scientific agenda and positions I can no longer ethically support."

The arguments which Dr. Dawson and others assert—that the parents need even further assurances and there might be rare cases of “biologically plausible” vaccine involvement—are misleading and disingenuous. Through its website and other communications, Autism Speaks has been influential and contributory in encouraging parents’ doubts. By preferentially investing and advocating for the use of limited financial resources on the “biological plausibility” argument, the organization is adversely impacting the advancement of autism research.

The "Dr. Dawson" London refers to above is Dr. Geraldine Dawson, the chief science officer for Autism Speaks.

Parents and some scientists assert that the rise in autism identification in recent years is connected either to a mercury-derived preservative in vaccines, or certain types of vaccine, like the one for measles, mumps, and rubella. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta say there are no proven links between preservatives, measles vaccines, and autism, though cases are clearly on the rise.

This is the second major defection from Autism Speaks, which has grown to become a major player in autism advocacy. Alison Tepper Singer announced in January that she also was leaving the organization for the same reasons London cites—the organization's inappropriate, in her opinion, focus on vaccines as a cause of autism.

Tepper has created her own advocacy group, the Autism Science Foundation. London serves on the ASF's scientific advisory board.

Edited 1:43 p.m. I contacted Autism Speaks for a statement and got this response:

Autism Speaks is currently pursuing a broad program of research, including studies on both genetic and environmental risk factors and the development of new treatments. We believe that our broad agenda will ultimately provide answers to the cause and treatment of autism spectrum disorders. We wish Dr. London well in his new endeavor.

Posted by Christina Samuels at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm a little late on this story, which was in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal last week: A judge has ordered the district to search for students who didn't get the special education services they were entitled to between 2000 and 2005 and figure out some way to "make that up to them."

[Judge Aaron Goodstein] said students during that five-year period were entitled to get a determination by a team of special education professionals on what educational help they should get now to make up for the failings of the system at that time. There was no discussion in his lengthy opinion about offering money, but even those who have graduated high school and are doing other things now might be entitled to compensatory education.

Goodstein strongly criticized [Milwaukee Public Schools]. He said that while the record showed MPS was paying more attention to compensatory education, "the evidence demonstrates that MPS has a long way to go."

Disability Rights Wisconsin, an advocacy organization, sued the district in 2001, leading to this result. The Journal-Sentinel is urging the district to address the matter quickly, or it'll end up costing even more money.

I just wonder how much it will cost to find these former students—and can they ever really be made whole?

Posted by Christina Samuels at 3:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My colleague Stephen Sawchuk attended the annual assessment conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers in Los Angeles. He filed this report:

Texas has become the first state to have its alternate assessment aligned to modified achievement standards pass the U.S. Department of Education's peer-review process. That means it can officially use the test for accountability purposes under No Child Left Behind.

The alternate assessment-modified achievement standard, or AA-MAS, is part of the "2 percent flexibility" announced under former Education Secretary Margaret Spellings to measure the content knowledge of some students with disabilities who are not severely cognitively disabled, but don't appear to be able to show what they know on regular grade-level assessments.

The AA-MAS measures grade-level content, but can be easier than the general assessment. And so states are now trying to figure out what modifications to the test items are appropriate for this population.

Once the test is operational, states must oversee districts' decisions about which students are eligible to take the test. There's no limit to the number of kids who can be assessed using an AA-MAS, but only 2 percent of proficient scores can be factored into adequate yearly progress decisions.

Most of the states that have applied for the flexibility still don't have operational tests and are using a proxy method to account for the population. The National Center on Educational Outcomes has compiled a lot of information on these tests, which can be found here.

Last year, six states submitted their modified exams for peer review, but a bunch of issues prevented them from being accepted. Several, for instance, did not cover content standards to the same degree of breadth and depth as the general assessment, as required by the education department. Texas seems to have passed this hurdle, although the Education Department hasn't posted Texas' acceptance letter yet so further details are not yet available.

Many philosophical questions remain, despite this advancement. At the CCSSO conference, there were literally dozens of sessions on the 2 percent assessments this year, and after attending a number of them, it became very clear that what researchers, states, and policymakers know about this population of students with disabilities and about how best to measure their abilities remains nascent.

There's been a lot of progress, for which researchers deserve a lot of credit. For instance, a number of state consortia have been conducting "cognitive interviews" with these students to determine which test-item modifications help them to access the test. They're finding some interesting things, namely that "scaffolds" built into the tests to help these students don't always seem to be having that effect. Bolding key words in reading passages, for instance, appears to have mixed results. But other modifications do seem to be helping.

There are still a number of questions that aren't really decided. One popular modification, removing one of the wrong answers, or "distractors," on a multiple-choice question, is a popular strategy. Texas went this route. But, as one presenter queried at the conference, does that really increase access for a student with a disability? Or does it change the construct of the question so that it may no longer be measuring the same thing?

Posted by Christina Samuels at 3:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

And now, more shameless self-promotion:

Education Week has gathered several stories about inclusion and assistive technology, many of which were written by yours truly, and put them together in a package that you can purchase for just $4.95! For more information, follow this link.

Posted by Christina Samuels at 6:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The National Center for Learning Disabilities, based in New York, has just released an excellent report that offers a broad overview of the state of students with learning disabilities nationwide.

The center pulled statistics from several reports, including many maintained by the U.S. Department of Education, and put them in an easy-to-understand and useful format. Among some of the highlights collected in State of Learning Disabilities 2009:

• The identification rate of school-age students with LD has consistently declined for the past 10 years.
• Learning disabilities disproportionately affect people living in poverty.
• People of all races are identified with LD at about the same rate (except people of Asian descent).
• The cost of educating a student with LD is 1.6 times higher than a regular education student (compared with 1.9 for all students with disabilities).

I was surprised to see that the rate of identification of learning disabilities is going down, even though the classification "specific learning disability" is still the most common one among children eligible for special education services: 44 percent of children in special education had that classification in 2007, according to government statistics. (Within that broad category, dyslexia—difficulty understanding written language—is the most common learning disability.)

In comparison, autism, which receives a lot of attention, accounted for 4 percent of students with disabilities in 2007, the report states.

However, even at 44 percent, that classification rate marks a decrease from the more than 50 percent of students who were classified with learning disabilities in 2000.

The report hypothesizes that educational frameworks like response to intervention may be playing some role in the decrease of children classified as being learning disabled. Indeed, one of the prime movers behind the push for RTI is the belief that if children receive high-quality instruction when they are young, they won't be classified as having learning disabilities later in their school careers. Much more on that topic can be found here.

Improvement in reading instruction and widespread early-childhood education programs were also cited as possible causes of the drop in identification.

What didn't surprise me, unfortunately, is that identifications of learning disabilities are more common among students in poverty. The report suggests that children in poverty are more likely to be exposed to environmental toxins, poor nutrition, and other risk factors during early, critical stages of brain development.

The report also includes information on behavior, use of technology, graduation data and dropout rates, and legal protections. Anyone interested in knowing more about learning disabilities and their impact on students will appreciate this guide.

Posted by Christina Samuels at 3:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act can require districts to pay for a student's private school placement, even if that student never spent any time enrolled in public school.

The court's 6-3 decision came in Forest Grove School District v. T.A. (Case No. 08-305).

My colleagues Erik Robelen and Mark Walsh have a story on the decision here.

The Forest Grove News-Times, the newspaper that covers the Oregon district, weighs in here.

The New York Times has a take on the case. And finally, the Oregonian, based in Portland, has a short article on its Web site.

Some of the early comments from readers on the Oregonian's Web site are particularly harsh, saying that this decision could end up bankrupting school districts. What are your thoughts?

Posted by Christina Samuels at 3:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

Massachusetts Advocates for Children and the Boston office of the law firm DLA Piper have launched a partnership that will allow the firm's lawyers to provide representation for low-income parents at special education hearings and legal proceedings.

The law firm will also provide assistance to MAC in its advocacy efforts on behalf of children statewide.

For its first year, the firm has pledged 1,000 hours on behalf of the project, said Matt Iverson, a DLA Piper lawyer and one of the project's leaders.

What I found most interesting about this partnership is that the attorneys with DLA Piper are not going to just handle litigation, according to Tom Mela, the Children's Law Support Project director for the advocacy group. Most special education cases are settled long before the lawsuit stage.

Instead, the lawyers will be working with parents at the school level, before a dispute escalates. They will also litigate as necessary, but that's not expected to be their primary focus. "Most of the cases begin with, and end with, school-level advocacy," Mela told me.

Mela said his organization is training the lawyers in topics such as special education testing. Another lawyer shadowed Mela during an IEP meeting, to get a feel for that process. More training and shadowing opportunities are planned.

This partnership, which the firm refers to as a signature pro bono project, grew out of interactions between the advocacy group and the firm a few years ago. During that time, MAC referred a few cases to DLA Piper, but the signature project is ultimately expected to involve the entire staff of the Boston office in some capacity.

"It's hugely different now, because of [DLA Piper's] commitment," Mela said. And Iverson said that the work has been rewarding, if quite different from his normal work on banking regulations and land use matters.

"You can see a more direct impact," he said.

I've interviewed more than a few parents who have talked about how difficult is is to find adequate representation if they feel they need to challenge a school's educational decisions for their child with disabilities. More partnerships between advocacy organizations and law firms might be a way to create more expertise in this complicated area of the law.

Posted by Christina Samuels at 2:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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.

Mary Ann Pollett, principal of Moses Montefiore Special Elementary School, testified before the City Council's Committee on Education and Child Development that officials have discouraged teachers at her school from reporting students' disabilities because it is too expensive to deal with them.

"They deny that that goes on, but it does," Pollett said, with her superiors only a few yards away. "Montefiore is only the tip of the iceberg. This goes deep into a systemic issue that needs to be addressed within the Chicago Public Schools."

The issue arose because Montefiore offers a special program for boys with emotional and behavioral disorders. The school was facing the prospect of closing because of dwindling enrollments. Supporters of the school have said that the district was choosing not to evaluate students who might then enroll in Montefiore, because of the high cost of educating them.

The district, responding to the accusation, denies that it engages in such practices, though it is working on better ways to identify students with disabilities. And, it said that in the past it has been accused of overidentificiation, which is a real problem that does face many districts.

Certain subgroups of students, particularly boys and minorities, are
identified as having special education needs at a rate higher than other students. The difference in rates of identification is referred to with the special education field as disproportionality.

Access Living, an advocacy group for people with disabilities, has also recently taken aim at the district's Renaissance 2010 schools, which are new, smaller schools with innovative teaching programs.

Access Living claims that students with disabilities within those schools do no better than at a traditional public schools. The organization said that the creators of the small schools have to make plans for how to educate students with disabilities in the earliest stages of program development:

“Whether it be reading intervention or transition services, if students with disabilities are not integrated into the original plan of the program, then students with disabilities will fall behind,” said Rodney Estvan, Access Living’s Education Policy Coordinator, who is the lead author of the report.

“In order for CPS to realize the original intent of the Renaissance 2010, they have to start including students with disabilities in all new proposals and program development plans.”

Posted by Christina Samuels at 5:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

If you're a local special education director reading this post, you probably feel burned out on compliance, litigation, and data-collection efforts. You may be shouldering duties that don't have much to do with special education, like administering your district's McKinney-Vento program for homeless children. You may not feel like you have support from your school board, and you may feel the lack of proper administrative support as well.

Those are some of the reasons local special education directors are leaving their positions, according a survey conducted by the busy folks at Project Forum, a center created by a partnership between the U.S. Department of Education and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (You'll have to fill out a short survey to download the free document.)

The first thing to note with this survey, "Retention and Attrition of Local Special Education Directors," is that it does not directly ask local special education directors why they are leaving, or what might help them stay. The survey asked state directors of special education what they felt the pressures were on their colleagues at the local level. That degree of separation may affected the results, depending on how plugged-in any individual state director is with what's happening at a local level.

But the results themselves aren't terribly surprising: 20 out of 38 state directors who responded to the survey say that it's hard to retain good people. Districts and states are choosing to address this issue through mentorship programs and professional development, among other strategies.

These survey also offered some less-used "softer" strategies, like "acknowledging what difficult jobs [local special education directors] have and tell them how much their work is appreciated" or "highlight accomplishments of [local education agencies, or school districts] through statewide announcements and recognition programs."

I'd love to know if state officials are on the right track in understanding what district special education directors want and need.

Posted by Christina Samuels at 3:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)