Join the conversation

My response to this post is, "Yes, up to a point." As a former first grade teacher and parent of three, classroom volunteer, and disability rights activist, I absolutely agree that regular teachers should have better grounding in theory and practice for teaching children with high-incidence disabilities. Certainly, ADHD, mild cognitive disability, Asperger's, mobility disabilities if they do not involve chronic medical needs, some levels of visual and hearing impairments, etc. However, the whole point of having special education teachers is that there are large bodies of knowledge and practice connected with specific disabilities that require specialization. Beyond a certain point, you are asking regular teachers to gain a level of knowledge about such a wide array of disabilities that their knowledge is not deep, and not sufficient to teach some of the children effectively. On top of that, a regular classroom is not a good learning environment for some children with disabilties. One example: several friends who are parents of children with autism (not Asperger's but full-blown autims) have found that their children learned nothing in regular classrooms, not even with a full-time aide. They had to do all the teaching at home, and eventually sought placement in self-contained classrooms so that learning could occur for their children.

Anonymous,

I agree with your cautions. As a former high school inclusion teacher (physical science, biology and remedial math), I one hundred percent wish I had better training in the needs of my students who were considered special education, for the most part because (I think) of emotional and mild levels of cognitive disability. I did not have any students I would have considered incapable of learning in the regular education environment (though I agree that placement is an issue in many cases), but I had close to no idea as to what I should do differently for them compared to other students. And I am sure that more of them would have succeeded had I such training.

But you are right that the point of special education teachers is that there are large bodies of knowledge and practice connected with specific disabilities that require specialization. And especially for lower-incidence conditions, one might question the value of ensuring general ed teachers know just how to handle that. But I think that part of this call for increased training in the general issue of disability education is to help general education teachers become more aware of what it is they CAN'T do, and to be more active in seeking help in those instances. I think that another danger of inclusion is that teachers can take too much individual responsibility for their students, and blame a student's poor performance on their teaching and struggle alone to help that student, eventually giving up, never thinking to ask a specialist. (Or not wanting to bother one - I remember a few times stopping by to ask a special education teacher for assistance, but they always seemed so busy with the more severely handicapped students that I did it only as a last resort...after all, my kids were "relatively" well off).

Of course, this requires more than teacher ed reform. It involves changing the entire culture of a profession be more collaborative. But teacher preparation seems a good place to start in that, so our newest educators come to the profession expecting it.

I one hundred percent wish I had better training in the needs of my students who were considered special education, for the most part because (I think) of emotional and mild levels of cognitive disability.

Were you required to take a course in special ed, or is that something that's only done in California? I was under the impression that this was required. If the authors are saying more is required than a required course in special ed, ixnay. No way. Bleargh. Enough already. If they are simply recommending a required course, then fine.

The simple truth is that "kids with disabilities" is a bookkeeping category. In prior years, the kind of kids who are actually capable of doing math and reading with mainstream kids just did worse. Oh, well. So now those kids are sorted out into a separate group and we're supposed to pretend that they are every bit as capable as kids without disabilities, and for the most part this isn't true. A kid with ADHD or executive function problems is probably not going to do well in advanced math. Certainly, a teacher should be on the lookout for kids who have skills, but most simply won't do well. It's just that now, based on the vagaries of diagnosticians, they'll be put in a separate category so we can pretend that they are just as capable.

And I'm not even getting into kids with actual cognitive impairment (lower IQ), which is a whole different ball of wax.

At what point does the education of the special ed student supercede that of a regular ed student? This year I had an abundance of special ed students, each with different and specific needs placed in a regular ed, middle school classroom. I believe that my regular ed students got significantly less from me because my attention was needed to support my special ed students. I also know that I did not get to many concepts I have taught previously because I was too busy trying to support and modify what the students were learning. The few top level students I had in my class got the short end of the stick despite my diligent attempt to address their needs as well. I felt I was spread thin. Too many needs for them and only one of me. By the time you get done reading tests to students who have that mod amd you give extended time to others, who have that mod, and then you reread directions numerous times, add in some ELL students, and some students who need your support because they require additional instruction, the period is over and you haven't had the opportunity to conclude the lesson. It can become a vicious circle which starts all over again the next day.....

Cal, I was not required to take a course in special ed. I don’t think that is something that is done only in California, but what is required varies state-by-state. [Of course, I went through an alternative certification program, which opens a whole other can of worms…]

I don’t think that the authors are saying that more courses in how to teach special ed students are required (except, of course, for those wishing to obtain the special ed credential). I think that they are saying that strategies for differentiating teaching to reach all learners should be woven throughout all courses, benefiting not only students classified as special education but all students.

I do agree with you that “kids with disabilities” is many times a bookkeeping category. Kids with ADHD, emotional disorders and cognitive impairment have extremely different needs, but are often just lumped together in this one category. And for some kids, being labeled in that category is of itself damaging – the authors cite research that kids whose disabilities should not interfere with their learning don’t perform as well. Is it because of educator expectations? I don’t know, but I think that more experience working with different types of students would be beneficial for a number of reasons, but not least that research has also shown that teachers have a tendency to grade on behavior as well as academic achievement, and perhaps if a teacher better knew how to handle a kid with ADHD or emotional disability, the student would better perform to their ability.

Dori, you raise an issue that many teachers struggle with. How do you do it all? How can you personalize instruction for 20 students, 30 students, 35 students (who knows how high class sizes will get during budget crises?), all of whom deserve the best? And I clearly don’t know – that was something I too struggled with daily in the classroom. I think technology will help, once it gets integrated into classrooms. For example, I recently learned of a Gates Foundation-funded project that is developing a teacher avatar, with the thought being that a teacher could pre-record a lesson for students who could handle that, have another group working on computer-based material, and being working in person with a smaller group of “needier” students. In other words, be in three places at once, in a manner of speaking. [Of course, this is predicated on the thought that a teacher has time to record a lesson prior to having to deliver it, and on their being a sufficient number of computers in the classroom, neither of which is a given, but let’s ignore that for a while]. But until then, we have to do the best we can. And to do that, in my opinion, someone needs to TEACH us how to do it. We need to be able to go into a classroom and watch a master teacher differentiate appropriately. We need to learn shortcuts, figure out what kids work well together and have them support each other. We need to do a lot, but we don’t just know how to do it. Unless we have support, including teacher preparation programs that do better to prepare us for the classroom, all that happens is we burn out…

Step and column should reward only teachers who add to a school's needs - specifically special ed and GATE. We must stop paying teachers for taking an online course at University of Phoenix in Massage Therapy; they are scamming the system.

When we look at the unique needs of every student we will meet them in the arena they are best met. Until then we are going to need to place square pegs in round holes. It is not so much the formal educational training (although that is good for specfic therapeutic approaches) it is the tolerance and open mindedness of teachers that facilitates the most high performance of the students. Students reads cues, tones and facial messages. Sometimes what is not said is as important as what is said for kids.