On 7/27/10, Tina/8th wrote:
> On 7/27/10, lynne/ca wrote:
>> On 7/27/10, Mom to Three wrote:
>>>
>>> At the same time in raising our youngest daughter who
>>> has a moderate ID disability, I always wondered why
>>> under IDEA there had not been a push with NCLB to
>>> define a "basic core" curriculum in clear
>>> terms for reading, writing and math that any child
>>> for whom the pacing and depth of the regular
>>> education curriculum was not appropriate could be
>>> following. ...
>>>
>>> Having so often been just "teacher choice"
>>> on what and how was taught or strong teachers but
>>> little funds for curriculum development or
>>> appropriate materials, one can see why parents of
>>> students in special education opted for the inclusion
>>> model.
>>
>
> I could be way off base here so forgive me and feel free to
> correct me if I am.
>
> A child that cannot keep up with the pacing or depth of the
> adopted curriculum would need a modification of the
> curriculum. This is much different that an accomodation that
> is needed to access the standard curriculum. The
> modifications would be/should be based on their disability
> and specific needs. Those modifications should be addressed
> at an IEP meeting and should not be teacher choice. Wouldn't
> having a standard basic curriculum for such child take the
> "individual" out of IEP?

I agree with you, Tina - we can't take the "individual" out
of "IEP". It shouldn't be teacher choice, it should be student
need. To have any effective kind of special education
standards, there would certainly have to be a variety of
options within those standards - and acknowledgement that there
would still be some students who wouldn't fit them and would
need something different.

I'll give you a few examples of the types of standards
and "tested items" we have for special education currently in
California. These would all be for ninth graders with
different needs:

For high school students with severe disabilities:
Communicate wants/needs using a gesture, action, voice
output device or vocalization.

For high school students below grade level but above the level
indicated in the first example: Analyze environmental print
(e.g., labels, signs, menus).

For visual impaired high school students: Using tactile
graphics and transcriber’s notes, analyze the structure and
format of functional workplace documents, including the
graphics and headers, and explain how authors use the features
to achieve their purposes.

Unmodified grade level standard (to be taught with
accommodations): Analyze the structure and format of
functional workplace documents, including the graphics and
headers, and explain how authors use the features to achieve
their purposes.

Math examples - 8th grade

For students with severe disabilities: Identify more and
less.

For students significantly below grade level in math but above
the lowest level of alternate assessment: Multiply single-
digit numbers using a calculator.

For visually impaired students: Students solve equations and
inequalities involving absolute values. Students use a
braillewriter or slate and stylus, following accepted braille
mathematics code and formatting rules, to read and braille the
following symbols to produce print copies: (a) less than; (b)
greater than; (c) less than or equal to; (d) greater than or
equal to; (e) absolute; and (f) other applicable symbols as
needed.

For students at or near grade level, with accommodations as
approrpiate: Students solve equations and inequalities
involving absolute values.

Definitely, even with four "options" (and accommodations
available for each), there still are many gaps - students whose
abilities fall in between the options, etc. There is a big leap
from multiplying with a calculator to working with absolute
values, for example. Also, the Braille standards do not "water
down" the standards for non-visually-impaired students in any
way - in fact they add to them, which may be completely
inappropriate for a student with multiple disabilities such as
visual impairment and learning disability. But, for those
students for whom one of the options is appropriate, it
can provide a standardized focus or set of goals. How they are
reached would remain individualized. I think that may be what
Mom to Three is getting out? Mom to Three and I both
participated in a similar discussion over on the special ed
board a few days ago as well.
Definitely, the IEP still needs to ultimately be what drives
instruction for the student - and student needs drive the IEP.

More | Report Post

Next Post >>

Posts on this thread, including this one