Children and teens with special needs are the most vulnerable students in our provincial public school systems. Thirty years ago such students were routinely labelled “odd,” “hyperactive,” “slow,” “unmanageable,” or “mentally handicapped.” Public schools embraced progressive educational philosophy and specal needs children were either left to fend for themselves or simply pushed along from grade-to-grade. Segregated classes were more common and that stigma of being “Special Ed” could last a lifetime. With educational research on learning difficulties in its infancy, special needs children remained “outliers” in the ‘one-size-fits-all’ school system.
Today Special Education has emerged as a priority and a whole system of services has grown up in that domain. Sincere, committed advocates for special needs kids have succeeded in carving out a place for Special Education in the modern bureaucratic education state. It’s an exceedingly complex system with a formidable educational bureaucracy, supported by the Education Act and its regulations. With its own, administrative stucture, rules, and language, it’s so complex that parents and families feel, at times, like they are confronting the New Byzantium, a maze of extremely complicated rules next to impossible to fathom let alone navigate.
On May 12, 2011, the reality of the new Special Education system hit me while attending a workshop with a rather ironic title, “Navigating the School System.” The Workshop Leader was Dr. Joan Backman, a highly respected Halifax neuropsychologist and pioneer in the Nova Scotia learning disabilities awareness movement. Indeed, Dr. Backman’s review of special education services in the 1990s is widely credited with establishing the system that province has today.
Dr. Backman’s presentation came a week after Dr. Ben Levin’s controversial Nova Scotia Education Review (May 5, 2011) calling for a review of the province’s special education services. Reducing “student failure” was identified as the system’s top priority in the years ahead. “Special education,” Levin wrote, ” is consuming a larger and larger share of education expenditures around the world.” THat led him to make a startling statement: “An education system that was able to reduce the number of children requiring special education services would improve efficiency significantly.”
Coming from an educational progressive and a life-long NDPer, the Levin report was a shocker. While recognizing the tremendous importance of providing special education services, he went on to question the current delivery model in Nova Scotia. “More and more children are being referred to special education and there seems no end to this increase.” Since 2001, he pointed out that student enrolment in special education had grown at 3-4 % per year while overall student numbers declined by 2-3 % a year. He reported that the number of students on IPPs had doubled in ten years and that some 15 % of all students now required some form of special education services.
Dr. Levin found it amazing that a system with only 127,500 students and 9,900 teachers now employed 2,000 Teaching Assistants. That led him to question the whole identification and placement process in Nova Scotia schools. And, since research had shown that TAs had little on no benefit in improving student outcomes, he recommened that Nova Scotia reduce gradually the number of education assistants, placing more students in the care of regular classroom teachers.
None of this seemed to have any relevance to the Workshop Leader or the participants in that ACLD Workshop. There the focus was on “the art of advocacy” for “parents with children or youth with special needs.” As a veteran of the earlier wars, Dr. Backman was intent on imparting a few hard-won lessons on how to work within the existing sytem to secure “accomodations” for the children and needed extra help in educating those with special needs. It was all about “building a positive relationship with the school” to win special attention for your child in a school system presumed to be inflexible, or resistant to making accomodations.
Being a parent advocate, according to Backman and special ed consultants, is a serious business and a variation on the new “profession” of parenthood. Parent advocacy is seen as “an art” to be mastered and to be “effective” requires that you master the “lingo,” including the alphabet soup of acronyms and pseudo-scientific terminology. You need to conquer the language to compete in this contested educational arena — seeking IPPS with the PPT and written confirmation of those “adaptations.”
Talking nice to teachers was identified essential to achieving the desired special education placement and set of adaptations. Never be the “mother bear” or raise your voice, even when you are rendered voiceless or ignored in a group meeting. In a system with ever “fewer resources,” keep in mind what is “reasonable.” When all else fails, follow the esablished pecking order and — as a last resort — petition the Department of Education and take it right to the Minister of Education!
Parent advocacy has become a growth industry, certainly in the realm Special Education. Mastering the game involves playing by the bureaucratic rules to extract concessions from the school system. You are exhorted to “navigate the system” rather than to “beat the system.” The hidden curriculum lesson is that “the squeaky wheel does get more grease.” When it comes to advocacy, Backman says “sucking up is a life skill.”
School systems need to respond effectively to children and teens in need. We have come a long way since the “bad old days” before the rise of special education services. Every province in Canada, and most school boards, have separate educational divisions responding to the critical needs of the physically and mentally challenged. Few educators or politicans have the courage to wade into this political minefield, even those there is ample evidence that resources could be utilized more effectively in serving the most vulnerable kids. “Inclusion” is the ruling ideology promoted actively in Canadian faculties of education. To question the currrent status quo is to open yourself to vilification as a callous, heartless cost-cutter. It’s next to impossible to have an adult conversation over resolving the structural problems in the field of special education.
What is so sacrosanct about the New Byzantium of Special Education? Are we up to the challege of rethinking special education services? What would a system “putting students first” really look like? Would it require a commitment to broadening school choice? How else can we secure a system where the school fits the child rather than the other way around?
Another great blog topic! I would like to know some stats from other provinces on special education. Is Nova Scotia on par in general or are we off the charts with the number of special needs students? I’m willing to believe that Dr. Ben Levin may have a point about too many students being identified as needing IPPs. You have to wonder where this is coming from. But, the reality, many families are living it, there is alot of stress involved for everyone. Childhood is not supposed to be so hard. We’re doing something wrong in the school system.
What do “they” consider “special ed”? The kids who are not learning because they cannot learn they same as the majority of the class, or those who are not learning because they learn differently? There are 2 very specific cases of special education required. I am really afraid that the kids who learn differently and CAN learn are going to be paying the price for those who cannot and that should not happen. Just because a child has ADHD (etc) which often leads to a diagnosed LD, and needs support , does not mean he/she cannot learn and cannot succeed. Be careful what you wish for – and do not lump them all the same….
When I was a Trustee on the Toronto Board of Education (TBE), we got a report that the growth rate for Special Ed was going up like a rocket and if left unchecked would result in the eventual 24% of students being in SE.
The Head of Curriculum at the TBE explained it thusly.
An “inner city” principal has difficulties with too many misbehaving and unsucessful students. She asks the board, can I have smaller classes? NO. Can I have more say on which teachers teach here? NO. Can I have more educational assistant? NO. Can I have more resources, NO.
I have identified many students here for IPRCs ( Ontario’s IPPs) and possible SE. Oh, we will have to look at that. So 20 students are IPRC’d 15 are “identified” as needing SE, more SE teachers were assigned to the school, the board got more money, the admin had a bigger empire, the students were given the fig leaf of support and everyone was quiet.
The sad thing is that the IPRC process and the eventual placement is a process of ‘labelling’ and whenever this is done people tend to live up to the label.
Many kids actually go into greater decline in school the day they are placed in SE. The other kids taunt them on the school yard as being stupid (LD) or crazy (Behavioural adjustment).
Parents believe that Special Education is a kind of quick pit stop where the kid gets “fixed up” and put back into the reguar classes. If fact they find out their child is never ready to return because SE in elementary is like a track itself. You are no longer in that big race over there, you are in this little “limited expectations” race over here that has its own track.
No Peggy, Nova Scota is not off the charts. But I believe it would be wrong to accept Levin’s report on the increased identifiation of students requiring an IPP or an IEP in other provinces.
Being immersed with LD and IEP meetings for the last 10 years, the Levin report is…. all about reducing special education services where the LD children will become the new expanded norm within the inclusive classroom. The special education services that LD children are in the most need of is in the areas of reading, writing and numeracy. Now here is the tricky part where the disability laws governing LD, comes into play.
The educrats for years have evaded their duties to provide the best services for LD children, who for the most part need direct, implicit instruction in areas of reading, writing and numeracy. The reason being is the laws governing LD and for that matter other disabilities have no legal teeth. Does it mean that the education authorities are not bound by the laws governing LD? No, they are bound to meet the legal defination required, which they do by identifying and providing IPPs or IEPs. As for providing education services, the education system are not bound by the law to provide effective and proven methods that are known to work, because the school board has met the legal defination just barely, in the event of a civil court suit.
One woman from Nova Scotia has clearly explained how the educrats use the law to avoid accountability and the education of children, especially the SE children:
“My name is Michelle Morgan-Coole and I reside in the beautiful Annapolis Valley with my husband and two teenage daughters (heaven help us all!), both of whom struggle with differing levels of disability.
Besides being a mother, I am also a lawyer (and a member of the Nova Scotia Bar since 1991) and this combination has given me a keen passion to use the law to assist persons with disabilities. I would like to think that being able to understand and move within the two often very different worlds of law and disability has allowed me to become a strong and effective advocate for the disabled.”
On a recent post in her blog, she writes about the Levin Report.
“Now, we learn that a review of the Province’s public education system is calling for the Province to “consider reducing the number of teaching assistants in special education”. Does anyone else see any connection here? Is this the beginning of the end of a proper education for our children? ……………
I find Mr. Levin’s concern about the number of students receiving special education services due to an increase in the “soft” areas of identification, like “students thought to have learning disabilities or behaviour problems” rather odd. If he had spent any time at all in Nova Scotia’s schools he would know how difficult it is to obtain any special education services for such students. Students are not considered to have a learning disability simply because a parent or teacher thinks this may be so; services won’t be offered (if at all) until a student has been diagnosed by a qualified psychologist. And, given the wait times to be seen by a school psychologist, students can literally wait years for that type of assessment.
And although it’s great to hear that the number of students with physical disabilities is not increasing, that observation does nothing to address the needs of the numerous students in our schools who have honest-to-God documented mental challenges, those on the autistic spectrum and those with various learning disabilities, all of which have been documented by qualified professionals. Whatever the reason for these numbers, the Province is legally obligated to provide all students with an appropriate education.
And yet Mr. Levin argues that it is not clear that special education programs actually result in improved outcomes and that students placed in these programs continue to lag behind other students and sometimes the gap gets bigger rather than smaller…..In December, 2010, the Province recognized that “[w]e are at a crossroads and it is more important than ever that we take the steps necessary to manage our school system in a way that matches the number and needs of the students it serves …”. I couldn’t agree more. We most definitely do need an informed discussion on these topics, but preferably one where students with special needs aren’t scapegoated for the majority of the problems in the Province’s educational system, as they so often are.”
http://specialneeds-ns.blogspot.com/2011/05/creative-writing-potential-op-ed-piece.html
Public Education is at a crossroads, and it seems that the educrats across the country are willing to impose their dogma, ideology on the SE children, and SE departments across the country. Canadian law differes greatly from that in the United States, according to Morgan-Coole, “This is where the story really diverges from the Canadian situation in that (as I’ve previously noted on more than one occasion) although Nova Scotia (and other Canadian provinces) uses much of the wording from the American legislation (IDEA), our Education Act has none of its teeth. Nor do we have any of the built-in as-of-right administrative law remedies you will see below.”
http://specialneeds-ns.blogspot.com/
The stats that Peggy has requested, are the stats that are not published in any shape or form, concerning the SE children and their education. THe published figures show the increase in funding, the increased numbers in SE, but not the most important data. We are told little about levels of achievement, what programs are being used, how many years a child is receiving SE services, or the obstacles to improvement. A whole host of administration rules/regulations prevents the public from receiving the whole story on SE and the services being provided.
Not too long ago, children like my child was sitting in a SE math class doing work that represented no challenge to them, but the underlying weaknesses regarding numeracy are not being corrected. One glaring example, my child was away for a two week period because of illness, and she missed a whole unit period that took place during the two weeks. When she returned, she took the test and received 100 %. When my child finally returned to the grade 6 regular math class, after wasting two years in a SE math class, and although identified since the end of grade three – it was expected and authorized by the school board, that she would not received any accommodations, or any other resources than what the students were already receiving in the regular math class. Nice eh? Technically my child was two grade levels below the other grade 6 math students, not entitled to accommodations, no tutoring, nor the other rights under the law and rules/regulations of the school board, since the educrats have declared that her math weaknesses were remediated. Far from the truth, but educrats like Levin, including the nastier versions that are at the school boards, would like the public to believe that the public education system, have the best interests of children at heart. They don’t.
The educrats are putting their own best interests first, and ahead of students. For SE children, it is further down the list from the regular students and their achievement, for many reasons including burying the achievement stats of children with disabilities. Once upon a time in my province, the government carried a comprehensive collections of stats in education, as well as other stats in different departments. In the education stats, it was broken down to the lowest levels the schools, than the boards and provincial, and included by age, grade and what type of disability.
At one point prior to my child entering high school, there were a total of 8 LD students in the intermediate grades. Not anymore, even though no student has moved away, nor dropped out, there is only one LD student recorded in the stats for my school. According to the school, it is my child and it was all done via through changes to the administration of IEPs. The changes were made after the 2007 SE report which was a damning indictment on SE and services. When the education department started to implement the recommendations, I kept a close eye knowing the devil would be in the details. And it was, with the addition of an IEP and retaining the older version called an ISSP. Keep in mind, I was well educated by that time on the stats, the legal rights, the laws governing SE, I was reading the documents with this knowledge coursing through my mind. A slick move by the educrats to eliminate the number of LD students receiving SE services relating to reading, writing and numeracy.
What became of the LD students? In my local schools, the seven intermediate LD students were placed under the ISSP label, since they needed outside services such as social services, and are considered by educrats to be receiving no services under the ISSP. It was expected that the teachers would provide accomodations and education needs as they see fit. As for the IEP, students must meet a narrowed criteria to be placed under the IEP label. It would include all children who have criteria such as autism children, cognitive delays, but it was not made clear where the LD children fit in. The IEP was designed specfically to meet the educational needs of SE children, and their achievement in and outside of the regular classroom. Furthermore all children must have an identified disability, docoumentation and must meet criteria. Criteria used in my province indicate severity of the disability. Most of the LD students do not fall into the severe criteria, and as a result very few are classed as LD students
Under the current Special Education system, very few LD students have an IEP because they do not meet the qualifications, and , in the case of my child, she did not meet either the IEP or the ISSP.
Here is what happened in my case: It took me two years to obtain the IEP for my child while the educrats were determined my child would have neither, nor to be entitled to any accommodations and services for her LD, that was duly identified and assessed at the end of grade 3. I won, based on the law, the stats, and their own rules/regulations, for my child. However LD students who are under the ISSP, are not receiving SE services relating to their education needs, in the same way as my child, and if by chance the LD students labelled ISSP enrols in a post-secondary institution they will have great difficulty in meeting the criteria for special services at that level. And no doubt, those students will have to undergo assessments at their expense, to take advantage of servces related to disabilities. You are told that all students can apply for special services, and but that is not true at all.
My belief is that SE cuts are taking place on the backs of the LD students, and other disabilities such as ADHD where the services that will be cut and eliminated are the services regarding the remediation and correcting learning weaknesses on reading, writing and numeracy. The educrats brings up costs on the programs, but in reality the costs are a drop in the bucket, compared to the current staff and bureaucracy cost that is needed to maintain the status-quo in the whole public education system. Much time and sepense is wasted preventing parents and children from exercising their legal rights under current law in education, and in blocking new education laws that have teeth like the IDEA laws in the United States. The educrats are going the route of rules/regulations to protect their best interests and to avoid accountability. Their playground is in special education,a place to to practice and test out their regulations before applying the rules to the rest of the student population.
My good friend Wade Brummet, Chair of the NS Equal Education Association, has sent out a message urging parents to make their views known by completing the Online Survey in response to Dr. Ben Levin’s report, specifically with regard to Special Education services.
“You’ve likely heard about Dr Ben Levin’s report on education in Nova Scotia. Many of the comments focus on support for Special Needs students. The report can be found on the home page of the departmentsweb site. Under the same link is a opportunity to fill out a survey with
your thoughts on the report. I know like me, you are frustrated aboutthe lack of support in the public system, and the arbitrary time limitson support at Designated Special Needs Schools. This is youropportunity to make those views known, its up to you to make a
difference. Please take some time to read the report, and complete thesurvey. As the survey format limits your comments, please detail all your thoughts in a letter to the minister. It would be advisable tocopy both PC and Liberal education critics. The minister is looking for input so make it count. The survey closes June 15th.”
Comment:
It’s a rare opportunity to make your voice heard on the state of Special Education and the need for more schools to support special needs kids. Schools like Bridgeway Academy and Churchill Academy should be an integral part of the Nova Scotia plan to serve special needs children. Indeed, we need more tax-supported schools serving that purpose here in Nova Scotia.
IPP students don’t get tested. There’s usually a flurry of “new” IPPs just prior to standard testing time in the AVRSB.
I also want to draw your attention to http://www.childrenofthecode.org
Early reading intervention,done properly,can greatly diminish special education numbers.
I have references from 2 school boards in Ontario.
Also,we should change the way we teach.
As these heroes of Children of the Code documentaries will attest to,these problems are frequently instructional casualties.
Only 10 % of students at most have LD-You certainly create kids that look like they have it without building a foundation.
Boys have the most difficulty with fuzzy rather than Direct Instruction.
Yes,once identified,a correction and delivery of intervention like ORTON GILLINGHAM should definitely occur but the boards take these diagnoses to build very expensive teams of professionals around children and are extremely lax at providing intervention.
Dr.Reid Lyon refers to it as educational malpractice-Dr.Sally Shaywitz,Yale says”I don`t get it”.
It`s called bureaucracy.
IMO, many of those alleged “learning disabilities” begin at home with children being packed off to school as early as age 4 totally unprepared for a school environment.
MIchelle Morgan-Coole’s recent post on Special Education Services (” Creative Writing” http:// specialneeds-ns.blogspot.com) makes a valuable contribution to the public debate over Dr. Ben Levin’s real intentions in recommending a review of special education services.
Not only have I read the Report, but I was in attendance at the Media conference and took a pile of notes.
Michelle speaks with considerable experience and is right to be concerned about any and every move on the Special Education front. The gains in Nova Scotia have been hard-won and parents need to be vigilant at all times.
Having said that, I must say that Dr. Ben Levin is not out to gut the system and focuses entirely on the “soft” areas of identification and not on students with more severe mental or physical challenges. HE is also careful to say that a complete review of the special education system was outside his mandate.
Much of this section of the report focuses on “student failure” and his determination to address that problem. In addressing that problem, he was drawn to the rather surprising discovery that Nova Scotia had so many TAs per student and began to question the effectiveness of this delivery model. He firmly belives that it is better to train teachers to take on those responsibilities…and contends that it produces better student learning.
Dr. Ben Levin may be many things, but he is known for his initiatives in “closing the gap” for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and for his social conscience. Painting him as an ogre is mighty odd and would strike most Ontarians as bizarre. It’s my contention that his rude reception has more to do with him being an outsider with the temerity to call into question the Nova Scotian model of special education delivery.
The smart money re: special education tells me that this is the one population of children (and their families) which would benefit from more choice options and more support than others. Where the public system has failed these children the private or alternative sector could offer hope instead of excuses and empty promises.
Too many people in public education are responsible for the effectiveness of and education for special needs children. Goes through too many bureaucratic hands and hoops making the process cumbersome for educators and daunting for parents. If there’s a break in the link that helps the children the effort fails often.
I can think of parents who have had to stay on top of teachers and school administration only because it’s been their experience that the information doesn’t get passed on in a timely manner or read by the classroom teacher until problems occur.
Here’s a question.
What is the goal of the public education system with respect to special needs children?
Has the public system become more about serving the needs of special education (looking at cost, staffing, etc.) than about the other students?
Has it become too easy for a child who can’t read to be identified as “special” when in fact they really aren’t?
Is there a need to redefine “special education” – the terminology?
Or have we come to a point where choice can allow for the needs of the individual child and family to be met better?
I think so.
It’s my contention that his rude reception has more to do with him being an outsider with the temerity to call into question the Nova Scotian model of special education delivery.
______________________________________________
Being an “outsider” myself I can certainly attest to that attitude around here.
They (local Nova Scotians) want our money but they don’t want us.
Here’s a question.
What is the goal of the public education system with respect to special needs children?
_______________________________________________
And here’s another:
What is the goal of the public education system?
Ty, Paul for writing about this issue on your blog as it is one that hits close to home for myself and so many other parents in Nova Scotia. I read the Levin report, and I agree with some pieces of it but others aren’t sitting so well with me!
I totally agree with Dr.Backman when stated that being an advocate for a child with Special Needs is an “art” and that it most definitely is a “profession”, it is something we have had to do 24/7 365 days a year. It is true we have had to navigate the system on our own, as there isn’t a handbook on what is available or where to go to get the services you may need. You either have to know someone who has gone down this road before you, know someone within the system or accidentally stumble across it yourself. There aren’t handbooks on how it would be the best way to be an advocate for your child or children, you learn it all on your own.
I agree something has to change that we have come to a crossroads, but I don’t think that taking some TA’s out of the system will be beneficial. Without a EPA, my son who was diagnosed with severe ADHD and a Language Based LD (reading/writing), he wouldn’t be where he is today. Sure my son is high functioning, but the TA’s help him get through his day by: keeping him on task, by helping him with sensory issues he has, by helping him with his meltdowns when he has one, by watching him while out on the school grounds to make sure he won’t run away or hide. My son will probably fall into the category that is under the microscope with the Levin report and the DOE, and I hope he won’t lose the services he has in place. We have worked so hard to get the services we do have, to lose them I feel would be detrimental to him. I am sure there are other children in our Province who fall into the same category as my son Ethan does! Oh sure they will have the classroom teachers there to help, but they (the teachers) themselves are already too taxed as it is. I bet you if we keep giving these classroom teachers too many things on their plates that we will see a dramatic increase in the sick days over the next couple of years!
Ty, Nancy (a comment poster above) for posting about Michelle Morgan-Coole’s blog, and I would like to share with you a few quotes from her blog. Why? Well, they say it so well and they are the same concerns I have :)!
Michelle says”The Province’s newest Teacher Assistant Guidelines provide that “Teacher assistant support should be considered only when the student cannot perform prescribed outcomes independently, as determined by the program planning process” but I have to wonder how even those students will receive support when 1) supporting students who cannot meet prescribed outcomes (independently or not) is most definitely no longer part of a TA’s job description and 2) the current recommendation is to cut back on the number of TAs when many would argue we don’t have enough to do the job now.”
She goes on to say: Students are not considered to have a learning disability simply because a parent or teacher thinks this may be so; services won’t be offered (if at all) until a student has been diagnosed by a qualified psychologist. And, given the wait times to be seen by a school psychologist, students can literally wait years for that type of assessment.”
Here are a few other points she makes that I find good as well:
~”And although it’s great to hear that the number of students with physical disabilities is not increasing, that observation does nothing to address the needs of the numerous students in our schools who have honest-to-God documented mental challenges, those on the autistic spectrum and those with various learning disabilities, all of which have been documented by qualified professionals. Whatever the reason for these numbers, the Province is legally obligated to provide all students with an appropriate education.”
~Yes, Mr. Levin, the gap for those students often does grow bigger every year and that’s heartbreaking to see. But I can assure you it would be a lot more heartbreaking, for all of us, to see where these kids would end up without special education services. We set individualized goals for these students, based on their strengths and needs, and change these goals, always upping the ante, as they progress.”
I also agree with her closing statement statement so here it is as well :)!
“Paul Bennett, in an opinion piece published today, argued that Mr. Levin favours “targeted funding to help more students succeed, especially those with special needs” and abolishing “student failure” through improved instruction and special needs support – it’s funny how I have reread the report repeatedly and yet fail to see any reference to targeted funding for students with special needs.
Instead, Mr. Levin appears to be calling for significantly lower rates of “special education placement”, period, leaving me to wonder what, exactly, he would propose to do with those students with a host of physical and mental challenges. Unfortunately, closing our eyes and ignoring the needs of the most vulnerable won‘t make them go away. It will only increase the lifelong challenges they face.
In December, 2010, the Province recognized that “[w]e are at a crossroads and it is more important than ever that we take the steps necessary to manage our school system in a way that matches the number and needs of the students it serves …”. I couldn’t agree more. We most definitely do need an informed discussion on these topics, but preferably one where students with special needs aren’t scapegoated for the majority of the problems in the Province’s educational system, as they so often are.”
Putting ALL students FIRST is important, but I feel there has to be more parental involvement and more teachers need a say on this issue. As it it us (parents/teachers) who spend the most time with our children, NOT government officials! We are in need of more improved services/resources for our children with Special Needs/LD’s/Mental illnesses, sure they are okay but I wouldn’t go so far to say they are amazing or awesome. We still have a long way to go…
As for filling out the survey, I did so but wasn’t willing to fill it out the way they wanted me to because it didn’t address my concerns as a parent of a child with Special Needs. Plus, I felt they wanted “canned” responses that would suit their needs not mine! So I filled it out with my own answers, but also really who are we kidding here are they really going to read and take seriously what we entered in the survey? My guess this is just another “exercise”, to make it look like they care and want to know our opinions but in reality won’t read many of the survey answers or won’t make a difference. Would be nice if they proved me wrong on this, but I am not going to hold my breath!
Andrew, in part but the major player in alleged learning disabilities is the reading instruction, primary curriculum and other instruction methods/assessment methods, commonly used across Canada. As Joanne states and bears repeating again, “Only 10 % of students at most have LD-You certainly create kids that look like they have it without building a foundation.
Boys have the most difficulty with fuzzy rather than Direct Instruction.
Yes,once identified,a correction and delivery of intervention like ORTON GILLINGHAM should definitely occur but the boards take these diagnoses to build very expensive teams of professionals around children and are extremely lax at providing intervention.
Dr.Reid Lyon refers to it as educational malpractice-Dr.Sally Shaywitz,Yale says”I don`t get it”.
It`s called bureaucracy.”
At the present, educational malpractice is being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on a case that a parent file suit in her state, that her child was not identified with LD, until grade 10, even though she showed the signs of LD from very early on in the primary grades. Even with IDEA laws, the bureaucracy behind SE, throw in the agendas of each arm of public education, SE has become a dumping ground for students who are not meeting the outcomes in the regular class, but even here, the learning needs and remediation needs of the students are not taking place or methods used are not effective. Bringing in the inclusive classroom, has only increased the problems within SE, and it is now surfacing in the inclusive classroom. I thank my lucky stars, that my child is nearing the end of public education, because as it stands now LD children who are mild to moderate of the developmental kind, will have major problems in receiving SE services in effective targeted reading, writing and numeracy. It be left up to the home room teacher to sort out, and in my experience what usually happens is that this set of students will get the dumb-down curriculum, and/or following the outcomes where they only need to learn the basics. Just enough to make a pass, just barely, but what they really need is reading, writing or numeracy remediation.
Which brings me to the Moore case, where the father is appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada. More than likely, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the appeal. This is a big one, for LD/dyslexics on remediation of learning weaknesses and accommodation. Last decision in the BC appeal court, more or less stated it is ok to discriminate by not providing services for LD/dyslexic students based on costs.
On the Canadian LD site, ” Today, the Court of Appeal of British Columbia majority decision in the Moore appeal, enabled the BC government to continue to deny students with learning disabilities (LDs) meaningful access to accommodations, programs and services. The decision is especially disheartening given the most recent findings on learning disabilities from Statistics Canada, which reports that LDs joined chronic conditions as the most common form of disability for children aged 5 to 14.[i]”
Further down, “What happened to Jeff is happening to thousands of young people with learning disabilities across Canada through a systemic failure by ministries of education and school divisions to provide meaningful support, services and accommodations. Cost, which too often is the reason given, is not a justifiable reason for not providing such necessary programs and services,” comments Judy Kerr, CEO of LDAC.
Jeff Moore is a young adult now, the outcome of this appeal will not change his life in any way. However, it will have a deep impact on those thousands of children who struggle every day because they learn differently. LDAC will continue to advocate for the rights of every child to receive programs, services and accommodations specific to their identified needs in a timely manner in the public school system.”
http://www.ldac-acta.ca/news/media-releases/bc-court-of-appeal-denies-meaningful-access-to-education-for-students.html
I believe the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the case, because it will be the first regarding LD/dyslexic children and the systemic discrimination within the public education systems, coast to coast by not providing meaningful supports and remediation.
As far as I know, to received a LD label, the child must be diagnose and assessed using a psycho-educational assessment, by a licensed psychologist. In the education system, commonly referred to educational psychologists, which is another area there is shortages. But as Andrew have stated, how many are alleged learning disabilities but more important, is how many alleged learning disabilities are caused by curriculum and instruction, and are using TAs without confirmation through testing, to confirm learning difficulties? I would not know, no boards carry the stats but what I do know, is the stats that are published by the public education ministries and school boards, the number of LD students all have confirmation of LD diagnoses through the use of psycho-educational assessments. How many of the diagnosed LD children received remediation services for their reading,writing and numeracy issues? Do not know that one, no stats are published by the education systems.
I found an interesting report conducted by an independent firm, for the Alberta government, on SE across Canada.
It is called, A Cross-Canada Review of Selected Issues
in Special Education.
Interesting information on TAs in Nova Scotia.
“Nova Scotia has noted an interesting trend worthy of attention. Between 1996 and 2002 demand for Teacher Assistants (T.A.’s) was increasing rapidly, even in the face
of declining population. At that point, a review suggested that the Resource Teacher: student ratio needed to be improved. As this ratio has been improving, the growth in the number of Teacher Assistants has slowed. Another facet is there is a re-focusing of the role of the T.A. on personal health and safety and behaviour management, with less focus on instructional assistance, which is seen to be the responsibility of the teacher.”
Click to access crosscanadareview_mcbride.pdf
The report was issued in 2008, I am inclined to think that the cuts to TAs was in the works for a long time, and Levin was brought in to delivered the recommendations rather than the ministry of education or the school boards. A rather expensive solution, than to do the hard work in making SE more effective and efficient. So much like SE cuts taking place across the world, and here is an American Facebook site keeping track on the cuts being made in IDEA.
“IDEA Money Watch is keeping track of the use of $11.3 billion in federal funds being provided to local school districts as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
http://www.ideamoneywatch.com
General Information IDEA Money Watch is a project of The Advocacy Institute (www.advocacyinstitute.org), a non-profit, tax-exempt organization dedicated to the development of products, projects and services that work to improve the lives of people with disabilities.
Supported by dedicated parents and advocates across the nation, IDEA Money Watch is tracking the use of federal funds that are being provided to local school districts in support of special education services (IDEA) through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).
We hope to report on how school districts are using IDEA ARRA funds to achieve significant and sustainable improvement for the nation’s 6 million school aged students with disabilities.
According to latest data available, these students have …
a dropout rate of 25%
a graduation rate of just over 55%
Source: http://www.ideadata.org
According to the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the academic performance of the nation’s students with disabilities is …
4th Grade Reading: 13% “at” or “above proficient”
8th Grade Reading: 7% “at” or “above proficient”
4th Grade Math: 19% “at” or “above proficient”
8th Grade Math: 8% “at” or “above proficient”
Source: http://www.nationsreportcard.gov
According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004), the nation’s federal special education law …
“implementation of this title has been impeded by low expectations, and an insufficient focus on applying replicable research on proven methods of teaching and learning for children with disabilities.”
According to guidance from the U.S. Department of Education, the additional funding for special education provided by the ARRA …
“will provide an unprecedented opportunity for states, LEAs, and EISprograms to implement innovative strategies to improve outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities while stimulating the economy.” (read less)
IDEA Money Watch is a project of The Advocacy Institute (www.advocacyinstitute.org), a non-profit, tax-exempt organization dedicated to the development of products, projects and services that work to improve the lives of people with disabilities.
Supported by dedicated parents and advocates across the nation, IDEA Money Watch is tracking the use of federal funds that are being provided to local school districts in support of special education services (IDEA) through the American Recovery and… (read more ”
http://www.facebook.com/IDEA.Money.Watch#!/IDEA.Money.Watch?sk=wall
I always envied the Americans. They are so well organized, especially the parents and advocates. From all the cuts taking place, the American educrats telling the public the money that is being saved, will go to nought when the parents start filing at the due-process hearings, and quite a few straight to court.
Just after the McGuinty gov’t was elected in Ontario the then education minister Gerard Kennedy commissioned a review and resulting report in claims for students with special needs.
The report was dated August 2004 – not sure if it’s still available at the Ontario Ministry of Ed. website but the findings in the report kept very quiet.
The report was then followed by a clawback to boards of special needs money. There was a use it or lose it spending frenzy in boards with reserve special ed. money.
Catherine L’s comment “Instead, Mr. Levin appears to be calling for significantly lower rates of “special education placement” reminded me of this report because in the Ontario report there was an observance made that says pretty much that at the time of the Ontario report Ontario had the highest prevelence of acute or special needs students compared with any other province or state in North America at the time.
I rec’d a copy of this study as a member of our board’s SEAC (Special Education Advisory Committee). It may be interesting for the folks in Nova Scotia to read a copy of this report just out of curiosity. I’ll see if I can find a link at the MOE website.
http://www.ldhope.com/wash.html
I hope this helps.
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/speced/transformation/
The biggest problem in special ed is they don`t remediate-they accommodate.
2 very different outcomes.
Just a general question,
can anyone offer their opinion as to when enrolment in NS is in decline (ie; I just checked the demographics for Lunenburg County – scary!), yet more and more children are requiring special needs?
Boards want to keep test scores up so they “diagnose” more special needs?
Why ? Because more parents are having their children diagnosed by trained professionals. Our children are being left behind in the public system and SLD assistance in the public system is limited so in order to get help for those students they must have a diagnosis. My son (even with a diagnosis) was turned down for SLD assistance because there were “too many applicants” …. so we took him out of the public system into a private school that was able to meet his needs. He graduated and has now completed his first year of university.
Not that I did NOT say that once they had been “diagnosed” they got the help they needed. The boards are quite happy to grab the extra funding, though.
Oh, and they get something like a whopping $238.00 extra for a special needs kid from the province.
I think that the reason that the number of kids with Special Needs in our schools is this, in order for the child to get any sort of supports or resources they have to have a diagnosis. Without the diagnosis the child will be considered “typical” and therefore treated as such. All these parents who are struggling to find help or answers, are going to the doctor’s to get a possible diagnosis for their child so they’d get help from the schools. I learned this from a recent experience with my son, and the school he attends and I wouldn’t have believed it until it happened to us. Just a thought I’d pass along!
There also seems to be more chemicals, more processed foods in our world than there were when our great great great grandparents were in school. I believe that if we eliminate to our best ability these things, then we would most likely see a decrease in disorders and things like Autism. Another food for thought ;)!
thanks Catherine,
it seems the dietary principle is quite relevant here in my humble opinion. The post modern diet is always considered when teachers, parents, medical specialists, dieticans etc., discuss child behavior and special needs.
When I brought my son to primary the first day, I was also struck by the amount of literature pertaining to ADHD and prescribed/related drugs.
“Alphabet soup” for sure.
thanks Doretta – there were many folks left scratching their heads at some of the findings of the Ont. spec. needs report.
I recall speaking to parents at the “round-table” who provided input and possible solutions but which were never represented in the final report.
Professionally speaking who within the public education is accountable to the parent for the spec. needs diagnosis?
At the time of the Ontario report “Boards were required to submit student Intensive Support Amount claims to be validated by the ministry. The amount of the grant per case was either $12,000 or $27,000 depending on the levels of qualification but there was no requirement to spend these set amounts on a particular student.”
There is also with this report a note about how different boards that “demonstrated the concept of “created need.” In these examples, students demonstrated serious behaioural or other issues because of deficiencies in the school system such as English-as-a-Second Language or lack of initial response to mild disabilities, which became worse.” Get that one? A problem CREATED by the system.
It was determined by the MOE in Ontario that boards were hoarding Spec. Ed surplus money so as I said before the gov’t clawback ensued.
Have things improved since the report was presented?
Not much, and same as NS the number of students is decreasing but the spec. ed. numbers seem to increase AND the bureaucracy dedicated to Spec. Ed.
Catherine, as far as I know most of the diagnosis’s aren’t coming from the schools it is coming from the parents who are going out to either their family doctor’s or going private to get their child or children assessed. Then in turn get a diagnosis from the doctor who did the assessment! The wait list for the schools to do the assessing is too long, and parents don’t like to wait for a child that might have some sort of disorder so they go elsewhere to get the help. Not that the other waiting lists elsewhere are shorter, but better than the schools services…
With regards to psychologists in private practice or family physicans providing diagnoses of various mental health disorders (including mostly autism or aspergers syndrome) I have this to say: Some private psychologist work at an arm lenghts of the schools. Their practice depends on assessments and the schools depend on the diagnoses to access $. It is a very nice and comfortable relationship. School psychologist do not typically diagnose mental illnesses. If I had a dollar for every principal, psychologist or family dr who said “without the label the child gets no services”, I would be richer than a king! The unfortuate side effect is is there is a very skewed impression that we have so many children with severe special needs in our school systems. In fact in Ottawa Ontario, one school board said it had a 77% increase is students diagnosed with autism in one school year……. ok ok ok someone please point to the white elephant in the room….. dignosing for dollars has been a tendency (norm) for the last 15 years. So they (the government and friends) change the funding structure to off set the FRAUD that is pervassive in the ontario education system…. oh big surprise it is still going on! Special Ed funding does not follow the student, it stays with the school that enrolled the student. If a student then gets transferred to another school (even in the same board) that school can also apply for sp. ed funding. So given a student can be transferred at least 2-3 times a school year, this can bring in a lot of money to schools who are losing money b/c the general school population is decreasing. The quick fix: more special education funding. It also solves the suspension issue since children with special needs are not typically suspended. Mitigating circumstances such as a students diagnoses is often considered. Students labelled with SN are sent home or are only allowed to spend 2 1/2 hrs a day at school. This means the EA hired to work the student on a full time basis (all day at school), now has no student to work with so the EA is assigned to another student (who also has an EA attached to his funding but this funding is saved – unusally in reserves which then the school boards make $ off of the interest). One principal told me that we have to suspend (the 4yr old) because otherwise we cannot get funding he needs to support him …. never mind what was needed was nothing more than a token program that most teachers are familiar with and the teacher was willing to implement…
In Ontario, the record investment of public funding education is at an all time high. And the schools over spent by 174 million in 2009-2010 school year despite a hugh decline in enrolment. It is explained that there are more children with special needs coming to Ottawa ONtario….. Really!? Never mind that there are kindergarden teachers making over a 160,000 year…. nothing against teachers but honestly!
The special education funding model with a diagnoses requirement to access funding and services is against a persons human rights and furthermore fails to address the unique needs of growing and learning children with and without special needs.
For over the last 18 years, I have worked with many families and students who have tried to decline the special education services, only to be told by the school board (not the teacher, not the school psychologist, not 3 independent psychologist reports (private – not school referred) their (typically developing) child has a right to treatment…. so the parents lose their say in what and where their child goes and how he is educated. The student is transferred to 4 different schools in 3 years. After spending gobs of money on lawyers fees trying to stop the school from forcing services their child does not need, the parents eventually put it in writing that they decline school support services and withdraw their permission for school personnel to provide sp.ed services. Finally in grade 8 the student is left a lone…. and does better than he has ever done before!
There is something terribly wrong with a school system that says it needs money for sp ed, then forcing children without special needs to accept support and there is even a bigger problem when parents are convinced their child really needs the support services the schools/board offers. Be careful. I assure you what you ask for is not what you will get 90% of the time!
There are so many hidden problems in sp ed, cover ups and behind closed door handshakes and the struggling children in our school system are failing. Ontario’s Mike Harris and John Baird bought an early intervention program (Dr. Lovaas) back in 1998…. seems to me this was the beginning of the end of any possibility of quality special education. More children than ever before have been dually diagnosed and drugged…. and where or where are the reports on the progress of sp.ed students (most who do not even get a report card).
I believe we do not need more money but a new mentality about the abilities of ALL CHILDREN. An EA does not help a person develop coping skills for challenging situations any more than a police officer can keep someone safe. Nor does running to the dr for a diagnoses improve the over all wellbeing of a person.
Forcing schools to address the needs of students,not labels is an important starting point. Watch out for the double dippers (usually former board or retired special ed teachers), who convince parents of struggling students to get the label their child will need then help the parents advocate for an IEP and accommodation….. when all the student actually needs is to hear the question again.
Just an FYI, but when my son was diagnosed in Grade 7 with an SLD and tutoring assistance requested for him, he was turned down by the DOE because there were” too many applicants”. Obviously NS does not give $$ to schools based on diagnosis.
Dear Catherine,the report and ensuing money were taken off the table because during it`s existence the money per child went to beefing up their coffers,hiring more consultants and proved to be an asset to the boards-they were HAPPY to label children in droves to get that money.There was never accountability.
In my reading clinic we had pre post testing in reading,spelling,phonemic awareness,comprehension and dictation,we also tested ability to read in a book and wrote down observations.
Parents at the time paid me for this service.I provided them with improved reading scores,spelling scores etc…for the money they paid me.
What do the boards do?
Because they do not do remediation,because they do not know how as the Universities don`t train the teacher specifically,the reports are more and more useless and simply are used to JUSTIFY not doing anything but accommodation because they hide in the word learning disability-which in this day and age with the knowledge we have is a curable ailment and NOT a disability.
I know,I was one of those parents and found a solution rather than an excuse for my child at a boarding school in the U.S.
SHOULD i HAVE HAD VOUCHERS-Absolutely!!!!!!
Why on earth should they get paid on our dime when they are morally disconnected from the children they serve.
That is what ZERO accountability gets parents-a label to justify incompetence.
You don’t have to convince me Joanne. Even though that money came off the table back then, the gov’t plumped it right back up again and still not any more accountable to parents.
The other most recent thing that’s happened in Ontario is that the McGuinty gov’t had a Bill proposed by an opposition education critic killed that would have extended the scope of the Ombudsman to delve into the accountability of school boards to investigate and advocate on the parent/child’s behalf. That’s how much our provincial gov’t cares.
I think you heard my story -OISE-“How should we teach Reading”the research based way,we agree.
Why don`t you tell teacher prep-“They won`t listen”.
You best tell the government then-smiles from all”that is just politics”.
I am convinced that without vouchers theings will NEVER improve,there are zero consequences and it burns me that they keep getting paid.
Monopolies and dictatorships= school boards.
I agree Hockeymum, that is one of the reasons why…
Steven,
You are very welcome as I know how hard the schools try to drug our children so that they will sit there in a trance, would rather change diet than pump them full of drugs. When we changed Ethan’s diet, we saw dramatic changes for the best almost over night.
Perhaps we should start naming the schools/boards/individuals that are failing at their tasks?
excellent idea Andrew. Including a consequence in the form of a funding penalty work too. Currently there are few if any consequences for boards/schools failing at their tasks.
This is compellingly true,funding consequence, the only way anything will change.
Hello Hockeymum, you know me from my user name. I am so glad for your son, and I am please to tell you, with a lot of hard work on my part, my daughter will be on her way to university in two years. I sure do hope I have the right Hockeymum, the same one that left posts on the American LD sites, and there was only one Hockeymum, and she was Canadian. If not, I am still thrill about your son. Each success of a SLD or LD student in the academic world, there is a story of parents fighting tooth and nail for their children, against a public education system that refuses to assess, remediate, and provide correct accommodations.
And Andrew, just to add that more assessments are being done privately, because of the health benefit plans that most of them carry a provision for such things as psycho-educational assessments. For the most part if the parent does not pushed, the average assessment age is around the 9 to 11 years old, in the public education system. I started to request one starting in grade one and finally received one for my child in the last half of her grade 3 year. Here I will add, assessments do not end here, but the LD children require at the minimum two more assessments with the last one being conducted near the end of grade 11 or the beginning of grade 12, to access special services at a post secondary school. Another area the public education system is doing a poor job, and it adds to the waiting lists in the higher grades. As far as I know, my child’s assessment was schedule for the last quarter of the grade 11 year, but it was pushed up because the university that she plans to attend have waiting lists for this particular field of study. Her name will go on the waiting list, and than when she is finished grade 12, she will have one of the coveted seats. The principal of the school did all the leg work on this one, to ensure that she will meet all the requirements despite her LD diagnoses. The documentation is very important.
Andrew, if we did that then I know a few people would go so far to say that just get rid of several of the school boards that you don’t need so many or totally cut them out entirely.
IMO, the duty of the school board is to serve the schools and, hence, the students. The way it’s working here, the schools are servants to the board,.
Nancy, you are right the wait times are insane here! My friend who has a daughter who has Autism, was supposed to have a Psych ed in Primary still hasn’t had one to this day and she is in grade 5 now. This is why parents take matters into their own hands and get it done privately or through the medical system which isn’t exactly that much better than the schools wait time. You are so correct Nancy when you said documentation is VERY important :)!
Yes, we waited a year in elementary school for the school to do one, and then none of the “recommendations” were ever put into place. We paid for a private one in Grade 7 and another in Grade 12 to help prepare our son for university services.
What is the purpose of a school board anyway? Apparently there is also a board that oversees the school boards, at least here in Nova Scotia. What is the job of the Dept of Ed as opposed to the School Board? Only the Dept of Ed helped us when we went looking for help for our son.
Hockymum,
According to Mark Twain (pardon the politically incorrect language of his day):
“God made the Idiot for practice,
and then He made the School Board.”
— Mark Twain
[Samuel Langhorne Clemens] (1835-1910)
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Mark.Twain.Quote.EE3A
There are at least three ns mothers in this conversation, Paul,who did not go looking for the trouble involved in dealing with this whole ” special needs” world of education. it found us. People will pretty much always take the path of least resistance. This path forced on us is full of resistance. No one would choose this for themselves. The point I’m making, I guess is that, this increase in the rate of labeled kids is not coming from then parents because we enjoy making our lives stressful and ourselves sick, in some cases. We end up ,as hockey mom and Catherine L said, needing something on paper to go to the staff with to hear our concerns about our child’s education. Maybe, if our children were getting the education they are capable of getting, we wouldn’t have to go to the same lengths.
agreed!
Not entirely sure what they are for Nancy, they run by districts or areas so my guess is they deal with situations or issues pertaining to their area of the Province. Could be wrong…however, one thing I do know is that they get to go on a fancy AGM at the Digby Pines resort with the NSSBA. They are discussing 2 topics, and the rest is free time…oh yeah nearly forgot the golf tournament. Good thing we aren’t having any cuts to our Education system ;)!
You hit it right on Peggy :)! I do need to say though that because we are speaking out to get our kids and other children the help they so desperately need we are the “trouble makers”. We aren’t trying to make trouble as Peggy stated so nicely, it found us is right! You don’t realize how much pain, struggles, frustration all of these families go through until you yourself are having to go through it yourself. We just want to be heard, to be taken seriously, to be helped, for our children to get the best Education they can. We want our children to succeed to the best of their abilities!
Catherine L. the “trouble-maker” label isn’t the premium of special needs parents exclusively. Any parent who acts as an advocate for their child gets that same label.
Wear that label as a badge of honour because it’s exactly that.
Until parents get talking with each other the role of advocate for their children in the public system is a lonely and intimidating place.
Often its the system that pushes parents – however parents have learned their lessons well and have learned how to stand up for themselves and their kids like never before.
Nope, I know it isn’t just a label for those of Special Needs parents get it is one all parents get if they stand up for what they feel is wrong or needs to be fixed.
I totally agree, that parents need to band together and there is no time like the present I say 😀 :http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=221023467909167
this is a link to a rally that I have come up with the help of a few friends I have. Hope you don’t mind Paul me sharing this on here! You are right, it is a lonely and intimidating place to be!
In caswe this got lost in the shuffle…
IMO, the duty of the school board is to serve the schools and, hence, the students. The way it’s working here, the schools are servants to the board.
“Located in the heart of the city’s busy south Granville neighbourhood is the BC Learning Centre for Children with Dyslexia. It is a one on one tutoring centre that provides the specialized help that children with dyslexia need to master skills that most of us take for granted.
Opened in 2008, the Learning Centre for Children is the fourth of its kind in Canada offering tutoring by fully trained teachers for children with dyslexia. There is absolutely no cost to their parents. The Centre is operated by the Scottish Rite Charitable Foundation of Canada which has been in operation since 1964 and works tirelessly in supporting studies relating to the causes, care and treatment of intellectual impairment of the mind.”
Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/health/know+child+could+help/4795403/story.html#ixzz1MdWP4sNi
One would think that the Public Education systems would openly support the Scottish Rite tutoring centers for dyslexia children, and the other charitable aspects directed at the education of children. Not on your life, and it is another example of the public education system disdain for children who have learning struggles, and their disregard for the science of learning.
“The Scottish Rite Charitable Foundation of Canada is a private charitable Foundation registered with Revenue Canada under Letters Patent of Incorporation (1964), funded by donations and bequests from members and friends of The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of Canada. The Foundation labours for the benefit of all Canadians, regardless of race or creed. Over the years millions of dollars have been disbursed to assist dedicated researchers in a search for the causes and cure of intellectual impairment. The Foundation is governed by the Officers and Directors.”
At present there is 5 new learning centres, and one center is in Halifax. Lucky dyslexia children in that city, but I am glad of one thing, even though the public education system and its educrats has contempt for the Scottish Rite Charitable Foundation, I see that they have grown in Canada in the last 5 years, and still waging the battle to provide correct reading instruction for the dyslexics, as well as for the autism children. If anything, the public education system and its educrats need to be haul back into the classroom, being taught by the researchers and parents of why they are so wrong about the approaches taken in the education of our children.
An example of research being undertaken:
“The very long term goal of Dr. Cardy’s research program
is to examine the underlying nature of the language
and communications problems in children with Autism.
This may allow for early diagnosis for children with
potential language problems. Often one cannot tell until
a child is 3 or 4 if they will have language problems due
to developmental differences. With this kind of a brain
marker, they could test babies and determine at an earlier
age if they might be at risk and thereby start interventions
earlier and thus Help to Solve the Puzzles of the Mind”
Click to access Clarion_2011_Winter_SECURED.pdf
Further down in the newletters, there is a wonderful story about a dyslexic girl, who would not be where she is today, if it was not for Scottish Rite Learning Centre in Halifax. At the end of the article, “Bruce
Jenner once said “The biggest problem with dyslexic kids
is not the perceptual problem; it is their perception of
themselves.” I totally agree with Bruce, the Centre and
the people who run it make the perception of the child
of themselves change. That’s something that is priceless.
Thank you for your time and inviting me to speak here
tonight, this really does mean the world to me and more.
Good night!”
Not only the perception of themselves, but the negative perceptions of the adults and children. It really does make a dyslexic child’s life harder, when the educrats promotes the negative perceptions through the use of using bad instruction methods based on some form of whole language. Throw in the current math instruction, the good work of the Scottish Rite makes the public school system look bad, and outdated.
Below are two links, that shows how the Scottish Rite keeps marching on, to introduce free reading instruction training for the certified teachers in the public education system. But still, the educrats will not allow the teachers to use it in the classroom.
http://www.getreadytoread.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=164&Itemid=418
” While I was still in the school system I brought the Texas Scottish Rite curriculum to the school district. We were using that in the school district while I was there, but eventually I was told I couldn’t use it. That’s when I left and went to Scottish Rite. In the clinic, we offered dyslexia multi-sensory program interventions. ”
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2005/03/in_alabama_the_.html
Even when it is free, by trained personal, the public education system, would rather spend billions of dollars on ineffective instruction to provide to the children with reading difficulties.
As the teenager in the newsletter had expressed, an imaginary scenario, “I have many people I imagine sitting in the seats of the auditorium instead of my classmates as I went up to collect these awards; a girl in my class in grade 6 who made fun of me for not knowing how to spell my mother’s name, well Trinity here it goes! B-A-R-B-A-R-A!, the teachers who knew I was struggling and would still push me up the next grade, the guy from the mall because I really wish I would have said something witty that would have made you look like a fool these are just a few people I want to show my accomplishments to. I want to show them that I may be a dyslexic but I’m just as smart as all of you.”
The odd thing, a few weeks ago, my 15 year old stated the same thing more or less, a slightly different version – how sweet it be to lord over them, and the many disparaging references to being dumb and in some cases actions. I show them Mom, and make them think twice to cast doubts about my academic abilities. We talk about for 20 minutes or so, who would be sitting in the audience. And ended it, would it not be wonderful if the educrat that stated to me so many moons ago, that my child would always be slow, would be the one to hand you a reward for academic accomplishments? My youngest stated, that would be dyslexic justice. To understand, I hold this educrat more responsible than any other one, preventing the correct reading, writing and numeracy instruction for my child. At the end, I highly doubt it he will show up, because he does not have the guts to face you or me, and admit how wrong he was.
Here’s a link to an education site in Oakville Ontario. Thought this post was topical here in dealing with Special Needs what’s covered and what’s not.
http://www.oakvillechitchat.com/why-is-adhd-not-identified-as-a-student-with-special-needs/
Problem here in NS is that practice (what actually happens in the classroom) and policy (what the boards claim is happening in the classroom) aren’t even closely related. This doesn’t apply only to special needs but pretty much accross the board.
To put it bluntly, the boards are lieing to parents, students, the DOE and the general public.
SQE’s School for Thought blog says that special education funding should follow the child.
http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/index.php/blog/read/not-so-special-education/ :
“In this scenario, the government gives about three-quarters of the funding it would normally spend on the child if he or she attended a public school to the parents and allows them to spend the money at a private school instead. This already happens in three Canadian provinces and several American states, with excellent results. Not only are the children better off, but also the government actually saves money. And even the kids whose parents don’t choose this option are better off – as the number of public school students jostling for special services declines.”
I agree with Doretta-WHY should they keep your money when they are not delivering a relevant intervention-they will simply attach more meetings,labels to justify lack of progress and accommodation.
That will eventually all tumble down on you when your son/daughter enters high school and needs to produce more work.
If not then,because the smoke and mirrors continues then first year university,they won`t know what hit them.
Actually, it isn’t “your” money but taxpayer money that is being misspent.
But aren’t “we” the taxpapayers?
Sorry, tax payers!
Ther are “taxmamayers”, too. 😉
Of course “we” are. But that funding is public money. How it is best spent needs to be examined more closely. That’s what’s wrong with the system accross the board, IMO.
Agreed, but how to we find the right person(s) to make that determination? I think it would take an army of people – teachers, parents, students, administrators, psychologists who all have differing knowledge about the pieces of the puzzle.
forensic audits? All boards. Follow the money paper trail…if their is one.
How do boards of education in N.S. report to their constituencies? Or do they?
A forensic audit would be the last thing the public education would want. SE services would be interesting how much money is directed away from SE and services that directly connects to the children, and where the money goes to. From the years looking at the numbers, I swear that at each school, it is planned ahead by the educrats setting the numbers of SE children at each school. If a school should go over, the children are left without services or assessments for another year. It puts the school in the position of being the bad guy, and the delaying tactics are started.
Of course a forensic audit would be the last thing the public education would want Nancy – that’s the point.
If the public is fed-up and suspicious of waste demanding forensic audits of each and every school board in a public review by an third party AND sharing the results are usually eye-openers.
Having a provincial Ombudsman’s role expanded to include school boards is an idea proposed here in Ontario and killed by the McGuinty gov’t with both oppositions in support…and many, many parents.
Even gov’ts are afraid of what an Ombudsman may uncover in an investigation.
How do boards of education in N.S. report to their constituencies? Or do they?
They use lots of accounting legerdemain. For example, they have a neat little way of being able to charge off admin salaries onto classrom teaching expense. Simply second a teacher to the board office for a term of one year or less. The salary belongs to the school not the board office. Repeat the process every year and that “teacher” could be working at the board office for 20 years and the expense never shows up as administrative.
I be interested in how supplies, resources, and equipment are handed out, and why it appears that the schools in the lower-income neighbourhoods seem to get the short end of the stick, compare to the schools in the high-rent district. I have observed this since the 1980s, but it is even more obvious. It also applies to rural schools as well, two different provinces, and paper supplies, paint, were in short supply, compared to the school down the road or 50 Kms away, the walls were covered in paintings of the children, and no paper shortage. Same student population size, and somehow I always found this unfair. And yes, I offered paper so they would not used the excuse that my child had reach her quota on paper, but it was turned down since they said it was against the rules. The next time I brought a package of paper at a meeting, just to see what they would do this time. Apparently no quota, but a few weeks later, that excuse was handed out to another parent. I did take my package of paper home with me. It really irk me, especially before I had a computer and printer at home, my child benefited greatly on practice sheets in LA and Math in the early grades. Most of them were the drill and kill sheets as the educrats lovely describes. But my child loved the drill sheets, and it probably help her pass LA and Math, not by much but she was promoted and passed along. Very important distinction in my area, and in the graduating year, the school does something special for students who were promoted each year. What that is, I don’t know, and why they do it.
Special Education reform is an arduous, if not impossible, challenge in the face of the entrenched interests in the field. THat is why Malkin Dare’s latest post is such a valuable contribution to the Canadian policy debate:
http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/index.php/blog/read/not-so-special-education/
Malkin’s proposal to “let funding follow the child” sounds like common sense.
The proposal is supported by Nova Scotia’s Equal Education Assoication. In Nova Scotia, it exists for children with designated special needs and qualified to attend three different programs, Bridgeway Academy, Churchill Academy, and Landmark East School.
Letting funding follow the child advances school choice for parents of special needs kids. It sure beats begging for “accomodations” and “adaptations” in the New Byzantium of special education law.
Here is a great website-parents need to get more litigious-they take your money,get beefed up dollars for an identified student and what do they deliver?
http://www.wrightslaw.com/
Guidance on what will be effective for your children.
Note the piece on Reading Recovery.
I have to admit,I think it took courage to say they were going to drop it because it has had mixed results.
In theory allowing the funding to follow the child is indeed common sense, however in provinces where there exists no government in place willing to move to this method yet they hold the purse strings the only sensible option for parents is to move their child outside of the public system.
In Ontario for example presently neither the gov’t or the leaders of the two oppositions will consider letting the money follow the child.
If by all accounts it’s impossible to change the system and there’s so much dissatisfaction within the parent and school communities why aren’t we seeing a groundswell of noise urging governments to move in this common sense direction.
I think that reform organizations, knowing how impossible it is to change the system can better prepare and educate parents to move out of the system rather than put up with it year after year after year if they’re unhappy.
Most parents can’t afford alternatives so likely make do with publc. Sad, but true.
If we know what’s impossible within the public system, more emphasis needs to be placed on what’s possible OUTSIDE of the system.
I’m waiting for the first ever Basics Skills Traditional School to open in Ontario as a counter to those schools that don’t measure up.
Below is a letter to the editor on the costs of LD to society, from a concerned citizen in PEI.
“The economic costs to society due to learning disabilities over an average lifespan work out to about $707 billion dollars in Canada according to a 2002 report commissioned by the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada.
This huge figure is due to the extra cost in the areas of healthcare, education, justice, income transfers, and reduced incomes, among many other areas.
Those with LDs are twice as likely to drop out of high school, and are over three times more likely to report fair to poor mental health.
Of those with LDs, about 50 per cent hold jobs as opposed to 89 per cent of those without.
You would think that with this huge amount of money being expended on those with LD, largely due to ineffective treatment or lack of diagnosis, more money would be put into areas of screening for LDs or for more effective treatment and/or research.
A ton of reports have been released in years past detailing many shifts in public policy needed to better the system, such as mandatory screening, increased specialist staffing, and increased awareness.
As education is a provincial responsibility, it has been left to our government to implement these changes.
The Department of Education is failing our children.
Very few, if any, of these changes have been given serious thought.
It is said the department is looking at new ways of service delivery for those with LDs, but we are moving too slowly on this issue; every month we waste, more islanders fall through the cracks.
What we have now is a Band-Aid solution; teachers work with students to work around the issue. LDs are lifelong, and the Department of Community Services/Labour should also be working to ensure those with LDs are able to work effectively.
We have a multitude of problems here: added costs to society, a lack of universal screening, and excessively long wait times for diagnosis: they can be upwards of three years. ”
http://www.journalpioneer.com/Opinion/Columns/2011-05-18/article-2517714/Changes-for-learning-disabled-must-happen-sooner/1
One of the major problems of the SE systems in the provinces, are children whose disabilities will impact reading, writing and numeracy. The most cost-effective approach starts in the kindergarten year, by providing systematic explicit phonics approach, and assessing the children for phonemic awareness, and other areas in reading. DIBELS is free, short in duration, and made for the teacher. I remember bringing in the DIBELS near the end of grade 2, and it pointed to phonemic awareness as being a problem. It was dismiss, stating it was not reliable and I was not qualified to test her. Why schools do not take advantage of DIBELS is beyond me, because I tested my child on other assessments that were free on line as well, and all pointed to phonemic awareness as being a problem. Back than, I had very little knowledge except that I knew something was not right, and my child needed to be tested. When I did asked the two teachers, in grades 2 and 3, they replied they did not know what phonemic awareness was. The next time the word phonemic awareness popped up, was in my child’s first psycho-educational assessment, as being the major problem. It still is, because the educrats cut the SMT program half-way through the program, without testing if it had improved to the point that it was no longer impacting her reading. Two years of SMT and the taxpayers’ money spent on one to one instruction between 2 to 3 hours a week, were wasted for the first reason and the second reason the school was using the primary SMT program, and not the junior program for 9 to 12 years old. I hit the roof, at the end of grade 7, reading the second assessment that I had to fight hard for, and it was handed to me on the last day of school. Back than, the educrats were trying to removed my child from her IEP and leave her in the land of limbo without accommodations, or having access to SE services for assessment purposes. Documentation really counts in the post-secondary level, because no one can walk off the street and claim that they have a learning disability, and get accommodated for it. I had my work cut out for me for the summer months of that year. I bet the school board educrats who would not answer the phone or return phone calls, has not forgotten when the Ministry of Education came calling.
My child’s first assessment, her phonemic awareness was score as 59. The second assessment her phonemic awareness was scored as 69. The standard score that would not indicate a problem in phonemic awareness is 85 and above. As far as I am concern, the two years spent working on her phonemic awareness, was another two years where my child was not receiving any help, for the listed reasons below.
1. The use of the primary SMT program, because the board refused to purchase the junior or the 13 to adult program for students who are like my child.
2. At no point, did anyone either from the school or the board inform me that it was a primary program being used. Even at that time, I knew enough that programs for dyslexics should match their age. It explains why my child always called it baby stuff, and it does explain her relative ease going through the program.
3. I contacted the Canadian developers of SMT, who informed me that she should have been on the junior program, and pulling the program half-way through to expect a dropped in phonemic awareness, and than it will stabilized.
4. The materials for SMT are not expensive, and when I did check, it was within my pocket book. Why was it not within the school board’s pocket book?
5. The remediation of reading,writing and numeracy for children with LD, has always been a low priority of the school board, and policies clearly shows it.
Where is all the money going to in SE? In one area that I can think of, is to ensure that the schools do not have the resources or trained staff to remediate reading,writing and numeracy problems of the LD children. The educrats are paid the fancy salaries for a reason, to prevent effective instruction and training from entering into the schools, to deal with children who need remediation in the 3 Rs. The educrats really want us to think that our children with learning problems are only capable of so-so grades. But the educrats got caught red-handed, when it was proven that they were making decisions for LD students on grades, and not on the assessment scores and not testing and remediated the learning weaknesses. When the ministry of education heard about the hours spent on either re-teaching and remediation of my child’s learning weaknesses at home, the least the board could do is to effectively remediate her language difficulties since it does required training that I do not really process nor could I learn it off some web site. The intensive instruction occurring at home, helped to raise her over-all average into the low 80s, or high 70s, but she still had great difficulty in demand writing tests in LA, especially if the material was new to her. It was obvious to the ministry of education, as it was to me, her language difficulties were being ignored, especially when my child failed all demand written tests from grade 1 to grade 7. Not the multiple choice, just the demand written tests. The educrats were well aware of it, but still did nothing about it, as they did with the other LD children as well.
The DIBELS site:
“With the DIBELS Data System, student performance results become powerful reports so you can make timely decisions and improve student outcomes.
•DIBELS 6th edition, DIBELS Next, IDEL, and easyCBM Math
•$1 per student per year includes both reading and math
•Easy-to-use administration and data entry tools
•Learn more in our video introduction
•Check out the quick start guides, example test items, FAQs and more on our resources page ”
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/
It used to be free, but I see it is $1.00 per student. I am sure all parents, no matter the income would not object to paying the school $1.00, and most would see it money well spent, compared to the growing supply list that parents must purchased, wondering why a child in grade one, needs a binder.
The current problem with the money following the children to schools like Bridgeway or Churchill is that there is a max of 4 years they can stay in the school. These schools aren’t cheap, not everyone can afford to send their children to these schools I know I can’t. What needs to happen is the money follow them to these other schools, but no limit on the time they can stay in it…especially if it is helping them out! I have been told it is cheaper to send these children to these kinds of schools than it is to keep them in our public system…
I am sure there are problems with the money following the kids wherever their families decide they should go…I don’t know what they are as I haven’t tried to send my children there. Perhaps we could get Wade from EEANS to comment…
My understanding is that it costs in the vicinity of $50k per year.
Bridgeway? not at all and there is additionally funding up to 90% from the govt based on income.
I guess my point was that a) if no gov’t is EVER going to move to a system where the money follows the child and b) the public education system will never change on its own then then parents are left with two options.
One, if they can afford it they can move their child to a private/alternative school or homeschool, or two remain trapped in the inwilling and money wasting public system.
The only answer I see to this reality is that the reform movement has to bite the bullet and start churning out politicians who aren’t afraid to run on the school choice option and “money following the children” plank.
Perhaps if we’re given that choice among politicians, even if they’re unsuccessful the first few times it would spawn dialogue from the top-down and very openly – take the discussion out of the back rooms and board rooms and into the mainstream.
Too much of education reform is beginning to sound preachy to parents who are on the one hand encouraged by the ideas that reform and choice offer but go back to the black hole and bureaucracy of the public system – dejected.
Mind you, what’s different today than a dozen years ago is that there are way more parent groups and organizations out there talking about choice and change but they’re competing for air time and ink with those issues that concern an aging population most – the economy, jobs and healthcare.
If a leader can make a financially feasible case for choice in an aging market they have a shot because that’s what it always seems to come down to – money. Sad, but true.
It gets to the point with parents when even among parent organizations it’s hard to know who to trust and what the truth is.
Choice should be a very liberal ideal in Canada, yet the same people who talk a good game about the freedom of choice in other areas of their lives, health care, social services, communication, are the barriers to choice itself.
Maybe the delivery of education reform has to step over and around those barriers?
Nothing will change until change is forced on the system. The “philosophical/political” approach simply won’t work. It hasn’t in the past, it isn’t working in the present and won’t work in the future.
Sometime, somewhere a few eggs will have to be broken if we’re to make an omelet.
Has any wonder why education issues is not big with the media, as it is in the United States? I do think one of the problems, is our media does take very little interest in education matters regarding the problems, and do not asked very tough questions directed at the educrats.
Below was both items in my e-mail box.
Informative, and important issues were brought up that are never discussed by the educrats and passed down to the parents, to make better informed decisions, and opinions.
“We know many important pediatric disorders start to emerge early on, and some things, for example dyslexia, you might not pick up until they’re reading. But you know their brain has probably started to diverge from normal in some way early on,’’ said Dr. P. Ellen Grant of Children’s Hospital Boston, who is leading the study with Nadine Gaab, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Children’s. The research is being done at the hospital’s Waltham clinic.
Scientists have previously experimented with behavioral tests to try to identify learning disabilities or even mental health problems well before a person meets the criteria for a disease, but now they are beginning to turn to sophisticated imaging techniques.
For example, a pilot study, published earlier this year in the journal BMC Medicine and led by other researchers at Children’s Hospital, used a technique that measures electrical activity in the brain to study 9-month-old infants that were at risk of autism. In other studies, researchers are imaging the brains of babies born prematurely, who are more prone to learning disabilities and other cognitive problems, and the brains of children with Tourette syndrome.
In those disorders, as with dyslexia, researchers hope to learn when problems develop, what goes awry in the brain, how treatments affect the brain, and whether problems can be detected and even fixed before symptoms appear.”
http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-16/lifestyle/29549187_1_albert-galaburda-brain-research-brain-imaging
“Being able to speak passionately about a topic is an important part of most pageants, Bertsch said. Educating people about dyslexia — a condition that was diagnosed when she was a sixth-grader — has become her passion and her pageant platform.
Dyslexia is broadly classified as a learning or reading disability, and it can affect people differently.
Bertsch struggled in elementary school with the disability, where unkind labels such as “slow” or “stupid” had begun to stick.
“My mom noticed that I wasn’t getting the best grades,” she said. “When it came to homework, I was taking hours to do something that should have taken an average student 30 to 45 minutes.”
A professional diagnosis of dyslexia answered a lot of questions. Bertsch learned that she is an auditory learner.”
http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/52771/
I remember bringing in articles of this nature, to the school that would informed and bring knowledge in hopes a conversation could be started. Now that I look back, it was a waste of paper and ink on my part, and rather foolish to think that intelligent people that had an education degree, in charge of a school, would talk to a non-teacher/parent on such important matters on the education of LD children. That very same educrat has climbed the ladder in the pass 10 years, where he is now at the top management level of the education ministry. I wonder if he has every change his position on LD, or is he too busy correcting the staff at key positions that the research on reading based on the science is not correct? It makes me wonder, since he has arrived on the scene at that level, LD information besides the general information, has been removed from the government site.
I just wish I had choices, but on the other hand as Andrew has stated, “Nothing will change until change is forced on the system. The “philosophical/political” approach simply won’t work. It hasn’t in the past, it isn’t working in the present and won’t work in the future.
Sometime, somewhere a few eggs will have to be broken if we’re to make an omelet.”
Time to play dirty tactics?
Was at a school today, doing some volunteering. Saw and EPA doing some track and field games with some of the special needs type of students. Thought how nice it was for those kids. Pretty sure none of them had a physical disability though. We need to hang on to this type of excellent staff member. He was being so great with the kids and I’m pretty sure he didn’t realize I noticed, so he wasn’t just being nice for show.
Where was that?
Give credit where is due.
Some interesting stats. in our morning paper today.
“Almost 5.1 million students were enrolled in publicly-funded elementary and secondary schools in Canada during the 2008-09 academic year – down 5% from a peak of nearly 5.4 million students in 2000-01. This was the lowest level since 1998-99.”
“While overall school enrolment is down across Canada, enrolment in second-language immersion programs in publicly funded elementary and secondary schools has increased over time.”
New Brunswick is the only province to see a drop in French enrolment.
“339,000 – the number of educators in 2008, which despite declining enrolment has gone up 7% since 2000-01.”
“317,000 – number of students enrolled in a second-language immersion prgram in 2008 – up 14% from 2000.”
The only provinces to see marginal increased enrolment are Nunavut and Alberta. All others in decline with Newfoundland hit hard with a decline of -22%. Ontario is at -3% with the rest of the provinces in between.
Nova Scotia is listed in second spot with a -15% drop in students.
Source for this data is listed as Stats Canada
The Chair of EEANS, Wade Brummet, always offers a sound, sensible analysis of the core issues affecting special needs kids and their parents.
Today, he ventured this assessment of the Nova Scotia situation:
“Personally I think a lot of people forget that we ended up with EPAs teaching our children because we introduced inclusive education with out proper supports and funding. Those supports would be resource teachers in the classroom, co-teaching the students on IPPs, enough time allotted to create, implement, update and review IPPs and most importantly a class size that allows the teacher to provide meaningful education to all students, despite special needs.
The danger here of course is the support provided by EPAs has become critical, because none of the supports mentioned above happen with any regularity.”
Comment:
Wade has a way of cutting through the political rhetoric and getting right to the heart of the matter. It’s a small expample of why he has been a most effective advocate on behalf of special neeeds students and in support of tuition support here in Nova Scotia.
And the education “establishment” ignores him, no doubt.
Wow, so many comments here I could only just skim. So, first, thanks for the kind words about my op ed piece. I will address the rest of that later.
Sorry to join the conversation so late BUT I have a few concerns here:
Fisrt, the majority of this “special ed” conversation seems to have become about kids with LD. And autism. Maybe. What about everybody else?
I have two kids with special needs in the system and they cover the spectrum (pardon the pun) – one is globally developmentally delayed, speech language disorder and ASD but very high functioning and very social – an 18 year old who takes in info at that level and then processes it at the level of an 8 year old.
My other daughter has a nonverbal learning disability – and for those that don’t know (I’m sure only a few on this site) that doesn’t mean she is nonverbal, it means that the verbal area is her strength and her challenges are in the nonverbal area – social, recognizing facial and body cues, visual perception stuff and math (math is our biggest challenge academically).
http://www.nldontheweb.org/
So I see both ends and I am afraid of parents splitting along the fault line between kids with LD and those with other, more severe challenges. And BTW just for the record, I didn’t go looking for this either (for God sake, stop blaming parents for this, I am sure there are a few who do as you accuse but the majority of us DO NOT go looking for this crap)- my oldest started having seizure seizures at 13 months, followed by a week of post-ictal psychosis and then she would lose all her skills and have to gain them back.
I knew my youngest had issues but couldn’t quite get a handle on it before she started school, in Grade 1 she became a behaviour problem (over the stupidest things – things I had learned to work around at home) so I started reading and came across “there is a reason for every behaviour, have your kid tested to make sure something else isn’t going on”. She would have waited years to get tested but I managed to sneak her in the back door for a quick and dirty IQ test which showed her as right on the borderline between a slow learner and mentally challenged. I knew that wasn’t accurate – I know mentally challenged and this kid is smart so they agreed to test her a year later.
Should I have just ignored her issues, let her be labelled a behaviour issue? I tell you, she easily would have been one of those kids that would have dropped out as soon as possible. She does not have an IPP, does not have an EA (and has never had either) and has struggled like hell in schoool (depending on the classroom teacher) but now, in Gr 9, for the first time she has formal Resource in her schedule (as opposed to the haphazard when the resource teacher could fit it in she had before) and she is doing quite well. Except in Math. But she is motivated and trying really hard and, for the moment at least, that is working for her.
And this, I think, is long enough for a comment – I will be back later with the rest of my thoughts. Assuming anyone is still around reading. 😉
I agree with Michelle, there are so many levels of students covered by the term “special ed”. I have a son with a documented LD who had tremendous success at Bridgeway and is now in university. Had I not been able to get him to a designated private school (Bridgeway Academy) to be taught the way he learned (in Grade 8) , he would have been a “drop out”. The help he needed was completely different than that of the next child, so to lump them all together is a big mistake. There is no simple answer, but I do agree that the funding should follow the student and not for a limited time. It will be difficult for the public schools to offer all the individual assistance for all the students who need it so it makes more sense for parents to find where their child can be helped and let that child move to that school with the funding that they need to be there.
That option is unaffordable, unfortunately.
If the estimates of 10% of students are LD in some way and if it costs something like $50k/per year/student, we’re looking at something like over 1/2 billion dollars a year in Nova Scotia alone.
Where do you get the 50K figure? That’s not accurate. The tuition for designated schools is approximately $12,000/year, not 50,0000.
Andrew, I do object for a number of reasons.
1. LD runs across the spectrum from mild to severe, where 80 % of the LD students are in the mild to moderate end, and the remainder is at the severe end.
2. Keeping the above in mind, if the $50,000 figure is correct, regarding the costs of Bridgeway and funded by the NS education system, their is questions that would arise, and assumptions to compare the private LD schools to other private schools that are funded by the public education system. The $50,000 should be questioned, and perhaps the educrats are using this figure to protect their best interests once again. Note that Landmark East School, is a private version of the more public option of Bridgeway, that both received Tuition Support Program with the Nova Scotia Department of Education. The Landmark schools costs of tuition and boarding, ranges from $20,800 to $46,800 per year. The wide range of costs, includes day student or students who board, and the various levels of severity of the disabilities to provide remediation of the learning weaknesses, that would be most effective.
3. Bridgeway does it for far less money per year, since there is no boarding of students, and the $50,000 figure is arrive at, if a student stays for four years. How many students stay for 4 years depends on how severe the learning disabilities are, for the most part very few students are in need of the 4 years, but a few are in need because of the severity of the disabilities. So a child like mine, falling into the mild to moderate LD category, where her severe area is in phonemic awareness only, would be welcome in Bridgeway as a child with several severe areas that would be in need of intensive therapy and instruction. The differences lies as HockeyMum has stated, the methods that are used to addressing the underlying deficits that are impacting learning. For my child, 1 to 2 years would be sufficient to addressed my child’s learning deficits, compared to other children. The costs of a Bridgeway student is the difference between what would have been spent in the regular public schools to addressed LD educational needs and the amount at Bridgeway over the amount of monies that is spent beyond the regular public school. For children who fall within the mild to moderate LD category, the true costs borne by the public education system would amount to be about $10,000 extra, and certainly would not reach $50,000.
4. Bridgeway is a affordable option, and as Hockeymum has stated, “There is no simple answer, but I do agree that the funding should follow the student and not for a limited time. It will be difficult for the public schools to offer all the individual assistance for all the students who need it so it makes more sense for parents to find where their child can be helped and let that child move to that school with the funding that they need to be there.”. The need of choice must expand, where the funding follows the students, based on the educational needs of students, rather than the current model of one-sized-fits-all model, that does not allow sufficient monies and the use of effective teaching methods/programs/therapies to remediate the learning deficits of students.
5. The focus should not be on the costs of Bridgeway, but rather the focus should be on the public education system, and the long term costs of not providing the correct instruction and programs for students with disabilities that impacts their learning and achievement. Bridgeway cost far less than the long term costs to society that come about from the methods of the public education system, that does nothing for the learning deficits of students.
When you have figured out how to fund this educational utopia with an aging population and a shrinking tax base please let me know.
Meanwhile, I’ll maintain my cynicism about the “reform vs non-reform vs parents vs students vs taxpayer” movements.
I agree with you Andrew – not a sustainable system the way it is for sure!
Okay, Andrew, how about if you back up your figures. Where do these numbers come from anyway?
It was at a one of those DOE “public hearings” in Lawrencetown a few years ago. Those figures were mentioned by someone trying to get more public funds… Landmark East.
Enough said. If anyone wishes to keep in touch, please contact me directly by e-mail.
Cost per student figures are relevant to the discussion and that is precisely why the three Nova Scotia independent schools have secured a partnership with the Department of Education. Schools specializing in educating special needs kids are not only more effective, they are also more affordable in the long-run.
Bridgeway Academy and Churchill Academy charge fees in the range of $10,000 to $12,000 per year, but that is offset by tuition subsidies. The high-side figure of $50,000 may well be the cost to send a student to Landmark East School, but it’s a small enrolment boarding school, so the fees include room, board, meals, and all extra-curriculars during the school year.
The Special Education delivery model in public education has become very expensive. Mainstreaming most special ed kids and providing EAs made sense until the numbers spiralled and imposed strains on both teachers and our pocketbooks. When the number of TAs hit 2,000 in a system with only 9,900 teachers, it became clear to Dr. Ben Levin where we were heading. ( That’s the value of bringing in an outside consultant)
Expanding the range of school choice within public education is the preferred route. Letting funding follow the student is the most likely way to get there… The key cost component is teachers salaries ( roughly 75% of total costs) and such schools are not bound by the NSTU salary scales, so they can offer programs at a lower price point for parents and families.
We need more Bridgeway Academies and every Board should have at least one such school. With adequate, secure tuition support ( to graduation), we would see untold benefits here in Nova Scotia. Surely that’s preferable to spending all your time seeking “accommodations” from a largely unresponsive, bureaucratic system with its Byzantine rules and regulations.
Paul, you are absolutely right! I totally agree with the way you have explained it. Seems like a no brainer but how do we get our voices heard and have the DOE listen to common sense? Most students who require SE assistance of any kind would be much better off if it were channelled to a central location that could provide what was needed to larger # of students rather than trying to bring that kind of help to each and every school. That is a logistical and financial impossibility and a centralized location in each school district would make sense. Yes, in some remote areas students with SE needs would have to travel, but isn’t it worth it for your child to get the education he needs ( and deserves)??
It shocks me when I speak to parents of kids on IPP in pubic schools who accept that their child will never get a proper education in the situation they are in and those same parents won’t consider the inconvenience and / or travel worth it to get what their child needs – very selfish behaviour.
It was very inconvenient for us to have to provide our own transportation for our child every day for almost 4 years – there is no public transit in Fall River where we live to the city (the French school bus went by our door and nearly to the Bridgeway door but we were not allowed to ask for transportation help). So we did what had to be done, found a car pool arrangement and now our son has a future.
It breaks my heart to know there are many students out there who will drop out of school and struggle with their future when some common sense would make things work for them. Pool the $$ and give them a chance.
French immersion is a perfect example. Look how many parents got on that band wagon and had a voice and now there are French schools everywhere. If the kids who’s parents wanted them to learn in French were loud enough to get their own schools, why won’t the parents of the kids who need a Bridgeway Academy/Churchill Academy do the same thing? Why? I think many parents are embarrassed to admit their child needs help. I say “get over yourselves” and speak up. If the schools are identifying more and more students who require more assistance then those parents need to get their heads out of the sand and ask for help. The teachers and the schools cannot do it all….
The public system needs a solution they can offer instead of putting up roadblocks by stating there are too many who need services and not enough staff to go around. If the schools cannot bring it to the students, then take the children to the schools who can help – simple solution.
I usually roll my eyes at “slippery slope” arguments but this piece of the conversation is starting to make me a little nervous. Where is the line between doing what we need to do to give these kids a proper education and outright segregation (the not so good old days)?
Personally, I would love to see my youngest in Landmark (it’s literally right down the road from us) but there is no way I can afford that and we aren’t even eligible for any tuition assistance because they outright refuse to give her a IPP. Instead she has some sort of goofy Individual Resource Service Plan (or something like that).
So are we talking about just letting the funding follow the kids with LD to schools like Bridgeway and Landmark (I think I am pretty much okay with that). Or are we going to make specialized schools for ALL these kids (some of whom, BTW, I believe require just that) and move back from inclusion?
I don’t know the answers and I fully recognize that some might see my response as hypocritical (it’s okay to segregate LD students but not the others) but this is just my gut reaction. Based on many years of hard-fought experience, of course…
Hi Michelle,
IMO inclusion doesn’t work for most of these kids (whether it’s basic LD or other reasons) and it’s not “segregation” when your child is finally happily going to school and not being bullied and being made fun of by kids and teachers alike.
Segregation is when a child is taken out of class and sent to a “resource” room several times a week. The rest of the class soon know it’s because “that kid is a dummy and needs extra help”. My son’s self esteem and confidence were at it’s lowest when he was in public school. Once he got to Bridgeway he blossomed into a confident young man and that was for two reasons 1) because he had teachers who were able to teach him the way he learned and 2) because he was no longer being harassed by other students who called him things like dumb and stupid. He finally made friends and became social. Up to that point he stayed home after school and played video games “because the computer wasn’t mean to him like the kids at school” (his words). We lived this for all of the years he went to public school – even moved him from one public school to another to avoid the bullying. We never once considered putting him at Bridgeway as segregation, more like jubilation!
Let’s face it, the majority of kids are kind and considerate and patient with those who are a bit different, but it’s the few who are not and cannot be contained that make life miserable and if we can find a way to help kids through those difficult school years, we ought to try. Not every student will want or need to go to a different school, but if what was offered there was what they needed, the decision would not be all that hard to make, would it?
I would like to see the money follow the student no matter where he/she goes, leaving it up to the parent/guardian to make that determination and the schools have the information to give to parents instead of trying to discourage them from leaving so they don’t lose their funding for that student. Just my opinion from what we experienced.
Michelle has brought up a valid and important point – “because they outright refuse to give her a IPP. Instead she has some sort of goofy Individual Resource Service Plan (or something like that).”
Even though, from another province, I have a child sitting on the border line. Just squeak through, barely meeting criteria of LD. In some provinces, my child would not qualified as having a learning disability, nor a reading disability. But in the world of private services, and paying $2500, my child would be dyslexic, with a total breakdown of her major learning weaknesses, with a further breakdown of the sub-groups within the major learning weaknesses. The recommendations would be the same as the school assessments, an O/G method to addressed the low phonemic awareness, reading issues and writing. Also included would be explicit grammar and other writing lessons, and this would be applied to math. How many school boards ignore the recommendations of the assessments? How many school boards denied assessments and IEPs based on subjective observations and personal bias based on their knowledge? Another area, the public education system does not track, nor do their track the achievement of students who are accessing SE services. One would think, if a child was receiving speech therapy, someone is keeping track if the speech therapy is working effectively. But no they do not. I often wonder how effective speech therapy is at the school level, when my child had two years of speech therapy, ending at the age of 4, twice a week, 2 55 minutes sessions. And I had homework as well, to reinforce the speech therapy.
Michelle brought up a valid point, where the public education policies are designed to prevent access to SE services unless one meets the criteria. Take for example in my province, the severe LD are under a criteria, and the mild to moderate LD have no criteria. Yet both groups need the same type of interventions, but the differences lies in the intensity, length of times, and what is being targeted. The severe LD have more or open access to SE, but run the danger of being stuck in the SE class for good, and the mild to moderate LD students, the parents have to fight hard for everything, especially in remediation of reading, writing or numeracy.
I would have love to be able to access a LD school for two years, to address the weaknesses and other issues dealing with organization, note taking and so forth. Than walk back into the regular school, being provided the correct accommodations and IEP without a fight. When my child was receiving speech therapy, there was big decisions being made to address and to promote speech. Instead of going to the child development centre where most children have severe communication disorders, it was thought the best option was to placed her in a nursery school to addressed getting ready for school, and the second nursery school, was a play group. I also threw in swimming, dancing and gymnastics for tots for good measure. When JK arrived, I had the documentation from the nursery schools, the child development centre, and as well as swimming. I had a tough time in either province, to accept it. The reason given was not it does not applied now that she is older. All the documentation scream out, she would be having difficulties in reading, due to her speech delay. Further additional information from the nursery schools showing the extremes of strengths and weaknesses in language activities. The numeracy problem came later, because she was already adding and subtracting by the age of 3. One way of getting her to talk, used cookies and it never failed, she knew when she was being ripped off, and demanded verbally for the two or three cookies missing. When I pressed harder why the educrats would think this, because the health professionals do not know the educational needs of a child. Well, by the end of grade three, her math and writing skills were at the level of grade 1, and reading just barely made grade level. Her numeracy skills went down the tubes, because of instruction. Her reading skills, especially decoding went down the tubes because of instruction. And when the reading skills are weak, the writing skills are weak as well. If the educrats sat down and read the documentation, instead of handing me excuses why they do not want the documentation. Documentation contains vital information on the educational concerns of children, and should be used along with current information.
The only solution is to have funding follow the student, and in cases or isolated rural areas where distance is going to be the problem, and a child is in need of help, provide the funds for the room and boarding portion. The longer a school waits, the longer a student will take to remediate their learning weaknesses. With my child, another year without help, would ensure her using 4 years at Bridgeway. More cost effective in the long run, and school boards can targeted teaching training on the things that they lack, and more expertise on pinpointing areas of needs for children. One cannot expect a teacher to perform miracles if she lacks the assessments and knowledge to do so. Every year, I had to provide information on LD, and how it impacts my child’s learning. High school, it finally ended by grade 9, where I no longer have to go to each teacher, and where they now have the information on hand and in her file, for a new teacher that might be teaching her. Not much of a turnover in my area, and since the community is small, the teachers really get to know the students inside and out. In fact, basing it on my child, the high school teachers at the school are doing a great job on improving the foundation in reading, writing and numeracy that should have been addressed in grade school. They must be doing something right, when 34 students are enrolled in grade 11 advance math, hardly any in academic math and the rest in applied math.
My child went through unnecessary hell in the inclusive classroom, and if it means to go to a LD school for a couple of years, the bonus will be far less emotional damage being inflicted on her self-esteem and feeling stupid all the time.
Just an observation, but I’ve been looking and comparing Ministry of Education websites across Canada and Nova Scotia’s isn’t very user, or parent friendly.
Among all of the provinces (excluding the territories) only the Nova Scotia and Manitoba website by those government do NOT have a link to or an option for parents or school community councils.
I have to ask myself how the gov’t and by extension school boards have initiated any sort of “partnership” with parents.
The website is a whole bunch of generalization but even the option where they try to explain how the education system in Nova Scotia is set up is very vague and not helpful at all to folks wanting more of an indication and links to things like school boards, minutes to board meetings etc.
Getting parents talking on a dedicated hub (something like Paul’s got going here) would be a great resource to help bridge the communications gap that exist.
Here in Ontario in 1997/98 a group called SCWeb met on-line at a forum kind of like this one. We believed, and I still believe that organizing parents on-line by either region or school is key to moving forward and exploring options. The SCWeb group was from all over Ontario. We eventually met in person and launched discussions with key players in getting parents and school councils hooked up and coordinated. We lobbied the ed. ministers as well as local a local tv network.
Has N.S., before now EVER had any kind of parent movement started at the local grass root level?
Maybe it’s time to start?
Catherine
The government here has always been very effective with a divide and conquer strategy, not just in education but across the board when it comes to disability issues. Pit autism against Down Syndrome, pit LD against whomever and I have found that a lot of parents, if they have something that’s working, are afraid to step forward because they’re afraid of losing it. It tends to be a culture of fear; I’ve come across it more than once in my work.
We started a cross-disability parent support group here in the Valley many, many years ago but two things happened – such groups are notoriously hard to keep going (I am starting to believe that nobody whines, bitches and moans better than parents with special needs kids but the vast majority are not willing to step forward to do anything about it) and there were really only 3 of us at the core. The other thing was that of those few parents that were willing to come out, many were terrified of coming near anything “political”.
Speaking of outsiders in this Province, I am actually a Prairie girl (from Sask), I won’t say at heart because I have lived in NS now longer than I did out West. But I have trouble with that mindset; for me, anything I do for my own child, I am also doing for everyone else and anything I do for another child, I am also doing for my own.
I am familiar with on online group of Ontario parents around special ed issues on Yahoo but I take it you are speaking of a different group. Still, I often thought it would be nice to have such an online group around special ed here.
Hi Michelle –
re: “divide and conquer” it’s a prerequisite, especially within education systems because historically it used to work UNTIL many parents figured out that ploy and either called them at their own game or managed to work-on to expose the tried and true methods used by education systems to marginalize parents.
re: your experience with the cross-disability support group. Encouraging and obvious there was(and still is) a need, but your comments about complaining parents who want someone else to do the work is something I’ve come across from time to time from parents of all students….not just special needs parents.
Among parents though all it takes is some leadership to get the ball rolling to encourage parents that they matter inside and outside the education system more than they’re ever recognized for.
Parents need to support each other and empower others to do their own legwork.
“fear” is the greatest motivator for doing nothing.
It’s also a ploy that gov’t’s and bureaucrats like to see because they know that parents will eventually leave or forget.
The SCWeb group was aimed at getting parents to be comfortable on-line and organizing websites for school councils in Ontario.
There are some pockets within boards in Ontario where there are good networks available for parents to talk together on-line. Some are overseen by boards but the beauty of starting out under the board’s umbrella is that you can create other networks without the board and their employees tuning in.
When I started out advocating for parents both in and outside of the public education system it was my goal to build the confidence of parents (that which the system got sooo good at breaking down) and almost coaching parents how to smartly challenge the system, and/or tackle issues and in the case of Ontario’s legislated school councils teach parents on those councils how to use their statutory power to make changes.
The politics never goes away unfortunately – but empowering parents don’t fall on the side of any political party.
I just got the impression by looking through the N.S. Min. of Ed. site that your gov’t doesn’t care enough about parents to give you even a web presence or profile on the provincial site.
Michelle – if you email Paul Bennett (moderator) perhaps he could forward your email address to me and we can talk more off the blog?
Parents in Ontario have had to grow their voices over time – it does take work but compared to 12 -15 years ago there are many parent supports now to tap in to.
I have always desired a web site to go to, and chat as well as providing information and knowledge on the different disabilities. There has been a few in NL, but were shut down rather quickly by the government, and it made life miserable for the ones that started it. On the open-line shows on the radio, even teachers go nameless to speak about education issues, and parents as well. All in fear it would bring personal repercussions as well as to the children. I have used the threat to go public, and that is the last thing that the educrats would want – their fear I know too much, set the record straight, and start a mini revolution by parents to speak out on the difficulties. Like it happen when I wrote a letter to the editor in the defense of a parent, whose boy still had not learn to read at the age of 14, and put the educrat who responded to the boy’s parent, espousing the usual misconceptions and myths on reading disabilities, in his place. Than another parent jumped in, and for about six weeks the letters to the editor was hopping about the terrible services being received, and that how few was lucky enough to be receiving services. Unknown to me, the lower educrats of the board was busy collecting and cutting my letters to be used against me, at the next IEP meeting. I was aware that this might occur, from the advice given to me on the American LD forum, and I was prepare if it did happen. It did happen, at the next IEP meeting, that took months to get and it only happen after the child advocate’s office became involved and the ministry of education. All I wanted was a reassessment – the psycho-educational one, since my child would be entering high school in the following year. When the day arrive, I was fully prepared to do battle with everyone in the room, but I was pleasantly surprised I only had to do battle with one. It was one of the educrats at the board level, and when he pulled out the letters he stated with a straight face, that in his experience dyslexia is rare. The room went silent, not even a paper was stirring, when I stated calmly and very polite, now why would you think that, when 80 % of the LD students, have dyslexia. The teachers stayed out of it, and halfway through the exchange I realized that they were on my side, and the board was doing everything in their power to prevent the assessment and any accommodations, including SE services. Of course that was running through my mind, while I reach into my folder, a few reports on dyslexia and one paper listing the tactics of educrats to prevent help for dyslexias. On the top of the list, dyslexia does not exist, and as I handed the papers to him, I told him there is more where that comes from, including the research in the last 20 years, showing the advancements as well as treating learning and reading disorders. It was my first successful IEP meeting, that my goals were achieve, and I did not have to settle for second best. Unknown to the educrats, after the meeting I phoned up the contact at the top level of the ministry of education to report what happen at the meeting. She was not impressed at all, and understood why I was so frustrated.
Another thing that is missing in the provinces is support groups in schools, dealing with all things in SE. A group that is run like a committee, but are informal for the most part and have an automatic seat at the school council, so their voice is heard. In the United States, it is a common feature of schools, where the SE committee will hand out information on reading, to the primary parents that will alert them what to watch for, that the schools or the school boards do not covered on their sites. From my experience, and I do hope it has change a little bit, but when a child is writing and the vowels of the words are missing, that is one of the signs. Or a child holds a pencil in a claw fist, ripping holes in the paper, and the outcome is unreadable for the time that is spent, is another sign. Also the SE committee is the first place to go to seek out advice from other parents, their knowledge and experience. I sure wish I had someone to go to, and talk because I really felt alone for the longest time in my own community. Made worse by the extended family who thought I was just a terrible mother to insist on an assessment. I still do not have their support, even now when she is so successful in school. There is the shame factor that parents are dealing with, on top of the misconceptions of the disability. The extended family thought and still do, that I brought shame to their family, and even though the awards, the medals won, and just the sheer mountain my child climb over the many obstacles, it is discounted by them. Apparently I have cheated, or I taught my child to cheat, or my child has an unfair advantage over other children, my response was that I was not present when she wrote her tests and exams. One time, at a science fair – I was accuse of buying the judges after my child won big. But I laughed, and now I usually laugh, instead of fretting about what others think. I am very tired of trying to educate them, and a waste of time. So very hard for my child, and I had to for her sake, limit contact with all extended family.
If it was not for the teachers, they stood by even if they thought otherwise. I understood where the teachers stand, because if they had full autonomy over what and how they teach, not a second would have been wasted, where the primary grades would be taught to read with systematic explicit phonics instruction or some equivalent. Spelling and grammar would be back as well, and they would tossed out the fuzzy math curriculum. But they are watch too closely by the board, and the SE children are micro-managed where resources become really scarce, and teachers are told to teach according to the school board. All I wanted was my child to learn to read, write and do numeracy well. The sad part is, that I am not an isolated case, no matter what province one is in, there is always more left out in the cold, than the number of students who are lucky enough to received help.
By the way, I did want to start a support group for SE at the school, and apparently it is against the school board’s rules and regulations. Plus it is unauthorized use of the school and their resources. Parents right across the province were told the same thing, and what does that tell you? The educrats do not want SE parents talking and sharing information, and that became known to me quite early, when the educrats told me that I should not be talking about my child’s problems to anyone. I told them, I can talk to anyone I please, since I am not bounded by the privacy act as you are. They did not like that, and than suggested it might harm my child where no one would want to be friends with her. I became a bit irritated, since she did not have any friends in the first place, unless one would count the bullies as her friends. At the time, there was no bully policy to speak of, and the usual response was to tell her to walk away. Even the mothers when she had friends, once it was found out she had LD, the friendships were sever, and my child became the ‘holy terror’. I found this out by an elderly lady who had her great grandchildren visiting her, and my child became friends with them. She phone me to tell me what a nice polite girl she was, and she went on. Than at the end she told me don’t spend no mind on the gossip around town, she is no holy terror. I was quite surprise to find out holy terror, when every report card states otherwise.
Between the rules/regulation, educrats, misconceptions, one has to maintain a sense of humor. My 15 year old laughs about the holy terror remark now a days, but it was not funny when we first heard it. A lot of tears, laughter and hard work have gone by, plus a lot of ice cream cones to celebrate the small victories of success.
Nothing stops parents from starting support groups with parents but outside of prying eyes of the school board or school system – nothing whatsoever. Often parents are also a barrier to change.
Waiting for the state to do anything about offering support for parents will continue to leave parents out in the cold.
As I see it parents (all parents, not just those of special needs children) have two choices
1) stay in the public system, learn to play the game to achieve change against all odds.
or
2) leave the public system that’s unresponsive, territorial and not that interested in putting all kids first or being accountable to parents.
In either case parents need to be aware of the truth they face and the work they need to do as the first and best advocates for their children.
Folks, allow me to introduce you to STUDENTS FIRST NOVA SCOTIA! http://www.studentsfirstns.ca/
Have a look! We are on facebook and Twitter @students1stns
I’m determined not to be divided or conquered. Everybody’s thoughts and opinions matter. Part of our problem is that we parents have not been heard by the system, so we must make sure we hear each other.
it’s a start Peggy.
How does Students First hear from those interested who are not on facebook or twitter.
I know that in my rural community there are many who still would like to converse using a forum, blog or discussion page.
As Paul is chair of Students First is Educhatter that discussion vehicle?
Catherine, good point. Educhatter came along first and then Paul organized some parents and others from various social media and other places to put together a grass roots movement. Maybe we need our own forum ,or we need to be directing people to this one.
Special Education is a field full of unsung heroes. One of those is Lucinda Low, the founder of Bridgeway Academy, a school for LD kids in Dartmouth, NS.
Since founding Bridgeway around her kitchen table in 1983, Lucinda has been a pioneer in the drive to improve Special Education services. Her school has helped hundreds of students and their families and expanded, three years ago, to a second campus in Truro, NS.
It’s great to see her being recognized:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/DCW/1244871.html
We need more Lucinda Low’s and more Bridgeway programs to meet the growing needs. It’s too important to be decided by education politics.
“We need more Lucinda Low’s and more Bridgeway programs to meet the growing needs. It’s too important to be decided by education politics.”
All you need then are more kitchen tables:-)
That’s all it takes – plus a willing group of like-minded and tenacious individuals who aren’t afraid to buck the system.
I love this story. I hadn’t heard it before today.
Yes, it IS too important. That’s why there will be a Cristo Rey school in Toronto soon. It’s about putting the students first–before politics, unions (same thing?), and bureaucracy.
To respond to a statement about education spending made in the comments in the previous post about Accountability: [“If the reform movement wants to be the movement of reduced funding for education be my guest. You will have a lot of trouble gaining parent support.”]
It’s not about reducing funding, it’s about having control about how that funding gets spent–what it gets spent on and who decides. Seems to me that if parents of special education students had more control over how funding was spent on their own children, there would be more accountability and perhaps, better outcomes for their kids.
Bring on more Bridgeways, Cristo Rey’s and others like them.
“The grandmother of three said she had no idea how to start a school, so she picked up the phone book and went through the alphabet until she found a lawyer who would talk to her for free.
“Something told me, ‘That was your first miracle,’ ” she said, laughing.”
Yes it was, the first miracle. I only know too well of talking to a lawyer on education matters. When I finally found one willing to talk to me, on obtaining an assessment for my child, he also was kind enough to provide other information that was news to me. The lawyer, told me how to pushed the legal angle, without retaining a lawyer, but for more serious concerns such as a law suit, he informed me very few lawyers in the province that are not working for the public education system, have the expertise and knowledge of handling education issues that parents have concerning their children’s education. Than he asked me how long did it take you to find me? It took me 7 days to find him, and he said, you are not the first parent to phone me, and you will not be the last.
It puts the old chestnut that educrats like to toss around, that only certified teachers can educate children, to a fresh round of being scrutinized by the public.
slightly off-topic but just to show folks here that many other provinces face education woes we can add Saskatchewan to the list if those left wondering about who’s really in it for the students?
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/Saskatchewan+teachers+plan+strike/4821600/story.html
Below is a paper: “The following essay is a study of the legal rights of children with “learning disabilities” (“LD”) and other special needs in the education system of British Columbia.”
Click to access stack.pdf
Best I ever had read on the legal rights of LD children. It certainly sends me the message, that LD children as the law states, are not entitled to an education that is beyond the regular students. It could explain why LD children reading, writing and numeracy problems are not addressed using proven effective research-based that works best for LD children. The usual route is dumb down the work, to work around the learning weaknesses. On another note, after reading the paper, one might considered the gem that has developed over the years – The Bridgeway schools. It is rather interesting how it became part of the Nova Scotia education system, when considering the current legal rights of LD children. The Bridgeway schools, could very paved the road to change within the public education system, and how they addressed LD student needs, since the very curriculum and instruction are not appropriate for their needs. In my eyes, it hinders their education, magnifies their weaknesses, and prevents them from reaching their full potential.
It’s a good article Nancy, thanks for posting it.
But there are a few things to consider, one being the date. I don’t think there has been much substantive special ed litigation in Canada since the Concerned Parents case (that one was obviously settled but I kind of wish it hadn’t because it would have been real interesting to see what the court finally did with it), but the article is still dated (2001).
The other issue is the legislation – every time he references a BC statute or regulation, you have to turn to the NS Education Act and the regulations made thereunder. The closest NS comes to a positive right to inclusion is in s. 64(2)(d) of the Education Act.
A school board shall, in accordance with this Act and the regulations …
develop and implement educational programs for students with special needs within regular instructional settings with their peers in age, in accordance with the regulations and the Minister’s policies and guidelines;
Sec. 6 of the Ministerial Regs provides that
Placement of students
6 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a school board shall determine the appropriate placement of students.
(2) The obligation of a school board pursuant to subsection (1) is, in the case of the placement of a student with special needs, subject to
(a) any appeal procedure established by the school board; and
(b) the appeal procedure prescribed in Section 52 [53].
Meaning that we don’t quite have what BC has:
2 (2) A board must provide a student with special needs with an
educational program in a classroom where that student is integrated with
other students who do not have special needs, unless the educational
needs of the student with special needs or other students indicate that the
educational program for the student with special needs should be
provided otherwise.
BTW on an unrelated note, did anyone realize that school boards recieve special education grants and learning disabilities grants as separate items? [s. 8(5) of the Gov in Council Regs] I didn’t. Until now.
Help me to understand what you meant by this?
“The Bridgeway schools, could very paved the road to change within the public education system, and how they addressed LD student needs, since the very curriculum and instruction are not appropriate for their needs. In my eyes, it hinders their education, magnifies their weaknesses, and prevents them from reaching their full potential.”
Hopefully I misunderstood you – the Bridgeway curriculum and instruction are for the full curriculum – as opposed to the IPP which the public system offers, a partial education… based on the diagnosis of an LD?? Students with an LD are not necessarily un-able to learn, many require a different style of teaching – hence the success of the Bridgeway type schools. If the public schools had the ability to focus on each child as an individual they would realize that long before the IPP. That however is a dream that will never come true, so allowing the student to option of taking his funding somewhere that he/she can get help is the smarter option.
Sorry bad sentence structure. I meant that the public education system, is at fault for not providing the correct instruction and in the style of their learning. Bridgeway could very well lead the changes to the public education system, where the type of instruction that is very effective for LD students, can and has been shown to be very effective for all the student population. If mild to moderate LD and other children for whatever reason they are a bit behind in language, if they received the correct reading instruction, such as systematic explicit phonics, or an equivalent, correct writing and numeracy instruction, and as well as explicit grammar and spelling lessons, a mild to moderate LD child and the other children who are a bit behind in language, may never be identified as being at risk, always be at grade level.
But the reality under the current education system, the mild to moderate LD children, along with the severe category requires intensive one to one, or small groups of 5 to remediate their reading, writing and numeracy problems, plus a great deal more addressing organization skills, executive functions, handwriting, sensitivity issues for some, voice lessons, and cognitive exercises. It is why the Bridgeway is a gem, even though private, the public education system finances it for the most part, When the students returned back to the public education system, there are a testament to Bridgeway and their practices, and shines a light on the practices of the public education system. It makes the educators think about the current practices, especially in the light of a LD student that has returned to the public education, displaying their learning strengths, that the same educators thought it would not be possible.
Even though I did a lot of re-teaching at home to addressed my child’s weaknesses that the school would not do for whatever reasons, I started with the little things. The teachers notice, without me telling them, and they always wanted to know what I did at home to improve it. Often they said, they thought what I was doing at home was useless. One example, was my child’s handwriting. Messy, unreadable, and the letter a look a o and a o look like an a. I hit the research in cognitive learning dealing with handwriting. I came upon work on the use of stencils that would improve better formation of letters. It made sense to me, and I brought stencils, and for 10 to 15 minutes, on colour paper, she drew a picture plus her title that was more or less a sentence, all in stencils. She really enjoyed it, and as she said it sure beats working on the math facts. I did not tell her the reason, and I just told her after coming from school, you need a bit of a break. I noticed the changes within a month, and by the end of three months, the teachers noticed it. Her handwriting was readable, correct letter formation, she was writing within the lines, and her writing content had improved greatly. My child developed automaticity in handwriting, and now could concentrated on content. So the teachers, asked me what did I do. I told them stencils, and I added the same stencils that are banned from this school. The following year, the stencil ban was lifted. Prior to the stencils, I had taught italic handwriting, a form of simplified handwriting to her, and put it simply she was not allowed to used it. So the capital M look like a W, and her N look like a M. She could not do the curly lines or the tails. Italic handwriting was my answer, but she was not allow to used it until grade 7. She now uses a combination of italic for the capital letters, and several small letters, and the rest in classic style.
There is cognitive activities that can be used at school, where cost is not a factor, to improved all children’s cognitive skills, and not just the students who are struggling. And the cognitive science backs it up. What I have never succeeded to do, is to have my child cut a straight line. I have given up on that one, and if she needs any cutting to do, I do it for her. I doubt it, it will become important in the scheme of things when she is an adult.
My child spent two years in a SE math class, where her average was in the high 90s. What should have taken place, was the first 5 months, rapid re-teaching grade 1 math and up, in a direct, explicit fashion, and one to one following along the grade 4 curriculum using direct explicit instruction, at her own pace. And even here, I was reminded numerous time, not to practice any math at home. It is a good thing that I did not listen, and I did my own thing, ensuring she had a firm foundation in basic arithmetic facts and the math laws behind it. It came in handy in grade 6 math, where she was without accommodations, and it was the foundation that served my child well in grade 6 math.
Bridge way is a gem, because it is a constant example to the educrats that the LD children are learning under a full curriculum, using the methods best suited for LD students. At the same time, remediating the learning weaknesses, or if not, finding effective methods that works well for the individual student to work around a weakness. From the paper on legal rights of LD students, Bridgeway may be a key to advance the legal rights of LD students, not only for Nova Scotia, but right across Canada.
On the Thomas Fordham site, a new analysis called Shifting Trends in Special Education.
http://www.edexcellence.net/publications-issues/publications/shifting-trends-in-special.html
It is free, but to get access one must joined, before obtaining the article.
I only wish one could be conducted in Canada, because I suspect the same thing is happening here in Canada.
There was four conclusions, and I will note the last one only.
“Fourth and finally, America needs to approach special education with greater creativity and flexibility in the future
than it has shown in the past. Instead of engaging in polarizing discussions around whether to mainstream
students versus serve them in pull-out settings—or around the disproportionate identification of students by
race—let’s focus on how to differentiate learning for all students. In other words, how can we make education
“special” for every one of our students, reserving unique services for the small percentage of severely disabled
children who need them? Surely the advent of new tools, service providers, and customized technology packages
can help on this front.
Special education, like general education, needs a makeover for the twenty-first century. Its service models, instructional strategies, funding, identification methods, disability definitions, IEP protocols, and so on, no longer
serve the needs of truly disabled youngsters. But we can’t get there until we peel back the layers of financial and
operational opacity that currently shroud the field and hinder our efforts to make it more transparent, efficient, and effective in the future.”
only because this is front page in the National Post, it adds to the angst in Nova Scotia, BUT it also tells me that there’s opportunity here for an uprising by taxpayers.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/25/nova-scotians-the-most-taxed-in-canada-provincial-report/
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1245290.html From today’s Halifax Herald. It’s the on-line comments that get me. some of them are scary.
hi peggy – from the article
“The lifetime cost (to society) of one student . . . not completing Grade 12 is well over $650,000,” board member David Cameron said.”
And how much of that cost is teacher salaries? Admin. support?
Odd that the Pathways program is threatened because in Ontario the Pathways program is proving very successful with no talks of cutting it. Even the opposition parties to the Ontario Liberals give it kudos.
So….something’s stinks in the rationale in all of this IF in fact it’s truly helping the students.
Something’s missing for me in the explanation that doesn’t add up.
Hi Peggy, it’s the parents who’s kids are “perfect” who don’t get it and never will. Thankfully the Herald closes comments when they see it getting out of hand. It seems the folks who run the Education system don’t get it that ALL kids are good and worthy of a chance at a decent education and a good life. It’s okay to spend money building new “French” schools, but not okay to spend money to help those in need. Most parents of kids with “needs” have exhausted themselves trying to help their kids but because they are not united into one loud voice they get little attention. Bravo to the parents and kids who attended that meeting to save their program. I only hope those parents of the “perfect” kids never need anything themselves someday. You know what they say about kharma!!!
what worries me is that as soon as parents get into the “us” vs “them” arguments the system has already won by dividing and conquering parents into those camps.
The comments are just terrible, but it certainly shows the misconceptions that people have on students who are struggling in learning.
One comment, positive and highlights issues that students are dealing with.
“Ok- Yes this program is costing money, but yes its cheaper than having all these kids ending up on welfare because they cannot get an education because their program was cut.
I read the previous story on this topic, and although it was not really highlighted in this article I am lead to believe that some of these students have anxiety issues and learning disabilities. I have both anxiety issues and learning disabilities and this program was not offered in my town. I struggled walking to my classes because my anxiety was so bad, then I struggled all through my classes because I couldn’t get the help I needed. The guidance counselor told me I would never go to university even though I really wanted to. I ignored her, applied anyway and just graduated this past week with distinction. Give these students the chance to achieve all they can. If the program must be cut, help them in the schools they are to be transferred to. For example- let them go to the learning center or if they are anxious let them miss a class as long as the teacher know they are not just skipping. Some teachers are more than willing to help out on their lunches or after school.”
By high school, if the learning deficits were not addressed properly at the grade school level, the anxiety issues and other behavioural and attitude issues becomes a major factor that leads to the suspensions, detention and other discipline measures. From my own observations, the perfect parents, and many hold the view within the public education system, that students who struggle, are not worth the time, the expense and the resources, and it should be put to better use on students who are the higher achievers. I am still dealing with the prefect parents, and their misconceptions. They still think that LD children are dumb, in my neck of the woods, and they become rather upset, when my youngest beats their prefect child on a test. I would love to be a fly, when the prefect parents have phoned up the school, demanding the few accommodations she has to be taken away, so their prefect children are on a even playing field once again.
For those who wish to read another perspective on the issue facing Nova Scotia education here’s the link to the education writings of Sandy Crux
http://cruxofthematternews.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/supporters-students-trying-to-save-halifaxs-youth-at-risk-program/
Isn’t mayoral control by right wing Mayor’s great?
http://www.educationnews.org/ednews_today/156966.html
We need to worry about children-there is a vast amount of research-the brain is extremely malleable till age 8-or 9-read Overcoming Dyslexia and fly to the International Dyslexia Association Main conference,not the satellites which end up quite dysfunctional and self serving.
The scientists give lectures,the content riveting.
You`ll feel sad and extremely disturbed,nauseous…etc..
You`ll say-WHY????
Teachers are untrained,instead of the Universities embracing this research and making sure this empirical research is conveyed to teachers so they know how to execute early intervention K-3,even those well intentioned teachers who take Special Ed 1 and 2 never learn instructional methodology.
UHUM!That is the unspoken truth.
Increased school choice is the only thing that will help dig the public system out of it’s unsustainable quagmire.
The school choice movement in Canada needs to be fueled strongly in the coming months because there’s a huge opportunity to move choice in Canada right now.
The school choice organizations and supporters need to get creative on how they market and outreach. Using new media, facebook, twitter and blogs is just one piece of the puzzle.
But for those who still rely on traditional emails, and media that effort needs to be pumped up and marketed much better than it’s being done currently.
With the utter silence in education in Ontario (as an example) it can’t be left up to one or two organizations to champion.
SunTV provides a huge opportunity in outreach that those who have been successful in achieving schools of choice in other provinces need to access to get a larger profile.
Perhaps push the network for a segment based on school choice and ed. reform?
Lobbying government needs also to happen at every level.
It’s not a matter of “if” school choice will increase, it’s a matter of “when” because it will. The old notions of public schooling are crumbling just as quickly as their liberal progressive architects.
I came down to the same conclusions as Catharine has. But what should be noted, is that the majority of parents and taxpayers remain silent for various reasons on issues of choice, changes to curriculum, instruction, funding, and other education issues, because of the repercussions of their actions speaking against the established policies of education, at the local level.
For example, I had to end my attempts working with the child’s advocate office, because the local school board decided to play hardball with my child’s IEP, or at that time the ISSP. I had to start from scratch, to obtained the correct accommodations, and more importantly the true strengths and weaknesses of my child. Being polite, is not a strength in my eyes, and at the very most, being polite is a reflection of a value that is taught at home, and bears no reflection on academic strengths.
I believe to effectively outreach to parents and taxpayers, one crucial component is to educate people on the methods and tactics that are employed by the educrats to silence the voices of opposition and those that are seeking changes that will fundamentally change the structure of the education system.
Yes, that fear is very real Nancy. The system counts on it.
The culture of fear is something that parents who challenge the system are all too familiar with, but, at some point there comes a time when the system pushes that fear element too far…and the parent simply leaves the system.
That too I believe is all purposeful.
Agree too that outreach is a huge element that can span provinces in a united voice and be tenacious about it.
Parents need to be presented with Canadian examples of choice that works and be coached on how to move that choice message in a way that’s meaningful to them.
That said, what’s frustrating for too many parents is that they simply can’t afford choices outside the system, so being exposed and enticed into the pro-choice movement becomes very discouraging because they feel they have no place to move their children to if they leave the public system.
There’s a terrific article in today’s National Post on the movement of “unschooling” that’s a must read and is really going to challenge not just the public system but also challenge the school choice reform organizations big time. Read it and see what I mean.
Agreed,they hold all the power,has to stop,the kids are not being served,they are.Egos and more egos.
A little like reading the interview in this am`s paper on Michael Ignatieff by Peter Newman,he has wishy washy eclectic stances for everything,like school boards.
I want to recommend one more thing to the Students First list-for students K-3-Phonics.
Don`t be afraid,the insanity has to end.
Tim Hudak just said it,I almost fainted.
I hope we get vouchers,money has to follow the kids.Then we will have the problem that they will refuse to identify the strugglers-then the money will leave,then they will feel the pressure,then they will PERHAPS do the right thing,long way to go though.
“K-3-Phonics.
Don`t be afraid,the insanity has to end.
Tim Hudak just said it,I almost fainted.”
That was a plank in the Ernie Eve’s election plank too Joanne that got the support of MANY Ontario parents.
Cue the “blog” excuses as to why it can’t happen….any minute now.
make that “cue the BLOB excuses” – we know who they are.
Yes indeed,and they aren`t parents.:)
Happy in Ontario,a good day for kids.
Doug Little-who he is in living colour-
http://thelittleeducationreport.com/TimHudak.html
Joanne, one line that really gets to me:
“The emphasis on Phonics discourages the social policy analysis that really could influence student outcomes. The decoding of too many words distracts from getting much meaning out of written work and frustrates many young readers.”
Discourages the social policy analysis?
The decoding of too many words distracts?
I can’t even respond to it, except to state – It is one way to ensure the 40-60 split all the way through school. Reading is a skill that must be taught, and not to be used as the means to introduced ideology and dogma to influence social policy.
Whole Language Lives On: The Illusion of Balanced Reading Instruction
http://www.ldonline.org/article/6394
The article above, should be updated to reflect the newest version of whole language, multi-literacies, and how culture is now interwoven to explain reading struggles.
whether in living colour or black and white Doug’s response to a solidly popular idea of phonics from K-3 illustrates the typical blob vortex of excuses.
I agree,let`s use the research to defeat,no one can argue with this research,except those that want to be right-in spite.
Example,Penicillin will help you survive your Pneumonia,otherwise you may die;that`s okay,I`ll stick with my FX.
Diana Whalen is holding a town hall meeting “Fighting for Education” June7th at 7:00 p.m. at the Keshen Goodman Library in Halifax. Joining Diana will be Karen Casey, liberal education critic and former education minister and Alexis Allen, president of the Nova Scotia Teachers Union.
It should be a lively discussion and great opportunity to voice your concerns for both public school and special needs interventions like the Designated Special Needs Schools.
Nancy,agreed.
Although,not shocked he wrote this,Mr.Little is a perfect example of teachers who prescribe rather than implement research.
That is the problem with Reading and Math,they are taught based on opinion,rather they should be respected as pedagogies-this opinion Doug has is now totally discredited. I am very aware of the breath and depth of your knowledge Nancy.
They discovered through MRI imaging that the talented readers use every morsel of the graphocuing system where the strugglers read with great difficulty because they don`t have those abilities,therefore they guess.
When you guess,your reading comprehension scores are very low.It is just the opposite of what Doug writes,with such authority,almost like he was Dr.Stanovich or Dr. Reid Lyon…
“The emphasis on Phonics discourages the social policy analysis that really could influence student outcomes. The decoding of too many words distracts from getting much meaning out of written work and frustrates many young readers.”
This statement is wrong,Doug gets a zero on his test.
http://www.childrenofthecode.org
Excuse me for asking what may be a stupid question ladies, but don’t both phonics and whole language work? I have one son (non LD) who could not learn with whole language so took him to a tutor for phonics in Grade 3/4 and he is fine. Other son with LD learned whole language till he could not handle the volume Grades 5/6 and phonics did not work for him. Even with LD he now reads well, just has to take his time to absorb. I am not an expert in education but after what we have been through I am an expert at being a pain in someone’s side!!!
I can imagine and know what you have been through-
If we tested your son,we would see he has weak phonemic awareness.
These children,and many kids,for phonics to work,we have to teach phonemic awareness first.
Phonics is step 2.
You son`s laboured reading,and exactly,they eventually crash,stuffing the memory with all those sight words becomes overwhelming and they can`t keep up.He`s not really reading,he`s trying to recognize the words,his reading comprehension will be greatly affected.
Here are the steps involved in proper reading instruction.
A-Phonemic instruction-developing the ear for reading
B-Phonics-showing them the picture the sound they heard makes
C-Fluency development-done with re reading taught orthographic concepts-some kids wordmap at 3-4 readings,others need up to 14.
D-When I read a word I don`t understand,let us discuss vocabulary.
E-Comprehension-example-extracting the main idea,details and retelling the story sequentially in your own words.
This should all be done for all these children.
Wow, that’s a lot of knowledge you have. We took him to a trusted tutor who did all of that, and he did come ahead somewhat but overall did better with the whole language/words he knew. When he was younger comprehension was a bit of a challenge because of the inability to sound it out, but he is extremely bright and like an elephant, does not forget, so that helped him a lot. He actually passed his first year Psychology course in University this year while many of his non-LD friends did not. Talk about “big” words!
Hi,
Whole Language is poison for LD children.
It should not be considered for anyone,let alone LD kids.
There are phonemes and phonics in every word-as long as we can make them.
Example-frustration has 3 syllables-
the first-frus has 4 sounds-tra has 3 and the reason the a says the long vowel sound is it is an open syllable-the last is one sound-tion.
Mul/tip/lic/a/tion
All the vowels are short because there is a consonant following them.When there is not,the vowel says it`s name.
Also,your son would have benefited from multisensory instruction-using the ear,hand,eye at the same time.
I am delighted to hear your son is successful at University.
Hi Jo-Anne, our younger son (non LD) learned to read with the phonics, he mastered it well, still cannot spell – but neither can my husband and I believe there is some genetic pre-disposition. He just did not have the capacity at the time to memorize the whole word – could not remember a word from one page to the next, but once he had to tools to sound it out, he then knew what it was and the connection began to take place.
Our LD son did have “the multisensory instruction-using the ear,hand,eye at the same time.” The lady who helped him was experienced in working at a recognized after school tutor program, but at the time we were not aware of the extent and the details of his LD – the school’s once a week Recovery class was not enough, so off we went in search of help – and that was just the beginning!!! His problems are his inability to hear and then put written words to paper at the same time, something about working memory and coding?? University is working since most profs post “class notes” or outlines on their websites so a student does not have to spend the entire class scribbling notes, instead can read the material to be covered ahead of class and then listen and participate – much like he was taught at Bridgeway Academy. Public classrooms seem intent on students constantly taking notes (none are provided) and that does not work for LD son (nor non-LD son for that matter). His LD is not in reading but in written expression and math, his comprehension is very good – for that we are grateful since he loves to read, resulting in success in 1st year university, hopefully more to come, possibly a teacher of LD students one day….
I am a believer in using whatever works and learning seems so technical it is overwhelming at times. I am gald to see so many people today who are researching and finding ways for success, in my generation those students were the ones who did drop out, luckily many made their way in life successfully despite of that. Today it seems in order to suceed everyone must have education on paper and that is the part that is a struggle for many – hence blogs like this one trying to understand and promote what needs to happen.
I don’t think that anyone can make a decision for your child(ren) HockeyMum. That you’ve accepted what worked for each of your children based on you knowing them best is what you have to be satisfied about…..or not.
When education becomes too much like guess-work or based on the flavour of the month rather than on solid evidence the discussion shouldn’t be what works for whose child but who ultimately is making that decision.
Here’s the link to the National Post’s piece on “un-schooling” oddly enough being driven by a parent who is a professor at Nippissing University here in Ontario.
This is the “whatever works” method taken to the max. but it’s not up to me or you or anyone else to decide what’s best for your child. Yet, the public system seems to think it can do that.
It can’t and it’s time that the public system admits that it can no longer lay claim to the promise of educating every student in a safe and secure environment. Tell parents and communities the truth and provide information and education to parents well before they sign on the dotted line as to what their choices may be.
Then let parents own their decision and their choice.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/28/the-politics-of-unschooling-raising-independent-trailblazers-or-lazy-free-floaters/
This is an important document for everyone.
“phonological awareness is the most important reading research of the 21st century”
Dr.Reid Lyon
How does it work?
Educate the ear on what it hears-
Knowledge of the internal linguistic structure of words.
Discipline and SE children, is a topic that has not been discussed.
“Tara Kennedy-Kline’s 10-year-old son was recently diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and given an IEP. The diagnosis came after years of “behavior issues” in the classroom, particularly when it came to transitions or his insistence on things staying exactly the same every day (if a child sat in the “wrong” spot, for instance, her son would act out).
In first grade he was put on a student support program for his behavioral issues, he was working with an OT assigned by the school district, he was in a special program with the guidance counselor and his parents went to quarterly “learning intervention team” meetings with the school psychologist, principal and other support staff.
“Even so, Alex served several in school suspensions for behaviors directly related to his “issues”. He was also threatened with being held back because his grades were so poor due to refusal to cooperate in class. (his IQ is above 140),” said Kennedy-Kline.”
http://www.greatschools.org/special-education/legal-rights/3623-IEP-discipline-myths.gs?page=1
My beef, it is how children are labeled behavioural problems first, without determining if there is underlying learning issues that are the causes of behaviour.
Nancy
I was really hoping the article you linked would be Canadian but, alas, it was not. The discipline situation for SE kids is very different in this country, differing by the Province. It is my understanding that Ontario has some of the most progressive regulations around this issue but in a Province like Nova Scotia, there is little to nothing protecting these kids from continuous, repeated suspensions, even when the behaviour is caused by their disability.
In Canada, no matter what province SE policy regarding discipline is a topic that the educrats do not want to talk about. Nor do they want to talk about the children that have been identified as having behavioural problems, but are not tested for learning disabilities, asperger’s syndrome, or other disorders that affect learning. My child spent some time staying in, instead of recess or lunch to finish work or redo work, during the primary years. I did not find out about it until grade 3, until I asked the right question to my 8 year old. Why are so so hungry, when you come home from school? She burst out in tears, and told me. I was not to pleased when I phoned up the school to asked for an explanation. She was not completing her work in class, for reasons of not paying attention, deliberately doing work poorly and other related behaviour issues. And yet on any of her report cards no mentioned of it, nor was it ever mentioned any behavioural problems, except not enough focus in class starting in grade 1. Information that was kept from me, that would have provide more evidence that my child needed an assessment as far back as grade 1, since her behaviour was never the kind that disrupts the classroom, or violent outbursts.
My child waited until she came home, to act out the frustrations, and stress cause by school. It was a very confusing time trying to sort it out, with limited knowledge and information needed. I had a tendency to blame myself, that I was not doing the right things at home, until I got a computer in the house near the end of grade 2, which change everything for me. At that point in grade 3, I had enough knowledge to know what the school was doing was wrong, but not all the reasons why it should not be done to children who are obviously trying their best, but are not succeeding. Back to the web, to learn the reasons why it should not be done. In the process, I found a tactic to force the assessment, by allowing my child to fail all core subjects. It did not take too long, within 3 weeks she was failing all core subjects, by withdrawing my support at home, and the assessment process began. I than put back the support at home, so at least she would be promoted and not just being socially promoted. And I made sure, that the teacher would not keep her in to finished work at recess or lunch, and that work would come home for her to finish.
As for my child, she thought she was being punished by the teacher for trying her best, without having the benefit of receiving the help she actually needed to complete the task. It was all blamed on behaviour.
Nancy, you’re in Ontario, right?
Orignally from Ontario, but moved to rural NL when my youngest was 5. Big differences, and too far away from the one and only big city with resources, I had no choice but to educate myself. Not the first one to do it, and I probably won’t be the last. However, my experiences are more like the parents who live in rural areas, where private and public resources are fewer in number, and there is a higher amount of dependency on the schools to fix things.
I would have homeschool, but the regulations were so restrictive at that time, I did not have all that much confidence in my abilities, nor the confidence to overcome the rules. By that time, I was already branded a trouble maker by the parents, and being new to the province and a community, I saw more trouble down the road, if I did homeschool. Call me chicken, but looking back, it was the right decision at that time. So, I was force to work within the system, homeschooling after school, and started to educate myself on all aspects of education. I naturally started with reading and math, and from there it was naturally extended out to other areas. But reading, math and writing instruction is my biggest beef about the education system, and I believe that if these areas were overhauled, education quality and achievement would improve for all children.
School Environments and teaching practices.
“The educational environment plays a key role. It can translate a distinct way of learning differently into a profound learning disability. Or it can offset neural processing weaknesses and encourage latent strengths to blossom into competencies and talents. A structured-language curriculum delivered through explicit, sequential, systematic, and cumulative instruction by highly skilled teachers is a critical component in an optimal learning environment, particularly in the early grades.
Happily, designing educational environments to enhance learning for children with dyslexia benefits all learners. However, changing these environments in order to initiate, nurture, and sustain effective teaching is challenging. Implementing effective instruction depends on teacher competencies and requires understanding of the complex dynamics of school change.”
http://www.greatschools.org/special-education/LD-ADHD/776-dyslexia-and-education.gs?page=3
Educrats and unions prevents , explicit, sequential, systematic, and cumulative instruction from reaching the classrooms. Whole language and the many versions, plus child-centered philosophies is the main menu that teachers pick from, because explicit, sequential, systematic, and cumulative instruction is not part of the required courses at teachers’ colleges. Unions do not like explicit instruction, because it will reduce the number of teachers and support staff, where learning and behavioural issues are far less of an issue, than the current model of instruction.
Two news stories in Ontario regarding SE services. The first one, I read much earlier in the morning and it ticked me off. The second article, later on which is a different take than the first on SE.
“SPECIAL EDUCATION
• More than 10% of the provincial budget for education is spent on special education.
• 67 out of the province’s 72 boards spend more on special education than they receive from the province.
• 30% of GTA elementary schools report that not all identified students are receiving recommended supports,
compared with 15% of elementary schools in Southwestern Ontario. ”
And further down – “POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
• Compared to schools with a low proportion of low-income students, schools with a high proportion of low-income students have, on average, double the number of students on special education waiting lists.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/the-job-of-principal-is-becoming-too-focused-on-paperwork-report-says/article2042344/page2/
The second news story: “Schools in low-income neighbourhoods in Ontario have waiting lists for special education services that are twice as long as those in more affluent schools, and the help those students receive is more likely to be inadequate, says an Ontario-wide report to be released Wednesday.
“The average number of children on special education waiting lists in high poverty schools (10) is more than double the average number of children (4) per low poverty school,” says the study by People for Education, a research and advocacy group that for the first time compared special education services and school demographics.”
Anne Kidder steps in and states: “Waiting lists for special education are hugely problematic,” she said. “Ten sounds like a small number of students to have on a waiting list, but when you multiply that by the number of schools in Ontario, it’s significant.”
As for reasons why the wait lists would be longer, and the services often inadequate, Kidder said it’s a “worrying possibility” that parents in more affluent areas “may have a higher level of comfort with the system that allows them to advocate for their kids” or even pay out-of-pocket for private assessments.”
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/article/1000435–wait-lists-for-special-education-double-for-low-income-students
In total, the amount of education dollars going to SE in Ontario will be: “Since 2003, we have increased special education funding provided through the Special Education Grant (SEG) by over 55 per cent, to a provincial total of $2.52 billion in 2011-12. We are continuing to work with our partners to ensure that special education funding reflects the needs of students,” he said.”
SE funding represents approximately 12 % of the total education funding in the K to 12 system.
The stats clearly shows the number of SE students in low-income schools are double or tripled to higher-income schools. The waiting lists are the same, and growing in the low-income schools. What really ticks me off, is the two news stories coming out in advance of the Ontario Report, as a PR exercise to guide the discussions toward waiting lists in SE, and off the other SE problems, including the proportion being spent on addressing the educational needs of SE students, in areas of reading, writing and numeracy. Where is the $2.52 billion dollars being spent in SE? If one considers, approximately 45 % of the SE students have a learning disability that requires for the most part, reading, writing and numeracy remediation, Excuse the very rough calculation, and no way accurate, but isn’t 1.134 billion dollars a bit too much to address the needs of LD students. Now mind you, that is if every SE student received an equal portion of SE funding, and we know that some SE students requires more funding than other students in reality. But for the most part, LD students only requires the educational component of the SE services,in all or some aspect, in reading, writing and numeracy. Just one of the questions I have, and the second one, what are the cost increases when children are not identified like most LD children are until the later grades, when the children require not only the educational component, but as well as other services such as organizational skills or accommodations.
Bridgeway in Nova Scotia, is cost effective and there is savings realized by the education system. Now how are the savings being spent in the public school system, for the SE children. Where is it going to? Is it going back to the SE children or into general revenue? Would it not be better to open up one or two Bridgeway schools in each board, where LD students can go and have effective remediation, and than returned to the public system, only needing accommodations? It sure appears that SE funding in the public education system, is a big money pit going to salaries at the board levels, leaving very little left over for the educational needs of all SE children.
As for Kidder’s comment on, ” Waiting lists for special education are hugely problematic,” she said. “Ten sounds like a small number of students to have on a waiting list, but when you multiply that by the number of schools in Ontario, it’s significant.”
There is a lot more than 10 students on the waiting lists at the schools. In one Ontario Board, “The current wait for a psychoeducational assessment — necessary for a child to be identified as having special needs and to receive extra classroom support — is from 15 months to two years in Halton.” And to make matters worse at this board, who is getting assessed first, “The Star revealed that some 360 senior kindergarten students will be tested for giftedness this month for a program just approved in November. Those gifted assessments are diverting board psychology staff from testing 700 other students currently on a waiting list for special needs assessments. ”
http://www.insidehalton.com/article/960959–education-minister-urges-halton-board-to-reduce-special-needs-wait-list
What Kidder neglects to mention, like most of the other educrats, who are the students on the waiting lists? The ones who are awaiting for a psycho-educational assessment. What is the average age, about 12 years old, and it is becoming a rare event in the primary grades for assessments on learning disabilities. For some reason, the public education system, can assessed a gifted student in kindergarten, but cannot assessed a student with any reasonable accuracy for children with reading, writing and numeracy difficulties, according to the gospel of educrats.
As a parent, even I knew something was up in the beginning of grade 1, where my child was showing major signs of reading and writing difficulties. One just had to look at the work produced and verbal reading, to see that there is problems. And yet, I has handed excuses even though there is assessments for children who have suspected LD, that does not required the child to be able to read, and inexpensive assessments for teachers pointing to the difficult areas of students in reading and writing. Another area, where SE funding, including the general education funding, is being redirected away from SE students and services, to provide a niche need for students for the most part, who do not need the other SE services.
In the Star article at the end, “Last week, the Star outlined the situation of parents like Allison McDade, whose son Joe, 9, waited 13 months before an assessment for his learning disability began this week. Sam, 13, is still on the waiting list. Sylvia Jones, the opposition critic for children and youth services, brought Halton’s wait list up in the Legislature after reading about the McDade family.
“The wait list for assessments in Halton can be as high as two years already and yet trustees in Halton have acknowledged that this change is going to push children who need special (education supports) in the classroom back to the back of the line again,” she said.
She later told the Star the wait list was worrisome and urged the school board to “deal with the holdups.”
The board has since promised to table a report looking at ways to reduce wait times at a meeting Wednesday evening.
“(That will include) measures to find ways to process psychological assessments so that the wait list is reduced,” said education director David Euale.
When asked if those “measures” would mean the board directed extra money to special needs assessments or hired more psychoeducational consultants to perform the assessments, Euale said: “Both. We’re going to attempt to find ways to pay for additional psych assessments, for sure.”
McDade said she hopes the board will hire more consultants and pay them to work through March break and the summer vacation to clear the wait list.
“I hope that they also put a stop to expanding the primary gifted program until this backlog is caught up,” she added.”
Educrats eh, saying a whole lot of nothing that amounts to three words, keeping the status-quo.
Again where is SE funding going to? The boards, to redirect the funding to pet projects? The educrats, to fund their theories based on pseudo-science, and as a side-product create the long waiting lists for assessments? To the unions, to help the cause by preventing teachers from speaking out on practices that should be banned?
Bridgeway is a fine example that should be replicated in other provinces, but let the private sector take care of the students, who represented about 45 percent of the SE student population. One would not have to wait too long, before the educrats start to demand even more money for SE, since the methods and ways of SE bureaucracy will not change, nor the ways of educrats who eschews science, for Dewey-speak.
Hi Hockeymum,
I am sorry you child was not able to access the school support he was legally required to access. But I am not surprised by the schools response. To be even considered for services or to access services at school, your child would have to have a specific diagnoses of autism or aspergers to get assistance in school. Without the right diagnoses, no services (at least in ON schools). Students I work with labelled with ADD/HD, or LD or SLD or APD etc… never receive school supports. Principals (in QC and ON) have told me more than once that “unfortunately because all of our support services are exhausted on autism students, there are no resources available for students with other disabilities”. Yes students with other LD get an IEP, but the school is not legally required provide anything more than that. Furthermore, trying to get a 3rd party to provide support to the student in the school or classroom context is denied 100% of the time. Most recently, a mother of a student I work with who has DS was delighted to have a second diagnosis of autism because “finally he will get support”. That is just soooo wrong! I would like to hear from anyone else out there whose child was label with anything else besides ASD and received appropriate support in school after 1998. Of course, I live in ON with the fast growing population of Autism in Canada! Perhaps it is just going on here but I would be hard pressed to believe it is not going on elsewhere. Schools have a duty to accommodate ALL students with and without SNs. Labels are for jars (to quote a parent) and people should make decisions not policies. Labels are not supposed to be the qualifier to support a student. The need is.
Human rights violations are pervasive in the schools across Canada.
Best regards, Terri
“Principals (in QC and ON) have told me more than once that “unfortunately because all of our support services are exhausted on autism students, there are no resources available for students with other disabilities”. ”
Geez, like that’s not a lawsuit or human rights complaint waiting to happen.
We are talking two completely different situations here that are unfortunately lumped together and called Special Ed. There are the kids with Autism etc that are included in the public school classes (and I am not critisizing that) and then there are the kids with LDs. An LD does not mean a child cannot learn. It is not fair to just assume he cannot and put him on an IPP so no one has to worry about him “failing”. Kids with LDs most likely will succeed given the right environment and teaching, mine did. Mine was about to be put on an IPP and we said no, we knew he could learn with the right assistance. It infuriates me when I see perfectly capable kids being put on IPPs in public school because they say the resources are not there to help them.
They don’t need a TA, they need a smaller class with individual help. Sure it takes more $$ to hire more teachers to teach those smaller classes but that is money well spent if those students can get a “real” education and get jobs etc in future. That’s my rant for the day!!
Hockey Mom
I can agree with most of what you say but just two points:
1. “An LD does not mean a child cannot learn”.
I totally agree with your point but let’s not imply that kids with autism or those who are mentally challenged can’t learn either. They can, of course, it just takes longer. Often a lot longer.
2. “Kids with LDs most likely will succeed given the right environment and teaching, mine did. … It infuriates me when I see perfectly capable kids being put on IPPs in public school because they say the resources are not there to help them. They don’t need a TA, they need a smaller class with individual help.”
Again, I absolutely agree but what of the situation where the Dept of Ed (or the educrats, as you all seem to call them) require that a student with LD have an IPP before they are eligible for some funding help towards the cost of a private LD school? True enough, if they would (and could) teach these kids properly, we wouldn’t need LD schools but what if I’m fairly confident that my daughter would do so much better in a LD school (and have a better chance to get into university, like she wants) but I can’t get any funding help unless she has an IPP (which I agree, she probably doesn’t need, except maybe in math)?
Terri, is absolutely correct concerning the corruption within SE services of the public schools, including the human rights violations that occur everyday in school across the country. I can also confirm that DS students, do not get the needed support, unless there is the second exceptionality of autism.
I just bumped into a new factor, where ESL students and students of aboriginal students are tied with special funding, which means extra revenue for boards, but still are not legally required to provide support for these students, beyond what is normally given for other students.
Another novel tactic, being used in some provinces is separating, by creating two pathways for the severe and the mild to moderate grouping of all disabilities. The students with the mild to moderate disabilities, will received far less funding than the students with the severe disabilities, drawing from the same pot of SE funding. Leaving the majority of the students with mild to moderate disabilities, which constitutes 80 % of all disabilities, to fight amongst themselves, the scarce resources that are allotted by the school board. The default button is set at the regular classroom, where there is little chance of students having their individual learning weaknesses addressed,
Taking my example, of trying to get the board to deal with my child’s needs, in relationship to solid grammar , spelling and mechanics in writing instruction was indeed a futile exercise in frustration, and waste of time on my part. Even though I stressed, it would benefit all students and not just the few, and even though I stressed it was one of the recommendations in the psycho-educational assessments, it was all ignored. No matter the research that I provided, it was all for naught based on the fact that there was not enough funding to provide such lessons to my child, let alone a whole class. And yes, I tried the solution, of providing the software or work books that would enhanced and improved my child’s writing, apparently none of it met the seal of approval by the educrats.
Now in grade 10, in my child’s class – The students in the classroom, are now being faced with the prospect of failing public exams, not due to their knowledge content but on their writing skills. The mechanics of writing, and the same mechanics of writing that have been ignored since kindergarten, and expect students to become better writers by some quick grammar, spelling and writing lessons. What is worse, is some of the tactics being used to improved writing, in a class where only a few students have good writing skills, and the rest with various levels, because they were never taught the writing skills in explicit lessons from one year to the next. One tactic is to cut out the offending words, passages, that represent bad writing form, and hand the student back a paper with a number of holes on the pages, as the motivation for a student to improved their writing. I can well imagine the parents who have listen to the educrats, stressing content is more important than the mechanics of writing, the spelling of words, the grammar, and how the students will picked it up on their own. For parents who objected to this standard line that is given , they are told it is the responsibility of parents to ensure good writing skills. How many parents with LD children heard this, even from the very beginning starting in grade 1? Too many, I suspect since it is quite obvious to the naked eye, students who are having writing difficulties. Instead of dealing with it, the educrats invent new theories/methods such as inventive spelling to be used in replacement of solid direst explicit instruction on the basics of writing skills.
Likewise, for students with disabilities – the labels are more important than the educational needs of students with disabilities, and the funding that is attached to the students. Funding that has no accountability where learning weaknesses are not required to be remediated, or standards set in achievement, and more importantly the ability to spend the SE funding on other things besides the learning needs of the labeled students.
Hi Michelle, I guess the point I was trying to make is why do they wait until a child with a diagnosed LD is two years behind the others and thrown into an IPP before they acknowledge that student might then qualify for funding for the private designated schools? When these students are first recognized as falling behind there should be action taken to recognize and give them the help they need BEFORE they get two years behind and then throw in the towel by putting them on an IPP. I have friends who’s kids are on IPPs and getting further and further behind, when I know with smaller classes and some individual help (on a regular ongoing basis) they would succeed and would not need to go to a designated school if only the public system could offer them the right kind of help. Your daughter would likely be succeeding if her school could offer her the same education as an LD school. It is a catch 22 situation for kids with LD. They have to get so far behind before the schools offer an IPP and an IPP is required to get funding. If a student’s funding went with him, parents would be free to pursue other avenues of help long before their children got so far behind that they needed an IPP or an alternative… It seems like a simple solution, but the right people don’t seem to be getting it. I learned a lot on my trip down this road with my son and it only makes me sadder when I see so many other kids falling into the same cracks as my son did. Peggy knows who I am if you want to call and chat sometime. Best of Luck!
I hear you, Hockey Mom, and completely agree.
A little story for you – in our school board you have to be 3 years behind in order to qualify for the Severe Learning Disabilities Program. Although my daughter’s IWK testing proved her to be far enough behind, I was told there was no point applying for the program because she wouldn’t get in due to her behaviour. Behavriour issues can come with any frustrated kid with a LD but because nonverbal LD affects so much socially … I suggested her behaviour problems were most likely caused by the LD. No, they wouldn’t accept that but did admit that they had never let any kid with a nonverbal LD into their program. I found that interesting.
A few years later, my daughter finally started seeing the benefit to actually accepting the help that was being offered her and her behaviour settled down a lot. At that point, we (both my daughter and I were at this meeting) were told that she no longer qualified for the SLD program because, now that she had started accepting help, she was no longer 3 years behind. I gritted my teeth and tried not to say too much in front of my daughter but when we walked out of the meeting, she turned to me and asked “Does that mean I should stop accepting help so I can qualify for the program?”. Kind of says it all, doesn’t it?
Restraint and seclusion is a well hidden yet critical issue in Canadian education. Keeping our children safe is not a partisan issue, it is a moral obligation.
The excerpt below is from a press release “There Is No Room for Torture and Abuse In America’s Schools”.
________________________________________________
April 6, 2011 12:13 PM
Miller Introduces Legislation to Protect Students in School from Harmful Abuse
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the senior Democrat on the Education and the Workforce Committee, introduced The Keeping All Students Safe Act, bipartisan legislation to prevent schoolchildren from being abused as a result of inappropriate uses of restraint and seclusion, often involving untrained staff. According to government investigations, these abusive practices were used disproportionately on children with disabilities.
The legislation first passed the House a year ago with bipartisan support. Miller first requested a government investigation in January 2009, after the National Disability Rights Network released a report highlighting these types abuses. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that abusive restraint and seclusion were widespread in schools across the country. The GAO report also found that, more often than not, teachers and staff who used seclusion and restraint in abusive ways had not been properly trained. These practices were often being used as a routine disciplinary tactic, rather than in response to an emergency.
________________________________________________
Unfortunately, this abuse is not unique to America’s schools, it is also happening in Canada’s schools. In April 2008, Gabriel Poirier, a 9 year old autistic boy, died alone at the back of his classroom after being rolled up in a 39 lb. therapeutic blanket. In an Ontario Special Education Tribunal (File #34) it was stated a student had been restrained 107 times over two days.
Does anyone have any suggestionsn on how we can pass an equivalent law (U.S. Bill HR 4247) in Canada?
Laura, I absolutely abhorred what is going on in the schools concerning restraints and seclusion. In NL, not sure if it is in other provinces, the use of rubber rooms for out of control kids. Yet it is used as threat for students , to behave in the classroom. Was this in the newspapers of the autism boy. One would think it would be news big time, News that schools can do things to kids, without having children services down on their back.
Lobbying both levels of governments, national organizations dealing with teachers, principals, and school boards? And than there is the politicians who are in charge of justice. I would think it would require changes to laws
But 107 times, and nothing was done after the fact? And they keep on saying they have the best interests of our children at heart.
The New Byzantium of Special Education has now attracted the interest of a university researcher,Michael MacKichan (Michael.MacKichan@MSVU.ca)
An Educhatter contributor, Michelle Morgan-Coole,(24 June 2011) posted this reaction and a call to action:
“For all those interested in special education … there is a student at MSVU who is currently writing a research paper on parents’ perception of the IPP process while he does his internship to become a school psychologist. He was and is quite surprised at the lack of response he has received to date.
I’m not surprised, I think most of us get pretty cynical pretty fast when it comes to the idea that something (or anything) is going to make much difference when it comes to reforming the IPP process. But, the way I see it, if you’re going to complain (and I’m a great complainer!), you have to be willing to stand up and do something once in a while, even if it’s just giving half an hour or an hour of your time to a research paper.
There’s been NO research done in NS to date on the IPP process from the PARENT”s point of view – surprised? Of course not! So if we see a crack in the armour I think it’s our sworn duty to help break it open a little bigger. 😉
Please contact him and let our voices be heard!”
Comment:
Why has little or no research been done in Nova Scotia on the IPP process and its impact on parents? And, more importantly, why is it left to the system’s initiators to do the parent workshops?
After reading Michelle’s post, I contacted Michael MacKichan and drew his attention to our current post on the contentious subject of the New Byzantium. I pointed out to him that teachers have long complained about the deluge of “paperwork” driven by legal compliance. In the case of parents ensnared in the system, it’s simply a thicket of Byzantine rules. Under stressful conditions parents are too often intimidated and/or overwhelmed by a system originally intended to provide aid, comfort, and much-needed support.
Time will tell whether this MSVU researcher has the courage to face the issue squarely. Let’s hope he has the latitude to ask the right questions and that the scope of his research is not constrained by his PhD supervisor.
Finding these people like Micheal and making these important connections seems completely random, doesn’t it? At least, once they are made, good work and good conversations can come out of it. what a sin it would be for him to either get a different idea for his paper Or conclude in his paper that things are the way they are because parents don’t care. I don’t think he properly advertised for parents out there. he should have contacted every private school, every school board, the Minister of Education, you name it.I already can find fault with his paper. but, let’s hope he turns it around!
I asked Michael about this and how he tried to get the word out. Apparently his original idea was rather small scale (he was only looking for 8 parents – I quickly told him he wasn’t going to get any kind of representative sample that way!) and for whatever reason (perhaps he has some personal connection there) he focused on the South Shore School Bd. That was the only Bd he approached and they agreed to distribute it to the resource teachers – of course, how far it got after that would be anyone’s guess. He also approached HACL (which is how he stumbled across my desk) and maybe another disability org, i misremember now.
Anyway, apparently he initially got just about enough responses to make his self-imposed quota of 8 (which included me). After I did my interview (I was his second) he emailed asking me if I could find anyone else – he needed another 3 (so apparently he had some dropouts) but would take up to 15. When I questioned why he was doing his research on such a small scale he said he was hoping it would spark further research. Like I said on FB, green as he is, he did impress me, kind of struck me like a kindred spirit. Let’s hope the system doesn’t either crush or consume him!
Paul, your comment re: paperwork driven by legal compliance – i’m not quite sure where you’re going with that comment. What would you propose?
His research methodology sounds mighty suspect and, as you well know, small scale studies have limited value. If that is his approach, I think you are wise to be questioning its ultimate validity. It does’t sound like PhD level research to me…and I’d be interested in who is supervising his thesis..
The most common teacher complaint about SE is the documentation required and the time it takes away from serving the children. It’s also generated a lot of paperwork and helps sustain a growing number of SE administrators. System maintenance can become a raison d’etre in this field.
I admire your tenacity but worry that you are putting too much faith this project. Given the numbers of IPPed kids, how can such a limited study of parents be of much value? I’d have more confidence in a serious study undertaken by parents themselves, perhaps under the auspices of the LD association.
LOL
It’s not that I’m really putting that much “faith” in his research, Paul, if nothing comes out of it it’s just a small blip of wasted time in my life for the interview, although I wouldn’t even really see that as “wasted” – if one future participant in the system is educated, it’s served a purpose. And if I read this kid right, he might just be a good contact to have in the future. But, yeah, I do hold out some hope that it may spark further research; after all, we have to start somewhere, right?
So since you’ve been in contact with him, why not ask him who his supervisor is?
And, to your knowledge, is the LD Ass or anyone else planning on taking on any research like this? One qualm I would have about something like this being done under the auspices of the LD ASS, BTW, is the likely chance that they would only seek parents of LD kids with IPPs. It needs to cut across the entire spectrum to be really useful, I would think.
“Why has little or no research been done in Nova Scotia on the IPP process and its impact on parents? And, more importantly, why is it left to the system’s initiators to do the parent workshops?”
Perhaps, parents are not at all important, besides being a conduit to pass down information to the parents from the system. Judging from a NS report which is typical of other provincial reports, called Minister’s Review of Services
for Students with Special Needs 2007, it appears that parents plays only the role of receiving information, rather than encouraging parents to actively play the role of advocate for their children. The report also shows very clearly how the SE system and the various departments and arms, are focused on running a smooth operation without stepping on each other’s toes, and parents just get in the way.
Click to access review-committee-report-e.pdf
I agree with Peggy, he should have advertised in all places, since parents who do have children with IPPs, are fearful of repercussions from the school and board, if they complain about the shortcomings of the IPP process. When I was highly critical about the SE services including the IEP process in my province, the board punished my child, by not having the annual IEP meeting, for three years running. As a result, her IEP was not updated, and her accommodations was left entirely up to the discretion of the teacher.
So as Paul has stated, “Time will tell whether this MSVU researcher has the courage to face the issue squarely. Let’s hope he has the latitude to ask the right questions and that the scope of his research is not constrained by his PhD supervisor.”