Psychology 143a Exceptional Children: Developmental Disorders Lecturer: Dr. Anne Krupka Office: Rm. 6409, SSC Office hours: Tuesdays, 5:00-6:00 TA: Mor Barzel Office: Rm. 7329, SSC TA Office hrs: to be announced E-mail: mbarzel@uwo.ca Class Time: Tuesdays, 7-10 p.m.

Outline – Lecture 2 [Sept. 16, 2003] Chapters 1 & 2 1. Intervention with children who are exceptional Special Education The least restrictive environment The IPRC process Historical progression of settings for special education 2. Reforms in special education: Normalization vs inclusion Legislation in Canada and the United States Assessment practices

Special Education The educational program designed to meet the unique learning and developmental needs of an exceptional student. Underlying principle: all children can reach their potential when given the opportunity, effective teaching, and proper resources. The least restrictive environment – the most appropriate placement in which child can receive instruction and services. Special needs – an educational term to designate pupils who require special education.

Continuum of Educational Services Regular classroom without support personnel with support personnel Regular classroom plus resource room Special classroom part-time full-time Day Schools special residential Home or Hospital Instruction

Individual Education Plans IPRC [Individual Placement & Review Committee] -assesses child’s needs annually -once identified as requiring special education, placement is recommended -individualized plans [IEP] are developed [the school’s written plan of action for the special education student] -a team is involved - parent concerns about being outnumbered by committee members

Foundations of Special Education Progression of Settings: Pre-1910: Institutions for deaf, blind, & mentally retarded persons - people with disabilities seen as mostly deviant 1910: Segregated settings e.g. residential schools for deaf, blind children classes for developmentally delayed classes for gifted children classes for children with learning disabilities

Progression of Settings for Special Education 1960s: Integrated settings movement away from special classes based on civil rights, various exposés, and efficacy studies 1975: Mainstreaming -Legislative action accelerated integration. Least restrictive environment put into place 1980s: Regular Education Initiative -Intensive effort to mainstream students with mild disabilities and to merge regular & special education

Progression of Settings for Special Education 1990s: Inclusion Goal is to create community in which all children work & learn together. Promotes integration of all children into regular classroom regardless of type & degree of disability [with or without a teacher’s aide]

Educational Reforms: Inclusive Schooling Philosophy Children with disabilities are productive learners in the general classroom. Regular classroom teachers,with support & collaboration, can teach all children. Requirements for Implementation Education and training for teachers Appropriate supports for teachers Barriers to successful implementation Arguments for and against inclusion

Educational Reforms: Concerns Integration vs Segregation cognitive development vs social development social concerns with true mainstreaming Teacher concerns: -not trained to deal with special needs, especially behaviour problems -fear of doing more harm than good -less time for other children in class -promised resources withdrawn due to budget cuts - all kids coming into classrooms are needier

Educational Reforms: Concerns Parent concerns: -is child receiving best education? -need smaller teacher-child ratios -parents of gifted children want continued segregation -concerns of parents of normally developing children are often not addressed Are the children who are being integrated successful? Survey suggests they are not – almost half of the children integrated into kindergarten were in special education by grade 1.

Educational Reforms: Legislation U.S. Legislation: Public Law 94-142 [1975] IDEA [1990] Canadian Legislation - Provincial differences Ontario Legislation Bill 82 [1982]: 1. universal access or zero reject 2. education at public expense 3. an appeal process [in regard to identification & placement] 4. an appropriate program [IEP mechanism] 5. ongoing identification, continuous assessment and review of each child's progress.

Assessment Practices How do we identify these children? Screening: examines large groups of children to find those performing above or below the norm. Criterion-Referenced Measures Curriculum-Referenced Measures Portfolios

Assessment Practices Assessment: designed to present a detailed picture of a child’s unique pattern of strengths & weaknesses in a variety of domains. Functional Assessment Antecedents and consequences Specific Assessments Intelligence Tests The normal curve

Normal Curve

Individualized Education Program [IEP] Name: Bob S. Sex: M Grade of Reference Group: 4th Date of Birth: 10/25/84 Chronological Age: 10-3 Current Educational Placement: Self contained special education class with part-time in regular class. Dominant Language: Student: English Home: English Recommendation for Placement: Regular education class and with 3 hours of resource room per week. The resource room teacher will work with Bob in his regular classroom. Percentage of Time in Regular Education Program: 100%

IEP [cont’d] Rationale for Placement: Standardized assessment and curriculum-based assessment results indicate that Bob possesses the skills to perform in the regular classroom. However, he will need one hour per day of resource room instruction to support regular classroom instruction in the content areas and to help him to make the transition to the regular classroom setting. Related Services: Bob needs no adaptive devices or specialized transportation. He will participate in a career education program to increase his awareness of occupations and to promote an understanding of the importance of work. Alternative Testing Techniques: Major unit tests in the content areas will be administered by the resource room teacher, who will read test directions when Bob experiences difficulty. Time limits will be waived.

IEP [cont’d] Alternative Grading Systems: A mastery level grading system will be employed. Present Level of Functioning [Math]: Performance on the Keymath and teacher-made criterion-referenced tests indicate that Bob has mastered addition, subtraction, and multiplication facts & operations. However, he has not mastered division facts and operations. Long-Term Goals: To improve division facts and operations. Short-Term Objectives: Given 40 problems with no remainders using one-digit dividends and one-digit divisors, Bob will write the correct answer within 2 minutes with no more than 2 errors.

Timelines: Date IEP is effective: 1/25/94 Evaluation Criteria: Daily time probes will be employed. When Bob demonstrates mastery of an objective on three consecutive probes, the next objective will be taught. Bob will check his answers using a talking calculator and will graph his performance daily. Timelines: Date IEP is effective: 1/25/94 Date IEP will be reviewed: 5/18/94 Multidisciplinary Team: Name Position Signature Ms. Ann S. Parent Mr. Jim S. Parent Ms. Pat D. Principal Mr. Tom G. Special Education Teacher Ms. Dana F. 4th Grade Teacher Mr. James S. Resource Room Teacher