This was an interesting read and I agree with some of their points. I am curious to know what members made up this NYS Commission (i.e. were there representation beyond business/policy officials?). I agree that special education is very expensive and NYS has more mandates than many other states (and some NYS regulations are stricter than federal regulations sometimes causing confusion). These mandates need to be carefully reviewed and reduced allowing local districts more flexibility to make decisions that are appropriate for a specific student (i.e., currently it is mandated to provide specific services for students classified with autism even though not all students on this disability continuum require the same level of services). This is the right thing for the student while also freeing the district from unwarranted costs. Many parents and educators genuine concern is that once a district is no longer obligated to provide services will they provide it if justified? There is a reason why CSE/IEP meetings (made up of educators not the superintendent or BOE) make decisions which are supposed to be educational relevant and not dependent on fiscal constraints. Our special education attorney advised staff to make educational sound decisions and never say in a meeting “we don’t offer this here” or “we only give a maximum of ______services”. The reason is we are obligated to provide what is appropriate for that specific student’s needs (be able to justify our decision with data) and never make our decisions based on cost. Keeping that in mind, the administrator for special education has to be mindful of finding innovative and equitable ways to provide services while keeping costs down.
I agree with Lisa of the importance for educators to reflect on one’s practice and continually make refinements if a specific program/strategy is not producing positive results. We do need to be careful though what data we are using to measure the effectiveness of special education. It is important to look at the baseline data for an individual child and utilize benchmarks to measure growth. From my on observations, using data (i.e., formative assessments) to drive instruction is an area needing improvement for both special and general education educators. With the new NYS IEPs, IEP goals need to be more specific and measurable. Special Educators appear to be very good at providing the direct intervention but need training in analyzing data to assess student’s progress and change intervention when warranted.
I agree with Monique’s reference to the importance of RTI if done correctly. RTI’s premise is that all children learn at different rates and will require different approaches. Response to Intervention is a framework that provides early tiered intervention for all students struggling and can have a systemic change in many schools. It puts accountability on all educators (no longer special educators alone) to meet the needs of their neediest students instead of removing them from class for remediation. To be most effective, RTI should not be viewed as another “stand alone mandated program” but treated as a true “professional learning community” requiring collective wisdom and responsibility. RTI is a reform initiative that can help facilitate maintaining diverse learners in the general education classroom and reduce some special education costs in the long-term. How? Even though the purpose of RTI is not to reduce a school’s classification rate, it will have an impact by the very nature of providing ALL services a student needs early prior to significant learning gaps develops. This means less IEP meetings, standardized testing for eligibility, and other administrative costs. I do agree with Jeff that this will not make a significant dent in the special education costs for the following reasons: additional supports/staffing will continue to be needed to assist the general educator (difference is the reallocation but not necessarily a reduction) and districts may initially get less state/federal funding because of the reduced classification rate (due to their current calculations for state aide, only 15% of IDEA monies can be used for early intervening services). I don’t necessarily agree with the Commission’s statement that “Special Education is a key driver in the growth of school expense” and that “Special Education should not be required to meet the milder disabilities”. The tone of this fact statement is somewhat negative and lends one to believe that if only we rid ourselves of special education we would have the funds to educate the rest of our youth.
I am a firm believer of integrating students more into the general education (which can look differently for different students based on their needs, there should not be a “one size fits all” approach) and providing the necessary supports for them to succeed (which will cost money if done correctly). I am also a firm believer that the delivery of services needs to change and require an increase in collaboration in order to meet our diverse learners. However, special education does provide a benefit and there will always be students that require these supports and at times a more specialized/restrictive environment.
The role of a special educator needs to evolve to share their expertise and provide consultation services during these times of transition. I do see in the future of education that there will be a “new way of doing things” that will continue to require the supports from specialists just in a different capacity with a greater focus on accountability. RTI and other initiatives (such as Common Core Standards, 21st Century Skills, etc..) can only improve education for all students to learn. Special Education reform is needed to improve student outcomes not necessarily costs. My concern is that change may come under the disguise to make school improvements but the actual agenda is simply to save costs. For example, moving all students into general education classes without the necessary supports (for the teacher as well as the students) would be a great disservice. We need to keep asking ourselves “what is right for kids?” In some schools, the only way struggling students were able to get services was through special education because the school has no other avenues for getting supports. This is not right and students should not be labeled with a disability because of a lack of general education instruction. However, this is still the reality for many schools especially in NYC. It will be a wonderful new day if general education in every school is improved for all students, general education teachers were committed to provide accommodations for specific students without 504s/IEPs, and true collaboration/ownership existed between general/special education staff to make sure each child under their care learns…
I agree with the Commission’s recommendations to reduce the cost of litigations (#1), secure additional federal funding, increase collaboration to enhance local/regional delivery of services, and to promote “best practices” by relieving the districts of some of the “procedural” mandates.
No comments:
Post a Comment