The next facet of investigating and analyzing our definition of inclusion education and differentiated learning involves taking a look at both teacher and student "preparation".
Most educators complete Bachelor of Education programs in their desired program, such as elementary or secondary education. The coursework that these programs entail includes many classes in literacy and mathematics education, according to the age level of the prospective students, and is mainly presented in the "concept based direct instruction" format at the elementary/ middle grades level, and in the "inquiry based modelfor secondary (high school) and beyond.
Once again, we discover a few flaws in this system. Firstly, under I.D.E.A. Law (2004), all children are entitled to a "free appropriate education in the LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT."
The writers of NCLB have decided to interpret this law by implementing what has become known as "inclusion" education, meaning that we have, for the most part, done away with "self-contained" ESE (Exceptional Student Education) classes, and placed all students with minor learning and physiological disabilities (including autism!!) in the mainstream classroom, in order to create the 'least restrictive learning environment' for the child.
Along with this law comes the burden of a great deal of educational and legal responsibility on the part of the educators. Most students with disabilities that are now entering mainstream classrooms have been placed on either an I.E.P.(Individual Education Plan), or a 504 Plan(similar to an IEP, designed based on Section 504 of I.D.E.A. law, but entitles the student to less services than an I.E.P.)
The constraints of what is contained within an IEP or 504 Plan hold the educator legally liable to follow ALL accomodations and modifications to the student's education to the letter, as prescribed and defined within the document. Educators may not realize that they can be individually sued for monetary damages, to the tune of AT LEAST $30,000 (see Harris,2009 "Investigating & Evaluating Current Practices of IDEA Compliance & Inclusion: Assuring NCLB or Creating MCLB (More Children Left Behind.)
However, most university educator programs, and especially "alternative certification" programs do not include sufficient, if any, coursework in special education! How can we hold educators accountable for accomodating ESE students if they haven't been adequately trained in doing so?
Moving beyond the scope of the ESE student, and back to the frame of reference of differentiated learning styles, there is yet another piece of the puzzle that appears to be missing:
I have already spoken in D.A.I.F. Part II and III about the problem with using concept-based direct instruction for every lesson every day in the elementary classroom, and the fact that it fails to engage students who do not learn through concept-based practices. In addition, we lack an overall consistency with the way in which students are prepared for and educated at the next two levels...middle (junior high) and high school.
After being self-contained with one or two teachers for six years of elementary learning, and "grouped" according to one's perceived ability level (since teachers aren't currently grouping according to one's learning style/intelligence), students are then moved onto a VERY different setting in the middle school environment, with little or no preparation!
Upon entering middle school, most students now have 5 or 6 different teachers, one for each subject. They are now suddenly expected to adjust to receiving a primarily direct instruction based learning format, with increased lecture, less demonstration of concepts due to time constraints and the fact that each teacher only has them for one hour a day, and strict deadlines and guidelines for completing and turning in assignments. Students are expected to independently manage their homework, long- and short-term assignments, and "seek help" when they do not understand content. In addition, they must now shift their learning to adjust to 6 different teachers' learning and teaching styles, and for the most part leave most concept-based learning behind them in elementary school.
This is very difficult for the average student to adjust to, and those with minor disabilities have a VERY difficult time, with very few safety nets in place.
This is also a time where students MIGHT be given the opportunity to start focusing on their academic and character strengths, and be able to demonstrate learning using these strengths, but in most learning environments this is actually happening less rather than more than it did at the elementary level.
Now we get to high school, which has become the predefined gateway to molding every student into a future university attendee. At no point have we reflected BACK on IDEA and inclusion long enough to determine if many of the students who have been included in the mainstream thus far may need an alternative to university education at the close of high school. The number of vocational schools and alternatives offered for students not only with disabilities, but those with learning styles and preferences that do not lean toward university life, is SORELY limited, and in many school systems, nonexistent.
Why are we so determined that ALL students need at least a 4-year college degree? ARe we not even further constraining our children and deciding for them what their preference should/will be? It scares me to think about where all the tradesman, construction workers, civil servants, office workers, etc. will all be coming from in the next decade!
Back to the high school curriculum, which is in and of itself not being offered effectively:
We have now shifted to an "inquiry based" approach across the disciplines, with the exception of language arts and literature. Now we take the students who went from concept-based (whether or not that is your learning style) learning in elementary school, to lecture-based "get it quick 'cause we don't have much time" learning in middle school, to a full-on inquiry-based learning model in high school!
Now the students do not even receive the courtesy of a full (concept-based or not) lesson on the concept. Instead, they are placed into groups, pairs and independent settings where they are expected to "dig in" and discover the material and solutions on their own! This is not only being done in our accelerated and college-preparatory schools, but in most general high schools, as well! Students who need concepts reinforced can voluntarily attend after school tutoring sessions, which normally consist of them bringing specific problems they are struggling with to a GROUP session, where the teacher can quickly demonstrate how to solve these problems: overall NOT very effective, since most high school students don't want to attend these sessions in the first place! Students have to seek out help on their own....isn't THAT interesting, after we have dictated their grouping, learning levels, activity choices and forced learning styles for 8 years prior to high school!!!!! What about the student that STILL learns through kill/drill? What about the ones that NEED lecture, explanation, analysis and reason? Why are we forcing our students to TEACH THEMSELVES?
Harris, B. (2009).Investigating & evaluating current practices of IDEA compliance & inclusion: Assuring NCLB or creating MCLB?; University of North Florida College of Education & Human Services Graduate School.
Wright,P & Wright, P.(2006). Special education law: second edition. Available at: http://www.wrightslaw.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment