The Role of Activating Home-school Partnership in Education of Mentally Retarded and Its Effect - Essay Example

? Home-School Partnership In Education Of Mentally Retarded Introduction Mental retardation is disability in the mind that is characterized by a considerable limitation to adaptive behavior and intellectual functioning expressed din social, practical and conceptual adaptable skills (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; American Association on Mental Retardation. 2002; Erickson & Koppenhaver, 1995).. Mental retardation in students is normally identified by the intelligence testing. Mental retarded students usually have an IQ of between 20-25 and 50-75. The home school partnership is defined as exemplifying a working relationship between home, community and school in which pupils and students grow, develop and live. An efficient and successful partnership in education for the mentally retarded students can be ensured through mutual collaboration between the school, community and parents at home. This will involve the collaboration in the activities and massive efforts aimed at positive outcome in the education of the students with mental disability. The home school partnership is very important to the retarded students since community and family collaboration in education enhances child's success in education( Collins, 2007). Parents and community are the primary teachers to children and thus carry the responsibility of laying down leaning foundations of the children and their development. The role of activating the home-school partnership and its effects Communication Activating home-schooling partnership or inclusion is very important to the students with mental disability. Many studies and life experiences suggest that a partnership improves communication skills of the mentally disabled students(Muller & Markowitz, 2004). Mentally retarded students in the inclusion setting have good communication capabilities compared to those who are in the classroom setting only. Parents together with the community play a role in ensuring positive development of the students in communication. This thus helps teachers to easily improve on the works of community and family. The students have a greater learning opportunity to develop faster, in their communication as well as verbal skills (Driscoll & Kemp, 1996). The interaction with their peers in the community setting gives them an opportunity to be free and express themselves hence the ultimate development in their communication. Students experience more communication in the activated partnership through interaction than a specialized classroom. A partnership environment setting gives the students an opportunity and supports them in increasing a variety of skills in social, cultural and academic interaction. Furthermore, the students in partnership collaboration develop physical coordination and skills by observing those in the community, school and family. Inclusion of the students in partnership is a vital approach in ensuring that severely retarded students acquire and develop their communication skills just as their other peers (Allen & McLaughlin, 1995).. Thus fully activated home school partnership is important in ensuring the development of communication skills among the retarded students. Typically developing peers The home - school partnership is essential in the development of the mentally disabled students. Peers, both in school and community play an important role in this inclusion process (Cole & Meyer, (1991. Retarded students are given an opportunity to interact and observe the behavior of the typical peers in society hence furthering their development. Peers have positive effects on the life and development of the disabled students. They play important roles of tutors and guides to the mentally retarded students hence contributing positively towards disabled’s development. The peers in the activation process, are helpful in many ways. They help the other students to manage their communications, facilitate their interaction and participation both in society and class setting as well as pairing of themselves and the retarded students to have a successful inclusion. The peers in the partnership provide feedbacks to the family and teacher facilitators that are vital to the general development of the retarded students. Additionally, the peers give the retarded students an opportunity to practice communication by starting a conversation both written and verbal. With peers in the activation partnership, mentally retarded students can be more successful in all walks of life (Browder & Xin, 1998). Family support Family is important to any individual and it plays a vital role in the development of a child. From the family’s perspective, they always face the disabled students with uncertainty and confusion about the best way of handling the retarded students. But a collaboration of the family, teachers and community help reduce confusion and thus the development of the students (National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2005). Similarly, researchers have shown that family of mentally disabled students is core to the successful activation of the inclusion process or the school- home partnership. Education should recognize the role of the family involvement in the progress of the disability students. The education facilitators of the special education must improve on their skill delivery to create effective communication and partnership with student families and community at large. These aspects are important as they encourage the families and the community to be involved in the inclusion. This in turn helps th\e development of the mentally challenged students. Family involvement in the inclusion process motivates the students to learn faster and effectively. The partnership helps the family to appreciate who their children are and accept them in society (Erickson & Yoder, 2003). This works to increase the morale of the students and have them feel a sense of belonging. The families with the inclusion help by telling the students why that they are talented and skilled in different fields. This should be done to avoid harmful relations or descriptions of their behavior as this demoralizes them. The home-school partnership helps family to facilitate the improvement of the children with severe conditions. The families change the perception of the society on the disability and the way the students are viewed. This thus makes the society to be supportive of the disabled students either in society or in the classroom. A collaboration of the family and schools are core to problem solving as the professionals as well as the family is involved in the solution in case of a problem. Often the family is called upon to explain the characters of certain students (Joseph & McCachran, 2003). But in the activation of the collaborative partnership, all the stakeholders are called upon to aid in resolving the issue . This will involve the family, community and educators working together for the common good of the disability students. The family in the home-school partnership play a role in determining the needs and preferences of the disabled students. Just like their normal peers, the mentally challenged students have likes, dislikes and needs that need to be taken care of. Thus the practice aids in ensuring that this needs are fulfilled both at home and school. Inclusion is useful to the families, tutors and authority in setting the standards and quality of education to be offered to this student. Finally, an effective inclusive process helps families and tutors in providing the means and strategies that improve the education of the mentally retarded students. The inclusion of the family is resourceful in providing a conducive environment for the development of the disabled academically, socially and morally. School facilitators in child inclusion A partnership of the teachers and parents encourages the development of the disabled students. Teachers take a key role in defining the rate of family involvement in the school-home partnership to ensure that the students develop well both at home, in the community and at school. Teachers develop and implement strategies aimed at improving the education system of the mentally challenged students (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Teachers too, work closely with the administration and government officials to establish school and home teams involving parents, teachers and community members which define the needs of the students. They come up with plans as well as priorities, which they jointly implement to improve the educational quality of the students with disability. This only happens when there is collaboration of all the stakeholders. Students are well catered for in the inclusion process as all their needs are considered by all the partners for their own good . Teachers act as the liaison agents in the partnership to increase and sustain communication among the stakeholders for student development. The activation process lets teachers to ensure that families and the community participate wholly in the education of the special students . They generally provide parents with alternatives and decisions regarding the planning , assessment and implementation of the educational program. This in turn promotes the behavior, character and academic progress of the students across all environments. The major role of the teachers in the activation is the fact that they work closely with the administration and local authority to provide a sufficient allocation of resources to inclusion process for the success of the students (Moni & Jobling, 2000). The results of the inclusion are clear in this case. It leads to promotion of quality and standards of the special education. The process also sees a multidisciplinary approach to the education being offered. Role of schools and its effects Working together to realize common goals with combined power is the vital role played by the inclusion process. The activation process requires evaluation and development of the education system by the schools and by so doing they help develop the mentally retarded students. The schools also provide adequate resources for teachers and families to help them fulfil their role in the partnership. Schools play a role of providing opportunities to enable the collaboration of the families, teachers and community. Generally schools provide a conducive environment for the families, students and community and assure their value of the contribution to the educational development of the students. Schools take full responsibility in working collaboratively with the families of the students regardless of the language barrier. This is very encouraging of the schools in their pursuit of educational development for the mentally retarded. Schools promotes family and community participation in the development process of this student. Participation is key to the changing of perception that most people carry against the students (Cunningham, 1999). The schools also recognize the fact that different families have varied ways of helping their children , thus providing multiple participation options for them. The schools provide the much needed resources that support the partnership for the common development of the students. This increases the understanding of the diversity that exist in different students (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2005) . Families are also given an opportunity to realize the disparity in the unique ion abilities of their children. These opportunities broaden the perspectives and communication styles to be employed in the process. Schools in the activation of home-school partnership, provide quality education that encourages celebration of the talents of the students as well as the diverse capabilities in their cultural and social dimensions (Comfort, 1990). The partnership helps to realize that education of the students with a mental disability is a shared responsibility among all the stakeholders. Collaboration ensures that schools play a part in making all the others realize the mutual communication. In a partnership, student development is effected jointly, problems solved together and most importantly flexibility among the families regarding their children. The students in turn enjoy the attention given to them as well as the new found life of liberty. Behavior and activity development Inclusion plays a major role in the development of the mentally disabled students. A partnership between the teachers, community and schools ensures that the activities of the students are not only enhanced at school but throughout their life even while out of school. The community in the process is encouraged to make appreciative and positive observations and opinions towards the mentally disturbed students. The behaviors of the students are developed through the their inclusion in the functions as well as the activities of the normal people in society. Many scholars observe that partnership in the education of the disabled students considerably improves the development process of these students. The partnership too, evokes the unique skills and talents that sit deep within the individual students unrealized. This brings anxiety in the students and thus educational improvement. Assistive technology Activation of home-school partnership results to changes in the system of education that aims to improve the education. This gives rise to assistive technology that changes the lives of the mentally disabled students as it makes it possible for them to participate in more activities that the previously; you were not able to. Furthermore, the assistive technology recognizes the different unique characteristics of the mentally retarded students thus providing the disparities in the usage for the good of the students (Muller & Markowitz, 2004). This beneficial and vital technology requires the collaboration of all stakeholders for them to be made available to students. The family should play its part in learning the usage from the schools so as to aid their children while at home to ensure continuity. The assistive equipment that is required in the process involve alternative keyboard, touch screen and proper switches (Losen, 2002). This equipment is essential in improving the education as well as the lives of these students. This means that the role played here by the collaboration is the need to have more inclusive education provision. The collaboration also ensures that the activities done outside the classroom setting but are in line with that class is effectively performed (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Aside from the normal teachers, there are many professional facilitators that play supportive roles in the partnership aimed at the successful inclusion of the process. Assistive thus plays an important role in the delivery of quality education programs as well as successful collaboration. In the application of this technology, successful communication skills are achieved and thus the assertion that all students do have the capabilities to learn. In addition, there are many goals that the collaboration system has achieved in the development of the education of the mentally retarded students. The members play their independent roles effectively to ensure success in the program of their students. Family involvement in education for the retarded students, leads to many beneficial roles that the teachers, children and the community receive in equal measure (Lake & Billingsley, 2000). The outcome is that the students start experiencing positive attitudes to their lives and their education. This has been depicted in their examination success, homework improvement and activity participation. The educators report an increase in the job specifications as well as greater rating in the evaluation of their work (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). The family members on the other hand, start experiencing better communication between them and their children and total acceptance of the condition of their children. These outcomes of a successful home-school partnership is a reason enough to note the important role played by collaboration activation. In conclusion, home-school partnership plays an important role in the development of student education as well as achievement at all levels of society. There is better communication, improved teacher student relations and deeper understanding of the behaviors and needs of the students that are realized through this partnership. There is need therefore to increase the collaboration of family, community and schools to improve education and living standards of the mentally retarded students. References American Association for Mental Retardation. (AAMR). (2002). Definition of mental retardation and fact sheet: Frequently asked questions about mental retardation. Retrieved May 2, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.aamr.org/Policies/faq_mental_retardation.shtml. American Association on Mental Retardation. (2002). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (10th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: Author. Algozzine, B., & Wood, K. D. (1994). Reading and special education in the twenty-first century: Time to unify perspectives. In K. D. Wood & B. Algozzine (Eds.), Teaching reading to high-risk learners: A unified approach (pp. 1-8). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders-IV-TR (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Beirne-Smith, M., Ittenbach, R., & Patten, J. (1998). Mental retardation. New Jersey: Merrill. Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes. Browder, D. M., & Algozzine, R. F. (DRAFT). Research on reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Browder, D. M., & Xin, Y. P. (1998). The meta-analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 130-53. Clapper, A. T., Morse, A. B., Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2005). 2003 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 56). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis56.html. Childre, A. L. (2004). Families. In C. H. Kennedy & E. Horn (Eds.), Including students with severe disabilities (pp. 78-99). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Choate, J. S. (2004). Successful inclusive teaching: Proven ways to detect and correct special needs (4th ed.) Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Cole, C. M., Waldron, N., & Majd, M.(2004). Academic programs of students with across inclusive and traditional setting. Mental Retardation, 42(2), 136-144. Cole, D. A., & Meyer, L. H. (1991). Social integration and severe disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of child outcomes. Journal of Special Education, 25, 340-351. Cole, S., Horvath, B., & Chapman, C., Deschenes, C., Ebeling, D., Sprague, J. (2000). Adapting curriculum & instruction in inclusive classrooms: A teacher's desk reference (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: The Center on Education and Lifelong Learning. Collins, B. C. (2007). Moderate and severe disabilities: A foundation approach. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall. Comfort, R. (1990). On the idea of curriculum modification by teachers. Academic Therapy, 25(4), 397 405. Cook, B. G. (2001). A comparison of teachers' attitudes toward their included students with mild and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 34, 203-213. Cunningham, P. M. (1999). The teacher's guide to the four blocks. North Carolina: Carson- Dellosa. Denning, C. B., Chamberlain, J. A., & Polloway, E. A. (2000). An evaluation of state guidelines for mental retardation: Focus on definition and classification practices. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 35, 226–232. Driscoll, C., & Kemp, C. (1996). Establishing the equivalence of single word reading and language in children with disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 21, 115-139. Emerson, E. (2003). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents with and without intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 47, 51–58. Erickson, K.A., Clendon, S.A., Abraham, L., Roy, V., Van de Karr, H. (2005). Toward positive literacy outcomes for students with significant developmental disabilities. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 2(1), 45-55. Erickson, K. A., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (1995). Developing a literacy program for children with severe disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 48, 676-84. Fidler, D. J., Hodapp, R. M., & Dykens, E. M. (2002). Behavioral phenotypes and special education: Parent report of educational issues for children with Down syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, and Williams syndrome. Journal of Special Education 36, 80–88. Greenspan, S. (1999). A contextualist perspective on adaptive behavior. In R. L. Schalock & D. L. Braddock (Eds.), Adaptive behavior and its measurements: Implications for the field of mental retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation. Harry, B., Allen, N., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Communication versus compliance: African American parents' involvement in special education. Exceptional Children, 61 (4), 364-377. Hendrick, W. B., Katims, D. S., & Carr N. J. (1999). Implementing a multimethod, multilevel literacy program for students with mental retardation. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14, 231-239. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, M. H. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children's education? Review of Educational Research, 67 (1). Joseph, L. M., & McCachran, M. (2003). Comparison of a word study phonics technique between students with moderate and mild mental retardation and struggling readers without disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 192-199. Katims, D. S. (2000). Literacy instruction for people with mental retardation: Historical highlights and contemporary analysis. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3-15. Kliewer, C., & Biklen, D. (2001). 'School's not really a place for reading': A research synthesis of the literate lives of students with severe disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26,1-12. Lake , J. F., & Billingsley, B. S. (2000). An analysis of factors that contribute to parent-school conflict in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 21 (4), 240-256. Losen, D. (2002). "New research on special education and minority students with implications for federal education policy and enforcement." In Rights at Risk: Equality in an Age of Terrorism, Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights. Retrieved June 17, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.cccr.org/Chapter18.pdf. McGrew, K. S., & Evans, J. (2004). Expectations for students with cognitive disabilities: Is the cup half empty or half full? Can the cup flow over? (Synthesis Report 55). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved May 2, 2005 from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis55.html Moni, K. B., & Jobling, A. (2000). Latch-On: A program to develop literacy in young adults with Down syndrome. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 40-49. Moore-Lamminen, L., & Olsen, K. (2005). Alternate assessment: Teacher and state experiences. Alliance for Systems Change / Mid-South Regional Resource Center. Retrieved June 17, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ihdi.uky.edu/msrrc/PDF/Alt_Assm_stories_handout.pdf. Muller, E., & Markowitz, J. (2004). Synthesis brief: English language learners with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education Inc. National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2005). Special topic area: Alternate assessments for students with disabilities: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved May 2, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/nceo/TopicAreas/AlternateAssessments/ alt_assess_FAQ.htm Rizopoulos, L. A., & Wolpert, G. (2004). An overview of the techniques used to develop the literacy skills of adolescents with developmental delays. Education, 125, 130-36. Sattler, J. M., & Hoge, R. D. (2006). Assessment of children: Behavioral, social, and clinical foundations (5th ed.). San Diego: Jerome M. Sattler. Schalock, R. L., Luckasson, R. A., & Shogren, K. A. (2007). The renaming of mental retardation: Understanding the change to the term intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 45, 116–124. Soodak, L., & Erwin, E. J. (1995). Parents, Professionals, and inclusive Education: A Call for Collaboration. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation., 6 (3), 257-276 Special Olympics. Language guide. Retrieved August 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.specialolympics.org/Special+Olympics+Public+Website/ English/About_Us/Language_Guide/default.htm Sturm, J.M., Erickson, K.A., & Yoder, D.E. (2003). State of the science: Enhancing literacy participation through AAC technologies. Journal of Assistive Technology, 14, 45-54. The ARC (2004). Q&A. Retrieved May 2, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.thearc.org/faqs/mrqa.doc. U.S. Department of Education (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Agran, M. (2005). Mental retardation and intellectual disabilities: Teaching students using innovative and research-based strategies. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall. Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pendzick, M. L., & Stephenson, T. G. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities (No. 4 Special topic report: Findings on special education LEP students). Arlington, VA: Development Associates, Inc. Appendix Questionnaire 1. Is there any difference in the reading and writing achievement of the students when the community and parents are included? 2. Does the level of peer involvement in the student development in education make any significant change? 3. What impacts does the parent involvement bring in the education of the students? What is your view on further parent involvement? 4. What effects does the monitoring of the student’s homework do with the educational development of the student? 5. What behavior changes have you noticed in the students that support the inclusion process? 6. How does the use of new assistive technology impact on the education of the student? To highlight them. 7. Is the authority and school playing its role in the inclusion success? If yes give instances to support. 8. What are your views on the role of the facilitators in the home-school partnership? 9. What communication skills have you realized from the partnership that are helping change the education of your child? 10. Does the inclusion process help develop skills and talents of your child? If yes outline those talents and capabilities realized. Read More