Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Report Example

Standards-Based Reforms in the Education System Introduction Reforms within the education system have largely been driven by setting standards for what students ought to know and do. Such standards are then used as the springboard and a guide to all other system components. Standards-based reforms call for the development and adoption of clear and measurable standards for all school students whether with or without disabilities (Downing, 2008). Different from the normal referenced rankings, the standard based reforms system measures all students against a concrete standard. Other elements of the education system such as the curriculum and professional development are then aligned to the standards (Wattman, 2013). Most jurisdictions have unique approaches to SBR although they all exhibit three key components. These include high standards on what all students ought to know and do; tests customized to the standards to gauge student progress and performance and; accountability for schools depending on results. Background Standards-based reforms (SBR) have become a crucial element in the education sector in the wake of the No Child Left behind (NCLB) initiative. While there is no universally accepted definition of SBR, discussions on the subject largely revolve around the following features: academic expectations of the students, alignment of important elements of the education sector to promote the attainment of student’s expectations, and the utilization of assessment tools to measure student achievement for the sake of monitoring performance (Downing & MacFarland, 2012). Other important features include decentralization of responsibility regarding decisions on curriculum and instructions in schools as well as the accountability provisions that sanction or reward students and schools based on measured performance. Notably, each instance of standards-based reforms emphasizes on specific components. The SBR movement has a growing emphasize on the use of tests to monitor student progress by holding schools accountable. This is because of the perception that school reforms could only be effective if all components of the education system work in alignment to achieve common goals (Sway, 2010). These mentioned elements of SBR have endured as much as notions regarding effective SBR have continually varied with time and place. Legislative Basis for SBR Certain key ideas about the subject have also emerged recently. These include the emphasis on using information derived from the system as a guide in decision-making processes; the emphasis on the need to use standards as a tool for promoting academically challenging instructions rather than focusing on low-level skill (Karger, 2011). However, the new developments on perceptions regarding SBR emphasizes on the necessity of having similarly high expectations for all students whether with disabilities, coming from diverse racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, or with linguistic backgrounds as well as on an education system with policy and practice largely driven by the measurement of academic outcomes based on large-scale assessments (Edeh, 2006). Standards-based reforms have a common objective regardless of the variations in particulars of the same across states. This is because different states depend on SBR to ensure that schools provide all students with educational skills and hence knowledge necessary for one to lead a productive life. Proponents of SBR movement hold a strong stance that the initiative seeks to ensure equal education opportunities to all while ensuring the delivery of quality education (Fisher & Meyer, 2002). A review of the gradual developments and reforms within the education system shows that the subject has been a buzzword since 1980s. Special education, however, was exempted from the discussion until late in the turn of the twentieth century. Standards-based education reforms and school choice became important agendas on school reforms during the early years of the 21st century (Luke & Schwartz, 2012). Historically, schools did not serve students with moderate to severe disabilities responsibly because they were not held accountable. This remained the case until lately in the 21st century as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. This changed when the various stakeholders in the education system intervened to initiate standards-based reforms in the sector. SBR, therefore, in this case sought to help in improving school performance and utilize accountability systems while enforcing the standards (Giangreco & Cloninger, 2008). Through the amendment of the 1997 Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), the government mandated that schools include students with disabilities in “high stakes” tests. “High stakes” tests in this case refer to state and district testes administered intentionally to check whether schools meet their obligation to teach up to state standards. Different states have their state tests standardized in order to give a comparable external measure for all schools (Jorgensen, 2010). Schools are subject to severe sanctions for low or unsatisfactory test scores. Sanctions include among others denial of funding and loss of accreditation. Therefore, schools initiate all measures possible to ensure that they maintain high scores. Critics, however, have expressed concern that the inclusion of students with disabilities in standards-based assessments leads to an overemphasis on academic skill while foregoing functional and vocational skills. Their argument is that vocational or functional skills are comparatively desirable among students with disabilities particularly in their postsecondary life (Giangreco & Cloninger, 2008). They fail to note that the inclusion causes an increase in school accountability while ensuring that students with disabilities access the general curriculum regardless of their conditions. Remarkably, standards-based reforms are an effective approach to ensure students explore their academic potential regardless of their capability status. With that, schools uphold education standards as desired. Teaching Strategies necessary for the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities to General Education Standards Now that the Standards-based reforms require schools and hence teachers include children with disabilities in the general curriculum, then teachers must develop Individualized Education Programs (ILPs) that comply with the requirements. Teachers ought to appreciate three requirements of IDEA’97 and IDEA’04 regarding the inclusion of children with disabilities in designing IEPs for learners. An effective IEP must address the current concerns depending on student’s level of performance, supplementary aids and services required annual goals, and program modifications and supports of specific students (Sway, 2010). The IEP, therefore, must have the following in order to meet these requirements specified in IDEA’04. A statement of student’s present level of functional and academic achievements and performance showing how the specific disability affects learner’s progress and involvement in the general education curriculum A statement of measurable yearly goals must be included in the IEP. This must also include academic goals tailored to meet learner’s needs depending on the disability. This is necessary to enable the child to engage and make remarkable progress in the general curriculum (Wattman, 2013). Thirdly, an effective IEP must have a statement of special education related services, as well as supplementary aids and services in accordance with available peer-reviewed research to the extent possible. The statement, further, must show program modifications and supports for school personnel who may engage with the child at various capacities. With that, the child can participate and make commendable progress in the general school curriculum (Wattman, 2013). Notably, though, the IEP must include a statement or explanation of the degree to which the learner cannot participate with nondisabled peers in a regular class. Alternate Assessment Requirements for Students with Severe Disabilities Other than the federal regulations that require exposure and inclusion of students with disabilities in the general curriculum, alternate assessment is crucial, particularly to students with severe disabilities, to demonstrate their masterly and skills acquisition (Edeh, 2006). Alternate assessment ensures that Individual Education Programs administered, curriculum, and classroom instructions comply with the requirements that all learners acquire skills and competency necessary for positive adult outcomes (Downing, 2008). In order to develop and implement alternate assessments for students with disabilities, one has to have performance indicators depending on the needs of individual learners. This implies that teachers and other facilitators must take time to observe the specific child needs. Performance indicators, often activities that involve one or two processes or steps, help to reflect learner’s assessment levels. For instance, performance indicators could include participation in activities related to historical events, demonstration of family or cultural traditions, interpretation of simple timelines such as near and distant past, identification of important icons in the society, or even demonstration of appropriate eating skills. A learner’s level may, for instance, fall anywhere within a scale of four (Sway, 2010). Alternate assessment level I may measure sensory skills while level II measures language or the ability to use and respond to communication and purposeful language. Levels III and IV may measure socio-emotional consciousness and masterly of routine activities respectively. The appreciation of oneself and others is shown from scale three while scale level four depicts one’s level of self-sufficiency. Appropriate teaching approaches can then be adopted for the child in question (Giangreco & Cloninger, 2008). Options for Documenting student Progress to Demonstrate Performance of Standards Teachers can easily chart a learner’s progress to their (student’s) goals by making necessary adjustment through monitoring and documenting the learner’s progress. There are various assessment strategies for progress monitoring. These include classroom assessments, curriculum-based measurement (CBM), large-scale assessments, and adaptive assessments. A commendable option for documenting a learner’s progress is the Progress Monitor Tools Chart. With this, teachers evaluate learners based on dimensions such as alternate forms, reliability and validity, rates of improvements, and sensitivity to changes in the teaching content or topics (Luke & Schwartz, 2012). Fundamentally, progressive monitoring is mainly fruitful where teachers use assessment tools regularly to monitor students’ development and hence understand the learner’s needs. Schools, districts, and states can easily succeed with the use of progressive monitoring tools because they are in fact a key for unlocking knowledge for the learners and teachers as well (Giangreco & Cloninger, 2008). In summary, there is need to include all students in the general education curriculum. Different legislations have since adopted legislations that require school administrators to include children with disability in “high stakes” tests. That forces schools to be accountable for the education of all children regardless of their abilities. In order to ensure that schools avoid the wrath of scoring undesirable scores in tests, teachers must monitor student progress and then develop an effective IEP. The IEP must be adjusted periodically to suit the needs of learner as the subject undergoes gradual developments. This is solely possible if teachers adopt reliable progress monitoring tools. With a careful selection of accommodations, students will disabilities successfully go through the general curriculum and are able to demonstrate what they know and do. References Downing, J. E., & MacFarland, S. (2012, March 17). Severe Disabilities (Education and Individuals with Severe Disabilities: Promising Practices). Retrieved February 10, 2014, from Buffalo Education Center: http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/114/ Downing, J. (2008). Practical strategies for teachers. Baltimore : Brookes Publishing Co. Edeh, O. (2006). Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities. Cross-cultural investigation of interest-based training and social interpersonal problem solving in students with mental retardation. , 163-176. Fisher, M., & Meyer, L. (2002). Development and social competence after two years for students enrolled in inclusive and self-contained educational programs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities , 165-174. Giangreco, M., & Cloninger, C. (2008). Choosing outcomes and accommodations for children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Jorgensen, C. M. (2010, August 12). Curriculum & Instruction. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from PEER Fact Sheet: https://www.fcsn.org/peer/ess/curriculumfs.html Karger, J. (2011, November 23). National Center on Accessible Instructional Material. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from Access to the General Curriculum for Students with Disabilities: A Discussion of the Interrelationship between IDEA 2004 and NCLB: http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/interrelationship_idea04_nclb#.UvhqQbTFhdM Luke, S. D., & Schwartz, A. (2012, May 2). Assessments and Accommodations. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from National Dissemination Center for children with Disabilities: http://nichcy.org/research/ee/assessment-accommodations Sway, C. (2010, December 14). What is Standard-Based Reform. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from Standford Education: http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/archives/syllabi/CalTex_SBR/whatissbr.html Wattman, S. (2013, February 13). Special Education-Current Trends. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from State University Website: http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2435/Special-Education-CURRENT-TRENDS.html Read More