Analysis of Current Educational Reform - Report Example

Section/# Introduction: According to the information that was viewed on the website for the OF YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT school district, a number of individuals were listed with regards to being responsible for documenting pre-referreal activities. The ultimate reason why such individuals and positions exist within the framework of the school district is to provide an level of oversight with regards to whether or not certain individuals are ultimately a good match for the type of educational goals that the special education program can offer. Whereas many complicating factors exist with regards to these referrals, it is the job of stakeholders to ensure that those individuals who are referred are indeed a good match for the program. Moreover, the focus upon proper documentation and forms allows for the program to ensure that the decision making structure and process is not rushed and is thoughtfully considered based upon the available information at hand; not merely the judgment and recommendation of a single educator. Current Reform Initiatives: Likewise, certain members of administration are responsible for writing reports for the initial identification for a child referred and assessed for eligibility for special education services. This particular secondary level of oversight is helpful in making sure that the correct procedure has been followed and that the candidate for special education services will be able to achieve a specific result based upon the needs that they have thus far exhibited within the application and documentation that is submitted to the school board. Likewise, with regards to the legal rights of the families involved, this process is delineated so that there is both a challenge/appeal process through which the parent/guardian can utilize to assert the needs that they feel are not being addressed. Firstly, the legal policy and framework, the website specifies that it is the primary responsibility of the parent to reach out the individual within the process that they feel represents the issue they might be having (Hargreaves, 2010). However, if this does not resolve the situation, they are able to contact the school principle and seek to resolve the issue at that juncture/standpoint. Once again, if the school principle is not able to resolve the issue then it is incumbent upon the parent/guardian to reach out to the Parent Liason Officer (PLO) as a means of seeking to rectify the situation. Naturally, if at this juncture no resolution may be found then it is incumbent upon the parent to seek out alternative means or jurisdictions. By the same token, the referral and assessment process can be challenged through a similar framework if for some reason the parent and/or guardian are of the opinion that the process is not working in their interests or the interests of the child. How Change is Managed: Within 60 days of a child entering into the special education program, an IEP meeting is scheduled to occur. The ultimate intent of this meeting is to ensure that the needs of the child are being met and ascertain the metrics for success and levels of improvement that may or may not be being met thus far. Within this IEP framework, it is required that the student’s parents/guardian, special education instructor, district administrator, general education teacher, assessor, and student (over 14 years of age) must all be present and be consulted in one form or another to ensure that the needs and concerns of all parties are noted and being met on some level. The importance of such a large group of stakeholders, although conceivably overwhelming, is designed to ensure that the needs of each student is met and a criterion for success is lain out and clearly demarcated so that all stakeholders involved can work towards improving the outcomes that will be measured in the future (Razik et al., 2010). The results of the assessment are then shared with the parent/guardian; generally in a written format so that the metrics and concerns of all can be clearly elaborated upon. Primary Stakeholders and Their Roles: Whereas the previous process has been defined as one that takes a full consultation of individuals and factors before placing a child in a special education program, the same process exists for ECEs that may feel that a particular student is most suited to the benefits that such a program can provide. ECEs (an acronym utilized for early childhood educators) face a particularly difficult task in seeking to define what constitutes a learning disability or what merely constitutes a differential with regards to the way n which a particular student might integrate with key information. Likewise, the roles and responsibilities of the ECE teacher with regards to the special education referral are more dynamic and requires the oversight of other personnel so that a faulty or misinformed judgment with regards to differing levels of maturity and educational ability is not made in a hasty manner (Clark, 2014). With regards to the ECE teacher’s role as a member of the educational team in the inclusive classroom, it can be noted that the ECE teacher has one of the most important and formative roles of any of the educators that have thus far been elaborated upon. This is due to the fact that the ECE is responsible for meeting the specific needs of the child and delineating what aspects or changes they can seek to influence as a means of maximizing the utility and learning outcomes of the student prior to any level of special education response being necessitated. In this way, the ECE is ultimately the first line of defense through which the educational system is able to make note of the key needs and developmental status of the student (Pilloton, 2010). Although what has thus far been defined is something of a idyllic situation through which the ECE and other stakeholders in the situation will be totally mindful and aware of the individual and group needs that the participants within their classroom might have, the fact of the matter is that the process is not as solid as it may appear; thereby necessitating the inclusion of a variety of stakeholders in helping to make an informed level of decision making for the individual student involved within the special education setting (Milner, 1991). Proven Effective Activities: One of the techniques that has proven to be highly effective is the way in which educational stakeholders are encouraged to self analyze and promote the approach that best links with their strengths. Whereas many other advances in educational techniques rely upon a rather intractable set of guidelines, this approach is one that is able to leverage the unique personal approaches that the educators are able to put forward. Ineffective Activities and How These Can Be Made More Effective: One ineffective technique has been the way that the information has been tabulated and reviewed from the individual classrooms and experiences that the educators have represented. Without a dedicated overview staff to review these, it has been almost impossible for the potential best practices to be recognized and encouraged. As such, in order for this weakness to be turned into a strength, it will be necessary for a review committee to be engaged and dedicated towards understanding and analyzing the metrics and milestones of the individual educators, meeting regularly, and promoting a new path forward based upon which of these approaches has proven to be the most effective. Conclusions: From the information that has thus far been provided, it can be clear to the reader that the process of delineation and consideration for the special education process is multifaceted and involves a level of checks and balances. This is engineered to provide the greatest oversight and utility to the student as possible due to the fact that simply allowing one person to make such decisions would necessarily diminish the utility of choice that the student and other stakeholders would experience. Moreover, by allowing a grievance process and firmly outlining the path through which the parents/guardians can pursue if they are of the opinion that their best interests are not being pursued allows a further layer of oversight that allows for a greater degree of equity and fairness within the process. Moreover, from the information that has been provided, it is also abundantly clear that even though the special education process can be implemented for a variety of different students based upon needs and behavioral considerations, the role of the ECE in helping to formulate and monitor the growth and development of each and every student is also profound (Madsen et al., 2014). Finally, the role of the parent is not one that should be lost or forgotten. This is of course due to the fact the process of special education within the NAME OF YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT school district, and elsewhere for that matter, is build around utilizing the inputs that the parents and/or guardian might have to offer. Through seeking to create a situation by which the needs of these respective parties can be incorporated, the school district has maximized the potential for improvement that the student might have. Moreover, the emphasis upon metrics provides a situation whereby the school, the educator, and the parent(s)/guardian(s) can discuss and implement an approach which can seek to have measurable milestones through which improvement can be noted and subsequently rewarded. Although such an approach is not mandated nor required for other individuals within the educational process, special education by its very definition requires an alternate approach and a great deal more consideration based upon the needs of the individual student as compared to its counterparts. References Clark, D. (2014, March 12). Leadership Survey. Retrieved from www.nwlink.com/donclark/leader/obsurvey.html Hargreaves, A. (2010, August 20). Andy Hargreaves: 2010 Systems Thinking in Action Conference Preview [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8HmCZ3BH4s Milner, G. (Director). (1991). A Cry from the Edge [Motion picture]. United States: Films Media Group. Pilloton, E. (2010, November 8). PRINCIPALLY SPEAKING: TED-Educational Design and Systems Thinking. Retrieved from http://aprincipalspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/11/ted-educational-design-and-systems.html#!/2010/11/ted-educational-design-and-systems.html Razik, T. A., Swanson, A. D., & Razik, T. A. (2010). Fundamental concepts of educational leadership and management Boston: Allyn & Bacon.  Read More