Mental Retardation in the Special Education Classroom - Research Paper Example

Contents Background of the problem ………………………………………………………………2 ment of the problem …………………………………………………………………2 Purpose of the study ……………………………………………………………………2-3 Significance of the study ……………………………………………………………….3-4 Nature of the study ……………………………………………………………………..4-6 Research questions/hypothesis …………………………………………………………6-7 Theoretical Framework ………………………………………………………………...7-9 Definition of Terms …………………………………………………………………...9-10 Assumptions …………………………………………………………………………….10 Scope, limitations and delimitations …………………………………………………11-12 Review of Literature ( brief) ………………………………………………………....12-13 Chapter summary ………………………………………………………………………..13 References………………………………………………………………………………..14 Background of the Problem Children with various levels of mental retardation often do not achieve at levels that they can, though they receive specialized services. Some perform better than others in employment or group environments after the public education system. Experts believe that success is often based on the effectiveness of specialized education services and the level in which students achieve academic success, based on abilities. Specialized education services vary greatly across the US. It is thought that this vast difference may explain why some students with varying levels of mental retardation achieve closer to their potentials than others. Statement of the Problem Effectiveness of specialized education services for mentally retarded children varies across the US. Depending on how well developed specialized services are in a specific school district or region, students needing specialized services reach varied levels of success and achievement. Students should be achieving at the highest levels they can attain, to better prepare them for adult life. Greater success in achievement leads to higher self esteem and confidence in adapting to life as an adult, whether living independently or in a group setting. Delivery systems of specialized education services for the mentally retarded may include expanded or related services in some school districts, while limited in others. "related services" to include "social work services" and "rehabilitative counseling" (ERIC Clearinghouse 1991). Purpose of the Study The study assesses academic achievement of three categories of mentally retarded children: mild, moderate and severe, as classified by health professionals and educators. such diagnoses should be included in academic records. Academic achievement is reviewed by gathering progress reports for each child at each grade level available. Achievement is also qualitatively assessed, in correlation with the types of specialized education services provided, as well as any extended or related services that each child receives. Students may receive limited services due to lack of availability, lack of trained school staff or various other reasons. Each school district that is included will submit an outline of the services provided by each school. This comparison is helpful in identifying whether specific types of services relate to higher achievement and personal gains for mentally retarded children. Because parents of students can often provide valuable insight, they will also be given a questionnaire in which they will rate the effectiveness of the services their child receives, their child’s progress and school/community support services they receive, on a scale of 1-5, with 5 the best. Parents will be asked to comment on what they believe can be improved on, regarding their child’s services. Parents will also be asked to explain at what level they believe their child will be able to function as an adult, whether independently, in a group home, or with one to one supervision. In summary, the purpose of the study is to determine which students are receiving at least adequate services, based on severity of challenges, abilities and parental expectations combined. Various regions of the country, school districts and individual schools will be compared to identify those that are providing adequate programs in specialized education for mentally retarded students. Significance of the Study The study is significant in its assessment of specialized education services administration and development. Many school districts and individual schools across the country may not have the resources or and or knowledge in delivering specialized education services to mentally retarded children. IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990) legislation mandates that specified certain levels of service are provided to such students. Students who are mentally retarded or challenged can lead productive lives. While parents have the responsibility to raise them and keep them safe, schools have the responsibility to educate them in the least restrictive environment possible, while helping them attain the highest possible level of achievement and functioning. Assessments of the percentage of students who are actually achieving at the highest level possible will provide a picture of schools throughout the US and how well they educate those with handicaps or challenges overall. It will also tell us whether the IDEA legislation has been effective. Some schools may not be achieving or reaching the specified levels. Others may go above and beyond what is mandated. Schools that are found to consistently help mentally retarded students achieve at the greatest level possible will be identified as “model schools’ for future research purposes. Such schools may be asked if outlines of their specific program aspects can be published for use by schools that wish to enhance or upgrade their own programs. Nature of the Study Both qualitative and quantitative data will be gathered, to obtain a more complete picture of specialized education services throughout the US. Quantitative data will give us an idea of how many mentally retarded students may need services beyond graduation and how many students need to utilize services. It will also provide information on specific regions or districts with the greatest numbers of student being served in specialized education services. This information may be useful in pinpointing districts that require additional funding and/or education for teachers and educators providing specialized education services. Furthermore, the data may identify regions where additional funds are needed for training of teachers and educators, in specialized education development and methods. Qualitative data gathered from schools and parents alike will also provide a better picture of reachable goals, for various levels of mentally retarded students. Schools may provide excellent services, when parents are dissatisfied for various reasons. Parents may also not be aware that their school district program could stand to improve in some areas. They may then decide to seek additional services or look for them elsewhere, while their child is still at an age of optimal learning or potential. Parents may not view their children by the same classification as the school district. For example, Connecticut contains 169 districts. “The proportion of students assigned with the label of ‘mental retardation’ varies widely across districts” (Conroy, 1991). Reports generated from the study may also help parents in specific regions or districts locate appropriate services for their child, upon leaving the public school system, such as adult workshops or adult training. Data will be gathered from 16 school districts in the US, 2 each from 8 regions. The 2 districts will include data from one elementary, one middle school and one high school. in total, data will be gathered from 48 schools from 16 districts, in 8 regions. The regions are divided into Northwest, West Coast, Southwest, Midwest, New England, East Coast, Southern and Gulf Coast. School districts from each region will be randomly selected, based on initial criteria for population of specialized education services. School districts with less than 2% of students in specialized education will be eliminated, as this falls below the national average.( Petterway & Kritsonis 2006). Specific date from each school within chosen districts will include number of Students receiving specialized education services at each level of mental retardation: mild, moderate and severe, at each grade level. Students working at different grade levels for different subjects will also be obtained. Additional date will include ages of each student and number of years receiving specialized education services. No identifying information of specific students will be given. Educators will be asked to provide the number of students currently achieving optimally and those working sub-optimally. This is both quantitative and qualitative, as the educator is asked for his or her opinion on what is considered optimal, in terms of achievement. Educators will be asked to choose from a list, any additional services or those they feel need improvement. Comments can be provided for those items on the list. Educators will be asked to mail survey information to parents, who will decide whether or not to participate. Although the form letter will urge parents to cooperate, follow up from survey staff cannot be attempted, for confidentiality reasons. Parents who opt to participate or have additional questions will be given a toll free number to call. Otherwise, they will be given a website to log on and answer questions regarding their child and services received. Research Question/Hypothesis The main inquiry of the study is “How effective are specialized education services in the US, for students who are classified as mentally retarded?” It is believed that effectiveness of services is based on a multitude of factors, specifically funding of each school district and allocation of funds, community support services, family support and education level of parents. Families of children classified as mentally retarded come from a wide variety of ethnic groups, socio-economic groups and other backgrounds. Views on how productive and how much training a child with mental retardation should receive are also expected to vary. School districts and individual schools may interpret guidelines for specialized education services very differently as well. The term least restrictive environment may mean something entirely different from one region or district, to the next. For one administrator, it may mean allowing a student to work in a regular classroom for as much of the day as possible. For another, it may mean working without constraints on a specific subject, for as long as the student wishes. Theoretical Framework Experts from the state of Connecticut claim that “there have been increases in severity of students with mental retardation since the mid-1970s. This is trivial, as many students with mental retardation, especially the more severe, were not in the public education system in the mid-1970s” (Conroy). Whether so-called experts are making excuses for lack of specific services or for not allocating funds, is difficult to determine. It is doubtful that the US has witnessed a large increase in the number of mentally retarded children since the mid 1970s. If anything, with the development of fetal ultrasound and advanced diagnostic tools available, some cases of severe retardation have been prevented. “Separate classes for students with MR have existed for more than 100 years” (Johnson, 1962). If Johnson’s statement is true, than separate classes have only been available in the past, for students that have been diagnoses with mental retardation. There currently exists a myriad of diagnosable learning disabilities, which also quality for specialized education services. Perhaps the experts from the state of Connecticut are considering all students receiving specialized education services as mentally retarded. Conroy’s pessimism is based in logic, as there were likely no severely mentally retarded children in school in the mid 1970s. The students receiving services then would be categorized as mild or moderate today. The most severe cases were often found in institutions, as parents did not receive help or support services. The argument should not be about increases over time. It should be about helping each and every student realize his or her maximum potential, however limited that potential may be. According to US Department of Education estimates, “of the nearly 6 million students in the US receiving specialized education services, fewer than 12 percent are diagnosed with significant cognitive disabilities, such as mental retardation or traumatic brain injury” (Chambers, Parrish & Harr, 2002). This is a relatively low number, considering the inclusion of Children with mental impairment receiving services through the public schools, as directed by IDEA. Federal funds provide roughly 7.5 percent of total special education expenditures of school districts. The remainder of the tab is picked up at the state and local level. This may be why the experts from Connecticut are so dramatic in their statements. However, the US Department of Education “predictions based on the normal curve suggest that a little over two percent of a population will have IQ scores of 70 or lower. The percentage of children actually receiving special education services due to mental retardation is more in the range of one to one and one-half percent (U.S. Department of Education, 1996), and these figures probably provide the best estimate. Providing effective services, however, does not necessarily mean that more funding can or should be spent on specialized education programs. The study aims to look at what is considered more than adequate, so that other schools and their administrators can adopt more beneficial procedures and programs. This may mean giving teachers of specialized education programs more input. It may involve additional training at very little expense to districts. It also may mean working collaboratively with agencies outside the school system, such as mental health providers, regional ADM boards and adult workshops. It also may mean more inclusion programs for students with less severe levels of retardation. Freeman and Alkin(2002) concluded that "children with milder mental levels of retardation achieve more positive results in the integrated classroom than do their counterparts in the segregated classroom." They further noted that the placement of students "with mental retardation in general education classrooms tends to improve their social skills and competence." For students with more severe mental retardation, results were unclear in terms of academic achievement, though social skills improved. Moving students from traditional classrooms to areas where specialized or more intense education services are provided can be less costly, though it can also be more time consuming and disruptive to educators. Hopefully, the study will present ideas and provide more information on whether inclusion programs are worth the effort. Definitions of Terms ADM board- Alcohol, drug addiction and mental health services board, responsible for providing treatment and services for people who experience addictions or mental illnesses. Specialized education- Services provided for students with a variety of learning challenges, due to mental or physical disabilities, as well as general learning disabilities. Least restrictive environment-means that a student who has a disability should have the opportunity to be educated with non-disabled peers, to the greatest extent possible. Mental Retardation-Mental Impairment; substantial limitations in present functioning. It is characterized by significantly sub average general intellectual functioning , existing concurrently with related limitations.(AAMR, 1992). Classification system of mild, moderate, severe and profound is often replaced by the new system below: Classification Based on Need for Support Intermittent: Support is not always needed. It is provided on an "as needed" basis, and is most likely to be required at life transitions (e.g. moving from school to work). Limited: Consistent support is required, though not on a daily basis. The support needed is of a non-intensive nature. Extensive: Regular, daily support is required in at least some environments (e.g. daily home-living support). Pervasive: Daily extensive support, perhaps of a life-sustaining nature, is required in multiple environments. IDEA 1990-The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) is a Federal law that governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to children with disabilities. It addresses the educational needs of children with disabilities from birth to the age of 21. Related services-services that children with disabilities receive in addition to or outside of specialized education services, such as mental health services, physical and occupational therapy, health services, community support services and many others related to the care and well-being of children. Assumptions While the study does not address the types of mental retardation in terms of physical versus mental handicap, it does assume that all students with such classifications have been identified prior to receiving specialized education services. It also assumes that schools or districts have either provided their own testing and classification, or used those provided by health care providers. It also assumes that states have minimum requirements for educators providing specialized education services, outside of the regular classroom. The study does not make allowances for those students whose parents and educators or health care providers disagree on the existence of or level of mental retardation. It is assumed that all parties involved, including students families, mostly agree on the child’s diagnosis and/or prognosis. Information is not obtained from health care providers, even though they may have provided the initial or official classification. It is assumed that if the student needs physical or occupational therapy, services are received outside of or beyond the classroom, though in some cases, they may be incorporated. Educators in specialized education programs would not be expected to perform such services Scope, limitations and delimitations The scope of the study is limited to specialized education services in 16 districts from 8 different regions in the US. While districts or regions may not represent all the various types of schools within specific geographic regions, its aim is to obtain information from those districts large enough to offer services. The study is a comparison of services, what works and what does not work, according those involved with students: educators, administrators and parents. Information about services in smaller districts, where services are more limited, is not obtained. Information is not obtained from health care providers. First, HIPPA regulations make it difficult and time consuming to obtain official diagnoses, even when parents or guardians sign consent to release information. By law, medical offices or practitioners have 60 days in which to respond to written requests. Follow up with such providers would possibly prove more labor intensive than desired and of less value to the study. There are many students awaiting services, receiving services without diagnoses or classifications and otherwise not ‘officially linked to the system.’ Such students are excluded, as they have likely not been in the specialized education system long enough to obtain adequate academic and/or social evaluation. It may appear a bit unfair to parents, particularly of students whose diagnoses or classifications take longer than expected. However, the study is gathering information on program effectiveness, for the purpose of modeling and future program development. It does not necessarily need the input of every parent whose child is receiving services, or data of every child. Educators working in specialized education programs are able to include such students only in terms of ratios. They are asked not to include such students in the statistical information they provide. They are only required to list the number of students awaiting official classification or diagnosis. Review of Literature ( brief) Conroy gives an example of concerns that many states face, in providing at least adequate specialized education services. It appears as though state experts in Connecticut want to blame society for the need of services. The statement regarding the numbers of mentally retarded students may not be meant to lay blame, but rather, an overreaction to IDEA legislation and funding requirements. Perhaps the state of Connecticut is facing challenges in providing specialized education services to its students, in terms of trained educators or in program development. That is the purpose of the study: to gather information that will be useful to districts and even states, on development of programs that are effective. Rivka Olley(2007), of Maryland, describes a three tiered approach that assesses and provides services that address academic, behavioral and other barriers to learning. Olley states “never have teachers and administrators needed more specialized instructional support personnel available to assist with general classroom management and specialized interventions.” Chambers, Parrish and Harr indicate that many students receiving specialized education services are not classified as mentally retarded. On one hand, this helps refute the argument of the experts from the state of Connecticut, that there are many more retarded students in public schools today, than in the 1970s. However, it shows the complexity of specialized education services and the myriad of learning disabilities that many districts face. This presents a challenge for all schools, in developing effective programs that will enable students with all types of disabilities to achieve to their fullest potential. Chapter summary Students classified as mentally retarded, regardless of classification, are entitled to receive the best education possible. Not only is it guaranteed to them by IDEA, it enhances functioning and enables them to become more productive adults. While we cannot expect one adult to be as productive as another, all should be given ample opportunity to set goals and strive for them. Developing programs of specialized education that effectively address the challenges of such students in lacking in many schools, while others are able to do remarkably well. As a nation, we must look at those programs that are effectively, and find ways to implement them in other districts and in other programs. Costs to society, in terms of burden to social welfare, are not the only concerns of those classified as mentally retarded. Parents and family members eventually die off, leaving them in a bind, when no additional support system, such as group setting or community setting is established. All students, including those with varying levels or classifications of mental retardation, should be provided an optimal education through the public schools. References AAMR Ad Hoc Committee on Terminology and Classification. (1992). Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Support (9th ed.). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation. Chambers, J., Parrish, T., Harr, J. (2002). What are We Spending on Special Education Services in the United States, 1999-2002. US Department of Education. Retrieved 22 September, 2008 from http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/no-child-left-behind/ Conroy, J. (1987). Students Labeled with Mental Retardation in Connecticut. Analyses of the ISSIS Database: Patterns of Labeling and Placement. Testimony. Retrieved 21 September, 2008 from http://www.outcomeanalysis.com/DL/ppt/CT-SpecEd.PPT. Freeman, S. & Alkin, M. (2000). Academic and Social Attainments of Children with Mental Retardation in General Education and Special Education Settings. Remedial and Special Education; vol. 21, no. 1, 3-26. Johnson, G. (1962). As quoted in McLeskey, J. (2004). Classic Articles in Special Education: Articles That Shaped the Field, 1960 to 1996. Journal of Remedial and Special Education; vol 25. Olley, R (2007). School-Based Mental Health Service & School-Wide Interventions. Special Education Nexus Briefing Series. Retrieved 22 September, 2008 from http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/nclb/olley.pdf. Petterway, A & Kritsonis, W (2006). A National Perspective: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of The Impact of High Stakes Testing on English Language Learners In Major Urban High Schools in Texas. National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research. vol. 1, no. 1. US Department of Education (1996). As quoted in AAMR Ad Hoc Committee on Terminology and Classification. (1992). Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Support (9th ed.). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation. Read More