Reimagining Special Education

Using Inclusion as a Framework to Build Equity and Support All Students

Jenna Mancini Rufo, Julie Causton

• Publisher: Brookes Publishing
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781681254777
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Administration

As schools reopen their doors and students return to the classroom, what will the "new normal" of special education look like? The pandemic exposed educational inequities and areas of urgent need—and now, schools have a unique opportunity to press pause and reimagine their practices. This book helps K–12 school leaders and educators take the lessons of the COVID-19 era and turn them into action: by closely examining what worked during distance learning, letting go of practices that keep some students struggling, and planning new routines and environments that meet the needs of every learner.

A visionary call to action from inclusion experts Jenna Mancini Rufo and Julie Causton, Reimagining Special Education guides readers in creating more equitable schools and services, through practical strategies teachers can use right away and thought-provoking, big-picture questions for administrators to tackle. Readers will explore how inclusive educational practices can address each student's unique needs as schools reopen and bridge learning gaps for students who struggle. Throughout the book, vignettes and anecdotes spark lightbulb moments for educators and show what recommended practices look like in real classrooms.

Essential reading for administrators, classroom teachers, and other education professionals, this is the forward-thinking guide every school needs to reimagine the possibilities for special education, support authentic inclusion, and help learners with and without disabilities thrive in a changing world.

DISCOVER HOW TO:

• Re-story students by focusing on their gifts and strengths rather than their deficits
• Redesign instruction and assessment to be more flexible and better meet students' unique needs
• Restructure intervention frameworks to move away from sorting and labeling students and toward a flexible model that provides access to all
• Revitalize co-teaching with tools and strategies for serving students with and without disabilities
• Realign service delivery through inclusion facilitation and consultative supports
• Rethink equity by creating a culture of belonging, dismantling exclusionary programs, and tackling individual and institutional biases

1

Resetting School

Lessons Learned From COVID-19 Remote Instruction

We have a unique opportunity before us to press pause and reset school. What has always worked well in school? Did it work well for all students? What hasn’t worked well? Now more than ever, we can take a close look at the old routines of schools and classrooms and keep the most effective pieces, let go of the practices that don’t serve students, and create new, unimagined routines and environments.

Ultimately, we want to ask, what would it look like to reimagine school in a way that erases the practices that keep some students struggling while others thrive?

This chapter begins by briefly reviewing our educational system, highlighting the key moments where calls for change have occurred over the years. We also share news about the impact of COVID-19 on an already inequitable system. Then, we review the most effective distance learning practices that emerged during this period. We discuss how those practices benefit all students, especially those on the margins of what we have considered to be typical. Finally, we offer inclusive education as a necessary framework for redesign.

A SYSTEM LONG OVERDUE FOR CHANGE

For just about as long as schools have existed, there have been debates about how to improve education. Over the past century in particular, we have seen calls to move beyond what has been criticized as a factory model of education—a system characterized by uniformity and rigidity (Watters, 2015). This system was designed to prepare students for an industrial age that was governed by hard work, schedules, and factory whistles. As such, schools in the early- to mid-1900s mirrored those conditions. Children marched from class to class at the ring of a bell. Students were instructed by teachers who delivered a common curriculum. Teachers judged students’ ability to conform to a predetermined mold. Students who did not conform to this mold simply were not permitted to be at school. In particular, students with disabilities were largely excluded from public schooling.

Nearly 20 years after Brown v. Board of Education (1954) found that separate or segregated education was inherently unequal, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 required that students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE), regardless of the severity of their needs. Yet, although schools were then required to educate students with disabilities, a model of sorting and labeling continued. Students who learned differently or who could not keep up were taught elsewhere in separate classrooms under the false premise that students with disabilities would learn better together and somewhere else.

They didn’t.

As time went on, policymakers, advocates, and legislators realized that something was amiss with the education system in the United States. In 1983, “A Nation at Risk” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) was published, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education. The report highlighted inadequacies in the current system of education in the United States and cautioned that the system was not keeping pace with other countries. Yet, 20 years later, the concerns were unresolved. The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) of the early 2000s responded by imposing strict accountability measures on schools, with the goal of increased proficiency for all students.

Meanwhile, in 1997, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was reauthorized as a newly christened Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). A renewed emphasis was placed on educating students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment (LRE). The LRE requires that students with disabilities not be removed from general education without first considering what additional services could be provided in the regular classroom, such as the use of accommodations, modifications, or specially designed instruction. At the next reauthorization of IDEA, in 2004, greater focus was on prevention services and quality general education. IDEA (2004) allowed districts to utilize up to 15% of federal funds for early-intervening services to support struggling students who were not yet identified as needing special education (D. Fuchs et al., 2010). The IDEA in 2004 also offered an alternative method to identify learning disabilities to ensure that students received quality instruction and research-based intervention prior to disability classification.

Yet, despite nearly 50 years of legislation aimed at improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities through increased access and inclusion, during the 2017–2018 school year, only 63.4% of students with disabilities in the United States spent the majority of their day in general education classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2019).

For students with more complex needs, the rates are even lower. Only a staggering 16.9% of students with intellectual disability were included in general education classes for 80% or more of the day with the publishing of the 2019 U.S. Department of Education report.

Educational outcomes for students with disabilities have remained similarly dismal. Students placed in substantially separate settings demonstrate poorer academic performance than their peers in general education (Hehir et al., 2016). Such placement reduces access to high-quality teaching, lowers expectations, and limits social interactions (Skiba et al., 2006). Students with disabilities are more likely than peers without IEPs to be retained in a grade, suspended, or expelled (Liu et al., 2018). Compared to the post-school outcomes of their general education peers, students with disabilities are less likely to be productively engaged in employment, post-secondary education, or job training after high school (Sanford et al., 2011).

If laws, policies, and regulations have done little to change our practices for students with disabilities—and really, for the education system as a whole—what might serve as the impetus for change? We venture that COVID-19 could. With the emergence of a highly contagious and deadly virus in 2020, schools across the world were forced to close. Although remote learning has presented us with a plethora of challenges, and it was downright unsuccessful in many cases, there are lessons that we can use to redesign education for the better.

WHAT SHOULD WE FOCUS ON AND WHY NOW?

We begin by sharing a tale of two COVID-19 distance learning plans. First, we share the story of Lina.

Lina is a fourth-grade general education student who does not receive supplemental support or enrichment services. At the beginning of each week during quarantine, Lina’s teacher posted a series of PowerPoint files, websites, and worksheets in the electronic classroom to be completed by Friday. On the first Monday Lina was home from school, she sat down at her computer and completed all the assignments for the week . . . in 45 minutes. Lina’s mother reviewed the work Lina submitted and found that the work was completed correctly. Her mother contacted the teacher, who indicated that she would post additional work for the following week.

The next week, Lina sat at her desk again on Monday morning and reviewed the week’s assignments. This time she completed the work in an hour. Lina’s mother again reached out to the teacher. In the third week, optional activities were posted. When Lina’s mother demanded that Lina complete the optional activities, Lina protested. “I already know this stuff!” she exclaimed. Lina’s mother sat down with Lina and asked, “Is this how you feel in school? That you already know this stuff?” Lina shared, “I’ve basically been bored since Kindergarten. Sometimes, the teacher thinks I’m not paying attention because I’m daydreaming or doodling, but I already know it!” Lina’s mother realized that her daughter had been flying under the radar as an advanced student for a long time. Lina was presumed to be an average student because her work was completed without complaint, and she did not independently go beyond what was expected. Yet, her true potential was much greater than what was readily apparent.

Let us contrast this story with Evelyn, a general education fourth grader in another district. Although the first week or two of remote learning were not perfect, Evelyn’s teacher quickly adapted. During week three, the goal for Evelyn’s English/Language Arts class was posted as “cite text evidence to analyze.” Students were instructed to read a story about the Wright brothers and then, using evidence from the text, demonstrate why the Wright brothers were innovative through one of the following options:

•Write a newspaper editorial

•Develop a commercial for the flying machine

•Create a PowerPoint or visual representation of the Wright brothers’ accomplishments

•Write a three-paragraph essay

•Create a podcast

•Develop a brochure of the Wright brothers’ innovations

•Another option of the student’s design (must be approved by teacher)

Evelyn’s teacher included a four-point rubric for how the activity would be graded, and she reminded students, “Remember that your goal is to use text to explain why the Wright brothers were considered innovative!”

Evelyn elected to make a commercial about the flying machine. The morning that Evelyn received the assignment, her parents watched as she spent several hours absorbed in constructing a cardboard box model of the machine. When the flying machine model was finished, Evelyn developed a script for her commercial and acted it out while her younger brother filmed her on her father’s smartphone. The next day, Evelyn edited the commercial on her father’s phone, adding special effects, transitions, and music. She was highly engaged throughout the entire activity and was sure to heed her teacher’s reminder to use textual evidence in her project.

Meanwhile, Lina completed worksheets and was done with her work for the week within an hour.

Now we ask, which class would you rather be in—Lina’s or Evelyn’s? To us, the answer is obvious. Remote learning only highlighted the need for engaging assignments like the one Evelyn was given. Within the context of the two classrooms, let’s consider students who receive specialized services and how they would fare in each classroom. Take a moment to think about a student with a learning challenge, a student identified as gifted, and a student who is just learning English. Of course, each of these students would fare better in Evelyn’s classroom.

Re-Story Students

A system of exclusion that largely separates students with disabilities from their typical peers relies heavily on labels to identify students. These labels then sort students into programs—special education, gifted education, English as a second language (ESL) program, and Title I services, to name a few. We challenge you as you read this book to question how beneficial these labels really are. We ask our readers to instead re-story students. We implore you to tell a new story about a student. Focus on the student’s strengths, gifts, and talents rather than their deficits.

Let us think about Lina and Evelyn. Lina, a general education student without identified needs, was not benefiting from her teacher’s homogenous approach. Lina represents the imaginary middle—the students we think we are reaching when we teach in only one way. These are the students who are overlooked because they complete their work compliantly, but they are disengaged.

Is Lina considered average because she has a history of doing her work without complaint? On the other hand, should Evelyn be evaluated for gifted services because she was highly engaged, curious, and motivated to do the work that was assigned to her? Or, rather, are the characteristics that Lina and Evelyn demonstrate merely reflective of the instruction they are receiving? By forcing a break in conventional teaching methods, COVID-19 highlighted the fact that we need to appeal to the strengths, interests, and talents of students to see them in their best light.

Instead of assigning labels to determine who needs support or enrichment, we urge educators to re-story their students. When we re-story a child, we focus on their strengths, and then provide an environment and instruction to match those assets. Additionally, we examine our instruction before we assume that a child is typical, gifted, has a disability, and so on.

Redesign Instruction and Assessment

In transitioning from live instruction to remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic, it became apparent that the multitude of standards, assessments, activities, and projects that were in place could not all continue in this emergency. Teachers were forced to prioritize essential content and skills to ensure that the precious time they had with students was used wisely. They had to identify what was important and let go of the rest.

There is something to be said for this approach that centers around the most critical skills and meaningful activities. We contend that the most successful educators in distance learning did not seek to replicate the traditional school day, but rather, recognized that this was a unique situation that required a novel approach. These teachers understood that although there will always be more content to cover, the manner in which it is delivered often can be streamlined. For example, how many activities or assignments throughout a typical sch...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• About the Online Materials
• About the Authors
• Foreword Katie Martin
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Dedication
• Chapter 1: Resetting School: Lessons Learned From COVID-19 Remote Instruction
• Chapter 2: Re-Storying Students
• Chapter 3: Redesigning Instruction and Assessment
• Chapter 4: Restructuring Intervention and Enrichment
• Chapter 5: Revitalizing Co-Teaching
• Chapter 6: Realigning Service Delivery
• Chapter 7: Rethinking Equity
• Redefining the Box
• References
• Index
• Back Cover