My Thoughts on Special Education

By Liz Gindraux

I have a son with special needs and have firsthand experience with the IEP Process. He has been receiving services for over 2 years now and his needs are being met to my husband's satisfaction and mine. We have been very happy with his progress.

IDEA's reauthorization in 2004 has opened the door for replacing the discrepancy model of evaluation. Previously, IDEA mandated that school districts use more than one method to assess whether students have learning disabilities. Since the 1970s, schools used the IQ-achievement discrepancy model to meet that requirement. The discrepancy model compares students' IQs with their scores on achievement tests in, for example, math or reading. If students have a large enough discrepancy--often between one and two standard deviations --between their IQs and achievement test scores, they qualify as learning disabled.

It appears that this model has its shortcomings. Critics say it's a wait-to-fail approach, only stepping in when a child struggles. And it doesn't help students who have an IQ score as low as an achievement test score--thereby showing no discrepancy. The discrepancy model has endured, primarily because no better alternative has taken its place. However, an alternative method called "response to intervention," is gaining popularity. In this model, students work through several interventions before receiving special education. Struggling students receive an intervention in the main classroom--such as moving to the front of the class. If they fail to respond, they move into smaller group instruction. Should that not work, they enter special education programs. RTI has its own problems. It doesn't rely on cognitive assessments like the discrepancy model, and it doesn't clearly explain how teachers and psychologists should measure a child's responses to the interventions or how they can know if an intervention was valid or successful.

Weaknesses in our Current Special Education System: With the many changes to the administration of our Special Education Program (3 Director changes over the past three years) I am concerned that we have not been consistent in (1) our delivery of services, (2) in our communication with the parent community and (3) our evaluations of our special needs children (4) professional development of our current staff. I think it is time for the Board to become more proactive with regards to our Special Education Program - closely monitor the new Director of Special Education, recognize that our students need to be assessed and evaluated more closely than ever, and deliver services that are necessary in an affordable way.

Strengths in our Current Special Education System: We have started to deliver more services from within the District. Our adaptive PE program for example comes from within the San Mateo County Department of Education at a great savings to us as a District. We have successfully run a SDC (Special Day Class) at Washington (my local Elementary School) for two years now (it is in its third year now with a new teacher in place). We are able to keep the children locally (good for the families), use District staff to meet their needs and facilitate the children spending time in the typical classrooms for a period of time. A win win for everyone.

For the Future: I would like to see us bring even more services in house. Contracting out to private agencies is considerably more costly than delivering the needs from within the District + not to mention there is a disconnect when we are not directly involved with the services being offered. We need to evaluate hiring an OT, a Behaviorist. etc. We need to build the capabilities to handle the needs of our Special Education children from within our own staff.

We need to continue our efforts at ongoing teacher training and specifically training geared at dealing with the changing needs of our student population. This is a must! Our teachers need to be prepared and supported.

I think we are undergoing a process of change and reforming how we teach our children. We need to reduce class sizes. Our Kindergarten classes with more than 25 children in them are too big. This needs our immediate attention because our children need our immediate attention.

I would like to see input from the families of our Special Education children - A forum where Board members and District Staff and the families can freely exchange ideas. We have a GATE Committee in the District that focuses on the Gifted and Talented Education Program, we have an ELAC committee that focuses on the needs of the English Learners in the District, I would like to see a committee or a forum or whatever you want to call it so that we can have a dialog + open the lines of communication.

How do we balance the needs of all children in Burlingame? Well that's the million dollar question isn't it? I need to reconcile the mom in me that earlier said we need to give every child whatever they need with the potential Board Member who has to look at the big picture. We have 2,400 children in our Burlingame schools with differing needs. We need to "balance" our services across those children - each child is an individual and each child deserves to have their needs met. We haven't touched on the budget but obviously there are limited financial resources that have to be taken into consideration in every decision that we make. I don't have all the answers but what I can tell you is that in my heart I want every child that sits in a Burlingame School District classroom to have their needs met. How we get there is a process + one that we need to participate in together (parents of typical kids, parents of special education kids, Board members, District Administration and staff) to find the solutions that work for everyone.