Tag: teachers

Posted on

Pass or Fail: The Final Word

pass or fail

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

It is the contention of this blog series that ending retention, and social promotion are justified by both practical and theoretical considerations. Doing so does, however, also entail ending graded education and standardization. Collectively, these changes require a substantial overhaul of the entire system of public education in the United States as well as the re-education of the vast majority of its stakeholders.

The 6-pronged approach described above provides insight into the most promising plan for replacing retention, social promotion, graded classrooms and standardized tests with a fundamentally more effective educational system. If the stakeholders in the public education system are to be brought on board in support of this plan, the campaign to re-educate them must begin as soon as possible. This plan must emphasize how we have got to the point we are now at in our education system, so that it will be clearer where we might go if we make the changes the plan suggests.

It is time for the public education system to take an honest look at itself. The benefits of our current strategies are negligible. The United States is losing the knowledge and innovation battle and will ultimately lose the war unless reform begins soon. The tragedy of handicapping our children with a clearly second-rate education is all the worse because it is so unnecessary. As a nation, we have the information that justifies the changes outlined in this blog series. As citizens and parents, we also have the duty to provide our children the high-quality education envisaged by our Founding Fathers, and education that stimulates creativity and a love of learning.

Returning to the issues of retention and social promotion, the evidence is overwhelming that both of these strategies damage the children they are supposed to help. They are damaging not only to individual students but also society as a whole. The large-scale, long-term effects of retention are that individuals lose educational opportunities, job opportunities, and opportunities to make cultural and economic contributions to their communities.

Retention and social promotion also represent a tremendous burden on the state. The likelihood of an individual requiring welfare or being unemployed is greatly increased when they are affected by retention or social promotion. And as grave as these consequences are for an individual, they are dwarfed by the crippling effect of a personality stunted by a pernicious educational environment. Because a child who has been held back or socially retained is likely to be inhibited and stunted intellectually and creatively, the public school system really should be considered a clear and present danger to the nation’s future.

Only by acknowledging the harm done by grade retention, graded classrooms, and standardized tests can the American public education system can rise to the challenge of the modern world and provide a world-class education that is free, effective, and fair to all segments of society. Even if the American public education system is not completely transformed, there should at least be a shift in the approach to assessment. American schools should at least put an end to the use of restrictive, standardized testing and the use of retention and social promotion policies.

Posted on

Pass or Fail: Preparing Teachers, Parents and Administrators for Multi-Age Classrooms

pass or fail

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

Any large change in K-12 education in America will need backing from teachers and parents.

Both of these stakeholders tend to lack full understanding of the multi-age education, though. Parents often express resistance when faced with the possibility of switching to a multi-age classroom. Teachers also tend to indicate that they have not received adequate training to be confident teaching multi-age groups. The two problems tend to go hand in hand, and parents also worry about the multi-age environment because of the potential issues with instruction quality.

Parent education and teacher education are thus two crucial components of a successful multi-age classroom system, especially one on the scale envisaged here; one that will replace the graded approach and, among other things, remove grade retention and social promotion from the American public-education system.

The processes for parent and teacher education are different, and the focus of the education must likewise be different. Parent educa­tion and teacher preparation are essential but must, to be effective, target the respective groups independently. Parents must be educated about the multi-age classroom and its benefits and challenges from an educational perspective. They must receive information and support to help them understand not only what the benefits and challenges are, but also what the process will be for the implementation of a multi-age classroom.

It is necessary to make sure that parents have the opportunity to be involved in the process of reviewing implementation plans for establishing multi-age classrooms as the standard for education in America’s public schools. Furthermore, the elements of curriculum and teacher training and support should be understood by parents. Parents must be reassured that teachers will be able to meet the needs of all students.

It has been stated that age-balanced classrooms containing students of a similar level cannot be achieved easily if parents do not fully understand and support the philosophy it depends on upon, and this should also be a consideration in the implementation of a multi-age strategy.

Teachers, for their part, must be educated and prepared to manage multi-age classrooms and given intensive support to maintain an appropriate level of professional development over time. It is not enough to promise that there will be support available. The support must be in place and made use of effectively. Honesty and accountability are key factors.

As in any other educational environment, students may not enjoy optimal benefits from multi-age classrooms if teachers cannot implement best practices. In this instance, students may not enjoy the benefits of the educational model if teachers don’t have the ability to put differentiated instruc­tional strategies, environments, and assess­ments in place. Offering professional-development workshops on multi-age edu­cation and supporting differentiated instruction for teachers, as well as providing detailed information for parents, can help students implement multi-age programs successfully.

Learning from both current and past issues, alignment of the multi-age program with curriculum must be emphasized at all points of contact. Multi-age classrooms are often not aligned with graded and curriculum-centered educational agendas in the United States, and this contributes to the challenges of making the necessary shift.  One of the greatest difficulties for administrators looking to implement the multi-age pro­gram in traditionally organized schools is that they have to operate two different programs in one school or have to operate a program that is incompatible with the legal state and federal requirements of accountability.

Administrators, like parents and teachers, must be supported to make the shift and go beyond what has been acceptable in the past, in a bid to “make room” for multi-age classrooms. Whereas school administrators have gone about creating space for multi-age classrooms in the past, trying to force them into what already exists, administrators must instead be supported in creating multi-age classrooms that exist outside the graded system. Based on research, some of which is mentioned above, there is little argument that multi-age classrooms cannot fit within the traditional graded school system. To make multi-age classrooms benefi­cial to all students, administrators should envision the classrooms as a “school within a school.”

School administrators must do more than apply multi-age education as a quick-fix solution for the underserved or for those who are not succeeding in the traditional classroom. Multi-age classrooms should not be used as a dumping ground but should be considered, as part of an established multi-age program, to be something more substantial. Indeed, administrators must essentially revise their thinking to ensure that multi-age classrooms are seen as the best option for providing students with an excellent education.

Finally, there is the problem of federal and state accountabif5lity and how the existing systems of accountability depend on standards, assessments, and school performance accountability. Creating a K-12 education system that emphasizes the achievement of all students and the academic, social, and emotional development of students is crucial, but also something that cannot be rushed. The accountability issues currently manifest as supports for a system that emphasizes the achievement of the “bubble kids,” or stu­dents just below the passing rates or cut scores on standardized testing.

Of course, there should be an emphasis on students who are on the outside of the distribution of abilities, whereas the current emphasis is at the expense of students in these bounds. The lowest achievers and high-ability students don’t have a place with the current model, and creativity and innovation, of course, are lost in the drive to have students demonstrate a level of minimum competency.

Shifting to multi-age classrooms should also concentrate on this notion of providing individual students with access to challenging but developmentally appropriate instruction. More than this, though, there should be a clear effort to embrace the potential for creative and innovative learning. The opportunities for this learning and the obvious need for it should be emphasized as one of the principal reasons for the shift to multi-age classrooms.

The need to embrace the true principles of education is central to all the benefits, challenges, and subsequent recommendations for multi-age classroom development and management.

 

Posted on

Pass or Fail: Hiring Qualified Teachers to Reduce the Need for Pass-Fail Systems

pass or fail

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

When it comes to getting rid of our current pass-fail system, I have developed six strategies (click to see them all). Hiring qualified teachers who know how to reduce the retention and social promotion rates through pedagogy is one of those points.

Research continues to show that good teachers are the single most effective factor in student success. Unfortunately, not all teachers are adequately prepared to address the rising standards of education in the modern world. The problem lies not so much with the teachers themselves as it does with their lack of training and their lack of access to teaching resources. To avoid both retention and social promotion, teachers must be better prepared. Moreover, they must expect to continue to prepare themselves throughout their careers.

Because the hiring of quality teachers is the second step outlined in our program for change, it is particularly important that the time frame for educational transition be a prominent element of the reform process. On the surface, the hiring of “qualified” and “competent” teachers seems easy enough and should be something that schools are already doing. The problem is that the hiring – and retention – of teachers reflects the standards of a dysfunctional system. While it is probably too harsh to say that schools have no-one to blame but themselves for the teachers they now have, it is certainly true that the effectiveness of teachers in the U.S. public school system is unlikely to improve until hiring standards are revised to reflect the requirements of multiage classrooms, individual interventions, alternative assessment procedures, and other elements of individual-based education. Moreover, schools must be prepared to implement retraining programs for teachers who were selected on the basis of existing pass-fail, age-graded standards. It is not enough, or even fair, simply round up anyone suspected of incompetence.

It stands to reason that if students are changing, teachers need to change too. More specifically, the education that teachers receive needs to be modified to meet the needs of modern K–12 classrooms. There are policy and practice changes taking place all over the world – many driven by teachers – that address the cultural shifts in the classroom. Some of the more promising recent developments in the educational world include the following items:

Subject-specific recruiting by colleges and universities. The book Teaching 2030, written by 13 experts in K-12 classroom pedagogy, calls for education schools to stop admitting anyone so long as they have some education major. Instead, the experts suggest that colleges become more selective to meet the actual needs of today’s students. Young people who want to teach in high-demand subject areas like mathematics, bilingual education, the physical sciences and special education should be given a higher priority by admissions boards of teaching colleges. Such a needs-based philosophy addresses actual voids in the industry and produces teachers who are better equipped to meet students’ needs.

Virtual learning options. Although online college courses have been around for years, K-12 education has also begun to provide distance learning options for students in some areas. During the 2010-2011 school year, 1.8 million students in grades K-12 were enrolled in some distance learning program. That is up from just 50,000 in the 2000-2001 school year, according to the International Association for K-12 Online Learning. This is a trend that teachers-to-be simply cannot ignore. Virtual learning is not reserved only for those who can afford it; 40 U.S. states have state-run online programs, and 30 of those states provide statewide, full-time K-12 schools online. The University of Central Florida is one of the only schools to offer a virtual-school emphasis for education majors that lets students apprentice with Florida Virtual School instructors.

Public education in America needs teachers who are better trained to meet the needs of specific student populations, who understand the necessary role of distance learning, and who are willing to speak up for making real change in the classroom. Without such teachers, it is unlikely that social promotion and retention can be replaced by individual-based learning.

 

Posted on

Pass or Fail: Teacher Preparedness and Multi-Age Classroom Development

pass or fail

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

Before classrooms can transition to successful multi-age models, teachers have to be willing and ready.

When it comes to the success of a multi-age classroom model, teacher buy-in is paramount. Teacher preparedness is also an important point that must be addressed in the plans for placing multi-age classrooms in settings where they are new. Many teachers featured in reports on multi-age classrooms say they received little preparation for teaching students of different ages.

Winning teachers over to the educational philosophy of multi-age classrooms is another necessary step for successful implementation. According to one study, eight in ten teachers oppose differentiated instruction. Again, though, adaption of the curriculum to meet the needs of all students in this type of context is difficult. They doubt their own abilities and are unsure of the supports at their disposal to assign groups with different work and to teach the material.

Efficiently creating group work among students of different abilities and age is another area where teachers find themselves struggling. Increased workload is also an issue. Teachers are reported to often accept the arguments in favor of multi-age grouping and appear to be happy to undertake the teaching of multi-age classrooms. Still, some misunderstand the program and do not go about implementing it correctly. Relations between staff members can become strained without the proper supports in place to minimize tensions and make criticisms and challenges constructive.

Since teachers with more extensive training and professional development tend to have the opportunity to teach multi-age classes, the experience gap between those who teach single-graded classes and those who teach multi-age classes can become a problem. That gap is identified as potentially leading to feelings of superiority in multi-age groups. Teachers who are opposed to change can undermine well-meaning multi-age classroom teachers.

Administrators can also struggle with the concept and the management of multi-age classrooms. However, their issues are mainly due to the federal and state accountability laws that require students to take standardized tests by grade level, as already outlined.

Because multi-age classrooms tend to blur the grade level standards and do so deliberately (at least to some degree), it can also be difficult to fairly administer standardized tests. Many principals have reported that it can be difficult to operate two types of structures in one school. But this problem is solvable if graded classrooms are entirely or at least mostly removed, and if the federal and state accountability laws requiring standardized tests are revised to effectively end or reduce that requirement.

Principals have reported that it is challenging because multi-age groups often need special field trips, school schedules, and equipment. There can also be a need, on occasion, for two separate groups for the events, designed for specific grades. All of these considerations create challenges for the school administration and budget management. The takeaway is that multi-age programs do not fit neatly into the traditional organization for schools; they are not designed to. A multi-age program should push a school past its norms to provide the best fit of an education for the students participating, and that will take some upfront and continuing work on the part of teachers and administrators.

Posted on

Pass or Fail: Early Intervention Supports and Strategies

pass or fail

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

How is it determined that a child struggles in a particular area? How can teachers and therapists develop the most effective intervention plans possible? The answer lies with the use of diagnostic tools for data collection and analysis.

To develop an effective early intervention model based on supports and strategies, two distinct elements are necessary. First, early intervention depends on diagnostic procedures, which rest on clear strategies. Second, the system also hinges on distinct rules for selecting and implementing supports and strategies, in light of student needs and diagnostic findings.

Functional Behavioral Analysis

Several investigative tools have been developed to assist early intervention. For students demonstrating emotional, social, and behavioral delays and dysfunctions, one of the most important diagnostic tools is the functional behavioral analysis (FBA). As researchers, Robin Hojnoski and Brenna Wood point out, educators are increasingly aware of the connection between the social behaviors of children and early academic skills.

In particular, research has consistently shown that young children who demonstrate challenging behavior may experience disruption to their learning. Negative conduct may interfere with opportunities to learn and effectively interact with peers in classroom situations. Research also recognizes that certain classroom activities, particularly structured activities, place high demands on children who already struggle with behavioral challenges. Investigative studies show that children may engage in challenging behavior as a means of avoiding demands placed upon them.

As a tool, an FBA is a direct and indirect procedure for collecting data related to problem behaviors. Direct data collection methods include classroom observations, while indirect methods of assessment include interviews with parents and teachers and the use of rating scales to assess actions. The subsequent analysis of such data identifies behavioral triggers and their antecedents, the reasons why the behaviors occur, and the functions and consequences of the behavior.

Tools for Data Analysis

Beyond FBA, other diagnostic tools also make use of observation. Occupational therapists will, for example, generally observe students to identify the daily tasks with which children have difficulty. Some diagnostic tools, such as questionnaires, may also be used for occupational therapy assessment, as well as language and behavioral evaluation. Parent participation and preschool involvement may be important in the use of such tools. However, the best observations and data tend to be collected from individual students in a classroom context, subjected to the academic, social, emotional, and general behavioral demands of the classroom environment. Even self-care and language skills can be better assessed in a classroom than in the home or community, and early intervention acts on this knowledge.

Drawbacks of Diagnostic Tools

Despite the strengths of existing diagnostic tools, they still have their weaknesses. For instance, many school districts administer FBAs indirectly, rather than directly. When FBAs are administered indirectly, they concentrate not on direct observations of children in classrooms, but indirect observations. Indirect observations tend to lack multiple elements that, in regular assessment procedures, would include efforts to gather information about instructional variables and early academic skill development.

Criticism of FBAs conducted within early education settings is that the same interview form is used by parents and teachers for students spanning a wide range of ages, with only a few modifications made for different age groups. The actual developmental differences, and therefore the questionnaires themselves, do not allow parents and teachers to accurately describe specific behaviors in sufficient detail to definitively assess developmental appropriateness.

In their assessment of FBA tools, Hojnoski and Wood note that the two interview forms, the forms used for elementary school and the form used for older children, include two general questions to identify areas where skills are lacking. There is, however, little effort to gather data to identify areas of concern related to the development of academic skills relevant to early-childhood and elementary education.

Assessment Goals

For diagnostic procedures to be effective, a variety of tools should be used, and these tools should reflect age-appropriate analytics for language, social and behavioral interactions. Early intervention might benefit from specifically targeting the problems that most commonly cause academic delays and disruptions in the classroom. With this information in hand, it could be useful to focus on identifying, or otherwise developing, age-appropriate tools to test skills and knowledge. Perhaps even developing a means to identify those students who are most at risk of deficits within certain areas. The goal of early intervention should not be to simply stop or reverse academic delays, but as much as possible, to prevent them entirely.

Are you familiar with the use of diagnostic testing from an early intervention perspective? Would you alter how the evaluation tools are currently being utilized?

Posted on

Pass or Fail: Early Intervention Resources

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

With early intervention and school-based program resources being scarce, how should service type and delivery be determined?

Intervention Service Delivery

The number of early intervention issues addressed requires the use of a corresponding number of supports and strategies to meet those needs. Several types of professionals, some of them educational specialists, are also employed by early intervention units and by school districts to offer supports. For instance, special educators and itinerant teachers may work alongside speech pathologists and occupational therapists, to name a few.

For early interventions to be effective, there is considerable need for quality service delivery, and service standards should be put in place. The issue of establishing superior services for early intervention supports and strategies has received much attention. One study considered the work of occupational therapists with regard to early interventions and outlined some of the ways in which OT can be most effectively applied.

Another study showed that family-centered and routine-based service delivery was effective in early interventions, but the best approach consisted of a combination of delivery models. Push-in models and pull-out models within school settings can be appropriate for both occupational therapy support and service deliveries. One of the deciding factors, however, is the integration of particular supports within the natural environment, as well as the transfer of specific skills to students, their family members, and other educators and community members. These skills provide the means of facilitating a smooth school transition and long-term academic success.

Early Intervention in the U.S.

The U.S. early intervention model needs to have greater consistency in its supports and strategies. In particular, there is a high variation among school districts and regions regarding resources made available to students based on need. The United States desperately needs national guidelines with regard to levels of support and methods of delivery for students who qualify for early intervention services. There should be some effort to scale need against resources. Identifying students, in all regions, who have the highest level of need, and coordinating supports to ensure those students with the most substantial needs are receiving services accordingly. A related necessity is the development of measures that ensure the proper resources are provided to individual students with specific developmental issues.

The Future of Early Interventions

The interventions need to be able to address behavior, language and communication, emotions, physical conditions, social interactions, and self-care supports, if the needs of all students are to be met. An examination beyond purely academic elements must be made. A child with an autism diagnosis, for instance, and thus a social communication disorder, may not be deemed to have social and communication issues that significantly impact his or her learning. However, based on the usual arc of the disorder, it is probable that such a child will develop academically or educationally significant issues as he or she matures. This occurs as the demands for communication, and socialization increase as the child’s fellow students mature.

A different type of “grading” or “social promotion” policy will emerge if early intervention and school-based supports do not look beyond the immediate situation. Programs must address the outcomes that can, over time, undermine a child’s academic development. Thus, providing social and communication supports in school or early learning environments, in the natural setting where social and communication demands exist, will be an investment in the long-term success of the child.

Would changing the landscape of early interventions and school supports help to cut back on problems associated with retention and social promotion?

 

 

Posted on

Pass or Fail: Early Intervention and School Partnerships

social promotion in schools

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

“Teamwork makes the dream work.” A catchy saying that holds a lot of validity when talking about early intervention programs and school-based services.

In order for early intervention to serve students better, an appropriate relationship between early intervention organizations and schools is absolutely necessary. The transition procedure from early intervention to school should be streamlined. There is also a need for far greater consistency between early-intervention programs and school-age programs, as well as between programs in different regions, including across school districts and states.

A Working Partnership

Early intervention and school-based service providers must work together to support children because of the unavoidable, but often unaddressed, reality that children do not arrive at school with empty minds. The educator’s task is not to fill the mind (it is already full), but to enlarge its capacity – the capacity for knowledge and critical thinking, for analysis, and for understanding. For this to be achieved, though, and for children to truly be the subject of their educational journey, a working partnership must be developed. Early-intervention service providers and programs that take on the challenge of supporting children beyond the early developmental phases, will need to foster a collaborative spirit.

Well-Defined Standards

However, a partnership between early intervention and schools cannot occur without an appropriate knowledge foundation. It is crucial that educators at all levels understand how early experiences and early-childhood development are essential to later learning. The broader point is that there needs to be a relationship between the curriculum and the realities that children construct for themselves. This depends on clear collaboration between school and early intervention, beginning with the establishment and maintenance of clear standards for supports.

While early intervention programs and school-based programs must continue to address students as individuals, the specific needs of each child should also be addressed. Standards may dictate the type of supports to be used, and what kind of services are to be offered. They may also, for the sake of managing resources, dictate what levels of supports are to be offered to students based on need assessments. The types and levels of support may be customized within parameters defined at a higher administrative level.

Intervention Protocols

Ideally, there should be protocols for requesting that certain procedures be overlooked on a case-by-case basis, so that individual students receive supports tailored to their needs. A child might, for instance, receive more behavioral supports in school or their early childhood environment than would be warranted based on assessment results and diagnostic findings. The reason for this could be that the child was demonstrating a behavior of particular concern and that needed additional support.

Additional Considerations

Although it is hardly possible to do away with budgetary considerations in the planning of early intervention and school-based supports, the general rule should be established that early intervention services and supports in early school years are likely to produce a much higher return on investment than those applied later in a child’s school career. All educators, but especially special education teachers, must respect the long-term consequences of withholding services and supports that they require to succeed in school, as well as curtail disruptive or self-destructive behavior.

Even with the removal of graded systems and an end to the problems of retention and social promotion, school failure will persist because of counterproductive pressures and inadequate support. Children do not arrive with empty heads; they have expectations, standards of thinking, and processes of learning that, if ignored in the school setting, will cause academic failure and, perhaps, the decision to drop out of school. Students who cannot find the intersection between the curriculum and the structures in their heads – and this includes students with special needs – are likely to become part of that estimated 10 percent of the school population that either drops out of school altogether, or fails to graduate from high school.

Do the costs of early intervention programs outweigh the costs to parents, teachers, society and the student themselves, if they are not adequately prepared academically?

Posted on

Pass or Fail: Training Teachers in Areas of Developmental Delay and Inclusion

pass or fail

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

As a teacher, you really can only do so much. What would you want parents to know if their child had a developmental delay or disability?

The strength of strategies and special-education support resources can only do so much to promote the academic success of students who have a developmental delay or disability. Regular classroom teachers remain vital touchstones for early intervention, not only as key figures in the diagnostic process, but also as supporters of early intervention models and implementers of certain early-intervention strategies.

Trained Educators

Teachers must receive training to spot students who could benefit from special-education supports. Likewise, all teachers involved in the teaching of preschoolers who are within the age range for early intervention, need to have specific training and knowledge to understand student needs clearly enough to be able to spot potential developmental or learning issues. All teachers and general educators, and not just those working in early childhood, should receive specific training in teaching special education programs. All teachers need to understand how to provide support in a holistic way.

Learning Outside the Classroom

One of the biggest challenges for effective early intervention is the development of a system that provides consistent supports across all settings. School success depends on the ability of children to function on many levels and their ability to adapt to change and manage stress. Learning opportunities exist for children everywhere, especially young children. Early intervention should be able to take advantage of this and teach the natural caregivers and supporters how to use these opportunities. There are many programs that can inspire parents to help their children learn. For instance, many public libraries offer reading programs over the summer, partly to help parents minimize loss of skills over the summer months. Such programs are not always as well supported as they might be. Teachers and special-education professionals are well placed to offer parents information about these sorts of programs.

Parent-Teacher Communication

Teachers should be encouraged to share information about how the child can be supported in their learning outside the classroom. Feedback and insights about the child’s needs and their experiences at school, as those experiences relate to and affect the home environment, are also important. Parent–teacher communication, where early intervention and school-based supports are needed to facilitate a child’s learning, are crucial. Early-intervention and special-education systems should help teachers understand family concerns and the needs of exceptional students. This assistance will help teachers meet those needs and communicate with parents about their students’ knowledge and skills.

Beyond highly trained teachers and well-informed and involved parents, what can be done to maximize the effectiveness of early intervention programs? How would our current system need to change in order for those elements to receive top priority?

Posted on

Pass or Fail: Challenges for Early Intervention Services

pass or fail

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

What drawbacks have you observed within the early intervention process? What elements do you find to be most effective?

Although there are differences between early intervention and school-age supports for children with disabilities or special education needs, there are also obvious similarities. Supports provided by early intervention programming have less of an academic focus. Granted, there is the long-term goal of promoting academic success, but these goals are pursued indirectly. There’s awareness that prevention is a workable strategy and students need the best possible developmental balance.

For early intervention opportunities to be successful, some of the existing procedures and parameters need to be reviewed and revised. The suggestion here is that early – and often – intervention is the appropriate strategy for promoting academic success for all students. It offers a relatively cost-effective and helpful approach for promoting quality education, as well as offering necessary supports for academic success. That said, there is still a need to ensure maximum efficiency.

Childhood Early Intervention

Within the parameters of early intervention, a healthy student exhibits an appropriate level in areas of development. He or she can enjoy a healthy, active, and productive existence inside and outside of learning environments. The multidisciplinary approach for early intervention is holistic.

In addition to using a broad range of professionals to provide early intervention services, most early intervention programs offer support across a broad range of developmental domains. In their approach to disabilities, which are defined as dysfunctional interactions between an individual and his environment, early intervention again goes further than most school-age programs. Early intervention programs tend to work on those disabilities that hinder students in areas outside of education, as well as within it. Impairment of interaction with the environment, which is not limited to school, broadens the scope of interventions that can be offered.

School-Age Supports

Most school-based services operate on the understanding that there must be a quantifiable delay for a child to receive support. There are also limits as to how supports can be used. School-based programs are less proactive and preventative, tending to approach special-education resources and opportunities with an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mindset.

While there may be occasional support in schools, the principal service provider of school-age supports is the teacher and, ideally, the regular education teacher. This is not always the case with early intervention.

Early Intervention Obstacles

The basic elements are already in place for early intervention programs to be a success, but the logistical issues associated, including the transition to school, are difficult to overcome.

According to various research, the educational environment needs specific mechanisms or processes in a concrete system, such that it is capable of bringing about or preventing some change in the system as a whole or some of its subsystems. At the same time, mechanisms can be related to human development. Examples of such development-focused interventions include maternal responsiveness, parental monitoring, cognitive development, and school and community support.

Successful Outcomes

Research was conducted in which the success of early intervention was tracked and important program elements were identified. Measurements of preschool participation (in years), of the duration of program participation (in years), and of extended program participation for four to six years were the measurements that correlated with academic success. Students were found to be more successful when they had high participation in all three areas. Parent participation in preschool was also found to be an important factor, as was school quality.

In other words, early intervention programs should emphasize these elements – opportunities for students to participate in preschool environments before enrollment in school, opportunities for parent engagement, and opportunities for the preschooler to participate in the program.

At the same time, early intervention programs are governed by financial and logistical considerations. No matter how much they might wish it, school districts and states can spend only so much on early intervention support services. Budgetary considerations must have some weight, not necessarily in determining rigid service parameters, but certainly in creating service guidelines.

The success of early intervention tends to weigh heavily on involving children as early as possible, during pre-school years. With this in mind, who should be raising awareness for early intervention?

Posted on

Pass or Fail: The Early Intervention Process

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

If early intervention is the answer, then what exactly is the process for receiving services and how difficult is it to begin this procedure?

Assessment

Once a potential delay is identified, there will be a certain timeframe set for observations and with the use of diagnostic tools for assessment. As soon as this process is underway, parents and other caregivers are able to become involved. Feedback and input is requested and used to develop effective service-delivery models.

The findings of the diagnostic processes are presented to parents, and a formal document is prepared that details exactly what the level of need is deemed to be. A standard Individualized Education Plan (IEP) offers information on the student’s background and family makeup. It identifies specific strengths, usually with the intention of focusing on those strengths in the later development of support strategies. The same is true of an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP).

Goals and Objectives

An IEP or IFSP in the United States includes a list of specific goals and objectives pertinent to the individual needs of a child with identified developmental delays or disabilities. Goals are designed to target educational objectives. Goals tend to vary, though, because different states have different guidelines and curricula outlining expectations for students.

One of the major factors to be aware of in the current early-intervention and school-based support systems is that expectations play a huge role in outlining goals. Because goals vary from state to state, and there are sometimes different interpretations of relevant goals and standards, and consistency in service delivery is a problem. The underlying goal of early intervention, as well as of school-based supports, is to help children or older students overcome academic challenges related to developmental delays or disabilities.

Specifically Designed Instruction

Based on individualized goals –developed in line with the broader standards – Specially Designed Instruction parameters (SDIs) are developed. SDIs are strategies designed to support the educational needs of a student who qualifies for early-intervention or school-based services.

For instance, a student who struggles with staying on task, who has an inability to concentrate due to a condition such as Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), would perhaps have an IEP with an SDI detailing the need for tasks to be broken down into smaller chunks. Another related SDI might be the delivery of specific prompts directly to the student by the teacher, to encourage the student to remain focused. Provisions can even allot students extra time and the option to take breaks at regular intervals, to support concentration.

Early Childhood Intervention

Inevitably, the process for early intervention is very similar to this but concentrated in the home environment because this is the natural learning environment for most children up to the age of six. Continual data collection, tracking, and analysis occurs while a child receives early intervention or school-based services. At the same time, goals, objectives, and SDIs are updated. The formal IEP or IFSP remains up to date and establishes the parameters for service by the treatment team. The treatment team also includes the parents, who are involved in support of a child’s academic needs.

School-Age Intervention Transition

Ideally, when a student prepares to enter school, there should be a smooth transition from the early childhood environment to the school setting and, if necessary, a swift implementation of the goals, objectives, and SDIs according to the child’s needs.

Undoubtedly, this is one point in which there are deficits in effectiveness and efficiency. The transition phase of early intervention or intermediate units (between early intervention and school, in some states) is often bottlenecked.

Most families state or district-wide, go through the transition process at roughly the same time of year. Meetings with parents or guardians are required, which adds to the logistical issues of scheduling and implementing data-collection, as well as service-delivery efforts.

With early intervention procedures involving multiple steps and various service professionals, how can efforts be streamlined for a more efficient process?