This article helps me to point out the problems that arise when students are learning in an exclusive "special education" setting. It will be good to delve into the issue of what setting is most beneficial to the student with disabilities: a specialized or integrated setting?
Summary:
The author of the article begins by asserting the idea that "integration" and "differentiation" are completely paradoxical as we try to offer special needs programs for our children. He says that we are trying to achieve differentiation in schools in order to help students become equipped but as we add more and more "programs" for different needs we do it at all at the cost of integration. He suggests that we are causing increasing division as we add more categories and "subcategories" for different needs of the students. The author explains that before the 1970's, medical doctors treated disabilities as a health problem. Then as Psychology grew and became more specific in their diagnostics, students were labeled and placed in highly differentiated groups. Then in the 1980s, The U.S. Department of Education tried to slow down the process of differentiating the special need groups and they encouraged the practice of inclusion by funding training and research. The author claims that this has somewhat failed, as complaints came within special education, and those in the general education program were not thrilled either. The author mentions the No Child Left Behind legislation as helpful in moving forward with integration. The reason being that they include all students as general education students and they tend to suggest to students more often than not that integration will be more helpful to the student than segregation. According to the article, how inclusion is defined plays a key role in getting support from the general education arena. There are concerns that general education teachers have for including special needs children in the classroom, such as not letting them fall behind while still maintaining the pace of the classroom. Some schools use paraprofessions to sit in the back of the classroom and use a one-on-one method to work separately with the student. The author highly discourages this as it seems to add more division and goes on to to introduce a new idea of teaching special education. How can we teach special education students without excluding them from the rest of their peers but at the same maintain efficiency in the schools? The Schoolwide Applications Model (SAM), is introduced and described as a method that introduces the idea of using techniques that special education teachers use and implementing them in the entire curriculum. As the author goes into more detail on what SAM is, he explains that is is helpful because it keeps all the children fully included and joined together and it not only assists the disabled children but the other students benefit from learning the same techniques.
Response:
I think that the author is correct when he says that differentiating children into so many separate categories causes problems and does not benefit the students in the long run. First of all, when children are placed in classes with others who are "specifically" just like them, although they are guided with professionals in that field, major problems arise. My autistic cousin, Joey, was placed in several different kinds of learning institutions, including schools specifically for autistic children. Joey learned that things he struggled with, other kids did too. The problem was, some kids had it even worse and Joey struggled with not being influenced by these kids and some of the bad habits they adopted. Yes, he was surrounded by people who knew tons of information about autism and who had special "autistic" certifications and were paid to help Joey and his family deal with his problems. But Joey was thrown in an atmosphere where some of the problems he struggled with (i.e. anger), took center stage at the school because his friends struggled with the same thing. Not only was Joey being subtly influenced to keep up his bad habits, but he was introduced to even bigger ones. While at home, Joey was addicted to picking up paper clips and storing interesting "junk" in drawers, at school he was introduced to storing drugs. Granted, children can be encouraged to misbehave in any kind of setting, but I would argue that putting a child in a setting where everyone is struggling with the same kind of problems can be worse.
Which leads me to another reason why I think differentiating can pose a problem. My aunt and uncle looked at so many options for Joey. They talked to "experts" in the field of autism, they worked with multiple teachers and went in and out of various schools. They were so focused on the fact that Joey had autism and they needed to help him deal with his problem. There are so many "experts" out there who focus too much on the problem and how to treat it, than focusing on the ultimate goal for any child. The goal for most students is become equipped to face the world, help others struggling and adapt to what our culture terms "successful." If a child is living in a "specialized world" throughout his school years, how will he adjust to his first job and immediately begins working with people who are different than himself? How will he react to everyone treating him just like the next person, and not special because of his disability? On the other hand, if the student is put in a classroom with his peers, some who do not struggle with disability, he will, with some guiding, be able to adjust as best he can to the real world. I believe that for the most part, highly differentiating children in schools can pose many problems and fail to achieve the goal of integration which children can reach in an inclusion setting in school.
The author of the article begins by asserting the idea that "integration" and "differentiation" are completely paradoxical as we try to offer special needs programs for our children. He says that we are trying to achieve differentiation in schools in order to help students become equipped but as we add more and more "programs" for different needs we do it at all at the cost of integration. He suggests that we are causing increasing division as we add more categories and "subcategories" for different needs of the students. The author explains that before the 1970's, medical doctors treated disabilities as a health problem. Then as Psychology grew and became more specific in their diagnostics, students were labeled and placed in highly differentiated groups. Then in the 1980s, The U.S. Department of Education tried to slow down the process of differentiating the special need groups and they encouraged the practice of inclusion by funding training and research. The author claims that this has somewhat failed, as complaints came within special education, and those in the general education program were not thrilled either. The author mentions the No Child Left Behind legislation as helpful in moving forward with integration. The reason being that they include all students as general education students and they tend to suggest to students more often than not that integration will be more helpful to the student than segregation. According to the article, how inclusion is defined plays a key role in getting support from the general education arena. There are concerns that general education teachers have for including special needs children in the classroom, such as not letting them fall behind while still maintaining the pace of the classroom. Some schools use paraprofessions to sit in the back of the classroom and use a one-on-one method to work separately with the student. The author highly discourages this as it seems to add more division and goes on to to introduce a new idea of teaching special education. How can we teach special education students without excluding them from the rest of their peers but at the same maintain efficiency in the schools? The Schoolwide Applications Model (SAM), is introduced and described as a method that introduces the idea of using techniques that special education teachers use and implementing them in the entire curriculum. As the author goes into more detail on what SAM is, he explains that is is helpful because it keeps all the children fully included and joined together and it not only assists the disabled children but the other students benefit from learning the same techniques.
Response:
I think that the author is correct when he says that differentiating children into so many separate categories causes problems and does not benefit the students in the long run. First of all, when children are placed in classes with others who are "specifically" just like them, although they are guided with professionals in that field, major problems arise. My autistic cousin, Joey, was placed in several different kinds of learning institutions, including schools specifically for autistic children. Joey learned that things he struggled with, other kids did too. The problem was, some kids had it even worse and Joey struggled with not being influenced by these kids and some of the bad habits they adopted. Yes, he was surrounded by people who knew tons of information about autism and who had special "autistic" certifications and were paid to help Joey and his family deal with his problems. But Joey was thrown in an atmosphere where some of the problems he struggled with (i.e. anger), took center stage at the school because his friends struggled with the same thing. Not only was Joey being subtly influenced to keep up his bad habits, but he was introduced to even bigger ones. While at home, Joey was addicted to picking up paper clips and storing interesting "junk" in drawers, at school he was introduced to storing drugs. Granted, children can be encouraged to misbehave in any kind of setting, but I would argue that putting a child in a setting where everyone is struggling with the same kind of problems can be worse.
Which leads me to another reason why I think differentiating can pose a problem. My aunt and uncle looked at so many options for Joey. They talked to "experts" in the field of autism, they worked with multiple teachers and went in and out of various schools. They were so focused on the fact that Joey had autism and they needed to help him deal with his problem. There are so many "experts" out there who focus too much on the problem and how to treat it, than focusing on the ultimate goal for any child. The goal for most students is become equipped to face the world, help others struggling and adapt to what our culture terms "successful." If a child is living in a "specialized world" throughout his school years, how will he adjust to his first job and immediately begins working with people who are different than himself? How will he react to everyone treating him just like the next person, and not special because of his disability? On the other hand, if the student is put in a classroom with his peers, some who do not struggle with disability, he will, with some guiding, be able to adjust as best he can to the real world. I believe that for the most part, highly differentiating children in schools can pose many problems and fail to achieve the goal of integration which children can reach in an inclusion setting in school.
When you give me the database info, don't forget to identify the authors just in case I would have trouble finding the article by title. In this case, the article showed up in a search, but I would just hate to see you lose track of a source.
ReplyDeleteThough this article is not from a scholarly journal, it is from a magazine specifically written for those in the educational field. Actually, I think it provided a great source for you since you said one of the biggest difficulties of the blog assignment has been finding sources that are credible but not so complicated that they are nearly impossible to summarize. The one credibility factor that I'm concerned about is the fact that you were not able to articulate in concrete terms why the Phi Delta Kappan publication seemed trustworthy other than the fact that there are many issues. Remember that sometimes it's helpful to google the name of the periodical. I wasn't familiar with the organization either, but when I googled them, I was able to find out that Phi Delta Kappan is a professional organization for teachers. Also remember to note whether the authors seem to have the necessary credentials to be writing on your specific topic.
Your summary was well done; clearly you were in control of the information as you processed it for your own needs. You picked up the major points of the authors. While you didn't summarize in great detail the last few pages of the article, your last sentences of the summary made it clear to readers that they could find more information on SAM if they read the article. And, I think you were wise in focusing in on the beginning of the article since your goal is to investigate the big picture of inclusion vs. differentiation at this point in time. I'll note just two very minor points for improvement of summaries in the future. Be careful about assumptions; you mention before the 1970s in your summary, but the article didn't give a specific date associated with the information that you were saying was pre-1970s. The other possibility is that you had a typo and meant to type pre-1980s, which would be a legitimate conclusion to draw from the article. Also, the quotation marks around words at the beginning of the summary would not be necessary since those were technical words. Again, those are two minor points. Overall, I was impressed with your ability to gain control over the information in the article.
I think your response expands in meaningful ways on the concerns raised by the authors. The overcategorization of learning disabilities and special needs can put the focus on the issue instead of the child. Though they didn't focus on this, you offer some thought provoking reasons for why the article's suggestion of a SAM model would be best for children like your cousin Joey.