NYC DoE Phase One & TCICP
September 18, 2010
In the next three weeks, the Teachers College Inclusive Classrooms Project will be starting our Spotlight Instructional Practices Inquiry to Action groups, as well as beginning some of our many Conference Day workshops. I want to briefly lay out some basic information about the New York City special education Phase One initiative.
What is the Phase One initiative designed to do?
1. Bring schools in NYC into compliance with IDEA 1997. This update on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act specifically requires that students be given access to the general education curriculum. We have 30 years of federally-funded research demonstrating that separate is not equal when it comes to long-term outcomes for students with disabilities. New York State is ranked 49th in the United States when it comes to providing students with disabilities access to general education classrooms. By utilizing all service delivery models of the NYS continuum of services, this DOE initiative seeks to improve access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities.
2. Strengthen special education services and move away from “special education as a place”. When special education grew hugely bigger (in the 1970’s) the BOE created specialized programs and specialized schools. Although these places were designed with the best of intentions and with extraordinary staff and terrific student-teacher ratios, they have not resulted in the long-term outcomes we know are possible for students with disabilities. When special education is a “place,” it locks the teachers and the students in to a location. We now know this approach is flawed and we must create a wide range of flexible delivery models so that students can receive special education services that connect directly to the general education curriculum (which is accessed through specialized technologies and services). This means that special education teachers and general education teachers must collaborate in deep and ongoing ways about particular children and in the context of specific curricula.
3. Put the ‘i” and the “e” back in the IEP. New York City IEPs have rarely lived up to the spirit of the law. We have a lot of work to do to make the IEP an educationally oriented document that ties directly to specific accommodations and modifications that the student needs in order to access the general education curriculum. Instead, too many NYC IEPs have focused on location of services instead of focusing on the actual individualized plan for instruction.
4. Move from a medical model to an instructional model. In the first century of special education, we thought there were specific instructional practices and models to match specific disabilities. However, almost all researchers and scholars and many practitioners now understand that good teaching is good teaching. Yes, some students need quiet spaces or headphones and FM transmitters to minimize distraction. And others need behavior support plans. And others need travel training, or assistive technology, or individually designed communication plans. But we now know that sorting students with similar disability labels into a classroom does not create a more homogeneous student body. It turns out that students with the same disability label have as much difference between them as do any other two learners. In other words: the medical label does not offer educators much useful information when it comes to making instructional plans.
5. This is not about saving money from educational services, or telling schools how to serve students. Rumors are flying around the city about what this initiative is intended to do. Phase One schools did not lose money, in fact, the funding formula provides incentives to create more flexible services and does not penalize schools in any way for keeping services the same.
Britt Hamre (TCICP co-director) and I look forward to working closely with a wide range of teachers and schools this year. In one of the next blog postings, I will introduce our staff and the members of the Teacher Advisory Board.
All best for a great school year!
Celia Oyler
Field Work: Peer Support – How does inclusion look like in my school?
* Buddy system for a 5th grade student identified as X who is intellectually challenged and receives 2 periods of SETSS a week. The buddy and the student were working on a project on Pre-Historic Mammals. X was assigned the American Lion. His buddy read information about the American Lion from a book to X. X has good auditory retention and has a high level of interest on social studies and science related topics. The group did a poster board presentation on their topic in which X drew and colored pictures of the American Lion and dictated to his buddy facts that he learned. I entered the class to meet with X as they were working on this project and he reported to me these facts about the American Lion.
* Another evidence of using the buddy system exits in one class where four students are assigned to copy their peer’s homework at the time I pick them up for their SETSS program.
* A hearing impaired student in the Gifted & Talented program is assisted as needed by his peer by modeling written assignment such as creating an idea web or reminding him to get started on a task.
* The third grade students in the 12:1:1 class are mainstreamed in the G&T & general ed third grade class to participate in the Salvadori program. This program works with the NYC public schools to help develop project based curricula using architecture and engineering (learn geometry by constructing bridges & physics by building simple machines) to achieve leaning goals. The students are grouped to work collaboratively on a a variety of projects. The 12:1:1 students are assisted by specific general ed students as needed.
* Students in the 12:1:1 classes are mainstreamed in Physical Education and Library with general ed classes where they engage in teacher directed activities. In Phys Ed there is team collaboration when they play sports, race, or play games.
* A child ( S) in the 12:1:1 program is mainstreamed for Reading Workshop in the first grade class. The students initially do the morning routine which involves counting the amounts of girls and boys present in class and the calendar. The students lead this activity with minimal assistance from the teacher. On the second day of mainstreaming, another female peer picks her when it comes time to count the number of girls. She instructs S to stand, take the wand, count and write the information on the designated place on the white board.
Has the due process rule changed? it was that a child had to be evaluated in 30 days. My school is telling me that is no longer true. If the child has been evaluated, even privately, in the last year the dept. of ed does not have to do a evaluation. Is this true?
Has the due process rule changed? we are being told that the doe does not have to evaluate a student if the child has been evaluated, ( even though it was done privately ) in th past 12 months. Is this true?
Hi Catherine–
I’m not the best person to answer this question, as my expertise is classroom instruction and I’m not up on many state and federal timelines. I do recall from when I was a case manager for IEPs that we could use a private evaluation if we chose too, and if it was recent. (I just don’t know what “recent” means…). Do you know who your network Administrator of Special Education is? Can you ask him/her? Also, every network has a lawyer assigned to it, from central, and your network leader can ask that person.
My son is in kindergarten at a phase 1 school. He has been recieving OT 3x a week since his pre-school year as well as other support services for most of the year (SETSS, guidance councelor etc.) For the majority of this year he has been in a regular classroom, 20:1, respectively, and has had major behavioral issues, as well as potty issues (he is fully potty trained at home!) that resulted in a 3 day in school suspension recently. During his suspension he was in a 12:1:1 class for 1st graders, the only 12:1:1 in his school and came home like a different child. He was well behaved had no accidents and spoke with excitement about what he was learning! (never happened before). Due to my insistance the school has agreed to let him spend the remainder of the school year in this class but unfortunately next year there is no such class for him. Instead the principal would like to have other support services for him, SETSS, guidance coucelor, continuing his OT etc. and for him to spend a few periods a day in the 12:1:1 class for 2nd graders. After his suspension we tried this approach for 2 days and it was disastrous. They are extremely resistant to transfering my son to a 12:1:1 class in another school but will not have such a class for him next year. What should I do for next year in addition to getting him re-evaluated?
It’s also worth ptinoing out that for some disabled people, especially in the UK, the word ableism is considered discriminatory. became such such because I’d never heard of ableism when it started, five years ago. However, some people feel that “ableism” makes disabled issues about “able-bodiedness” or the lack thereof – as in your dictionary definition – and therefore, it is sometimes argued, excludes a great number of disabled people from their own experiences and helps enforce a hierachy of impairment.Of course, this is part of the quagmire of the language of disability, and people are (and have every right to be) very wedded to the words they use – Dave Hindsburger prefers disphobia, which has its merits too. But I thought it was worth mentioning as part of the discussion of the word.
KcRtOq szlosxfoblbp