To the Editor,
The history of special education during my tenure as a teacher in Tecumseh is as follows: 1991-93 I was in a self-contained Resource Room where I serviced my student independent from the regular education classroom. 1993-94 I spent half the day in the regular classroom with my students under the “co-teaching” model, and the other half, took them back to my room for individualized instruction. 1994-95 I didn’t have a classroom of my own. I spent half the day in one third grade classroom “co-teaching” with another teacher, and the other half in a fourth grade classroom, doing the same. It only took one year for teachers, students and administrators to figure out 12/13 special education students in one room is not a good idea. The special education students don’t get enough one-on-one time at their instructional level, the regular education students are stagnated in their educational growth, and ultimately, the district was still paying for the same number of teachers with the same number of students. From 1995-2002, I had an assistant who went into classrooms to support students, while I pulled other students out for one-on-one instruction. This was the optimal situation.
Since my move to another building, I have had a completely self-contained Resource Room. This means my students come to me for the subject area that their disability manifests itself.
Since the beginning of the 2007-08 school year, Special Education staff have been working toward two goals: 1.) Response to Intervention, and 2.) 80/20: 80 percent of the special education students must be in regular education 80 percent of the time. This 80/20 rule has been supported by the use of “Co-teaching”, where a regular education and special education teacher work in the same room, at the same time.
Response to Intervention is a “group-effort” approach to helping students who are struggling, long before they are identified as needing special education support. Our RtI teams are made up of Special and Regular Education teachers, Administrators, Reading Specialists, Psychologists, Speech Pathologists, Social Workers, Behavior Therapists, and any other kind of therapist which may be needed and is available through the LISD. We meet monthly, and sometimes bi-monthly, depending on the need. We discuss students brought to us by the classroom teacher and develop an “intervention” plan. We document the response to the plan which was implemented. Once we have exhausted all means available to us, we either dismiss the child because they made satisfactory improvements, or we recommend special education testing to verify a learning disability or some other disability.
RtI sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? And it is…to a point. When we were first introduced to this concept, I said we’re going to “R-t-I our selves right out a job.” And we did! I was told not to worry, because we were truly embracing the idea of RtI which meant we would always need the support of the special education teacher to help with the prescribed interventions developed by the team. Shame on me for believing! We were told at last board meeting in May, “Congratulations on the wonderful job you are doing with RtI, BUT now the state will not give us as much money because we have proven we don’t have nearly the need for special education, that we once did.” (Paraphrased).
As for the 80/20 rule, this one baffles my mind. Isn’t a learning disability still a learning disability, no matter what the rules are? In other words, if there is a connection, or lack thereof, in a child’s brain that doesn’t allow him to learn the printed word (no visual memory), then is that suddenly going to go away because the state came up with an 80/20 rule? I think not. That’s just one example of a learning disability. There are far too many to list here.
During the 2007-08 school year, I did what I could, in all good conscience to meet this expectation. However, in 2008-09, I was called into my principal’s office by the Special Education Administrator and told I had to comply “because this is what this district and our ISD have told us we have to do.” I obviously wasn’t hopping to, quite fast enough. And in all good conscience I couldn’t. By the end of the year, I had to recommend students who had been in my classroom 63% of the day, only be in special education 20% of the day or spend a large part of their day in a “co-teaching” classroom, like the ones I described previously. What a horrible, ethical dilemma! Do what I’m told…or do what is best for my students.
“Co-teaching”, where a regular education and special education teacher work in the same room, at the same time, is how the 80/20 rule is supposed to succeed. This may take on different forms, based on the content, teaching styles, and personalities of the teachers involved. In one of the classrooms I did this in, we split the class in half and we taught skills to our group based on ability. We did whole group lessons when we could and was appropriate. In another classroom, we took turns teaching the whole class, while the other one supported the “lead” teacher. I have worked in other situations where I was expected to be seen, and not heard…a glorified aide.
So where is this leading? There will not be a special education teacher in two of the elementary buildings in Tecumseh. Two of the recent laid-off positions, were that of elementary Resource Room teachers. I haven’t been told if I am going to be a Resource Room teacher at Sutton, or split between Herrick Park and Patterson. Either way, let’s look at what that means.
If I (I use I, but it may be another person. I’m speaking of the position, not the person.) am sent to Sutton, all special education students at Herrick Park and Patterson, the students who already have learning issues, are going to be shipped to either Sutton or Acres. These kids are the ones who desperately need the consistency of the support of their peers and in the environment they feel most comfortable. Image being a kid going into the fourth grade, barely able to read, in a new building, no friends, don’t know where they are going, and feeling “lost in space”. Not only will they have academic challenges, but social, emotional, and possibly behavioral ones as well.
Okay, let’s look at the other scenario. If I am split between Patterson and Herrick Park, then the students currently receiving service at Sutton will be bussed to town. And worse yet, there are students at both Herrick Park and Patterson that require more than 50% of their day in special education. How can that possibly be done with only one person available for both? It can’t.
Ultimately, someone has to move. Someone has to suffer. Someone has to forfeit their right to be in their home school. I just want to know why it is always the underdog, the one who already has a strike, or more, against them? I’m thinking someone versed in the American’s Disabilities Act may be better at answering that question.
If we truly want to keep our special education numbers down, then the support of the special education teacher MUST remain in the elementary buildings. THIS is the time to catch the problem and remediate it. Otherwise, they (the students) spend their entire lives learning to compensate for their disability.
If we continue on this path, I can guarantee that in the next few years, we will see our special education numbers rise like never before and the students who were forced out of special education will be struggling like they never have before.
Some will argue the “research says” they will do better in the regular education classroom, with the proper modifications. If that’s the case, why has the pendulum swung away from that…and now back to it again? The decision to do RtI and follow the 80/20 rule is about one thing, and one thing only; MONEY! It’s not about what is best for kids. You can get research to say anything you want it to say…but this district has been educating its teachers for the last few years in the philosophies of Bob Sorenson who says, “In order for a child to learn, he/she must be taught at their instructional level.” So tell me, how can I modify a fourth grade social studies book to meet the needs of a child in the fourth grade that only reads at a first grade level? I don’t want to “dumb down” the education my students get, I want to give them an education that will be solidly at their instructional level and will give them the skills they need to succeed in life. Trying to keep up with the pace of regular education classroom for this child is turning him/her into a puppet, and the special education teacher into a glorified aide. Don’t get me wrong, it isn’t always like that, but it can be, especially the more modification needed by the student.
And for anyone wishing to make this about my job…it’s not. I have 18 years in this district, and I have a job. I may not know which building it will be in, at this juncture, but I have a job. I have written this to educate the community about a small, but fragile part of our population of students. These students are just as smart as the next child, but through no fault of their own, they learn differently than most other children.
Before I bow out of this, it also needs to be said that this isn’t just a Tecumseh Schools problem. This is a state problem. Everyone is looking for the quick fix to our economic difficulties. I’m just so sad that it is at the expense of the neediest kids of all.
Jennifer Etherton-Govro
Resource Room Teacher
Tecumseh Public Schools