6 minute read
Special Education Students
“poor babies” infantilizes students and makes them dependent on adults. In either case, educators who use this language focus on students’ deficits rather than their strengths or potential. Students who are poor can learn to read or understand fractions or master Punnett squares just as well as their more affluent peers if they are viewed as having strengths and taught to those strengths. When they are not, “behind” is not just an observation but a prediction. The cerebral cortex and amygdala are constantly looking to organize information into predictions and then seek confirmation of the predictions. As soon as the word behind becomes attached to the students, educators subconsciously contribute to these students’ achieving at a lower academic level than their peers.
Language of Possibility
When talking about students from impoverished backgrounds, educators should focus on shifting their attention from past or current deficiencies to future potential. The simplest way to do this is to use the word yet. The word yet has multiple meanings (Yet, n.d.). 1. at the present time 2. up to a particular time; thus far 3. in the time still remaining, before all is done 4. from the preceding time; as previously 5. in addition
Referring to the status of a student challenged by poverty “at the present time” or “thus far” has no bearing on their future success if educators meet that student’s needs. It is an accurate but optimistic way to talk about these students. With systematic interventions and strong staff efficacy, students in poverty will achieve on a similar academic level as their peers “before all is done.” Students who haven’t demonstrated proficiency yet are not defined by where they start. They can overcome gaps and have every door open to them when they graduate high school. If staff embrace the positive message of yet and focus on adding knowledge and skills that may be missing, students can achieve proficiency regardless of socioeconomic background.
Special Education Students
Students with learning disabilities receive protection at the federal level in most countries. Australia’s Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons and the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act are just two examples of such
protections. A significant number of students rely on these protections. In the United States, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that 14 percent of students have a learning disability (NCES, 2022). Ten percent of Canadian students meet the criteria for having a learning disability (Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, 2021), as well as approximately one in five Australian students (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2020). Students who qualify to receive an individualized education plan (IEP) to mitigate their learning disabilities do not have an easy road, however. In fact, students who receive IEPs achieve proficiency and graduate at significantly lower rates than their general education peers (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2020; Ladner, 2021; The Nation’s Report Card, 2018).
Limiting Language
I once worked with a team that was trying to get better at analyzing student assessment data. To better see patterns in their data, the team made a note card for each student. Key demographics determined the color of each card, with different ethnic and gender groups appearing as green, orange, fuchsia, or light blue. Students with IEPs or 504 plans were on white cards. When the team organized the cards by achievement level, there was a wide distribution of cards of different colors—except the white cards. Almost every white card was in the far-fromproficient range. When I asked the team what they thought about that, one teacher said, “Well, those students go to special ed.”
This dismissive statement suggests that these students should not be counted in the data for the classroom because they have a disability that makes school difficult for them and qualify for special education services. The language of “going to special ed” reinforces a separation between these students and the rest of the class in educators’ minds. It is as if special ed is a place that students will go to be fixed, rather than a service provided to students to offset a disability that exists beyond their control. Some general education teachers even feel they do not need to provide interventions for these students because it is special education teachers’ responsibility to provide help, additional time, and targeted support (Friziellie, Schmidt, & Spiller, 2016). The implication is the special education team alone is responsible for fixing issues with special education students (Friziellie et al., 2016). This attitude places the onus of helping these students only on the specialists and absolves the general education teacher of any responsibility.
Limiting language about students who receive special education also tends to overgeneralize. Teachers who dismiss students with IEPs or 504 plans assume that
they struggle academically in all areas and cannot meet any of the general education standards in spite of classroom accommodations or curricular modifications prescribed in their individualized plans. For example, it does not make sense to lower academic expectations for a student who qualifies for special education support for a speech impediment. A student with a specific learning disability in reading may need help in that subject but achieve on a level similar to her peers without extra support in mathematics. Broad statements about students who “are special ed” or “go to special ed” (rather than referencing specific, identified disabilities) play into the brain’s tendency to create sweeping, all-encompassing predictions.
Language of Possibility
The goal of IEPs, 504 plans, or other special education services is to give students with disabilities, which make learning and school more difficult for them, the opportunity to be successful. Accommodations, such as additional time, shortened assignments, or written copies of lessons are designed to create equity by compensating for a student’s disability. They level the playing field for a student. Referring to the time students receive specialized support from a professional trained to help with learning disabilities as leveling accomplishes two things.
First, it keeps the student in the classroom as an integral part of the class, present in the least restrictive environment not only physically but also in the classroom teacher’s mind. “Going to special ed” suggests physically separating the student and relieves the general education teacher of responsibility. Who can be responsible for a student who has gone somewhere else? Leveling brings none of those connotations. Leveling allows students to receive accommodations without the language that releases teachers from responsibility for these students’ academic success.
Second, leveling does not change the academic expectations for students with disabilities. Expectations for students who receive special education services are level with those for their peers. It is important to remember that accommodations and modifications guaranteed by IEPs are designed to allow most students to achieve the same standards as other students.
When students “go to special education,” they are someone else’s responsibility. When teachers work collaboratively to level opportunities for students, everyone shares responsibility for helping make those students successful. Students who need it will receive specially designed instruction, but the way general education staff perceive and talk about students who receive those services shifts.
The most concrete way to support the idea of leveling is to include the students who receive special education services in the general education classroom.
