A conversation about delivery of services and IEPs.

NCJW/ClevelaNd:A LOOK BACK

THE NCJW WOMAN:FaCe To FaCe A conversation about delivery of services and IEPs for students with disabilities

FACE TO FACEBy Cindy Glazer and Helen Horwitz

“NCJW/Cleveland identifies a need in the community and helps fill it.

Cindy Glazer

That’s why I volunteer with the National Council of Jewish Women.” Be the Face

Celebrate literacy at the Annual Meeting, June 3 Membership starts at $45 216.378.2204 for tickets www.ncjwcleveland.org

“I joined because I believe in NCJW/Cleveland’s work.

Advocacy. Education. Community Service.

Wendie Forman Ellen Leavitt

That’s why we’re members of National Council of Jewish Women.”

ncjwcleveland.org 216-378-2204

LIVESPECIAL.COM Cindy Glazer

Helen Horwitz

In the 1970s, federal funds became available for school districts to hire personnel and to develop new programs for students with disabilities.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 guaranteed civil rights to all people with disabilities and required accommodations in schools for students with disabilities. The

Education for All Handicapped

Children Act in 1975 guaranteed and enforced the rights of children with disabilities to receive a free, appropriate education. This is really the foundation of the present-day law (IDEA).

In 2001 and 2004, the No Child Left

Behind Act (NCLB) provided further accountability to schools and added technology assistance and loan programs.

This law originated as a way to ensure that students with disabilities receive an appropriate public education. The needs of these students were — and are — to be delivered in the “least restrictive environment” possible.

Cindy Glazer, educational specialist, and Helen Horwitz, speech language pathologist, discuss the educational needs for students with disabilities and their parents — then and now.

GLAZER: I remember long discussions and negotiations at meetings in the 1970s and 1980s when we tried to include students in activities and lessons with typical peers. The common practice of mainstreaming was used to place a child in recess, lunch or some special activity. They had to “opt in” where the fit was easier for the educators, who rarely had any training or experience with children with special needs. School administrators were reluctant to accept full inclusion, to say the least. Inclusion wasn’t commonplace until well into the 1980s and even then students usually had homeroom and special subjects with the regular class, but had all academics in pull-out classes with special educators. Some teachers were more flexible, more tuned into teaching to multiple levels in their classroom, and embraced the concept. Others were most reluctant and resisted until they were forced to include students of all levels. We placed students very carefully to have the most successful results. HORWITZ: There was a lot of misinterpretation with the original law and there continues to be. “Mainstreaming,” to some parents, meant that their special education student would be educated in regular classrooms with their peers and no longer be placed in a separate setting with other students with special needs. The manner in which districts provided program options for their students also differed. The pendulum swung both ways, with some progressive districts going to full inclusion without training staff or considering the individual needs of the student and other districts not complying at all and keeping all students with disabilities (special education units) segregated in the same building. Eventually, more training was provided by the local educational service centers; however, most of the training was for special education staff and not regular classroom teachers. “Least restrictive environment” also was misinterpreted, with some feeling that all special needs students should be in classrooms with their same-age peers all of the time. HORWITZ: Parents must be part of the IEP process and documentation to that effect is required. The IEP needs to be individualized and highly specific with SMART goals (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-bound) and needs to be written with the hopes of attaining the goals and objectives by the end of the school year or the timeline of the IEP. It needs to have the content standard corresponding to that goal listed. The accommodations and specially-designed instruction sections ensure that a student is provided what he/she needs to be successful to reach his/her goals — not a blanket list. The state is very clear about not having repeat IEP goals/objectives — meaning that, if not mastered, they need to be reviewed and written differently, so that they can be achieved.G GLAZER: When I started out as an intervention specialist, there were handwritten reports with our own thoughts about what we hoped a student could achieve. We did not have formal grade level standards or benchmarks. Parents were not very involved in the setting of goals and objectives. Later, we wrote the IEPs using state standards, which were different for every class and school district. By the time I retired in the 2000s, parents were more involved in all aspects of the IEP. The state of Ohio is now using uniform online templates for ETRs and IEPs and all required forms. The standardization of IEPs, especially the availability of the virtual programs for IEPs, has been a giant leap forward. Parents will always have to be strong advocates to ensure their child gets the support and services they require. They may have to push, but they know their child best. If the request is reasonable, the schools need to accommodate it. In fact, classroom and testing accommodations are critical for a child to succeed. These should help staff know how a child is most successful. We have certainly come a long way, but the struggle continues. HORWITZ: The schools are here to work with families and to provide what each child needs if it is reasonable and research-based. The parents are a vital part of the team process.

Cindy Glazer, educational specialist, has been an educator of students with special needs and a parent advocate for more than 40 years. She served on the committee to create LiveSpecial.com and she continues to support its efforts to serve individuals with special needs.

Helen Horwitz, SLP, has been actively involved in the field of speech-language pathology for more than 45 years. She has worked in three public school districts with preschool through high school students with moderate to intensive needs in the communication domain. In addition, she has worked as a part-time adjunct professor at Cleveland State University.