Don’t get me wrong, this is NOT one of those op-ed pieces railing againist DEI or an attempt to take society back over 50 years prior to the historic development of PL 94-142. In fact, we need to secure and support landmark laws in support of special education and students with special needs as the current administration seems to be dismantling the Education Department.
Simply, this is a discussion that comes up each week within the IEP process related to the need for direct – targeted instruction within the context of inclusion. As an education advocate, I have the opportunity to work with intervention teams across the country, And the following question presents itself on a regular basis: When does “access” through inclusionary practices hold a student back rather than as intended to keep the student engaged and on pace with peers?
Here’s how this plays out: Imagine a student, Fourth grade or older, reads years below his peers. And in many cases, some of these students cannot independently read at all. So the discussion may highlight one or two options:
- Provide specially designed instruction targeting the skill deficit in a special class outside of the general education setting. Or …
- Provide “access” to the reading [or in some situations, math instruction] as the student sits amongst peers and receives support within the class though they may not understand the content due to skill deficits. Sometimes, these students are provided a “para” for support or another teacher “co-teaches” alongside the general education teacher.
Let’s use a metaphor to highlight this situation better: If your child required an emergency surgical procedure during a sport event, you would want the situation to resemble a triage like setting including transportation to an operating room, appropriate tools, and staffing in alignment with the procedure. You would not care about “access” or having to miss out on the game. Shouldn’t the same principles be applied to students who are severely behind grade level standards and demonstrate skill deficits in reading [and math]?
At what point in time do we simply state “It’s OK to leave the general education class for a pull-out intervention class?”
From my perspective, something is off when we try to convince parents that it does MORE HARM than good for a student to access direct instruction when their skill deficits are so apparent. In three meetings this week alone, I spoke out against the practice of putting “access” and “inclusion” over direct instruction within a pullout for the simple reason that the FIDELITY of instruction at the instructional level within the GE classroom was unable to meet the needs of the students’ skill gaps. So in each situation, the IEP Team added more instructional minutes to the service side of the IEP document.
If students are to be in the general education setting and skills such as reading or math are essential to their success, they should be able to access support if their skill deficits are significant. However, students also need targeted instruction to create a bridge between skill deficits and grade or age appropriate standards.
Don’t get me wrong: I am a HUGE proponent of Universal Design for Learning [UDL] or other inclusionary practices; however, there are few teachers who are masterful at these practices. in the meantime, many students continue to fall behind. According to NAEP reporting on reading , “When comparing state/jurisdiction average scores in reading for fourth-grade public school students in 2022 with those from 2019, the previous assessment year,no states/jurisdictions scored higher; 30 states/jurisdictions scored lower; and 22 states/jurisdictions had no significant change in scores.” And when one compares 2022 assessments to 2009 data, 31 states demonstrated declining scores. The system is not meeting our students needs.
Let’s re-think how we navigate intervention. And consider reading [and math] skill deficits similar to triage; we need to intervene with urgency!
