Despite advances in research on teacher evaluation there has been virtually no attention given to whether teachers are effectively educating exceptionally populations mainly students with (SWDs) and (ELs)… or differentiating their instruction" when in fact "A second measurement challenge is that a large proportion of SWDs and ELs exhibit low performance on state assessments" (Jones, Buzick & Turkan 2013). Besides the adherence to (IEP) and (504) what other measures and long-term solutions should teachers emphasize in their approach to bridge the gap between differentiating instruction and increasing (SWDs) "student with disabilities" and ELs "English learners" low standardized test scores?
Evaluating teachers with high levels of SWDs and ELs in their classrooms is challenging, partially because of the difficulties these student populations face in addition to their academic requirements and partially because current standardized tests are often less reflective of the curriculum of these students, due to the need to individualize special education instruction. Having lesson...
students who are still attempting to gain a grasp of the English language. Teachers may need additional support to supplement student vocabulary and grammar development with the latter group of students. Students with special needs will also likely have a wide variety of deficits which must be specifically flagged since these types of interventions need to be even more specifically tailored to their needs. But even if learning objectives need to be modified or simplified, they should still be connected to the objectives of 'mainstream' students.
Q2. In the article by Rosas, Winterman, Kroeger and Jones (2009) "Under the reorganization of IDEA (2004) the development of a child's IEP is no longer the exclusive responsibility of the special educator and the concentration has shifted to the development of the IEP for the student success and implementation with the regular classroom." How effectively are general educators being appropriately prepared for the development of the IEP mandates and how can training be properly integrated?
General educators do…
Q3. Regarding the article by Rosas, Winterman, Kroeger and Jones (2009), what components can constructively be argued and brought to attention if the general educator and special education teacher have essentially different viewpoints, strategies, and objectives toward the special education student's academic goals?
Although the authors believe greater training is required of general education teachers, they also believe that these instructors have the most complete awareness of the content knowledge required of students within the target age group. Although general educators may not be fully aware of all of the components that go into the construction of an effective IEP they also can provide realistic feedback about integrating those suggestions in a meaningful fashion into the student's day (Rosas, Winterman, Kroeger and Jones 2009: 56).
To reconcile any differences, specificity in goals is helpful, so an action-oriented plan can be created. A vague one will merely lead to arguing over the true meaning of what constitutes the different bullet points outlined in the IEP. A critical component is facilitating dialogue between all the participants involved in the construction of the IEP: "General educators report they feel less comfortable saying what they think and knowing what to do in the IEP meeting" than they do in other academic contexts (Rosas, Winterman, Kroeger and Jones 2009: 48). Rather than the special education staff dictating to the general educator, the meeting must be conducted as a dialogue, not a monologue between both educational perspectives.
"By the 1980s, the field had moved to a functional skills model. As the evidence for this approach mounted, the field refocused on age appropriate skills and knowledge performed in authentic settings and the functional life skills curriculum became best practice. The functional, age-appropriate curricular focus resulted in these students demonstrating skills and knowledge not thought possible earlier" (Quenemoen, 2008). In the 1990s, added significant new practices were acknowledged as
The IEP takes into account the results of the assessment while developing a plan for the future. The evaluation results include not only behavioral observations but also socio-cultural background. If the student has a physical disability, the IEP might address the need for specialized technologies or classroom adaptations. On the other hand, if the student has a learning disability, the IEP might include recommendations for lesson adaptation. The IEP is
It would not only be time consuming and expensive for each classroom teacher to develop an effective basic reading skills curriculum but such a curriculum is also fraught with a high degree of error. There is compelling evidence that supports the use of scripted programs rather than teacher-developed approaches to teach complex skills (Benner, 2005). Second, apply positive behavioral supports to manage the behaviors of students with behavioral difficulties during
Special Education Assessment Options There were a number of eminent points and observations regarding the methodology of assessment utilized within Maryellen Weimer's article, "Making exams more about learning," which initially appeared in The Teaching Professor in 2011. This article essentially functions as a case study in which an undergraduate instructor, Thomas Smith, employed a number of unusual methods to assist his students with the process of assessment. Among the measures that
special education from the standpoint of the students' parents. The writer explores the opinions on the accessibility and quality of special education afforded their children in Massachusetts. The writer examines the opinions through the use of research project that is proposed here. There were eight sources used to complete this paper. For the last four decades the nation has been steadily working to improve the special education system within its
Thus, efforts aimed at helping teachers to avoid harmful stereotyping of students often begin with activities designed to raise teachers' awareness of their unconscious biases." (1989) Cotton goes on the relate that there are specific ways in which differential expectations are communicated to students according to the work of: "Brookover, et al. (1982); Brophy (1983); Brophy and Evertson (1976); Brophy and Good (1970); Cooper and Good (1983); Cooper and