Is the next step, flex step?

Abstract

This article describes a promising trend towards flexible service delivery in Special Education. The FSD is consistent with six common themes in school reform literature: 1) data-driven decision making, 2) ownership of all children by all, 3) learning outcomes linked to state standards, 4) legal barriers to school based inclusive practices relaxed, 5) assessment influenced instruction for all children, 6) resources used to support children in the general education setting.

Change for a dollar? You betcha! Sign me up! There's a lot that I'd change about special education, and the next step is the flex step. It's an idea that just makes more sense! There are six themes, which come together in a flexible service delivery model:

* Data-driven, decisions made by site-based teams

* Ownership of all children shared by all

* Learning outcomes linked to state standards

* Legal barriers to school based inclusive practice removed

* Assessment influenced instruction provided to all students

* Resources used to support children in the general education setting

Flexible service delivery (FSD) systems are a data based problem solving method for linking students' needs to school resources. Collaborative teams of community, school and family members are at the core of the FSD system. Membership on the team varies by the severity of student need. The central focus of the team is the direct and frequent monitoring of student progress towards measurable goals. Eligibility for special education services is determined by a student's response to the systematic interventions implemented by the team members. This strength-based approach promotes early intervention by removing the inefficient use of resources in upfront identification procedures. It is an integrated, system wide approach that promotes creative use of our capacity to help children learn. A flexible service delivery system is based on the belief that a problem well-defined is a problem solved, that things that are measured are treasured, and that special education lacks the will not the skill to make significant changes without additional infusions of resources in a malfunctioning system.

In the 1990s, when the federal vision for education was "All Children Can Learn", the attempt to align federal policy, funding practices, and professional development was evident. The vision statement at the federal level was clearly stated. It was the implementation of the vision that was clouded. I was to be fair to all children while making exceptions. I was to individualize instruction as I included diverse learners. I was accountable for outcomes, yet had no control over the quality of inputs. I understood the contradictions. Yes, there was frustration for lack of resources. Of course, there was anxiety as I acquired and practiced new skills. Certainly there was resistance when the incentives to change were not present. And finally there was disillusionment when the quick fix disguised as an action plan did not deliver.

I heard the whining from the cynics. I played my mental tapes when I heard "All children can learn ..." and tagged on "... based on their ability", or "... if they take advantage of the opportunity." I saw the acceptance of the stoics who embraced the flawed system as the best I could do under difficult circumstances. Am I meant to teeter between basher and Pollyanna? The changes in attitudes, skills and practices were massive. The slow progress and inevitable setbacks sapped my enthusiasm and resolve. Curriculum concerns yielded to compliance. Learning outcomes paled under legalities, and productivity declined under paperwork.

The current rallying cry of the federal government, "No Child Left Behind", could jump start my efforts. The landscape of the challenge is familiar, and the system is poised to respond. The themes of educational reform confront me. Yet if I remain tethered to the traditional model of service delivery, won't I replicate the outcome? Can I change special education procedures in small ways and begin to act as if I do make a difference in the learning outcomes for my students? Let's look at each of the six themes in the context of a flexible service delivery model.

Data-driven decisions

Data is pervasive. It tells incidence, frequency, duration, intensity, scope and size. It is the code that unlocks the reactions of children in learning situations yet I tend to underestimate its value when I make decisions about how to teach. Next to the building secretary and custodian data can tell me more about my students than a nose-y neighbor. However, data is a commonly wasted resource in school settings. It is easy to understand how this resource gets overlooked. There are decisions about the nature of the data to gather, the way to organize the data into meaningful patterns, and the data to analyze to support or dispute assumptions. There is the time and resource commitment needed to gather data. When I define a problem, I can systematically create conditions that improve outcomes. Data helps me find the boundaries of a problem, hypothesize about causes, evaluate interventions and arrive at solutions.

The school team in a flexible service delivery system is the brain trust for data gathering, analysis and evaluation. Standardized test scores provide one source of data to the school's FSD team. Curriculum based evidence, student observation and behavioral tallies are sources of data. Teachers have always been researchers, wonderers and experimenters. The flexible service delivery system model allows me to use these skills. The FSD team determines what members need to know about a student, and plans how to gather that information. The focus of the school's team is to identify the behavior that interferes with student learning, determine what data is needed to understand why the behavior is being used, gather evidence and systematically implement interventions.

Ownership of all children by all members of the school community

In special education I seem to get caught up in a system of student "Slice-And-Dice" in which I've labeled, categorized and sorted children. Underlying this effort to diagnose and assist children is a belief that there are some secret solutions that are in the domain of the "specialist'. So the second trend that dominates the literature on flexible service delivery systems is ownership of all children by all members of the school community.

School based flexible service delivery teams are a legitimate, formal structure for leadership. The creative synergy of the team members generates more and better options for solutions. The FSD method encourages teachers to lead by organizing their creative interventions. I align best practices in teaching with the data and document the student's story of success. These leadership skills are mobilized across grade levels, disciplines and rigid categorical definitions and applied to any child in need. Families are viewed as partners in the process. Their support and contribution yields the best outcomes, but progress is possible under any circumstances.

Learning Outcomes Linked to State Standards

I am encouraged by the renewed interest in linking student IEPs to State Learning Standards for all children. I struggle with policies to guide alternative assessment for the small number of students with disabilities for whom large scale, state assessments are not appropriate. I shudder to consider the vast discrepancies in current levels and desired outcomes. However to be satisfied with a lesser outcome runs counter to all I know to be true about my students with special needs. (Thompson, Quenemon, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke, 2001.) Too many of my children are capable learners who are discouraged and hopeless about the future. The concept of accommodating students in the regular education classroom is to allow them to be present, so long as they do not disrupt. When there are severe academic discrepancies the children put in their seat time, with no expectation that any of the content could possibly be relevant to them. For children who have deficient skills it is a continual struggle to negotiate what and how much they reasonably can be expected to do. In desperation and for lack of sufficient support in the regular education classroom, many become non-compliant, dependent or asocial.

A constant, individualized stream of remedial, low level skills in the core academic areas have reduced the range of their education to a skeletal semblance of the richness of the standard curriculum. Children who are not meeting standards on large scale, high stakes assessment are entering the referral mill for special education. Eligibility decisions for special education have largely been ignored in favor of placement based on the criterion, "did not meet standard" for any of a variety of reasons.This exclusion by eligibility is viewed by some as the civil rights violation of the decade. (Williams, 1996.)

Legal barriers to school based inclusive practices relaxed

The current methods of identification of students with special needs under categorical program constraints pose a major barrier. To implement a FSD model in our state requires waivers of the traditional child study. While eligibility decisions are tied to the categorical definitions of the IDEA it is the resistance to intervention that weighs most heavily in determinations of learning disabilities. Policies, collective bargaining arrangements, school scheduling, job descriptions and regulations are other land mines for the FSD model. Some districts negotiate their teacher contract to redefine the workday and restructure assignments and job descriptions. Others have revamped their master schedule to more flexible options that build in a variety of time blocks on a rotating basis. Paraprofessionals may move among several classes based on the nature of the instructional activity.

The new ESEA prompts attitude changes to move with the money. The language of the legislation helps me anticipate the reform trends it supports. "No Child Left Behind" suggests the high-standards curriculum for remedial, bi-lingual and individuals with disabilities is here to stay. It is my hope that the reauthorization of the IDEA will relax the incentives to restrictive practices that are unintended outcomes of the current legislation.

Assessment Influenced Instruction for all children

A fifth characteristic of a flexible service delivery model is assessment and accountability for outcomes on a regular basis. I believe that outcomes should include knowledge, skills, reasoning and dispositions. The literature suggests that attitude, work ethic, motivation and dispositions are greater factors than intelligence or school achievement, in determining who succeeds in life. However poorly written IEPs are filled almost exclusively with skill goals. These are easier to measure, yet are a small part of the competencies our students will need in their lives. Reasoning goals are poorly defined, so poorly measured. Dispositions appear as behavior intervention plans which often explain how and when a student will be removed from the regular classroom, rather than helping them be successful while there.

Flexible service delivery team members use data from formal and informal, standardized, criterion-referenced and curriculum based measures to determine needs. The intervention plan is judged on evidence of effectiveness as shown by the data analysis. Assessment influenced instruction requires a dramatic shift in the way professional, financial and time resources are used in the school.

Resources used to support children in the general education setting

The most powerful incentive to change is to know the absolute benefit of the new process over the current practice. The research trail for flexible service delivery is emerging. The reflective educator is always searching for ways to use the resources available to increase our capacity to do good things for kids. I feel at times that I am doing EVERYTHING I could be expected to do. I know of NO school district that squanders time and teaching resources. There is every possibility that districts have no more financial support to give. I cannot add responsibilities. I must cull those that are not productive and replace them with more effective methods. There is evidence that schools are succeeding (Miles, Darling-Hammond, 2000). Flexible scheduling within the day, differentiated staffing based on the instructional activity, dually certified support professionals, and common teacher planning time blocks are strategies to consider.

Summary

A final element of flexible service delivery models is the role of the parent in the process. Their input, insights and ideas are crucial to an optimal solution. They can be our greatest allies in the search for solutions. They appreciate the efforts of a team that is focused on the strengths of their child. Recruit them, listen to them, engage them in purposeful action to improve their child's education and you will enrich the community of learners.

The changes described in this essay will require training, commitment and time. If the method seems too radical, consider the trends I discussed. These will dominate the practices adopted in the school reform process. FSD may coexist with a traditional approach. Some elements of its philosophy make good sense for students in both systems. Implementation will be a unique as the building in which it is used. The flexible delivery system model has the elements of success built into its philosophy, process and structure. It is a promising trend that deserves our attention.

References

Coleman, R. (2001). Conditions of teaching children with exceptional learning needs: The bright futures report. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. Arlington, Virginia.

Council for Exceptional Children. (1993). Delivering an appropriate education. CEC Policy Manual, Section Three, part 1 (pp. 3, 6-10). Reston, Virginia.

House-Senate Education conference report: No child left behind. (2001, December 12). U.S. Department of Education.

McGregor, G. (2001). Supporting staff in inclusive schools. The State Education Journal, National Association of State Boards of Education, Volume 2, Number 3, pp. 32-38.

McLaughlin, Margaret. (1993). Promising practices and future directions for special education. NICHCY Digest, Volume 2, Number 2. Washington, D.C.: National Information Center for children and youth with Disabilities.

Miles, K. & Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Rethinking the allocation of teaching resources. CPRE Policy Bulletin. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Popham, J. (1999). Classroom assessment: what teachers need to know. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Roeber. E. & Warlik, K. (2001). Challenge and change of IDEA '97. The State Education Journal, National Association of State Boards of Education, Volume 2, Number 3, pp. 8-13.

Senge, P., Cambron-MacCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn. New York: Doubleday.

Stiggins, R. (2001). Student involved classroom assessment. New Jersey: Merrill, Prentice-Hall.

Thompson, S., Quenemoen, R.,Thurlow, M. & Ysseldyke, J. (2001). Alternate assessments for students with disabilities. California: Corwin Press.

Thurlow, M. & Krentz, J. (2001). A new vision for special education accountability. The State Education Journal, National Association of State Boards of Education, Volume 2, Number 3, pp. 4-7.

Williams, B., ed. (1996). Closing the achievement gap. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wohlstetter, P., VanKirk, A., Robertson, P. & Mohrman, S. (1997). Organizing for successful school based management. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Dr. Philhower worked as a special education administrator in Illinois for 27 years before joining the Special Education Department in August, 2000.