The Fly Paper House Fly

A bulletin from the director on those sticky issues in special education

 

December 05, 2006

 

Response to Intervention/Problem Solving – The Director’s Perspective

As I have gone around to all ten schools in the district and presented to building staff on the subject of RTI and Problem Solving, some people have shared with me that they have taken offense with some of the things that I have said.  I would like to take this opportunity to say that I am very sorry if anyone has taken offense to the information that I included in the presentations or the comments that I have made.  I have not meant to offend people when I'm talking about RTI, or any topic for that matter.  However, I sincerely believe that we need to be taking a very hard look at the system that has been in place since the early 70's, and to which we all have been contributors (as I stated during my presentations, myself included).  I believe that it is sometimes okay to take offense.  Yes, we in special education have done good things for kids through the years.  Yes, we try to do what we think is best for kids.  Yes, we have made positive differences in the lives of many kids.  However, in spite of some of those good things we have done for kids over the years, I can't help but know that we've also done some not-so-good things with kids.  After 30+ years of Federally mandated special education the research that is available supports the fact that our outcomes are simply not good.  For example, in 2000-01 in the U.S. 41.1% of the students ages 14 and older with disabilities exited school by dropping out.  Students with IEPs not only stand a significantly increased probability of dropping out of school prior to graduation, post secondary data indicates that compared to persons who have graduated from high school with a diploma, these individuals have significantly higher unemployment rates, and they have increased involvement with the criminal justice system as adults.   

 

In a District like Oak Park, if we have identified 18+% of our total enrollment as having disabilities something isn't working right.  In a district like Oak Park, if an African-American male student has a significantly greater chance of being found eligible for special education than a white student, something isn't working right.  In a district like Oak Park if we have any number of highly educated, advanced degreed, specially trained teachers who aren't able to write measurable annual goals for their students, something isn't working right.  In a district like Oak Park if we can't produce any meaningful/measurable data that shows how well our special education students are doing relative to the general curriculum and state standards, something isn't working right.  In a district like Oak Park if over 85% of our students who are placed in special education never "catch up" to their peers academically and never get out of special education, something isn't working right.  Again, I say these things from the perspective of someone who has dedicated his professional career to working in the system that has created the aforementioned problems.

 

I have heard from a significant number of educators (both in general education and in special education) here in District 97 that the characterization of special education as the option of "first choice" is very real and very active.  Why is it that so many parents come to us demanding an IEP for their child?  I contend that it is at least partly because they believe that special education appears to be "the only game in town" that stands a chance of getting help for their struggling child.  The problem with that perception can be linked with the choral reading activity with which I started my presentations, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."  Yes, it varies across the district, but until recently in District 97, if a child was struggling, he/she had very limited options for receiving help except through special education.

 

Some people have expressed confusion or uncertainty with regard to a "sense of what is to be."  For those who are confused I offer the following:  First, we are taking steps in our RTI pilot schools and over the next three years in all schools across the district, to gather normative information that will give us the ability to immediately assess students' current levels and assess students' rate of progress over time.  This is being done through the implementation of Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) benchmarking.  If we expect to determine the effectiveness of our interventions we must be able to accurately assess students' current levels and assess students' progress over time.  We must then use that data to drive our instruction.  Second, we are going to be systematizing and improving our interventions.  As I visit with many of you in the various buildings in district 97 you have outlined the different intervention options you have available for kids.  The School Improvement Teams in all of the buildings have developed excellent plans for improving student performance.  However, not all schools across the district have the same options available.  We will be taking steps to address that issue.  I contend that even with some of those options available for kids, our ability to accurately track student performance once they have received those interventions has been limited to non-existent.  That's really as complicated as it gets.  Step 1, improve our ability to accurately measure kid's current levels as well as measure their progress over time.  Step 2, improve the consistency and increase the types of interventions we have available to use with kids who are struggling (provide additional tools other than a hammer).

 

Again, I offer my sincere apologies if you took offense at any of my remarks during my RTI and Problem Solving presentations.  I will also reiterate what I have said since my arrival in District 97 three + years ago, "if you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got!"  We can not afford to continue doing what we've always done because the outcomes simply don't support our actions.  Special Education simply can not serve as THE intervention for 15, 18, 20, 22% of our District 97 students.  As I said in my presentations, “We must work together to move special education from first option to last resort!”  RTI just makes too much sense.  Thanks for listening.  Thanks for challenging.  And, thanks for your willingness to consider change.


Steven D. Castle, Director of Special Education

Oak Park Elementary District 97