Special Education Law Blog

Programming for Twice Exceptional Students

Charles Fox — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:14:50 -0600

Although it seems almost a contradiction, children can be both gifted and have special needs, such as learning disabilities. Yet, because of their unique blend of talents and challenges, these students, known as “twice exceptional” or 2e students, can be difficult to identify and diagnose. Often their combinations of intelligence and special needs mask each other, leaving the child performing at grade-level. Other 2e children have been identified as learning disabled with teachers who may be unaware of the student’s high cognition. Conversely, those students who are identified as gifted but not LD may fail to meet their potential, leaving them underperforming, frustrated, and often with significant emotional issues. School districts may label these students lazy or unmotivated, and it can be difficult for parents to convince schools that the student has a disability that is affecting their performance in school.

“Giftedness” is not recognized as a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and it can be difficult for some families to obtain special programming for gifted children. Where families live can make a difference. According to the National Association for Gifted Children, only about half of states (28 in 2008-2009) had a mandate to identify gifted children. How many of these states go further to identify those students who are both gifted and have a disability is unclear. Some states, such as Colorado and Idaho, have clear policies with accompanying guidelines on their websites. The National Association for Gifted Children has an interesting web page that provides data on gifted education by state, which parents may find useful.

It is difficult to know precisely how many students are twice exceptional. Some researchers estimate that 2 to 5% of the learning disabled population is gifted, and that 2 to 5% of the gifted population is learning disabled. The most recent year in which the number of 2e students was voluntarily tracked and reported by school districts was 2006. That data indicated that school districts were serving 70,000 2e students. The US Department of Education believes the number to be higher, stating that up to 6% of the 6 million students served under IDEA (360,000) may be twice exceptional. Regardless of which number is used, these untapped students represent, according to the National Education Association, a “national resource whose future contributions to society are largely contingent upon offering them appropriate educational experiences. Without appropriate education and services, their discoveries, innovations, breakthroughs, leadership, and other gifts to American society go unrealized.”

IDEA is silent regarding twice exceptional students, and qualifying these students for special education services can be difficult. School districts may argue that a student’s passing grades or promotion from grade to grade demonstrates that special education is not needed. However, this contention has been rebutted by the Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). OSEP publishes in the Federal Register on a quarterly basis correspondence that offers information, guidance, and clarification on how IDEA should be implemented. Although these opinion letters are not legally binding, they can be persuasive to hearing officers and judges as to the intent of IDEA. An often quoted 1995 letter from OSEP explicitly states that children with high IQ’s cannot be categorically excluded from the specific learning disability (SLD) category. To quote the letter, “each child who is evaluated for a suspected learning disability must be measured against his own expected performance, and not against some arbitrary general standard.”

Parents may need to emphasize their child’s deficits in social skills, communication, organization, behavior, or other areas in an effort to obtain eligibility. A 2010 OSEP letter recognizes that children can be both gifted and learning disabled, and should they qualify for special education services, they are protected under IDEA. The letter describes as an example the high functioning student with ADHD who may qualify under “other health impairment” to address his poor organizational skills, trouble with homework completion, or classroom behavior. Similarly a student with Asperger’s syndrome might qualify under the label of Autism in order to address his poor social skills or classroom conduct, as appropriate. The letter additionally states “The regulations clearly allow discrepancies in achievement domains, typical of children with SLD who are gifted, to be used to identify children with SLD.”

This latter point is important for parents to keep in mind. Under IDEA 2004, school districts are allowed to use a response to intervention approach (RTI) as part of the process to diagnose a specific learning disability. Some experts feel, however, that RTI may fail to identify the 2e student given that an RTI model presupposes that students with learning disabilities will be identified because of their failure to make progress with an appropriate curriculum. The 2e student, however, is likely to be compensating for his deficits and thus appear to be making progress when in reality he may be performing far below his potential.

Allison Hertog, an attorney who herself is twice exceptional, recommends that parents whose school districts have refused to evaluate their 2e children for special education might look to Section 504 or the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to bolster their arguments for a case study evaluation. Section 504 and the ADA are civil rights law designed to ensure access for persons with disabilities, whereas the IDEA is a special education law. The definition of a person with a disability is deliberately broader under 504 and the ADA compared to the IDEA. Ms. Hertog suggests that parents argue, “My child is considered disabled under the ADA and Section 504 and because of that disability I believe he needs special education and I am entitled to comprehensive psycho-educational evaluation.” Failing this argument, students who fail to qualify under IDEA, according to Ms. Hertog, can still receive accommodations, such as un-timed testing, on 504 Plans.

The range of services for children who are gifted but learning disabled are varied and discussed elsewhere. But for those students who are qualified by their school districts as twice exceptional, it is important to ensure that they receive educational programming that both remediates their deficits yet stretches them in their strengths, such as challenging coursework. Parents should be aware, however, that schools frequently tell 2e students that they cannot participate in accelerated or AP coursework if they require their IEP services or accommodations. Unfortunately, some schools have refused to provide students with their accommodations, such as access to paralegals or un-timed testing, should they take advanced coursework. The Office of Civil Rights, which is tasked with enforcing 504 violations, addressed this issue in a “Dear Colleague Letter.” (Dear Colleague Letters are similar to the OSEP letters in their explanations and interpretations of the laws.) The letter explicitly states, “The practice of denying, on the basis of disability, a qualified student with a disability the opportunity to participate in an accelerated program violates both Section 504 and Title II.” The letter continues, “In general, conditioning participation in accelerated classes or programs by qualified students with disabilities on the forfeiture of necessary special education or related aids and services amounts to a denial of FAPE under both Part B of the IDEA and Section 504.”

It may not be an easy process to obtain services for your 2e child, and according to Ms. Hertog, it may be necessary to obtain legal counsel to ensure your child’s needs are met. Not every 2e student will be the next Thomas Edison or Albert Einstein, but students deserve the right to receive programming that will enable them to reach their own level of potential. Ultimately, we can all benefit from appropriate programming for these students.

Autism Society Reponse to Newtown Tragedy

Charles Fox — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:20:46 -0600

I am still reeling from the depth and magnitude of what happened last week with the killing of so many young children and their heroic teachers and staff. I am not sure when, if ever, I will be able to make any sense of this extreme violence. However, in the media frenzy that always follows such events there have been irresponsible statements attributing autism as a possible explanation. Below is the Autism Society's reponse on this issue.

Yesterday, 27 people in Connecticut lost their life through the acts of a single person. These people were children, teachers, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters. Today, their families are experiencing grief that cannot be described. Individuals impacted by yesterday's tragic shooting are in the hearts, thoughts and prayers throughout the Autism Society network.

Some media outlets are reporting that the shooter had a psychiatric condition; some on the news or social media have mentioned autism. At this time no diagnosis has been officially documented and any implication that autism might have had an impact on the person's mindset related to the shootings is misleading. There is no evidence or any reliable research that suggests a linkage between autism and premeditated violence. Unfounded suggestions that connect violent actions to a diagnosis is wrong and harmful to the millions of law abiding, non-violent individuals living with a disability.While we may wonder what caused anyone to commit such a violent attack, we must not jump to conclusions and blame autism for this behavior.

As with other tragedies that have occurred in our country, the eventual actions of an individual do not present a complete picture. Currently, there are an estimated 1.5 million people in the United States living with an autism spectrum disorder. The Autism Society's is focused on ensuring access to appropriate services for all individuals regardless of their disability. Unfortunately, those services don't exist for far too many , and we must determine how best to help those when support services do not exist. If our nation is to address these senseless and tragic events and work to prevent them from happening in the future we must examine how our school and social service systems respond to and address the needs of individuals. Social isolation, bullying and other red flags must be noted, properly documented and addressed. Although these actions can never be justified, unmet needs can result in extreme circumstances.

The Autism Society emphasizes the need for early detection, accurate diagnosis, sufficient transition planning and effective lifespan services so that individuals and their families can be provided the supports and services they require. At the Autism Society our highest priority is to offer practical resources and tools that support individuals to push the limits of their abilities and be valued members of society. It is our belief that appropriate services and the availability of community resources not only lead to better outcomes for individuals living with autism they may also help to deter future tragedies.
The Autism Society network extends throughout the country with local and state affiliates able to assist. Visitwww.autism-society.org or join the conversation at http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=00102WL2hRQ6vOk88KWGrCIHFxqVBf9M8-Niova3-fsNYj6zLmSfQXQVVBeAMnIYN3Wc2bCUcK1MEIDaLJ2Op67b1OklosSbHdLs1l3l6njrXmMZ8ygfmG_e7vkrPTvYo0y8FVHuupLu-Q=
Our national contact center (1-800-328-8476) is available Monday - Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (eastern time).

During this difficult time we join the nation as we keep our collective attention focused on the children and teachers who were killed yesterday.

Jim Ball, Chair, Autism Society Board of Directors

Scott Badesch, Autism Society President/COO

==============================================

Below are resources for parents on how to talk to our children and individuals affected by autism on death. Please contact our state office at 1.888.691.1270 if you are need of any support...

There are resources for parents that provide guidance on how to talk about crisis events with your children.

Child Development Institute Parenting Today:

Parent Tips: Death and Grieving via Pathfinders for Autism:

http://www.pathfindersforautism.org/articles/view/parent-tips-death-and-grieving

How to talk to children with autism about death, by Jennifer Cerbasi:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/02/10/how-to-talk-to-children-with-autism-about-death/

Overcoming My Difference By Isabelle Fiona Fox

Charles Fox — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:23:57 -0600

The following is the heartfelt wisdom and pathos from my own daughter. She is a beautiful, wonderful person who has had to face the challenges of being a sibling to a brother with special needs and the internal identity struggles of being adopted from China. We are all a work in progress, but her essay below captures in poignant terms her thoughts about her "difference."

Well, if you had to ask, a difference that I have had to overcome was my family. Being adopted kind of bothered me, and my brother has spastic cerebral palsy and epilepsy. I know being unique and different is good, but this to me was VERY unusual. I mean how many people do you know have a family of an adopted daughter from China, and a son with a disability? Just as I thought, I may be the first. As you continue to read you may find yourself asking question about your own family. Just know your family is something you should appreciate and enhance.

Just think, you could be starving, homeless, freezing, or abused, so don't take anything for granted. Two years ago was the time of when being adopted started to bother me. I started asking myself "why is everybody else I know not adopted? Why me?" It felt awkward and isolated being the one kid with no information on their birth parents. I don't know my biological parents, where they lived, if I had siblings, the exact reason I was put up to be adopted, and many other questions. After a few lengthy talks with my parents, I came to learn the three reasons I was adopted: 1. the only one child law; 2. that my biological parents may have wanted to "save" me from the cruel world of young girls being mistreated. (sweat shops, abuse, and etc); 3. they may have not had enough money to feed me and also feed other family members.

As for my brother, he is also another very big difference separating me from my friends. Usually siblings have a special connection between them, but mine is much deeper. I really care about him! I have worries that a lot of kids my age don't worry about for years to come. Two worries I go through a lot is "when I get home will he be at the hospital? What will it be like if I take care of my brother when I'm older?" If you were me, how would you feel knowing that an empty driveway after school could mean my brother is at a hospital? Alarming, perplexed, and/or shocked? Well, this is what exactly happened to me on May 10, 2010. I guess now you can see how my family is different.

All I could think about is my being just like my friends. I overcame my family differences by accepting who I am in life and thats never going to change. The parents I have now love and care for me, and really my biological parents did love and care for me. If they didn't, then I could be starving and working in a factory with low pay. My brother's disability actually brought us closer together. Things that other people don't understand I do. I don't think anybody else will know exactly how I feel, but as I said before, "our relationship is so much deeper." He can still talk and go to school like everyone else (graduated from SHS). To sum it up I know my parents try their best to make my life as "normal" as possible, but sometimes you can't pass by, you need to go through it.

The Harsh Reality of Incarcerated Youth

Charles Fox — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:22:00 -0600

The use of seclusion and restraint for children with special needs in our nation’s schools has received national attention. These practices have been deemed as cruel and dangerous, and various pieces of legislation have been proposed to eliminate their use. Yet, these practices are being used on an ongoing basis on our nation’s incarcerated youth. Up to 81,000 teens are incarcerated in juvenile facilities on any given night, and an additional 10,000 teens are in adult prisons. According to the ACLU, which released a report on solitary confinement in October, a significant number of these facilities isolate youth for days, weeks, months, or even years. The use of solitary confinement, according to the ACLU, causes “anguish, provokes serious mental and physical health problems, and works against rehabilitation for teenagers.”

One of the most tragic outcomes for incarcerated youth is suicide, and half of teen suicides occur while youth are placed in solitary isolation. A position paper published by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, which expresses concern about the high rate and potential underreporting of teen suicides in jails, states that further research is needed to delineate better the relationship between suicide and isolation. Yet, according to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (5), the research is in already. The potential psychiatric consequences of prolonged use of solitary confinement on these “developmentally vulnerable” adolescents are “well recognized” and include depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

Historically, the Quakers introduced the concept of solitary confinement in prisons they built in the 1820’s believing that solitary confinement, when accompanied by a Bible, would encourage the prisoner to self-reflect and repent. Their efforts had to be abandoned when it became clear that prisoners in solitary went insane, committed suicide, or were unable to re-join society once their sentences ended. Solitary confinement was re-introduced in this country some 50 years ago as a solution to increasingly violent inmates, lack of staff to control prison populations, and overcrowding. In the case of youth who are incarcerated in adult facilities, solitary confinement affords them “protection” from the other inmates.

Incarcerated youth are already battered and traumatized before they even enter juvenile facilities. Up to 70% of these youth have diagnosable mental health disorders; another 60% have substance abuse issues. Additionally, many of these youth are the victims of abuse. Hayes examined 110 suicides of incarcerated teens that occurred between 1995 and 1999. Of these youth, 44.3% had been emotionally abused, 34.2% were physically abused, and another 27.8% were sexually abused. Of these victims, 85% died during waking hours.

According to Hayes, almost half of the youth (47.3%) who committed suicide were placed in isolation not for threats or actual abuse of other inmates or staff (42.1%) but for failure to follow rules or “inappropriate behavior.” Others have highlighted the concern about what constitutes “appropriate” use of seclusion in juvenile lock-ups. The Center for Children’s Law and Policy testified last June before a Senate Judiciary Committee, which was reviewing the use of solitary confinement in juvenile facilities. According to the Center, solitary confinement is appropriate only when an adolescent poses a threat of imminent harm to himself or others and should last no longer than it takes him to regain self-control and no longer pose a threat to himself or others.

Many juvenile correctional facilities are voluntarily attempting to reduce the use of solitary confinement. In 1995 the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA) developed a program called “Performance-based Standards,” which was implemented to improve conditions of youth in confinement. PbS has set national standards (up to 100) for participating facilities (ie; correction facilities, detention facilities, and assessment centers) and then collects data twice a year from these facilities. The PbS criteria for appropriate use of isolation of adolescents is absolutely explicit: youth should be isolated or confined to their rooms “only to protect the youth from harming himself or others, and if used, should be brief and supervised.” Any incidents longer than 15 minutes are considered “reportable” according to PbS. Facilities that use PbS standards are reporting successes. Since 2008, the use of isolation has decreased in all facilities. From October 2008 to April 2012, the average time youth spent in isolation was cut in half, from 32 hours in 2008 to 14 hours in 2012.

The ACLU, in their October report titled “Too Many Teens in Solitary Confinement,” urges a complete ban of solitary confinement for all youth under age 18, prohibition of housing teens in adult facilities which are unequipped to meet their developmental needs, and strict limits on all forms of isolation and development of discipline “proportional to the infraction.” Given that Ned Loughran, executive director of the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, called “zero segregation” unrealistic, participation in the PbS program seems like an extremely constructive approach to addressing this issue. To date, 162 facilities in 29 states and DC are participating in the program. These facilities have 10,450 youths in their custody. This is a tremendous start, yet approximately 80,000 youth are currently incarcerated in more than 2000 non-PbS facilities. Participation in the program is not mandatory.

No one is arguing that youth offenders should not be held accountable for their actions. But it must happen in humane, fair, and effective ways. Incarcerated youth have an extraordinarily high rate of mental health issues as well as special needs. What they need is treatment, appropriate education, and effective rehabilitation. None of these things can happen while a youth is in isolation.

The Real Harm of Bullying

Charles Fox — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:21:06 -0600

October was National Bullying Prevention month. Throughout our nation’s schools, students attended pep rallies, signed petitions, wore t-shirts with anti-bully messages, and participated in anti-bully marches. Anti-bullying Facebook pages, some with extraordinary amounts of helpful resources and information, were created. It was all a wonderful display of anti-bully sentiment which ensured that everyone was thinking about bullying behavior and its consequence, at least for awhile. So what happens in November? Now that anti-bullying month has ended, what is occurring today in your child’s lunchroom or on the playground? Were the October messages enough to reduce bullying? What really works to help reduce bullying? There is a huge amount of literature on the best methods and curriculums to defeat bullying. Yet some of it is contradictory. One strategy from one anti-bullying expert is deemed misguided by another. To add clarity to this discussion, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has defined 10 best practices for bullying prevention. Those 10 strategies are:

1. Focus on the social environment of the school

2. Assess bullying at your school

3. Garner staff and parent support for bullying prevention

4. Form a group to coordinate the school’s bullying prevention activities

5. Train your staff in bullying prevention

6. Establish and enforce school rules and policies related to bullying

7. Increase adult supervision in hot spots where bullying occurs

8. Intervene consistently and appropriately in bullying situations

9. Focus some class time on bullying prevention.

10. Continue these efforts over time.

No one is shortsighted enough to think one month’s anti-bullying campaign is enough to put the kibosh on bullying. Yet October’s bullying prevention month is a very real step in changing the social environment (best practice #1) at a school. To have students declare that bullying is “uncool” can only help to make kids more mindful of bullying behavior, hopefully be repelled by it, and ultimately understand its hurtfulness. If modifying the school environment is effective, one strategy that some researchers argue doesn’t work is punishing the bully. Swearer et al argue that zero tolerance policies, expulsions, and suspensions have done nothing to improve the bullying climate in our schools. Rather than isolate and punish bullies for their poor relationship skills, we need to be helping them to develop those skills. And we need to be able to listen to them to understand why they are engaging in this behavior. According to educator Christopher Lehman of the Teachers College Reading & Writing Project at Columbia University, one way to help develop relationship skills is to encourage personal reflection and thoughtful reading. A systematic classroom approach to self-reflection (see best practices 9 and 10) can help teach empathy, kindness, and respect for diversity. Mr. Lehman bristles at a statement made last April by David Coleman, one of the architects of the Common Core Curriculum, who said, perhaps somewhat facetiously, “No one gives a shit about what you think or what you feel.” Mr. Lehman argues that our lives are worth writing about. We all should be recording our fears, hurts, and hopes on paper to help us understand each other and build community. Mr. Lehman in particular cites the book “Bullying Hurts: Teaching Kindness through Read Alouds and Guided Conversation,” which, as the title suggests, targets bullying behavior through thoughtful reading and writing. The authors of the book, incidentally, perhaps in an effort to keep the book in the classroom, argue that their methodology, which teaches critical thinking skills and demands lucid argument, is very much in line with Common Core Standards. We can all agree that bullying is a huge problem in our nation’s schools, and it has been previously discussed on this blog. The numbers of bullying incidents are increasing, children continue to be tormented, sometimes with tragic results, and school staff and parents are diligently looking to find solutions. Solving this problem is going to take a lot of time and effort on the part of all stakeholders, including the students. In line with the government’s best practices guidelines, anti-bullying efforts will need to be tackled directly in the classroom by teachers who, by virtue of the time spent with their students, are in a unique position to guide their students. Hopefully we can empower students to stand up against bullying and understand the consequences of not acting when they see bullying. As Martin Luther King, Jr is paraphrased in the book, Bullying Hurts, “In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Dental Care for Children with Special Needs

Charles Fox — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:19:49 -0600

Taking a child with special needs to the dentist can be stressful for both the child and the parent. Parents know that their child doesn’t want to see the dentist, but does the parent know if the dentist will want to see the child? It’s important for parents to find out, because results of surveys of dental students and practicing dentists indicate that not every dentist feels prepared for or is comfortable with treating children with special needs.

Whether or not a dentist is comfortable with treating patients with special needs appears dependent on their dental school training. According to a 2010 study, most dental programs are providing only limited training on treating patients with disabilities. Data collected from 22 dental schools in the United States and Canada showed that only 64% of programs offered a specific course on treating the patient with special needs, although 91% of programs addressed the topic in the clinical education. Additionally, only 37% of schools offered a special clinical area for treating patients with disabilities. Fortunately, the majority of schools indicated their intentions to increase the clinical and extramural training of dentists with regards to special needs patients, which is good given that both dental students and practicing dentists indicate that they feel unprepared and that their training was inadequate to treat patients with disabilities.

A 2008 survey by the American Dental Education Association of fourth-year dental students indicated that almost 40% felt that they were not prepared for dealing with patients with special needs. Along these lines, a 2004 report surveyed nearly 300 third- and fourth-year dental students from five different dental programs to assess how well trained they felt they were to treat patients with mental retardation and how confident they were with these patients. No more than 70% of students received more than 5 hours of direct training; only 51% received any clinical training. Not surprisingly, 60% of the students reported that they had little to no confidence in treating patients with MR.

Similar results were found in a 2005 study of dentists practicing in Michigan. Of 208 dentists surveyed, only a small percentage said that they felt that their educations had very well prepared (1.8%) or well prepared (10.4%) them to treat special needs patients. More than half of the dentists felt that were either not at all well prepared (25.9%) or not well prepared (33.8%) to treat patients with special needs. Not surprisingly, those dentists who felt prepared indicated that they were more likely to treat patients with disabilities. In an average week, 22.7% of dentists said that they had treated no adults with special needs, and 51.6% of dentists had not treated any children with special needs.

The dental profession is acknowledging that the education of dentists with regards to treating patients with disabilities is inadequate. Consequently, the American Dental Association adopted in 2010 new educational standards which state that dentists must be competent in assessing the treatment needs of patients with special needs . Specifically, “An appropriate patient pool should be available to provide experiences that may include patients who’s medical, physical, psychological, or social situations make it necessary to consider a wide range of assessment and care options. The assessment should emphasize the importance of non-dental considerations. These individuals include, but are not limited to, people with developmental disabilities, cognitive impairment, complex medical problems, significant physical limitations, and the vulnerable elderly. Clinical instruction and experience with the patients with special needs should include instruction in proper communication techniques and assessing the treatment needs compatible with the special need.”

Thus, all dentists should be able to treat patients with special needs. And according to the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research of the NIH, most patients with special needs can be managed in a general dental practice, which may be why the American Dental Association does not offer a board certification in what is known as special care dentistry. However, there are practices dedicated solely to the care of patients with disabilities, and should dentists choose, they can pursue a post-doctoral program in special care dentistry. Additionally, professional societies offer credentials to dentists who have received additional training. The American Board of Special Care Dentistry offers fellowships in Dentistry for Persons with Disabilities. Pediatric dentists can be certified to treat children with special needs by the American Board of Pediatric Dentistry. Additionally, dentists can seek additional training, including CEU’s, to expand their knowledge base of the various disabilities, how the disability can affect the patient’s dental needs, and finally, how to best manage the patients.

So how should parents go about finding a dentist for their child with special needs? There are numerous articles on the web with suggestions on how parents should go about this process. Parents can also consult the Diplomate Roster from American Board of Pediatric Dentistry for pediatric dentists certified in special health care needs or the American Board of Special Care Dentistry for names. Parents can also seek referrals from their child’s physicians or specialists, from other parents whose children share their child’s disabilities, or from local organizations associated with the specific disability. Parents should visit the office and interview the dentist on the dentist’s (and his or her staff’s) comfort on dealing with children with disabilities and specifically if they have treated patients with their child’s needs. Parents should also pose “what if” questions to determine what the dentist is prepared or not prepared to do.

Visits to the dentist can be stressful with any child. But for the child with special needs, they can be much more so. With some advanced research, parents should be able to identify the dentist and practice which is most able (and willing) to provide care for their child. The right dentist and staff can help reduce everyone’s stress by treating the child appropriately and with understanding of his or her unique needs.

Teaching Critical Skills to Become a Learner Not Just a Student

Charles Fox — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:18:56 -0600

That standardized test scores can accurately predict whether a student will attend college, be gainfully employed, and be successful in life have become the bulwark of educational policy in this country. How kids “measure up” on tests are linked not only to teacher performance evaluations, but also to determinations of whether or not a school is considered successful or a failure under No Child Left Behind. But standardized tests don’t tell the whole story about a student. In fact, some researchers now argue that a student’s grades are better predictors of overall success in life than standardized scores. Those seemingly intangible factors which keep a student in school and persevering—resilience, self-control, and grit--may be far more important in the long run than short-term mastery of course content.

James Heckman, a Nobel prize-winning economist, started the discussion when he compared how students who earned a GED fared in life compared with students who earned regular high school diplomas. Presumably the two groups would have comparable college graduation rates, salary earnings, and career and marriage stability. As an economist, Heckman was intrigued by the idea that a traditional four-year high school education could be taught in a 32-hour GED course. Not surprisingly, on every measure in which the two groups were compared, students who graduated high school did far better than students with GEDs, who performed only marginally better than high school drop outs. Clearly, passing the GED test wasn’t an accurate reflection of future success in life. Something was being missed.

Those clusters of skills that keep students in high school or help them earn better grades have been labeled by economists as non-cognitive skills, by psychologists as personality traits, and by neuroscientists as executive function. And scientists believe that unlike innate traits like intelligence, which are measured by IQ tests and generally remain a static number, these non-cognitive skills can be taught. The implications for teaching these skills can be huge. In particular, Paul Tough, the author of How Children Succeed, suggests that mastery of these skills can counteract the effects of poverty for some students.

We are all familiar with the so-called achievement gap, where children raised in poverty overall do poorly in school or on standardized tests. Chaotic home lives and dysfunctional families create high stress for these kids as can be measured by their increased levels of cortisol or adrenaline (they are in a perpetual fight or flight response). And functional brain scans demonstrate that children who have been abused or who live in great stress have measurably smaller pre-frontal cortexes--the site in the brain associated with self-control, certain types of reasoning and memory, attention, and executive function—all skills necessary to be successful in school. Basically, it’s not the lack of resources in a child’s home which dictate that he will do poorly in school—it’s his levels of stress as he grapples with uncertainty and disorder. One University of Virginia law school professor has gone so far as to argue that federal education law should be changed to reflect that poverty is disabling to a child.

So how can these non-cognitive skills can be taught in a classroom? The National Center for Education Research studied a variety of school-based character development programs from the 1980s and 1990s and found that they were largely ineffective in changing students’ social and emotional competence, behaviors, and academic performance. Paul Tough acknowledges that we lack ideal models for teaching these traits and that some of the ones he feels are most effective are not-school based and instead rely on coaches or mentors. Additionally, Mr. Tough argues that some of this work needs to occur at a very young age, even before the child starts school.

A report from the University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research titled, “Teaching Adolescents to Become Learners: The Role of Noncognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance,” examines the literature in an effort to determine in a scientific fashion how teachers can help teens to develop non-cognitive skills, namely; academic behaviors, academic perseverance, academic mindsets, learning strategies and social skills. The report ultimately outlines five key learning strategies: study skills, metacognitive strategies, self-regulated learning time management, and goal-setting. How these non-cognitive factors interact with one another, the context (school and classroom) in which they can be developed, and what the critical “levers” are to improving grades are all considered. Ultimately, teachers need guidance an how to translate the research into practice within the classroom.

Not every child raised in poverty is doomed to remain in poverty, but the cards are stacked heavily against the child. But this new research and theories offer new hope for these children. According to a broadcast this past September on This American Life, from which most of the information in this blog comes, 87% of students in the Chicago public schools are low-income. Very few of these students can realistically aspire to getting a college degree because the reality is that only 8% Chicago high school freshman will go on to receive a four-year college degree. But by teaching these non-cognitive skills, as James Heckman said, we have the potential to shape human capability, not just provide financial handouts. Teachers can’t cure poverty, but perhaps they will have additional tools in their efforts to effect change in the lives of their lower-income students. The work of Mr. Tough, Mr. Heckman, and others may prove very important in this effort.

Travel Training a Key Missing Piece in Transition Plans for Students with Disabilities

Charles Fox — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:25:00 -0600

Young adults with moderate to severe disabilities who age out of special education if at all possible must have the skills to navigate safely through their community using public transportation for the purposes of employment, post-secondary education or training, or recreation or leisure. To lack these skills means that these young adults may effectively be trapped in their homes due to their constant dependence upon others for transportation. “Travel training,” as this skill is called, can be taught, preferably well before the completion of high school. (A different skill is taught to young adults who are blind or visually impaired.) However, travel training is an often under-looked yet vitally important component of a child’s transition plan. The Government Accountability Office cites limited access to reliable public transportation as a major obstacle for individuals with disabilities and may be one of the reasons for the high unemployment rate among young disabled adults compared to their peers (13.5% vs. 7.3%).

Transition plans, which are the blueprint to assist the child in reaching his post-high school goals, are developed as part of an IEP usually when the child turns 14 but no later than 16. A thoughtfully written transition plan will carefully delineate the steps needed to ensure the student can achieve those post-high school goals. And for appropriately identified students, travel training can be a key related service in the transition plan.

Who can provide this service? Travel training can be provided by the schools as long as school personnel themselves receive travel training from organizations such as Easter Seals, which is attempting to establish standards and certification in this area. Travel training may also be offered through public transit agencies or human service agencies. The field of travel training is burgeoning as new populations, such as the elderly who are trying to maintain independence as they age, are requesting this type of training.

Given the diverse groups that now offer training, parents need to do some research to determine what constitutes a good training program, which should be much more than sitting in a classroom watching a film on taking the bus. One group that offers detailed information on what to look for in a program is the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY). One program in particular, which was started by Margaret Groce in the New York City Public Schools in 1970 and has now graduated more than 13,000 students, serves as a model for other budding programs.

According to Ms. Groce, programs need to be tailored to the specific student, utilizing his or her strengths and acknowledging weaknesses. The program should offer direct instruction, usually one on one, and will lead to the youth being able to “solo” in the world. Before embarking on a travel training program, students need to be aware of their own personal space, their environment, and be able to recognize and respond to danger, all skills which should be introduced as early as elementary school. Although it is helpful for the student to be able to read, tell time, and use simple math, lack of these skills is not a reason to exclude the student from training.

Travel training starts in the student’s home where his or her functional skills are assessed by the trainer. The family must consent to the training and agree to allow the young adult to travel independently once the course is successfully completed. Completion of the course entails a long list of skills that students must master with 100% accuracy: crossing streets safely, with and without traffic lights; boarding a correct bus or subway; recognizing where to exit their transport; making decisions; knowing when to ask for help and from whom; following directions; recognizing and avoiding dangerous situations and obstacles; behaving appropriately; handling unexpected situations; and dealing appropriately with strangers. Students will first travel with their trainers, then they will travel independently with a trainer shadowing them, and ultimately, students will be able to solo on their own.

Learning to travel solo can be an anxiety-provoking task for both the student and family, but it must be taught where it is appropriate. The ability to navigate safely and independently in the community is essential for the transition to the adult world. With thoughtful planning, deliberation, and a program tailored specifically to the needs of particular students, young adults with disabilities can confidently venture out on their own.

Sleeping Difficulties Prevalent in Students with ASD

Charles Fox — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:19:00 -0500

Many children have difficulty sleeping. But a disproportionate number of children with special needs have sleep problems. Anywhere from 49 to 89% of children with autism spectrum disorders, 25 to 50% of children with ADHD, and 34 to 86% of children with cognitive impairments are estimated to experience sleep difficulties. Additionally children with other syndromes, such as Angelman or Down syndromes, are also reported to have sleep difficulties. But what is not known is if the learning problems cause the sleep problems, or if the sleep problems cause the learning problems. Dr. Bonuck and her associates from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine attempted to answer this question in a prospective study just published in Pediatrics by looking for an association between sleep difficulties in young children with a later need for special education services.

Prospective studies follow a specific population (or cohort) over time, identify certain risk factors, and see how these factors affect outcomes over time. The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (also known as ‘the Children of the 90s’ study) is one such cohort that had enrolled approximately 85% of pregnant women in Avon, England in 1991-1992, allowing for a large population-based study. The initial cohort in the study, which was used by Dr. Bonuck and her associates for their research, comprised more than 13,000 infants, but children with any known condition that might lead to a disability or was associated with a disability were excluded.

Dr. Bonuck examined the effects of sleep disordered breathing and behavioral sleep problems on children. Parents of the children in the study had reported on their child’s sleep at 6, 18, 30, 42, and 57 months. Based on parent report, children were divided into two groups. Those with sleep disordered breathing (SDB) either snored, had apnea, or mouth breathed. Those children with behavioral sleep problems (BSPs) refused to go to bed, had trouble settling, awoke during the night, or had nightmares. For the SDB group, 11,049 children were identified; For the BSP group, 11,467 children were identified. Researchers found that children with sleep disordered breathing had an approximately 40% increased risk of needing special education services by age 8. The need for special education services increased to 60% for those children in the worst symptom cluster. For those children with behavioral sleep problems, the risk of needing special education services increased approximately 7% per year of reported symptoms.

The Avon Longitudinal Study cohort was also used in an earlier study by Dr. Bonuck, which demonstrated that children with sleep disordered breathing from 6 to 69 months had a 60% higher risk of behavioral problems, including hyperactivity, anxiety, and depression, by ages 4 and 7. According to Dr. Bonuck, disordered breathing, such as occurs in apnea or snoring, may mean that the brain is getting too little oxygen or too much carbon dioxide, which may in turn affect areas of the brain used for paying attention or regulating emotion.

These studies do not prove cause and effect; they merely show an association. But in the eyes of the researchers, children with these sleep issues may very much be at risk of development of long-term disabilities due to their sleep difficulties. Thus, Dr. Bonuck argues that sleep disorders must be considered neither routine nor normal, or in the case of children with special needs, expected. Pediatricians need to screen for and treat sleep problems, particularly in the child’s first year of life, to avoid future difficulties for the child. Whereas many parents regard snoring as a sign that their child is getting a good night’s sleep, in reality the snoring can be indicative of obstructive sleep apnea or enlarged tonsils, which can be treated. Of children with special needs, only about half of children with sleep disorders are treated. Ultimately a good night’s sleep will benefit everyone, not only the child, but also his or her exhausted parents.

Educating Students with High Functioning ASD: Part 2- A Personal Story by Marilyn Green Rebnord

Charles Fox — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:15:00 -0500

In doing research on finding appropriate placements for students with either high-functioning autism or Asperger’s syndrome, I got side tracked by a little jewel of an article that had appeared in a magazine published by the National Education Association. Titled “Square Pegs: Kids with Asperger Syndrome are Hoping You’ll Help Them Find a Place in the Classroom that Fits Just Fine,” the article quotes Lucas, a young man with Asperger’s who had just graduated high school. According to Lucas, “You’ve heard people say we don’t want to be square pegs in round holes, we want to be square pegs in square holes. To me that means we don’t need to be fixed. We’re not broken people. We just need to be understood.” What Lucas is asking for—understanding--is what is essential to ensure a successful placement for the child with high-functioning autism or Asperger’s.

Teachers who are willing to go the proverbial extra mile may discover that children on the spectrum can contribute enormously to their classrooms. These children can shine brightly with a teacher who appreciates who they are and shows classmates by example how to treat the child with autism or Asperger’s with respect. Children who are placed with rigid, top-down disciplinarians are probably not going to do so well. Everyone—the child, the teacher, the principal, and the family—are going to be miserable. And some children simply cannot have their needs met in a mainstream classroom.

Although we had some bad years in schools with our son, we were mostly fortunate to have teachers who wanted to understand him and tried to include him. Could it have been better? Of course it could have been (did it not occur to anyone that a kindergartener who spent his year behind the bookshelf playing by himself probably needed help?). Some years we had teachers who complained that he was inattentive and spent his class time doodling maps and hurricanes on his school papers. Other teachers were willing to understand that this was how our son communicated his stress and responded accordingly. One teacher took to heart instructions from my son’s psychologist on how to restrict his then obsession with hurricanes. To my son’s delight, the teacher allowed him to present a 5-minute hurricane update to his class each morning, after which he was to be done talking about hurricanes for the day. In middle school one teacher complained when his new special interests (U.S. presidents and military history) intruded into the classroom. Another, more thoughtful teacher guided him onto the scholastic bowl team. (Allow me to brag—his “scho-bowl” team was first in state by his junior year in high school. Who knew that an obsessive interest in revolutionary war generals could earn respect from your peers?)

High school can be merciless for many kids, not just the ones on the spectrum. Unfortunately, one of the sad realities for kids on the spectrum is that they are frequently bullied. A recent study indicated that 46% of children on the spectrum are bullied compared with 10.6 % of children in the general population. When our son was young, we found it a mixed blessing that he seemed to lack the awareness to recognize when he was being bullied. One call I received from his elementary school was actually about my then 5^th grade older son, who had fallen apart after witnessing his brother being teased on the playground as he was “hurricaning” by himself. (Does any parent of a child on the spectrum need me to explain this verb?) According to the kind teacher who made the call, my older son was sobbing in the nurse’s office while the erstwhile bully was cooling his heels in the principal’s office. I would like to say that the school social worker was out on the playground with my younger son to take advantage of a “teachable moment,” but I’m afraid it just wasn’t so.

By the time my younger son reached high school, his brother was 6 ½ feet tall and on the varsity basketball team. It would have been a foolish student who opted to pick on my son with “big brother” in the building. Another hero came into my son’s life in the form of the basketball coach who invited him to join the team as the business manager. We all know that spectrum kids are particularly vulnerable in high school lunch rooms, but freshman year my son ate with members of the varsity basketball team. In my book those boys are champions, and I’m not just referring to their trophies in the main hallway at the high school. My son also discovered Model UN, where he not only was allowed to speak non-stop on a topic which interested him without regard to his listener, but he also could earn awards for it! And to think we had spent years and who knows how much money on pragmatic speech therapy for him. Between his extracurricular activities with the basketball team, the scholastic bowl team, and the Model UN, as well as the support of a wonderful resource teacher, my son was able to find a niche for himself in an extremely large, exceedingly competitive suburban high school. And most importantly, he was happy.

I’ve always loved the poem attributed to Digby Wolfe, “Here’s to the Kids who are Different.” I first ran into it when it was posted on the wall of one of the developmental therapy centers where my son received services. Its reassuring message that “as history has shown, it’s their differences that make them unique” made me both smile and reassured me. But I’m fully aware that my son was exceedingly lucky; his disorder is fairly mild, and in school he found caring teachers who were willing to support him and by extension, peers who were willing to accept him and even be his friends. Unfortunately, not every child is so fortunate.