Course 602 Week 2

Course 602

Reflection #3

Last week’s class has broaden my understanding of the rules and regulations regarding the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA). For example, IDEA has a zero reject policy, which guarantees that public schools cannot turn away a student based upon their disability. With the current demand for schools to perform well on different standardized tests, schools would easily turn away students with disability if this policy was not set in place. Another major component of the IDEA that stood out to me is that students with disabilities must receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). This is another area in which I can envision the students with disabilities being rejected if this law was not put in place. Unlike most general education students,

the students with disabilities must get extra support and services from school officials.

Thus, without FAPE, schools could demand payment and compensations from parents for the extra support they provide to students with disabilities.

The nondiscriminatory identification and evaluation is another component of IDEA that intrigued me. To ensure that students are receiving a non-biased, multi-factored evaluation in determining their eligibility for special education services, the parents must give consent and be involved throughout the process. Additionally, the students must receive pre-referral interventions before being referred. That is, the teacher must provide the struggling learner with a high-quality classroom instruction and intervention. Prior to last week’s class, I’ve always thought of the RtI process as a voluntary process. I’ve even read in the textbook for this class (Exceptional Children) that the RtI process was not mandatory in identifying whether a student should receive special education services. Therefore, when my professor proclaimed that the laws of New York require parental consent and

involvement and pre-referral interventions before referral, I quickly raised my hand to explore more on this topic. As I found out, the textbook and most textbooks on special education is written on a general level. In other words, the laws and the regulations about special education may be slightly different from state to state, and most textbooks capture the overall concepts of special education and not the specific information. I was very disappointed to hear that not everything in the textbook is valid for the state I live in, but I was beyond grateful for this new understanding I gathered from this class. Which is, as a special education teacher, I must gather multiple sources before deciding on any major steps I need to take. A textbook or even my principal may say one thing, and this might be something completely different from the New York state’s laws on special education. So, I must protect my students and myself by seeking out multiple perspectives regarding any major steps I take as a special education teacher.

Another component of class that captured my attention was the topic on the disproportionate representation of different groups within the special education system. For example, at my previous school, I noticed that in the entire seventh grade there were only two females receiving special education services, while there were more than six male students who were receiving services. What’s more shocking is that in the entire middle school with a special education population of about thirty students (out of one hundred, thirty students) only seven of those thirty students were females. In the last class, my confusion regarding the disproportionateness of male to female students receiving special education services was validated. My profession noted that males (specifically black males) are more likely to receive services than females. The class then had a discussion on this topic that furthered my understanding of why black males are more subjected to being labeled as a student with special needs. Some of the things that we talked about included the fact that male students tend to have a lot more energy than female students, which is a very valid point when I consider my younger brother’s performance to my own behavior when I was growing up. After years of hearing that my nine-year-old brother cannot focus in class, my mother recently got him evaluated for ADHD. However, when I was growing up, my teachers always noted how focus and determined I was in class. Thus, it is like night and day when you pay attention to my attention level in contrast to my brother; however, though my attentiveness is on a different spectrum than my brother, I personally believe he is much more intellectually developed than I was at nine years old. So, when thinking about the fact that boys tend to have “extra energy” compare to girls, I definitely agree with this stance. I am also revolted by the fact that this distinction, which usually don’t last, is placing so many able bodied male students into receiving services when in actually, they just need instructions and activities that going to helping them release this temperament. To be frank, our education system is failing this male population.

Last week’s class also educated me about the difference between Section 504, an IEP, and IFSP. For one, before this class I thought that a 504 plan was similar to having an IEP. However, I am now aware that if a student has an Individualized Education Plan, they cannot also have a 504 Plan. A 504 plan protects a person with a disability or other conditions from being discriminated against in programs receiving federal assistance. For example, in one of the scenarios presented at the end of class, a student was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. However, cerebral palsy doesn't indicate that a student needs the instruction to be differentiated, so instead of getting an Individualized Education Plan, this student was given a 504 Plan, which ensure that the student’s school will make reasonable accommodations to safeguard that discrimination does not occur. Thus, not all students who have a disability require specialized instruction. Nevertheless, similar to an IEP, a 504 plan should be updated annually. An Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) also measures progress like an IEP and a 504 Plan. Nonetheless, an IFSP is different from both an IEP and a 504 Plan because this plan aims at servicing young children under the age of three with developmental delays. However, once a child turns three years old, an IEP is created for that child. Since IFSP is carried out in the home environment, the parents are a major contributor in carrying out the early intervention services. Sometimes, other