What's the Difference?

Off and running!

9/7/2017

Yesterday was an exciting day at KGMSl. The doors flew open and in surged a sea of faces: some excited, others anxious; some frowning, others with wide, sunny grins; some timid, others bold; some determined, and others reticent – and those were just the parents! Our students came tumbling in the same way – there were the cautious steps of the newly arrived; the relaxed swagger of the old pros; and, everything in between.

No matter how they stepped through the door however, by the time the school day came to an end I think that both our students and their parents made their way home feeling good about their days and their choices.

Kenneth Gordon is a school of second choice. To be honest, there are probably no parents or children who enter the school system with a burning desire to attend KGMS. Some other school had the privilege of being their first choice.

First choice schools are picked for a number of reasons: they are close to home; or they have status or a larger than life reputation in the community; or they are where Mom or Dad or Grandma or Grandpa went to school. Whatever the reason, we parents often select the first choice school for our child with less thought and research than we give to buying a new car!

Students arrive at Kenneth Gordon because those first choices didn’t work. This time, parents have done their homework. They have listened to learning specialists; they have researched their options; and they have made an informed choice that they believe will be a good fit for their child. That is the way that every enrolment decision should be made, and that is why, at KGMS, we are proud to be a school of second choice.

Many of the students that I have worked with over the years have come to me with the same story. They tell me how they just can’t learn. They say that no matter what their teachers taught them, they couldn’t master it. What did that say about them as a learner, or as a person? When I get those kinds of questions, I always think of a quote by the American educational critic Neil Postman who wrote in one of his books: Building a Bridge to the 18th Century that hearing a teacher say to a student, “I taught you that concept, you just didn’t learn it” is as absurd as hearing a car salesperson say to a customer “I sold you that car, you just didn’t buy it!”

Clearly if a customer doesn’t buy the car, than the technique of the salesperson wasn’t up to the task of selling to that particular customer, in other words, they didn’t “sell” it – it is hardly the buyer’s fault if she or he didn’t buy. The same holds true for teachers and students. If the strategies employed by the teacher, fail to meet the needs of the learner, than it is the teacher that needs to go back to the drawing board, not the student. If a student doesn’t learn it, then you didn’t teach it!

As long as first choice schools continue to struggle to meet those needs, there will be an important place for second choice schools like Kenneth Gordon. But, if in some ways we are like no other school, in others, we are exactly the same!

On Wednesday when those floodgates opened and that sea of shining faces streamed in, the energy level was palpable and the excitement – electric! Staff members and students alike were genuinely thrilled to see one another after two long months apart.

It’s a funny thing, as much as I love summer, each fall when I experience first-hand the joy of learning once again, I remember that I love September even more!

8 Comments

Has teaching to the test become testing for the teacher?

6/27/2017

0 Comments

Okay! I admit, this blog title makes no sense. But bear with me a bit while I share a concern that has emerged out of the rollout of the "new and improved" Foundation Student Assessment (FSA) testing in British Columbia. To begin with, let me make a politically incorrect confession. I like the FSAs! Now I know, as an educator, I am supposed to decry any and all standardized testing. But to be honest, in our school, standardized testing like the FSAs can provide valuable benchmarks that not only measure certain facets of student skill development, but also let us assess the accuracy of our assessments and the quality of the teaching and learning strategies that we are using with our students. Not only does the information gleaned give us a snapshot of how a student is progressing, it also gives us a longitudinal measure by comparing results, both individually and school-wide between Grades 4 and 7 - a critical learning period for all students.

Many critics, and rightly so, decry the misuse of the generated data to rank school performance or teacher effectiveness. This is a bit of a red herring and tends to reflect issues with standardized testing that are more prevalent in the United States than anywhere in Canada. These kind of concerns can have an impact on schools and the way that they prep and administer the tests. It can put additional stress on teachers and on kids as well. And finally, all of this angst often trickles down to parents who are often "nudged" by their child's school to have their child opt out of writing thus skewing the data and lessening its value.

Having said all of that, the Ministry has continued to recognize the value of the testing and has been working to update both the test items and the interactivity of the testing process in order to make it a more comfortable and engaging experience for students. These are great moves to reduce test anxiety and to get a more accurate assessment of student levels of achievement.

Unfortunately, in the rush to assuage the concerns of teachers over the use of the tests, the Ministry made one change that will profoundly effect their value. As part of the updating of the process, the testing dates have been moved from mid-year (January/February) to to mid-fall (October/November). This will have not only a profound negative impact on student performance, it will disproportionately penalize certain parts of the school population.

Let me give you two examples. We are a Special Education school. Each year we welcome a large percentage of new students, especially in Grade 4, who have transferred in to receive some intensive intervention to help to address their learning challenges. Most of the first term is spent lowering anxiety, building up self-confidence, and getting them to see school as a welcoming place and themselves as capable learners. Once we have unlocked those doors, the learning can begin. The imposition of a "high stakes" standardized test in the middle of that process would not only undermine what we are trying to do, but it would also give a "false negative" of the students' actual abilities. By mid-winter, on the other hand, they are much more positive and capable learners and are ready to take on the challenge. The data that an October/November test would give us would be less than useless.

Second example: The research is quite clear. All students lose a significant amount of their learning gains from the past year over the summer. Even in those families where there are deliberate attempts to maintain performance levels, there is still a drop off. It is estimated that for an average student it will take 6-8 weeks to recover what they lost in the summer and to return to May/June performance levels. In other words, they just get back to the end of Grade 3 starting blocks when they are handed a Grade 4 test! In addition, a recent study out of MIT has shown that students from a lower socio-economic strata (or "the poor" as MIT calls them) suffer far greater losses over the summer and take that much longer to bounce back, pushing them, in this case, well past the testing date.

In other words, at best, we will have a new FSA timeline that will clearly disadvantage two groups: students from less affluent families, and students with learning challenges. So who benefits? When I asked the test developers why they had changed the dates, I got a simple and direct answer. The reason was to take the pressure off of Grade 4 and 7 teachers so that they would not be held accountable for the results. In other words, we are adjusting our testing to meet the needs of the teachers not their students. This may have been a glib response, or it may be reflective of the perceived society pressures cited above. Whatever the reason, the timing is not good for kids.

This is something that needs to be rethought.

0 Comments

Self-Regulation: Are we spinning out of control?

5/21/2017

0 Comments

In recent months, the low hum of fidget spinners in action has permeated our classrooms and homes. Coincidentally with their rapid appearance in student hands, the debate erupted among educators and health professionals as to whether this new craze represented a significant tool for self-regulation, or was simply a fun and distracting toy. As it has grown in popularity, so has the number of schools in which it has been banned or at least had its use seriously curtailed. Such blanket actions however, ignore the simple fact that for some children, tools such as these can be a great help in coping with anxiety, ADHD and other mental health challenges.
Recently, the CBC quoted Dr. Jennifer Crosbie, a clinical psychologist at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, who recognized the value of fidget toys but believed that spinners were more toy than tool and weren't likely to have the desired effect on students.

They definitely don't have the attributes that are generally associated with the kinds of fidget and sensory toys that are traditionally used with kids with a range of conditions. For one thing, a fidget toy should involve some movement or motion on the part of the child using it, which allows them to release excess energy. It actually kind of addresses that need to move around and allows them to be focusing on something else,

She sees spinners as more of a distraction rather than a means of finding focus. However, for students with high anxiety, or ASD, sometimes a distraction or this kind of repetitive outlet is exactly what the doctor ordered. As we all know, the effectiveness of a fidget, is really determined by the needs and attributes of the student using it. While the availability of fidget tools is a key part of universal design for learning, each one is not universal in its suitability for every student. As Crosbie herself observes: "For some kids it can be really helpful. But for an equal number of kids it ends up being a bit of a distraction and doesn't actually help in the way we hope it does." The result, unfortunately, is that in many cases the proliferation of spinner fidgets has seen their use restricted even for students who might benefit from them.

I must confess, we do have a large variety of fidgets at our school, and a spin bike or two, and wiggle pads, thera-bands on chair legs, hokki stools, sit balls and even a punching bag! In addition to these physical supports, we spend a considerable amount of time in our SEL classes working on "zones of regulation" or using strategies such as MindUp to help our kids work on their understanding of self, and regulation of their emotions. These are not "life preservers" but rather pro-active interventions to help our students concentrate more effectively in the classroom and to enhance their interpersonal relationships with their peers.

In actual fact, far from being the New Age gimmick that some of its detractors claim - the importance of self-regulation has been demonstrated in a host of research studies to be a key component of effective executive functioning in students. One 2012 summary of current research states that "the development and effective measurement of behavioural regulation, or “executive function in context,” [has established] that behavioural regulation contributes significant, unique variance to children’s academic achievement and growth trajectories between preschool years, elementary, middle school, and even to high school." In other words, it is an essential component of the student learning process.

Basically the research supports what common sense tells us, namely that strong, negative emotional reactions (often brought about by anxiety or frustration) impede a child's ability to regulate their own behaviour in a classroom setting and will often result in them being unable to concentrate and focus on essential tasks or miss key instructions or verbal cues. Consequently, strategies that help students to manage these strong feelings are bound to have a positive impact on their ability to complete tasks and develop persistence in the face of challenges.

The traditional alternative to self-regulation has been to address the behaviour and not its root cause. Strategies such as "time outs", isolation rooms, staying in at recess, or suspensions/expulsions have proven to be counter-productive. A 2008 study on the impact of dealing with behaviour challenges by the American Psychological Association (APA) concluded that:
Rather than reducing the likelihood of disruption...school suspension in general appears to predict higher future rates of misbehaviour and suspension among those students who are suspended.

In other words, suspending or isolating a child simply reinforces the notion that she or he does not belong at school. Rather than feeling remorse about their actions, suspended students feel resentful and angry. The result, as noted above, is that they will act out these emotions at school the next time that they get a chance and become the "chronic behaviour problem" that educators love to complain about.

It is far more productive, and beneficial in the long term, to work on helping students to develop self-regulation strategies that will enable them to break this cycle and have a more productive and successful school experience. If this means a few more spinners around the school, it is a small price to pay!

0 Comments

Taking Ownership: Being part of the solution for the "problem" student

5/6/2017

2 Comments

Twenty years ago, when I was Head of a school for students with learning differences in Montreal, I was sitting in a Board meeting when one of my Governors raised issue with the challenges posed by a student in her son's class. As far as she was concerned, the young boy in question should never have been admitted to the school, and that it was time that we "cracked down" in our admissions process. It was a telling moment. As the Board looked to me for a response, I reminded her that her own son, a few years earlier, had had the unfortunate habit of running up and down the main hall naked whenever he was changing for phys-ed. Had we imposed the draconian standards for which she was advocating, he never would have been admitted and had the opportunity to grow into the charming and productive Grade 5 student that he was today. The matter was dropped, but it remained fixed in my mind as a warning that, as educators, we can never stop advocating for the student who needs that extra support, that second and third and fourth chance, that grit your teeth patience and perseverance to work with them until they finally are able to turn the corner and develop into that more productive and happy child that they always had the potential to be,

You see, schools like Weston in Montreal, or my current school, KGMS in North Vancouver are not populated with what society or the system would call "ideal students". These schools were, and are, filled with children who have been unsuccessful somewhere else. They arrive carrying a burden and have usually not found school to be an inviting place for them. Some arrive incredibly frustrated or feeling defeated by barriers to their learning that have stood in their way; others come through the doors with more life experience and emotional baggage than I could ever bear. But all of them are there for the same reason - not to be difficult, but to be successful. Over the past forty years of working with a wide variety of students, parents, and teachers, there are two basic understandings that have guided me on my personal journey.

1. Kids are not deliberately or inherently "bad". When students are feeling unsuccessful at school, they develop coping mechanisms to help them to survive what feels like daily torture. They can become distracted and unfocused; or, disruptive and resistant to redirection; or, prone to taking long breaks - "hall walking" or visiting a counsellor or enjoying prolonged bathroom visits - anything to get them out of the classroom. They are not being intentionally disrespectful or defiant. They are just surviving. If our response as educators is to isolate, or punish, or berate, it is akin to sending a patient home from the hospital because they are too sick to treat! Sometimes we can clinically identify what is going on (ADHD, OCD, ODD, etc.) but more often then not it is more a reflection of past failures and frustrations, rather than current diagnoses that tell the story.

2. Most interventions are band-aids, real change takes time and planning. As schools we often tend to be more reactive than proactive. If things are going well with a student on a given day, we hold our collective breath and hope for the best. If things fall apart, we leap in and react. We send in extra staff, provide a safe haven, visit the farm - calm everyone down and then try again. In that way, most schools and educators are constantly playing catch-up. Far too frequently, the only proactive action that a school chooses to take is to "demit" a student, asking her or him to leave before the next "problem" arises. My own hands are not clean on this score, over the years there has always been the occasional student whose needs are just too great for us to handle. We try our best to support the family in finding the appropriate alternative placement, but at the end of the day, it is an admission of defeat. Without question, our real success stories are the students that we didn't give up on. They are the long term lights at the end of the tunnel, and new faculty coming the school are invariably stunned to hear their colleagues' "war stories" about someone that they have found to be delightful in their own class.

When a child is having difficulty in coping with the day to day routines and expectations in class. and is reacting in an anti-social fashion, everyone (teachers, classmates, administrators) wants a "quick fix". In some systems it is the assignment of a Special Education Assistant; in others it is putting the student into an intensive "intervention" programme to get them on track; and, in ours it tends to be a combination of counselling, SLP and BI support to implement a plan of attack. While all of these strategies can have a positive impact on the classroom environment, they tend to err more on the side of managing the problem rather than solving it.

In my next post, we'll take the long view on how we can help students to learn to self-regulate and overcome the barriers that prevent them from being happy and successful at school.

2 Comments

Teaching to the Test

4/23/2017

3 Comments

Yesterday, the BCSTA (British Columbia School Trustees Association) passed this resolution with respect to the sharing of data from the Foundation Skills Assessment (FSA) testing in Grades 4 and 7.

The issue being addressed was the potential misuse of school-based data to rate schools or teachers based upon student performance. While we haven't embraced the over-dependence upon high stakes testing that is so prevalent in the United States, there are still organizations such as the Fraser Institute that use FSA (and soon high school literacy and numeracy results) as part of their "report card" process of ranking schools. As any parent, or educator can tell you, performance cannot be measured by a raw score, the real test is not a snapshot, but an examination of individual growth. A student or select school population that has had a long track record of high achievement will perform at the top of the pack almost regardless of the quality of instruction. However, a student who has been struggling and manages to raise their scores to be at or close to grade level is an excellent measure of the impact of their individual effort and school and parental support.

Having said that, objective, province-wide measures such as the FSAs are are very important to schools in providing a benchmark to measure the accuracy of their own internal assessments. For us, this type of testing (along with other standardized measures such as DRA and DIBELS), gives us a window on the effectiveness of our practice and the accuracy of our performance evaluations. I am hoping that the BCSTA recognizes that fact and that their statement that the data should only be shared with parents assumes that it will naturally be shared with individual schools as well in order to inform their practice. To leave teachers and schools out of this equation, ultimately makes the whole test process quite pointless and squanders a valuable tool for programme and school improvement.

Whenever periodic dip-sticking of student performance is implemented by government, there is always pushback from teachers' unions. They often argue (as has been the case in both Ontario and BC) that grade specific testing puts inordinate pressure on the teachers of those classes being assessed and runs the risk of being used as a teacher-performance measure for evaluative purposes. Needless to say, this is hardly an objective standard to rate a teacher given the range of abilities that they face in their classroom, but it continues to be a strong enough belief among educators that experienced teachers often avoid teaching those grade levels and like-minded parents are actively encouraged to refuse to allow their children to take the tests.

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to attend a briefing session at the Ministry of Education in Victoria. My role was to represent the Special Education schools across the Province and, given that a major focus of the meeting was going to be around the proposed revisions of the Foundation Student Assessments (FSAs) and the design for the new high school literacy and numeracy proficiency exams, I was glad to be taking part in the discussions.

After a couple of hours of back and forth dialogue on a wide range of issues surrounding the new curriculum, it was finally time for the assessment piece. The assessment team outlined the process by which the new literacy and numeracy tests were to be phased in and spoke about their assumption that high school students might write the tests multiple times in order to secure the highest mark possible. Setting aside the questionable thesis that teenagers would voluntarily take the test over and over, it was clear that the purpose of this new testing would ultimately be to provide a footnote for their transcripts on their highest level of achievement on the test, as information for post-secondary institutions or employers. Unlike the previous high school examinations which were eliminated last year, the onus for performance would be solely on the student and the school would simply manage the process. The teacher had been taken out of the equation.

Compounding this approach was a more problematic change in the FSA administration. The proposal was that the date of the testing would be moved from mid-year (February/March) to the fall (late October). Clearly, for students with a learning disability, moving the test ahead to such an early date in the school year would work strongly against us getting an accurate measure of performance. Rather than giving six months of direct instruction and support a chance to take effect, we were being given six weeks!

When I asked for the reason, the Ministry team (all seconded teachers) indicated that this would take the pressure off of Grade 4 and 7 teachers because it "was more about how they did last year rather than how they were doing this one." To the casual observer it might seem a moot point as to when students were being tested but in actual fact, going forward, we will get far less useful data for improving our own teaching and receive instead a set of numbers that are basically meaningless.

There is only one reason for collecting performance data on students. It is to inform our pedagogical practice so that we can be more effective in supporting our students. Diluting the data for political reasons does everyone a disservice.

3 Comments

Universal Design Part 3: Creating a Supportive Environment

11/14/2016

0 Comments

In the last post I discussed how Universal Design for Learning provided a framework for teaching and learning through how concepts were presented, explored, and found expression in student work. Needless to say, this sort of thing doesn't just happen by accident. It needs creative and dedicated educators and a supportive learning environment within which universal design becomes the dominant culture, not just an isolated strategy. This requires that the school, and each learning space in it, reflect the provision of universal supports and include a variety of high yield strategies to provide equity and inclusivity for all learners. Universal supports can be found is all aspects of the school environment and can, and should, include: visual supports; environmental supports; social supports; communication supports; programming and assessment supports; and even physical/medical supports.

So, what does all of that look like at our school? Everyone who comes to visit us sees visual supports everywhere. There are visual schedules (with written and pictorial representation) and colour-coded student timetables; there is clear signage; there are visual reminders of routines and processes; there are SmartBoards in every room; and graphics about learning and self-regulation; and even playground etiquette to be found throughout the school. For students with working memory issues; or reading challenges; or auditory processing concerns, visual supports are an essential element in making them successful.

When you walk into any one of our classrooms, at first glance it looks pretty typical, but then upon closer inspection, you notice wiggle cushions, hokki stools and sit balls. There are thera-bands and tennis balls on chair legs and desk and table height is varied from sit on the floor to standing and everything in between. These are environmental supports and often include other variations such as varied types of seating (couches, chairs and cushions); a lack of clutter and extraneous noise or distracting displays. There are built-in social supports such as SEL classes three times each week; zones of regulation bulletin board reminders; our Social Emotional Development Centre which is staffed and always open for students to self-refer, or to provide a destination when a teacher notices that a child needs a break. We have a team of counsellors, an SLP and a psychologist always available to provide individual support as well as social groups and facilitated play groups running every day at lunch. In addition, at KGMS/Maplewood every student benefits from assistive technology (personal laptops or Chromebooks; and iPads) with supportive software and each classroom is equipped with an FM and soundfield system. These communication supports ensure that learning is accessible for all students and using apps like Read and Write for Google supports students who need speech to text or text to speech capabilities; helps with word recognition and definition; and even provides useful research tools for senior students and staff. In other words, universal support!

Programming and assessment supports are basically our stock-in-trade but a critically important part of that is the provision of daily one on one tutoring for everyone in the school. Timetables are designed so that every class has a block set aside each day for tutoring. Every student goes to her or his assigned tutor and, when the door closes, they receive individualized intervention to meet their personal needs. Tutoring is a perfect example of universal design - everyone is treated the same (they all go to tutoring at the same time), but everyone gets something different (their own personalized programme). What is necessary for some, is beneficial for all!

Finally, like most schools, we are ramped and accessible; we have trained first aid staff and medical personnel who are linked to our building; and we provide necessary supports for students with more severe medical conditions and physical challenges. Making sure that we have access to the necessary trained personnel for certain students, enhances our ability to meet the needs of all of our kids should an emergency arise.

At KGMS/Maplewood, we know that everyone learns differently and we believe that every child deserves to learn in a UDL school environment where they can maximize their potential and where being "different" is accepted as "normal". This is not "special" education, it is just "effective" educational practice.

0 Comments

Universal Design: Part 2 How does it work at School?

11/2/2016

0 Comments

What if you could go to a school where everyone had an equal chance to learn in a way that reflected their abilities and preferences? What if that school designed its classrooms, learning spaces, supports, curriculum and pedagogy to meet the needs of all learners? What if the school's goal was to do everything that it could to foster inclusion? If you found that school, then it would be based on Universal Design for Learning. At KGMS/Maplewood that is what we strive to do, and to be, every day, for every student.

Our goal is to ensure every student has access to and engages in learning opportunities according to her/his individual strengths and abilities. In doing so, students demonstrate their learning in a variety of ways. So, what does that all mean in practice? UDL offers students more ways to access the curriculum through multiple means of representation, more ways with participate or engage in learning through multiple means of engagement, and finally more ways to demonstrate their learning through multiple means of expression.

Simply put, Multiple means of Representation give all students different ways to access a topic, concept or skill. At our school that might mean using assistive technology (like "Read and Write for Google"); or presenting concepts through graphic organizers or hands-on manipulatives; or Smart Board demos; or video links. The key is to use multiple pathways concurrently to ensure that everyone has access in their preferred method and also receives reinforcement through another route to learning.

Multiple Means of Engagement are all about the "hook". What approaches will open up the learning experience for each student? Are they more likely to get excited about a topic or concept with a hands-on introduction? Or a video? Or a SmartBoard simulation? Do they feel more comfortable working in the lab or from a textbook or on-line source? Would they prefer to solve a math problem by manipulating number tiles, sketching it out, or solving it in a linear fashion on paper? Does cooperative learning work for them or would they rather puzzle it out on their own. The answer, for any classroom of kids, is "all of the above". Consequently, the more approaches to learning that you can offer a group of children, the more likely it is that you will make the material accessible to everyone.

Finally, after you have taught a concept in multiple ways, and offered students a chance to engage in their own learning through a range of pathways, the final step is to offer Multiple Means of Expression for them to demonstrate their understanding. Let me give you an example. One of our teachers was facilitating an inquiry approach to learning about different aspects of ancient Egyptian civilization. They used multiple means of engagement in their learning process and now it was time to demonstrate what they had learned. He staged a "what's worth knowing" fair in his classroom and gave his students carte blanche to select ways in which to highlight what they found to be most important about their area of inquiry. The result was a wide range of modalities of presentation. There were clay models of boats; an Egyptian "make-up salon" where you could get your eyes done; sketchbooks; poster-board displays; a couple of videos; and even a Minecraft reconstruction of the interior of a pyramid. Every student found her or his preferred method of sharing their findings with their classmates, teachers and parents. It was "universal" in its scope.

You see, school doesn't need to be the same for everyone in order to be equal for all. In fact, just the opposite. A one size fits all approach will always favour some but a universal design approach is a way effectively differentiate the learning experience and is a key component of inclusion.

In the third (and final!) part of this discussion, we will look at how universal design is applied to not only classroom instruction, but to the learning environment as a whole.

0 Comments

Universal Design for Learning

11/1/2016

0 Comments

Most visitors to our school invariably comment about our calm and (relatively!) quiet atmosphere and how happy and comfortable the students appear to be in each and every classroom. While I rightfully praise our staff, and comment on our belief in the importance of being an inviting place for all children and young adults to come and learn, our school climate,is in actual fact, the product of a commitment by all members of our school community to maintaining a "universal design for learning" approach throughout the campus.

Last week I had the privilege of speaking at the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) Conference in Orlando. My topic was Universal Design for Learning: Implementing a School-wide model for meeting the needs of students with Learning Differences.

As a warm-up for going, I presented a portion of my talk to our teachers and tutors at an after-school staff meeting the week before. They were interested and engaged and recognized how they were implementing the approach in a wide variety of ways in their classrooms and tutoring pods but, in spite of being expert practitioners of UDL on a day to day basis, many of them had never really looked at, or considered, how it framed not only practice, but also informed almost every decision that we made on programmes and services throughout the school. It then occurred to me that if our staff had not thought about universal design in that way, then perhaps the rest of the school community might also need a refresher on why we do what we do at KGMS/Maplewood.

So what is Universal Design? Universal Design has its origins in architecture and technology rather than in education. In a nutshell, it represents innovation that makes a certain building, service, or device accessible to "all" (or at least the vast majority of users). Examples of Universal Design in the everyday world include: automatic doors, which were designed to allow access for wheelchairs, walkers and other supportive devices but also provide the same for parents with strollers, shoppers with arms full of packages, and even giant Superstore shopping carts; ramped entryways, to make certain that every room and area of a building can be accessed but have also created ease of external and internal movement of materials, and heavy equipment; closed captioning, for people with a hearing impairment, which has seen other applications in noisy sports bars and even on the ceiling-installed television screens in the dentist's office; and, needless to say, all contemporary computer/tablet devices which come with variable sized fonts (which means that I can read a book on my iPad in the bright sunshine), volume boosters, tactile and virtual keyboards, and voice-activated functions all of which were designed to make the devices user-friendly for people with physical challenges but also provide off-shoot benefits for all users.

In short, Universal Design, is based on the fundamental assumption that what might be "necessary for one" is "beneficial for all". We are all familiar with the myriad of applications of universal design in our day to day lives, to the point that most of them are almost being taken for granted! But what implications does a universal design approach for a classroom or school? In tomorrow's post we will take a look at how Universal Design for Learning has transformed many of our educational environments and approaches to learning.

0 Comments

Special Education Funding Changes: What are they all about?

10/16/2016

1 Comment

A few weeks ago I attended a press conference held by the Ministry of Education at PALS Autism Centre to announce additional funding for nine "new" Special Education schools across the province. This decision didn't come as any surprise to me as we had been consulted during the summer about this possible initiative. There was only one question about this decision from the members of the press who attended and that was from a reporter from the Globe and Mail who asked why the additional funding was only $1 million. The bulk of the questions to the Minister centred around the headlines that day of the turmoil within the Vancouver School Board following the move by the board's senior staff to collectively go on sick leave due to what they described as a "toxic" work environment. It was too bad that the press didn't probe further on the funding decision because greater detail may have cleared up most of the confusion which has swirled around since that day.

Here is a little bit of history. In the 1990s, the Ministry of Education designated six schools across the province as "Special Education" schools. This original six (kind of like the NHL) included Kenneth Gordon, James Cameron School in Pitt Meadows, and Fraser Academy in Vancouver. As a result of that decision, the six schools were given a small grant for every "Q" designated student enrolled. In return, the schools were monitored to ensure that they only accepted students with a psycho-educational assessment and maintained a PTR of no higher than 6 to 1.

Over time, a number of other specialized schools appeared around the province serving very specific high needs populations. Although these schools qualified for the same grants for their high needs populations (or what are termed "students with low incidence designations) that the public system received, they did not receive any general special educational funding. Many of these schools or programmes are community based, charge no tuition, and are dependent upon funding from various Ministries and annual fundraising to deliver their services. Here are a few examples:

Artemis Place (Victoria) which "provides integrated counselling, life-skills and educational programming to high school aged young women, teenage mothers and transgendered youth. Artemis Place supports students who have faced risk factors that may have arisen from systemic, social, and/or familial breakdown. These challenges have negatively impacted their ability to find success in the mainstream educational system."

Honour Secondary School (Surrey/White Rock) which "combines academic programming with recreation, skills development and support services for students working on Grades 10-12 who have been involved in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The program also features life skills and interest exploration, family support, one to one support, integration with Surrey Youth Resource Centres, lunch and breakfast programs, and support with professional appointments. Honour Secondary School is run by the Pacific Community Resources Society, which provides and coordinates a range of wrap around support services, including employment, housing, addictions counselling, family counselling and prevention programs, in addition to education programs. All students are referred to the school by the Ministry of Children and Family Development ."

Whytecliff Agile Learning Centre which has two campuses, one in Burnaby serving the Lower Mainland and one in Langley serving the Fraser Valley; they are operated by Focus Foundation of BC, a registered charity. "The programs are designed for vulnerable, marginalized youth (aged 13-19) who are not experiencing success or have been excluded in traditional school settings; many have experienced abuse or been bullied. Students tend to suffer from anxiety and/or depression and reflect complex needs and emotional and behavioural challenges."

So, last month the Ministry added these schools and six others to the list of designated Special Education schools. None of them are "new" schools, as has often been misreported in both the mainstream and social media. They are existing programmes delivering valuable services for their students. In order to provide the funding, the Ministry scaled back slightly on the "Q" funding for the original six but increased funding slightly for our designated low incidence students. For KGMS the funding changes are just about revenue neutral given the balance in our current population. These additional schools and programmes are quite small but are doing critically important work in their communities. In fact KGMS is the second largest (after Fraser Academy) of all of the Special Education Schools in the province. Most of these new schools number fewer than 50 students.

Any perceived funding increase to independent and private schools is always a huge political issue. However, the services being provided by these "new" schools as well as those offered by the original six fill a vital need in providing supports for the most vulnerable students in our province. As all of our families know, parents cannot wait for years for the public system to become adequately resourced to provide these programmes and services. They need help today, and the Ministry has acknowledged this fact in their funding decision.

1 Comment

5 Ways to keep the home/school lines of communication open

9/12/2016

0 Comments

School is back in session. As a parent, I know that with the pressures of making lunches; having clothes ready for the morning; coordinating showers; and even determining who's driving whom to school, it is not surprising that even after a week you feel a bit out of the academic loop in terms of what is actually happening in your child's class. (Forget about asking your daughter or son, or you'll think that the day was spent in limbo!) That is why it is critically important to both reach out to your child's teacher and to take every advantage of communication and conversation opportunities being offered by their school.
Our parents are pros at keeping in touch. Last week, the day before school started, we had a Welcome Back Barbeque which saw over 350 students, staff, and family members descend upon our campus to check out classrooms, meet this year's teachers, connect with old friends and alleviate some of the inevitable anxiety that comes with the first day of school.

This week is Curriculum Night. Parents are invited to learn a bit about the new provincial curriculum and how to log in to our Atlas Curriculum Map to see what their children are studying. They spend time meeting with classroom teachers, resource personnel and tutors and, hopefully, come away with a greater understanding of what the first term is going to look like for their child. Most schools have similar starts to their academic year and they are great opportunities to make that first connection and put a face to a name for both parents and educators.

But even with this kind of outreach, there are five key things that parents and schools should be certain to do to keep the lines of communication open:

1. Keep in Touch: Classroom teachers and administrators have to engage in regular outreach through blogs, group emails, newsletters, or classroom websites. There are lots of great vehicles to make this happen without a tremendous amount of extra time and effort. Parents, for their part, should be certain to contact the school if they have a question or concern. The worst thing that you can do is to let things go unasked, or problems to fester until they come tumbling out at a parent/teacher conference months into the school year.

2. Keep the doors open: Given the pace of daily life, not every parent has the luxury of being able to drop around the school on a regular basis. But, every parent should know that they can if they choose too. We often spend lots of time and effort as schools to convince parents to trust us with their child, we should spend no less time welcoming them to visit to see the work in progress. Whether it is a formal Open House or merely an informal Open Door policy, parents should be seen as valued and welcome partners in the learning process.

3. Listen: Too many of us are on permanent "send". We can get so caught up in explaining ourselves (either in person or more likely by email) that we often neglect to really hear what the other person is saying. Perception is reality and our responsibility as educators is to listen and address those perceptions, not try to win a debate.

4. Face to Face is always best: Email is the best and worst form of communication between home and school. It is best when it is used to send out straightforward information or answer a specific question (Is tomorrow a Free Dress Day?). It is worst when trying to raise a concern about a child's behaviour, academic struggles, lack of a healthy lunch, in fact anything that puts either parent or teacher on the defensive. If it is important, parents should drop in, or arrange a meeting. Teachers should always telephone or arrange for the parent to come in. Too many educators and parents get addicted to building a paper trail through rapid fire email exchanges. It never ends well!

5. Agree to Disagree: There are occasionally going to be "unresolvable" issues between home and school. Rather than look for capitulation or saying things that you think that other party wants to hear to make the problem go away, it is better to simply say: "I guess that we can't agree on this." A respectful expression of disagreement clears the air and sets out a straightforward choice for parents - either they can live with it or not. It is the grey area of uncertainly that is often at the root of home/school challenges.

Let's face it, there are always going to be bumps along the path of parent/school communications. But a proactive, positive and respectful approach to talking to one another is always going to pay dividends for children. And, after all, that's what it is all about!

0 Comments

<<Previous