Blog Posts

Universal Design: Mass Customization and Inclusion

10/22/2017

One fall, before most of the adults in my school were born, I gave up on an undergraduate course in programming at the University of Toronto (involving key punch cards with lines of code and searching reams of paper for error messages). In its place, I transferred into a philosophy half-course taught by Marshall McLuhan. It was a rambling, eclectic mix of communication theory, the impact of hot and cool media, and a critique on how the industrial model of education was designed to stamp out differences in learners in order to make them into conforming members of society as a whole. For McLuhan, classrooms were like a typewritten page with the heading (teacher) at the top and straight lines of words (the students) laid out in neat rows below; schools themselves were little more than assembly lines producing standardized graduates in the same way Henry Ford had churned out Model T's in the 1920s.

More than forty years later, the analogy often still holds true in many of our schools and school systems. They are still primarily built on a mass production, standardization, model. They start with the proscribed curriculum and learners are asked to adapt to it as best they can. Students enter, are delivered a programme designed to meet the learning style of the mainstream, and then exit - more or less successfully - to move on to the next stage in their educational lives. It is an assembly line system, softened only by the professionalism of the people delivering it. Replicated in community after community, it is the McDonalds of education. Now, in fairness, not all schools or even school districts conform to this model. There are lighthouses where flexibility and individual student needs trump the constraints of textbooks and exams. But it takes vision and leadership to break these bonds in a culture that often demands a standardization of approach. These systemic expectations may be driven by rigidly constraining working conditions agreements (think "class size and composition"), by budget priorities, or by public perceptions and political expediencies that are driven by the results on high-stakes tests.

Whatever the reason, what should be a universal design for learning to meet the needs of all learners has been flipped on its head to mean "one size fits all" schooling and equity in educational opportunity, has been replaced by equal access to programmes, but not learning.

We are fortunate as a small, independent option to be free of many of these constraints. By contrast, what we try to offer is based on a mass customization model. This is the essence of creating a path to inclusion through applying the principles of Universal Design for Learning. Although the wide variety of structures, supports, teaching/learning approaches etc. are accessible to all learners, there is no question but that at the end of the day we are delivering individual programmes for each and every student. Our slogan could maybe be taken not from McDonalds, but from Burger King - you know - "Have it your way!" It is our on-going mission to differentiate the learning experience for each individual child and young adult and to help them to find their personal pathways to success.

Last Friday our staff spent the better part of the day working on IEPs. When you apply the principles and best practices of Universal Design to create a welcoming and varied learning environment for everyone, the fine tuning for each individual student becomes just that much easier!

0 Comments

Are Deadlines Dead?

10/3/2017

2 Comments

Last Spring, we were advertising for a job opening at the school. The week after the competition closed, a young woman arrived at my office with her resume. I explained to her that the application was too late for the current position (we had filled it that morning), but that I would keep her package on file should something else arise in the future. She was flabbergasted. "How could it be closed?", she demanded, "the deadline was only last Friday!"

When I was growing up, the fear of missing a “deadline” was all consuming. There were deadlines for assignments, deadlines for applications, deadlines for tax returns; you name it, and there was a deadline. Miss that key date and you were dead in the water!

But, to be honest, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, we have become a society of “fudgers”. Everything seems to be up for negotiation. Payment deadlines get routinely missed, airline check-in times are ignored, movies buffer their published start time with a raft of previews and ads; and even the concept of “last call” at the pub seems to have blurred. We are more than willing to pay a little extra, argue a little harder, or lie and obfuscate a little bit more if it means that we don’t have to be held to a hard and fast rule (that, needless to say, should still apply to everyone else!) We live in a society that feels that it always has the right to renegotiate. In fact, every day we are confronted in the media by the "renegotiator in chief" in Washington who proudly proclaims that there isn't a deal that he isn't willing to break!

Is it any wonder that our kids sometimes take the same attitude towards their bedtimes, their computer use, or their homework? At Kenneth Gordon, we work with many students who have challenges with their "executive function" (that is the ability to organize and execute a specific task in a time-effective way). We help them to develop organizational strategies and external, intermediate "deadlines" to pace themselves and to create short-term, attainable goals. It is hard work for them to rewire themselves to think in this fashion especially when all of the empirical evidence from the outside world would seem to indicate to them that it is not that important!

So, the question is, do deadlines really matter? Are we simply more enlightened about things than a generation ago, or have we slowly begun to miss the point?

In his book, Predictably Irrational MIT Prof. Dan Ariely tried an experiment with three classes of undergraduates taking the same course. In Class A he announced three assignments with due dates of: October 15th, November 15th, and December 15th with penalties for lateness. In Class B, he announced the same three assignments, and stated that they could be submitted anytime on or before December 15th. And, in Class C he gave the students a choice, they could opt for the same ground rules as Class A or the same open ended approach as Class B. Class C, split pretty much down the middle.

At the end of the term he had his TAs mark the papers (he was a university prof after all!) and found that the class with the deadlines — who were forced to be organized and systematic - scored the highest, the class with no deadlines (who could procrastinate and then rush at the end) scored the worst, and that the other class split the same way depending upon what option they chose.

So what does this mean for us and our kids? The research is consistent on this point. Deadlines and clear, well-defined goals do work (just ask anyone who has to report weekly to weight watchers!) Secondly, it is our responsibility as parents and educators not to just ensure that our children meet deadlines, but that they learn how to effectively set, and follow them as well. There will come a time when there won’t be a teacher or parent setting and enforcing the rules, and our students have to be prepared and supported, by us, to master that skill for themselves.

In the meantime, it is important that we adults strive to model the attitudes and behaviours that we want children to adopt. If they see that meeting goals and following timelines are important to us, then hopefully they will begin to internalize them as well.

So, don't put this off any longer! Don't you know that you are on a deadline?!

2 Comments

Disconnecting from our screens

9/24/2017

2 Comments

We are all guilty. There isn't a day that goes by when, in a moment of inactivity or boredom, I haven't scrolled through my phone to scan my emails, checked twitter on my iPad or updated myself on my laptop about how my favourite sports teams are doing. Technology and online connectivity have become a ubiquitous part of almost all of our lives. A 2012 study that was published in an American Psychological Association Journal on the psychology of popular media culture, shows a bi-directional relationship between TV watching, internet surfing, and video game playing, and impulsivity control and attention span issues. This means, without the jargon, that more time spent scrolling online, playing video games or watching TV is correlated with attention/impulsivity issues, and that those with these issues tend to be more attracted to video games.

The study postulated a number of theories for why this might be the case, but leaned quite heavily in favour of two specific factors. The first they called the “excitement hypothesis”. It notes, quite logically, that video games are exciting and fun, as opposed to many of the more mundane tasks of daily life and especially more engaging than traditional schoolwork, particularly for those students who find it difficult to learn and stay on task. The study states: “the greater the contrast between electronic media content and work or school tasks, the more difficult it could become to focus on work or school”. Now granted you don't need to undertake a formal research study to figure this out - "watching TV is more fun than doing homework!", but it's always nice when research corroborates common sense!

The second theory was categorized as the “displacement hypothesis”. This theorizes that time spent “with TV or video games might simply displace time that would have otherwise been spent on other activities that would have allowed for greater development of impulse control.” In other words, because watching TV or playing a video game does not require excessive self-control, it may actually weaken one’s ability to exert self-control over time. If this is actually the case, then the content of the media shouldn’t make any difference – Sponge Bob or Animal Planet should have the same effect!

Taken to its extreme, there is a growing body of research that would suggest an emergent issue with internet "addiction" among a portion of the population. There is no question that the Internet has made life a lot easier by making information more accessible to all, and creating connections with different people around the world. However, it has also led a lot of people to spend too much time in front of the computer, so much so that it becomes the most important part of their day. The latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V, the guidelines that are used to determine a diagnosis on a student's psych-ed) actually includes it as "a disorder that needs further study and research". A recent study in Poland showed that excessive internet use was seen to be so popular and common among young people, that it was possible that one in four children were in danger of becoming addicted to the Internet. In my own experience, over the past few years I have worked with more and more families with children who are resistant to attending school because they prefer to stay at home and pursue their online "lives".

So what does this mean for parents and educators? Should we, as good Luddites, be taking the axe to our television sets, iPads and computers? Not really. The issue is less the technology itself, and more about how it is being used. Reading and writing; research; problem-solving; communication and collaboration can all be enhanced through the effective use of hands-on tech and online resources. The research however is a good reminder that what we might use on occasion as an engaging or distracting strategy with our kids, could be counter-productive in the long run. The secret, as always, is balance and moderation. There is nothing inherently wrong with a student watching television or playing on the computer as long as it is monitored, not so much for content perhaps, as for duration. Other recreational activities requiring more self-control and focus – reading, bike riding, playing ball, etc. can reinforce a child’s self-control mechanisms and make them less distractible.

At our meetings over the past week, the KGMS/Maplewood staff recommitted ourselves to helping students (and adults) cut back on the gratuitous use of technology before school and at recess and lunch. A moment of leisure should not be seen as a window to immediately go online rather than go outside.

My grandmother always used to say that watching too much television was bad for you. Turns out, she was right!

2 Comments

Off and running!

9/7/2017

8 Comments

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