Teach Effectively!

A consultant’s report about New York City’s efforts to correct problems in special education apparently omits examination of whether students receive effective teaching, according to a story by David Herzenhorn in the New York Times. Mr. Herzenhorn reported that the consultants, led by Thomas Hehir (former Director of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation in the U.S. Department of Education during the Clinton administration), were charged with focusing on evaluation and placement, so it may be that the omission is the responsibility of those who requested the review, not the consultants.

Here’s Mr. Herzenhorn’s lead:

A study of New York City’s special education system by a team of independent experts has found that the Bloomberg administration “is moving special education in positive directions.”

But the report also identified a litany of concerns including mismanagement and confusion about staff responsibilities, insufficient collection of data, inadequate evaluation and referral practices, over-reliance on segregated classes and generally poor handling of hearings where parents are allowed to present complaints.

I see no mention of instruction in the catalog of concerns. Perhaps Mr. Herzenhorn omitted it. Perhaps the consultants did not consider it. Perhaps the people requesting the review skipped it. Regardless of who is responsible, it is a substantial oversight.

Failure to attend to and improve instruction creates or exacerbates several of the problems in Mr. Herzenhorn’s litany. Given effective instruction in general education settings, there would be less concern about evalution and referral practices, because there would probably be fewer referrals, lower probabilities of false positive outcomes from referrals (i.e., fewer instructional causalties looking like they have Learning Disabilities). Given effective teaching in special education settings, there would probably be fewer concerns about whether special education is an undesirable aspect of education; the intensity and focus of effective instruction for students with disabilities would make clear the need for smaller groups, additional personnel, special equipment and materials, and other features of segregated settings.

Side note: I wonder what data about handling of hearings would show regarding the nature of parents’ complaints. About what were parents complaining? Segregated placement? Access to special education? What if many of the complaints were from parents seeking special education services, but the reviewers’ approach presumed that keeping children from getting special education services was desirable?

Link to Mr. Herzenhorn’s story (free registration may be required).

I really need to survey the popular literature to determine what the interval is between instances of this sort of bunk. In this one, a teacher is hyping some tried-and-found-wanting teaching procedures, according to a report by Jessica Keller in the Argus Observer (Ontario, OR, US). The story ran at the top of the front page (see illustration). Here’s a description of the intervention:

In her classroom last week, [Rhonda] Erstrom helped two elementary students work through “trigger” words. She said because people with dyslexia are visual thinkers and learners, they have trouble conceptualizing words they can’t visualize, called trigger words. She said because her students can’t visualize those words, 216 of them, such as “up,” “down” and “nearly,” they often register to students in their reading. Erstrom helped her two students recognize and understand the word “almost” Wednesday afternoon using one of the techniques she has learned in her training. Under her watchful eye, the two students found the word in dictionaries specifically geared toward dyslexic students, read the meaning out loud, spelled the word, spelled it backwards and used it in a sentence.

She then helped them conceptualize what “almost” - defined as “nearly, but not quite” - meant by having them build a model of their sentence. One boy’s model showed him being “almost” finished with a car restoration project by standing over the hood of the car preparing to install the last engine component. Her other student “almost” got a cookie from a cookie jar before being stopped by building a model of him standing over a cookie jar as if he was going to reach in to grab a chocolate chip treat.

Once they completed their model and spelled the word “almost” out with clay, they repeated the earlier process, explained their model to Erstrom, then traced the word with their fingers, spelling it front and back, before doing the same successfully without looking. The lesson was complete.

O.K. One more time: Show me the data, please. Please? How about just some weekly probes of words read per minute. Are these children’s levels of reading competence increasing? Do they have IEPs and do those IEPs specify measurable means of assessing their progress? Are they progressing on any objective scale at a rate needed to meet reasonable objectives or goals? Pretty please? How about some simple tests such as those administered repeated over a school year with a random selection of 20 kids getting Ms. Erstom’s ministrations and another 20 getting say, Orton-Gillingham, Corrective Reading, or just about any not-visual approach? Pretty pretty please? Might the principal and the school board want to see some evidence about this before endorsing it? Who’s watching out for these kids? How much time do they have to devote to this if they’re already behind? Sugar on top?

O.K. I’ve got to change this from a “news” post to a “musing” post—and I don’t mean “amusing.” At least it’s talk-like-a-pirate day, so I can say, “Arrrrrrgh.”

Link to Ms. Keller’s story.