Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.4 Individualizing Education for Mildly Mentally Impaired Students
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
distant research that indicated vocational education and work experiences are associated with better postschool outcomes, including employment” (p. 82). She believes that there is a lack of evidence that suggests the advantages of including mildly mentally impaired students in the general curriculum.
While the above shows an apparent lack of consensus among researchers, Andrew and Williamson (1994) argue that there is a need for flexible, multi-faceted curricular pathways where “the key curricular research task is how to provide all [mildly mentally impaired] students with commonly agreed outcomes while addressing each of their particular, context-specific, ecological learning needs” (p. 4).
2.4 Individualizing Education for Mildly Mentally Impaired Students
In many countries, the growth of individualism in society has influenced a similar emphasis within the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities (Brown & Percy, 2007). It has become more accepted that people with disabilities have unique needs, wishes, life goals, and capabilities that need to be respected when providing support. This has led to a general shift to individualize planning and instruction.
Individualized education entails a special needs student undergoing individual comprehensive evaluation prior to, and during, placement in a specific educational setting (Strickland & Turnbull, 1990). Within this setting, the support services are determined to assure appropriate education for the individual special needs student. Important is to note that individualized education should be determined by individualized needs, not availability (T. E.
C. Smith, Polloway, Patton, & Dowdy, 2004). In contrast to general education, special education can include individualization along eight dimensions of instruction. The special
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
1. vary the pacing or rate of instruction so that it is more appropriate for the individual, 2. increase the intensity of instruction by presenting more trials for a given learning task, 3. be more relentless in working with a student to ensure the acquisition of a concept or skill, 4. provide a more highly or tightly structured environment,
5. provide more explicit and immediate reinforcement for targeted behaviour or the acquisition of particular skills,
6. provide a lower pupil - teacher ratio allowing greater individualization,
7. provide a curriculum appropriate to the student‟s level of functioning and needed skills, or
8. use more frequent and precise monitoring and assessment.
Prior to individualizing planning and instruction, a comprehensive educational assessment should give an overall picture of the student‟s functioning level, pinpoint the specific strengths and weaknesses in the student‟s behavioural repertoire, and clarify the logical next steps in the student‟s development (Patton et al., 1990).
The emphasis on an individualized approach to educate special needs students can be clearly seen in the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs
Education:
Special needs education incorporates the proven principles of sound pedagogy from which all children may benefit. It assumes that human differences are normal and that learning must accordingly be adapted to the needs of the child rather than the child fitted to preordained assumptions regarding the pace and nature of the learning process (UNESCO, 1994, p. 7).
Two of the most common tools for tailoring education to special needs students‟
wishes and needs are the Individualized Education Program (IEP) and the Individual transition plan (ITP). These particular tools are used in many countries although the names
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
are not necessarily the ones mentioned above. Furthermore, it can also be the case that these two tools are not so clearly separated in certain countries. However, they generally have features which are similar to the tools mentioned below.
Individualized Education Program (IEP)
A well-known tool for individualizing education is the Individualized Education Program (IEP). Although the specifications of this particular program differ per country, the IEP generally contains the following major elements (Patton et al., 1990):
- Statement of present levels of functioning. The assessment process determines these levels.
- Prioritized annual goals. Goals may be selected and arranged in order of importance using the criteria for selecting functional behaviours.
- Short-term instructional objectives. These objectives should be behavioural objectives that provide a clear direction for instruction and ongoing evaluation of student progress.
- Special education and related services. Services in addition to those of a classroom teacher which are needed in order to have a program that meets all of the child‟s educational needs.
- A statement describing the extent of the child‟s participation in regular educational programs. The extent of participation varies according to the child‟s special needs and limitations, and also to a country‟s level of inclusion practices for special needs students.
- Time line of the initiation and duration of services.
- Objective criteria and evaluation procedures.
The formation of an IEP is done by a team of which the members can have a wide range of backgrounds. They can include teachers, psychologists, school administrators, parents, student advocates, nurses, social workers, various therapists, and the student affected (Patton et al., 1990). The exact formation of the team normally depends on the individual
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
IEPs are also called Individual Education Plans in certain countries, e.g. the Netherlands, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
Individual transition plan (ITP)
Special needs student transition is the process of moving from one educational stage to the next and eventually to (independent) living in society and (competitive) employment.
Most often it is understood as the transition from school to the post-school environment, although some countries (including Taiwan) support a student‟s transition from one
educational stage to the next. When considering student transition as a process of moving on to the post-school environment, the United States based Division on Career Development and Transition (DCDT), defines it as follows:
Transition refers to a change in status from behaving primarily as a student to assuming emergent adult roles in the community. These roles include employment, participation in post-secondary education, maintaining a home, becoming
appropriately involved in the community, and experiencing satisfactory personal and social relationships. The process of enhancing transition involves the participation and coordination of school programs, adult agency services, and natural supports within the community (Halpern, 1994, p. 117).
It should be noted that the transition planning usually occurs in conjunction with the IEP planning process (Sands, Bassett, Lehman, & Spencer, 1998). The most common tool for transition planning is the Individual transition plan (ITP). This tool, again for its more narrow use of preparing for the post-school environment, can contain such planning components as (Wehman, 2002):
- input and participation by the student and his or her family of choice in postsecondary education, employment, community living, etc.;
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
- participation of parents and guardians who are well informed;
- annual goals along with steps to reach those goals; a list of skills required to function on the job and in the community;
- specific information on who is responsible for each aspect of the process, including referrals to appropriate agencies, job placements, on-the-job-training, and job follow-up;
- a longitudinal format (that begins a number of years before graduation);
- coordination with the IEP during the school years and with the individual rehabilitation plan or service plan;
- encouragement of the coordinated efforts of all appropriate agencies;
- a user-friendly format that is easy for parents and students to understand and take ownership of.
Methods of individualizing education have been influenced by person-centred planning approaches for organizing assistance for people with disabilities. Person-centred planning was developed in the United States in the late 1970s and it is represented by a family of approaches and techniques, which share certain characteristics (Mansell & Beadle-Brown, 2004). Central to person-centred planning is that it is individualized and that it places the person with a disability at the centre. In doing so, person-centred planning (Mansell &
Beadle-Brown, 2004):
1. aims to consider aspirations and capacities expressed by the service user rather than needs and deficiencies;
2. attempts to include and mobilize the individual‟s family and wider social network, as well as the resources from the system of statutory services; and
3. emphasizes providing the support required to achieve goals, rather than limiting goals to what services typically can manage.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
When using the person-centred planning approach in planning transition, the Unites States based National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET) argues that
“[i]t is critical for the young adult with a disability to actively participate in the transition planning meetings” (NCSET, 2004, p. 5). Instead of being a passive observer, the young person needs to be a leader in this process. This also means that this leader is also endowed with certain responsibilities, such as identifying what he / she wants for the future, what kind of support is needed to achieve goals, and coming prepared to share this information with their planning team. Furthermore, “[p]erson-centered planning is a way to identify a student‟s individual goals and to help students, families, and professionals craft plans that will support students as they strive to achieve their dreams” (NCSET, 2004, p. 2).
Apart from a the person with special needs being at the centre of a transition planning meeting, literature similarly emphasizes special needs students to take control in their IEP meetings as “[i]nvolvement in education planning, decision making, and instruction can take many forms, from students generating their own IEP goals and objectives to students tracking their progress on self-selected goals or objectives” (Wehmeyer, 1998a, p. 5). This researcher believes that such involvement is beneficial to the student as “[r]esearch indicates that students who have the opportunity to choose school activities, show enhanced motivation”
(Wehmeyer, 1998a, p. 9). Therefore, “[t]he IEP meeting is the fulcrum for education programming and provides a unique opportunity to give students more control over their education programs” (Wehmeyer, 1998a, p. 8). This concept is known as a „student-led IEP‟
or „self-directed IEP‟. Student-led IEPs have advocates in a great number of scholars (Martin et al., 2006; Mason, McGahee-Kovac, & Johnson, 2004; Powers et al., 1998; Sands et al., 1998; Wehmeyer, 1998a). These researchers argue that if IEP meetings are not student-led,
“students attending their meetings do not know what to do, do not understand the purpose of
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
what is being said, and feel as if none of the adult participants listen to them when they do talk” (Martin et al., 2006, p. 300).
Wehmeyer (1998a) identified certain barriers to involvement in education planning by students with disabilities. Among these were:
- Student competence to make decisions. Certain educators believe that adolescents with disabilities are incapable of participating in the decision-making process.
- Student motivation. Among a number of educators, there is a perceived lack of motivation on behalf of the disabled students to participate in meetings and education programs.
- Complexity of education process. Educational planning is considered to be too complex for students by certain educators.
Although these barriers exist, researches claim that they have proved that these barriers are caused by misconceptions (Wehmeyer & Lawrence, 1995). Apart from having actual competence to make decisions, past researches also show a wide range of benefits for students if they are enabled to make decisions. Among these are: increased motivation, higher self-determination, higher levels of conceptual learning, increased retention, higher levels of self-efficacy, and fewer behaviour problems (Doll & Sands, 1998). Furthermore, if a lack of motivation is observed by educators, it is often due to the fact that the student has no control over the process of education planning (Wehmeyer, 1998a). As for the education process being too complex for students with disabilities, Wehmeyer (1998a) believes that the
incorrect assumption is that students need to independently perform all educational activities.
Students do not need to plan on their own but are supported in this process. Therefore, “[t]he IEP and ITP meetings provide an opportunity for the student to see him- or herself as having control over his or her life and for significant others to see the student as capable and
competent” (Wehmeyer, 1998b, p. 154). If students want to become key agents in their own
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
adult lives, “emphasis must be shifted from transition planning for youth to transition planning with youth” [emphasis in the original] (Powers et al., 1998, p. 188).
The above also stresses the importance of the student‟s family involvement in the planning process. Most importantly, families should encourage and support the student in taking charge of the situation. “Our experiences in working with teenagers suggest that when educators and families are provided with information, strategies, and validation of their support capabilities, educators and families become increasingly interested and proficient in assisting youth to become active in transition planning” (Powers et al., 1998, p. 192).
The NCSET also emphasizes the need for students to explore and create their own goals, even if they seem unrealistic (2004). They stress that “failure is not necessarily something to be avoided; it is a natural part of life” and “a person who is protected from failure is also protected from potential success” (NCSET, 2004, p. 7). Enabling students to explore can be a memorable educational experience and can lead to discovering other pathways to success.