Debbie Gilmer
I’ve had the great privilege to be affiliated with LEARNS almost since its inception. I was hired as the first statewide coordinator back in 1990 and provided technical assistance and professional development in schools throughout the state for a number of years. What a journey it has been!
In 1990 our efforts were almost exclusively focused on supporting students with the most severe disabilities to be included in regular education classes. Most typically, these students were working on a parallel functional curriculum. An analysis of the classroom environment often determined in which class and on what objectives a student would be working during any given period or day. Frequently general education teachers "volunteered" to have students in their classrooms, and student centered planning included formal circles of friends where other youngsters were recruited as "buddies."
Over the years the lessons we have learned have been numerous and sobering. We learned early on that good schools and good teachers could readily support all students in general education settings; in fact, that supporting the inclusive education of only some students with disabilities was very shortsighted. It was a lesson I learned personally from three kindergarten students.
I had spent the better part of a day observing in a kindergarten class where Jane, a student with severe disabilities, was very much included. The school just wanted to be sure they were doing right by this youngster. Indeed, they were! However, the day I happened to be visiting was the last day of school before a holiday, and all of the students had made gifts to share at home—plants that they had grown from seed in half pint milk cartons. Obviously the work on these projects had taken place over a number of weeks, and during the last part of the day all the students were finalizing the packaging by coloring paper bags and making cards. I was sitting with three children when one exclaimed, "oh, my goodness! Johnny doesn’t have one to take home!" Johnny—and Joey, too, as it turned out—had no gift to share at home because they had resource services that time of day and had not been present to prepare their gifts. The teacher overheard and quickly scrambled to put together some extra plants. She got the two boys together to do cards and bags as the others were preparing for the bus.
On the ride home that afternoon I reflected on my experience. Clearly, this classroom was able to successfully support Jane, a student whose needs were very significant. Why, then, were Johnny and Joey pulled out? Maybe I didn’t fully understand their needs, but thinking of the profound words of their classmates—"oh, they are never here for the fun stuff" and "I sure hope they’re doing fun stuff like this in the other room"—made me wonder what else they were missing when not in the classroom.
In my subsequent travels around the state, in my ongoing review of the literature, and in discussions with colleagues throughout Maine and across the country, I came to learn of classrooms where a myriad of strategies were being successfully implemented to assure that all students received special education and supportive services, including related services, in general education classrooms. Collaborative teaming, consultation, and student centered planning and support teams were a few of these strategies, demonstrating that inclusive practices were possible for all students with unique learning needs.
Today our discussions, our technical assistance requests, and our work in districts across Maine are fundamentally different. Students of all abilities are working to achieve the Learning Results, and parallel functional curricular objectives are more rare. Educators, struggling to extend high standards and grappling with tough assessment questions, are asking us how to team teach, better align their curricula, implement meaningful assessment practices, and create and support classroom climates that are respectful of the gifts and talents that all students bring to their classrooms.
We are moving forward. Today, consistent with participatory approaches, we are working in collaboration with faculty, administrators, and student leaders to ultimately effect change in middle and secondary schools and with participatory research teams at the elementary level to assure that all students have access to high quality education. We’ve learned a great deal from youth with disabilities about their experiences and, frankly, are humbled by their observations and insight (see YouthSpeak, page 11). The process of creating and supporting schools that are respective and responsive to their members is taking us into a new and exciting realm of educational support. I eagerly await what the next ten years may bring.
Timeline: moving toward inclusive education - 1954 to present
1954
Brown vs. Board of Education determines that education must be available to all children
on equal terms.
1965
Head Start is established through the Economic Opportunity Act to serve children ages 3 -5
who were from poverty environments. Head Start was based on the assumption that children
who received early intervention services would be less likely to fail in public school.
1968
Handicapped Children’s Early Education Program (Preschool) is established; has been
called the most successful federal program ever, and continues to exist today with over
80% of the funded programs continuing after federal funding ended. Through this law, model
demonstration sites are developed using a wide range of service delivery models with the
intent that the projects would be replicated.
Institution Period: Many individuals with disabilities were placed in institutions, and public programs were not available. Parents were encouraged to place their children in institutions, to feel that the children were a burden, and to walk away and forget about their child.
State Institution
Local Public School
1969 – 1972
Wolf vs. Utah and PARC vs. Mills introduce the concept of free appropriate public
education (FAPE), sparking the beginning of deinstitutionalization.
Regional Special Programs: Day programs developed to serve individuals with disabilities were generally one program serving several communities. This was the only option available to people with disabilities. Regional special programs included cerebral palsy centers and programs run by ARC’s (Associations for Retarded Citizens). The programs were not associated with public schools.
Special Day Programs
Local Public School
1972
Head Start is required to have 10% of those it served be children with disabilities. This
was recognized as reflecting the national commitment to providing comprehensive services
to children with disabilities.
1973
Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act determines that people with disabilities had the right
to access services and programs in any place receiving federal dollars.
1975
PL 94-142: The Education of All Handicapped Children Act requires public schools to
provide an educational program to identified children with disabilities. This law was
driven in large part by parents who wanted their children with disabilities to receive a
public school education.
Local Special Programs:
Congress found that there were 8 million children with disabilities in the U.S. More than half were not receiving appropriate educational services, and one million children with disabilities were excluded from the public school system. Local special programs were located in the school, but there would often be only one program serving all students with disabilities in grades K-12.
Local Special Program within Local Public School
1978 – 1983
Maine establishes a system for preschool services for children with disabilities. This was
later called Child Development Services.
1986
PL 99-457 amends The Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) to include children
age three to age five by extending the rights and protections of the EHA to these
children. All states were required to establish this mandate within five years, and by
1991 all states had done so. This amendment also provided incentives to states for
establishing services for children with disabilities ages birth to 2. By 1991, only a few
states had mandates for infant services.
Local Special Class: Similar to local special programs, but often there were more than one class within a school system (i.e. at the elementary (K-5), middle (6-8), and high school (9-12) levels.) Mainstreaming practices were beginning and you might see children with disabilities at lunch, art, and recess.
Local Special Class within Local Public School
Local Individualized Special Program: Specific programs for specific disabilities were developed. (i.e. Learning Disabilities, Mental Retardation, or Behavior). We began to see kids with disabilities in some classrooms or maybe in homeroom as well as lunch, recess, art, music etc. Kids had to prove they could do things before they were allowed to participate in classes with their peers.
Local Public School supporting Individual Special Programs
1990
EHA is reauthorized and renamed The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Emphasis was placed on least restrictive environments with the onus on the school to show
why a student could not be included. This was a shift from students having to demonstrate
why they should be included. The six principles of this law were: free appropriate
education, appropriate evaluation, individualized education plan (IEP), least restrictive
environment, parent and student participation in decision making, and procedural due
process.
1990
The Americans with Disabilities Act strengthened the rights of individuals with
disabilities through equal access to areas from which they had previously been excluded.
1991
IDEA - Part H was reauthorized and provided changes in the requirements for the provision
of services for children with disabilities ages birth to age 2.
1993
In Oberti vs. Clemonton, parents of a child with Down Syndrome argued for the right of
their child to attend a regular kindergarten class and prevailed. This landmark case
further strengthened the rights of children to receive their education in the least
restrictive environment, starting with the regular classroom.
1994
Goals 2000: The National Education Reform Act is passed. Designed to raise standards of
education for all learners, it included eight national goals: all children will start
school ready to learn; the high school graduation rate will increase to 90%; children will
demonstrate competencies in challenging subjects at grades 4, 8 & 12; US students will
be the first in the world in math and science; all adult Americans will be literate, have
the skills necessary to compete in a global economy, and exercise the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship; schools will offer an environment conducive to learning
and be drug free and safe from violence and firearms; teachers will have the skills needed
to prepare students for the next century; and schools will promote partnerships to enhance
parental involvement that promotes the social, emotional and academic growth of children.
1994
School to Work Opportunities Act is created to improve the preparation of all students as
they transition from school to work. This includes seeking post secondary education,
joining the work force immediately, or a combination of these pursuits. Maine received a
STWOA grant, Maine’s Career Opportunities 2000 (CO2), in 1994.
Restructuring for all students: Major emphasis is placed on including all students in regular classroom environments. Inclusive practices are becoming more commonplace. Supports are brought to the students in the classrooms instead of pull-out settings.
Inclusive Public School
1995
Improving America’s School Act (IASA), formerly the Elementary and Secondary School
Act, includes support to enable all students to meet challenging state standards by
focusing on: high standards for all students; professional development to help teaching
staff acquire the skills necessary to help all students achieve these high standards;
flexibility in stimulating local initiatives linked with responsibility for results; and
partnerships between schools, parents, and the community.
1996 – 1997
Maine’s Learning Results: An Act to Initiate Education Reform in Maine establishes
high standards for what all students should know and be able to do before they complete
their public school experience. The Learning Results included guiding principles, eight
content areas, and content standards. This legislation served as a foundation for
education reform, promoted assessment of students learning, reinforced accountability and
encourages equity.
1997
Reauthorization of IDEA (PL 105-17) extends the provisions of the Individuals with
Disabilities Act. Student’s involvement in and progress in the general curriculum is
emphasized. IEP goals and student assessment are based on the general education
curriculum. Students with disabilities are to be included in state and district wide
assessment programs with appropriate accommodations where necessary. For any students who
cannot participate, the state and district must make an alternate available. The
assessment data on students with disabilities must be included in data collection systems.
U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources said in 1997 that this law presumes
"that children with disabilities are to be educated in regular classes."
Deb Twomey
deborah.twomey@umit.maine.edu
Once upon a time, there were two warring tribes. One tribe lived in the lowlands and the other tribe lived high in the mountains. One day the mountain people invaded the lowlanders, and as part of their plundering, kidnapped a baby of one of the lowlander’s families. They took the infant with them back up into the mountains.
The lowlanders didn’t know how to climb the mountain. They didn’t know any of the trails that the mountain people used. They didn’t know how to track them in the steep terrain or even where to find the mountain people. Even so, they sent out their best party of fighting men to climb the mountain and bring the baby home. The men did their best to ascend the rocky face, first trying one method and then another. They occasionally found one of the mountain people’s trails, but could follow it for only a few yards before they would lose it again. After several days of effort, they had only climbed several hundred feet.
Feeling hopeless and helpless, the lowlander men decided that the cause was lost, and they prepared to return to their village below. As they were packing their gear for the descent, they saw the baby’s mother walking toward them. As she came closer they realized that she was coming down the mountain; the same mountain that the men were unable to climb. Then they saw she had the baby strapped to her back.
One of the men greeted her and said, "How did you rescue your baby? We couldn’t climb this mountain. How did you do this when we, the strongest and most able men in the village, could not?"
The woman shrugged her shoulders and replied, "It wasn’t your baby."
—Author unknown
The importance of family should never be lost. Many parents feel strongly that no one can take care of their child like they do. Parents of children with special needs often feel even more passionately about this. Historically, family or friends cared for children who needed special care. This is no longer true. With the increased work force and the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and IDEA, more children with greater needs are cared for in a wide range of child care settings. Along with this push toward inclusive settings for young children came more rules and guidelines. Concepts such as developmental therapy, individualized service plan, and standardized assessments not only entered the daily lives of families, but entered the required vocabulary of child care providers as well.
In our striving toward quality inclusive settings for all, have we supported or frightened the child care providers whom our families have chosen? My older children attended a neighborhood family child care home for many years. When we adopted our first child, who had extensive medical, cognitive, and mobility needs, she cared for him, too. She did a wonderful job for about four months. Then she went to an extensive training on the laws and methodology pertaining to inclusive child care. She approached me the next day and said that she no longer felt qualified or capable of caring for my son. Fortunately, I was able to give her the support and confidence that she needed to continue, and the excellent care was not interrupted.
I have to wonder if this scenario has happened in other places to other people. Not all families are able to offer the support and information that is needed by their child care providers. There needs to be a consistent and available support system for families and providers who become overwhelmed with the state’s well-meaning push for high quality inclusive child care for all. We need to keep the mountain story in mind and respect that families’ involvement in all aspects of children’s care and growth cannot be lost in our quest for best practice. All families need to be able to choose the child care provider who they feel will provide the best care for their child, not just the provider who is willing to accept their child’s special needs. Just as providers need to be supported and recognized as individuals with differing talents, gifts, abilities, and needs, when it comes to providing care to all children, families and children need to be viewed and supported as individuals, too. Maine recognizes this need and in the coming months additional supports will be available to families and providers. The Office of Child Care and Head Start in cooperation with the Center for Community Inclusion will be expanding training and support through a new initiative called Child Care Plus ME. This outreach will support children in their communities and help to bring families back into the decision making position.
Linda Labas
linda.labas@umit.maine.edu
Inclusion is a word that has come to mean many things to different people. Society’s understanding of what it means to include diverse populations in community settings has evolved dramatically during the last twenty years, as demonstrated by the changing language used to describe the process: from mainstreaming to integration to inclusion.
Inclusive early care and education settings provide children with a feeling of belonging, security, and safety. Programs that include all children, regardless of their developmental needs, learning style, temperament, or disability, provide an envelope of trust, protection, and respect. Inclusive early care settings:
If a program consistently implements developmentally appropriate practices, it will likely meet the social, emotional, and cognitive needs of the vast majority of children who attend. However, there are times when individual children need additional supports in order to participate in an early care program. When this situation occurs, it is helpful for child care providers to know the resources and supports available.
Knowing when, how, and whom to ask for help is a strength and in no way reflects a program deficit. Providing high quality inclusive child care is tough work. Figuring out how to meet individual needs within group care can be challenging. Collaborating with others, sharing ideas, discussing solutions, and trying out strategies is the best way to make inclusion work.
An attitude and belief that all children belong in community early care settings is an essential element in making programs inclusive, respectful, healthy, fun, and exciting places to be. A positive attitude and approach to working with children with different learning styles, children with challenging behaviors, or children with disabilities is a first and crucial step in developing a high quality, inclusive program. Attitudes shape practice and tell others (staff, children, and families) what you think and feel about children and how you will approach making your child care program a wonderful place for each child. A positive attitude affects how you view the need to develop new skills, find others to support and work with you, and approach problem solving and solution finding.
A belief that inclusion can work with the proper supports has been shown to affect whether inclusion works at all. While a positive attitude is not the only thing that makes inclusion work, the truth is that if someone believes that inclusion can work, the likelihood that it will is much higher. Combine a positive attitude with the opportunity to talk with others, discuss ideas and solutions, problem solve, and get additional supports and you have a great start to making high quality inclusive programs for all kids.
Assistance to support early care providers, families, and children
The early childhood staff at CCI offers problem solving assistance and training to support programs, preschools, and other early childhood and school settings that include children with challenging behaviors and children with medical, physical, and developmental disabilities. CCI early childhood staff will discuss your specific challenges and develop a plan to include children with special needs in your program. Technical assistance can take many shapes. Some examples are:
o Telephone consultation to answer questions, discuss curriculum ideas, locate resources and written materials, or review an individual child’s involvement in your program.
o Video review and consultation to provide suggestions and ideas about including a child with special needs in your setting based on a videotaped sample of your program.
The staff at CCI provides this assistance through our various early childhood projects including: LEARNS: Early Childhood; Child Care Plus ME; Maine’s Inclusive Preschool Project; and the CDA Pathways Project. This assistance is provided at no cost to child care homes, child care centers, preschools, public schools, community programs, and families because our efforts are supported by funds through the Maine Department of Education, Maine Department of Human Services, the Maine Developmental Disabilities Council, and the Administration on Developmental Disabilities. CCI works closely with other early childhood groups including Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, the Child Development Services System, and Child Care and Head Start agencies.
If you have questions about how your program can support all children, including children with special needs, or if you have concerns about a particular child’s behavior, communication, social relationships, or development, please contact:
Betsy Enright
betsy.enright@umit.maine.edu
As we move toward assessing all students in a comprehensive standards based system, we are also changing assessment practices for students who receive special education services and supports. Traditionally, special educators and related service personnel used an array of specialized evaluations to gain information about students (click here for Figure 1 description below). Students were tested by several evaluators, each in their own area of expertise. These evaluations included psychological, speech and language, occupational therapy, and academic achievement. The primarily deficit-based results were used to make decisions about a student’s eligibility for special education and related services. Sometimes, evaluations were also administered as a post-test to check on student progress and to determine if the student was still eligible for specialized services.
With the reauthorization of IDEA 1997, educators are now required to look at a student’s progress and achievement in the general curriculum and provide special education and related services to support that progress. Present levels of educational performance and eligibility decisions are supported by classroom based data. Therefore, a closer look at those traditional evaluations is in order. Do our traditional special education evaluations provide the necessary links to the standards, and do they show student progress and achievement in the general curriculum? Most of these evaluations were designed for the purpose of identifying students for special education, not for measuring progress in the classroom. In most cases, as we review the evaluations, they do not align with standards or to the general curriculum.
So, how will we gather information around a student’s progress in the general curriculum? How can we collaborate with educators, parents, and related services providers and use their expertise to gain a strengths-based view of the student?
IDEA 1997 also requires that students with disabilities participate in state and district level assessments and that the results of those assessments are reported. The Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) is the state portion of Maine’s Comprehensive Assessment System. Districts are developing their local component of this assessment system as well. The purpose is to "inform and guide teaching and learning; monitor and hold educational units accountable for student achievement of the Learning Results; and certify achievement of Maine’s Learning Results" (Maine Department of Education, 2001, paragraph 1). It may be tempting for districts to look at an array of published norm-referenced assessments. However, just as the special education evaluations need to be checked for alignment with the content of the learning results, so do any standardized tests we choose to use at the local level. "Because no standardized achievement test is constructed specifically with the Maine Learning Results in mind, establishing adequate correspondences in this regard—i.e. content validity—is mandatory whenever scores from such tests are treated as evidence of student progress towards mastery of the Learning Results" (Maine Department of Education, 2000, p.10). It is recommended that districts use a combination of classroom, building, and district level assessments, as well as state level assessments such as the MEA as sources of evidence of achievement (see Figure 2 below). It also recommended that districts use a variety of assessment strategies—not just pencil and paper tasks.
In order for us to build a learner centered Comprehensive Assessment System for all students, we must move away from a more traditional mindset of identifying student deficits to a system that identifies and builds on student capacities and strengths. It now becomes our challenge to assess students in ways that allow them to show what they know and what they can do in achieving the goals of the general curriculum and the Maine Learning Results (see Figure 3 below). Multiple methods can be used and substituted into this circle of assessments. These assessments are linked to instruction and next steps in learning. The evaluations used for eligibility of special education become just one piece of the assessment pie for students with disabilities, no longer the primary way we gain information about them. The MEA also becomes just one other mode for gathering achievement data as well.
Some students will be able to participate in the state and local level assessments without accommodation. Some students will need accommodations that are linked to instruction and assessment in the classroom as well as the IEP. A very small percentage of students will need to have an alternate form of the state and local assessment. For all students to have multiple opportunities to demonstrate their progress, we need to assess them in ways that do not focus primarily on their disability. We need to identify student strengths, interests, and abilities by designing an array of assessments that inform instruction and document student progress over time, and we need to work in collaboration with other educators ever more closely.
Description of graphics:
Figure 1 – Current Assessment System for Students with
Disabilities
The graphic includes a circle with labels inside. Outside the circle is an equal sign and
cartoon of a youth, suggesting the labels in the circle equal the youth. The labels in the
upper half of the circle are: psycho-social evaluation, adaptive behavior scales, speech
& language evaluation, and psychological evaluation. Below a line across the center of
the circle, the labels are: occupational therapy evaluation, academic achievement tests,
visual assessment, and physical therapy evaluation.
Figure 2 – Large Scale Assessments
A circle is divided into four quadrants, with a map of the United States in the center.
The text in the quadrants is as follows: Academic achievement tests, State Level
Assessments and MEA Accommodations Alternate, Standardized Tests, Local District
Assessments, and Norm Referenced Tests.
Figure 3 – A Learner Centered Assessment System
A circle is divided into many sections, with a cartoon youth on a skateboard in the
center. Arrows point from the youth to text saying, "Special Services
Evaluations." The circle sections contain the following text: Exhibitions,
Demonstrations, Performances, Conferences, Teacher Made Assessments, Learning Logs, MEA
Accommodations Alternate, Oral Reports, Portfolios, District Assessments.
References
Maine Department of Education (2001, April) Maine’s Comprehensive Assessment System. [On-line]. Available: http://www.state.me.us/education/mea/meacompass.htm
Maine Department of Education (2000) Measured Measures: Technical Consideration for Developing a Local Assessment System. Augusta, ME: Author.
Constructed Responses
Process Focused
Performances
Products
Adapted from: National Education Association Professional Standards and Practice. (1994). Assessing Learning in the classroom. Washington D.C.: National Education Association.
1. To inform teaching and learning regarding student achievement of the Learning Results.
2. To monitor and hold units accountable for student achievement of the standards.
3. To certify achievement.
Martie Kendrick
martie.kendrick@umit.maine.edu
When Benjamin was three years old, he was diagnosed with autism. He had neither expressive nor receptive language, shunned social contact, and was reliant on routine and sameness. Based on a number of observations and psychological consults, his parents were told that he might never talk and would likely have to be institutionalized. As he entered school, his IQ score declined each time he was tested. OT services were not provided to him, because he scored so low on those indicators that it was assumed he would not benefit.
When Benjamin was born twenty-two years ago, we thought we knew everything we needed to know about him. We thought we knew who he was and what he would never be able to understand, to know, or to do. We thought that a good program for him would involve behavior management and life skills development—that it would be a waste of time to attempt teaching higher level skills. We thought that he would be best served in an institutional setting where the best treatment was available. We thought that both family and community would be better off with the child tucked neatly away. We thought we knew it all.
What we thought we knew some twenty years ago was largely influenced, just as it is today, by our own assumptions, by predominant understanding of neurological and developmental disabilities, and by the tools we currently have available to assess the cognitive, linguistic, and behavioral functioning of children. Unfortunately, children do not always fall into specific diagnostic categories and treatment packages based on an orderly assessment process. So, while a child like Ben was assigned a diagnosis yielding limited options, we were still unaware of all the talents and potentials that lay beneath the surface.
Children with special needs historically perform poorly on standardized assessment tests. This may often be the result of the test calling upon them to utilize abilities they do not possess in order to demonstrate understanding of a concept that they do. Many issues influence the ability of a child to demonstrate what he knows and can do. Logically, these impact the assessment outcomes as well. (Quill, 1995) Some issues affecting a child’s ability to demonstrate knowledge include attention and ability to maintain focus; interest and motivation in the testing material; ability to understand directions; ability to articulate an answer; processing time; aural vs visual instructions; comfort level with the testing situation and the tester; physical comfort; health; level of fatigue; availability of assistive devices; and in some cases the background, assumptions, and beliefs of the person performing the assessment (Kurtz & Depoy, 1995).
In Benjamin’s case, he would have benefited from several conditions that are often present in assessment situations today:
Even with the above conditions present, we should remember that there may be things we still do not know and may possibly never know about a person. This can be especially true regarding individuals with disabilities. While it may be difficult to forego a conclusion, we owe every child the opportunity to learn what is true, measurable, honest, and-above all else-fair about them. (Donnellan,1995)
The assessment process would benefit from the assumption that individuals with disabilities have the same range of talents, interests, motivations, and needs as any other human being. Children with disabilities are often placed under the umbrella of several assumptions. These assumptions may include: she doesn’t understand; she can’t communicate; she has mental retardation; or she is not interested in developing friendships or forming relationships. Often, in the case of disabilities with underlying movement disturbance, she does understand but has difficulty demonstrating to others her understanding; she can communicate given appropriate assistive technology (Lovett, 1996); she needs assistance in demonstrating what she knows; and she is as interested as any human being in developing friendships and relationships. While her ability to communicate, interact, maintain eye contact, and participate in mutually interesting activities may get in the way of realizing her need, the desire exists none the less (Allen, 1995).
While there is no such thing as a perfect assessment process, a better assessment process is a worthy and attainable goal. Some contributing features of that better mousetrap might be:
The practice of assessment can yield important and useful information. Yet we must remember the lessons learned over the years. Although today we possess better and more varied forms of assessment, they remain, at best, useful tools. No assessment or group of assessments can ever fully capture the dynamic interplay that constitutes an individual’s cognitive ability, innate potential, or resilience. Therefore, while we can be optimistic about the new and more accurate tools we have at our disposal, we should also be cautious that the mistakes of the past—where educational options were limited or denied based on unreliable data—are not revisited.
As for Benjamin, his parents did not institutionalize him as was recommended. Instead, they set out to uncover the intelligence and talent they knew lingered behind his silence. Today Benjamin is 22 years old. Although he is quiet, he can speak fluently when he wants. He reads voraciously, and at age 12 he tested at the first year college level for reading. He knows how to operate a computer, write a report, and use the internet. He holds a valid driver’s license and has even driven by himself back and forth from Maine to New York City.
When I was attending a conference in Florida, I saw a t-shirt that read: "Just because I don’t speak does not mean I have nothing to say!" This slogan speaks volumes about the assumptions made by society about people who do not talk. Children like Ben can only wait for us to challenge those assumptions. In fact, they’re relying on it.
References
Allen, P. (1995). Working with Parents: Do children need friends? Day Care & Early Education, 22 (3)
Donnellan, A. & Leary, M. (1995) Movement differences and diversity in autism/mental retardation: Appreciating and accommodating people with communication and behavior challenges. Madison, WI: DRI Press
Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: The case against competition, why we lose in our race to win. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin
Kurtz, A. & Depoy, E. (1995, November). A review and critical analysis of research on the validity of facilitated communication. Presentation at TASH Conference, San Francisco, CA.
Lovett, H. (1996). Learning to listen: Positive approaches and people with difficult behavior. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Quill, K. (1995). Teaching children with autism: Strategies to enhance communication and socialization. New York: Delmar Publishing, Ind.
July 26 - 27, 2001
Learn strategies to:
$100 conference fee includes registration for two-day conference, conference materials, and lunch
For more information call 581-1084.
Mona Baker
Maine Department of Education
mona.baker@state.me.us
As districts begin to develop their Local Comprehensive Assessment Systems, it has become clear that in order to meet the needs of all students, the Alternate Assessment component of this system will have to be addressed. During the past year, the Maine Department of Education has been developing and piloting a proposed process to meet the requirements of an Alternate Assessment system. Throughout this time, one of the most frequently asked questions has been about the availability of resources to do this work.
Because building the capacity of individuals and districts to develop assessment systems that guide and inform teaching and learning, hold school systems accountable, and certify achievement of the Learning Results is the work of all educators, several options exist.
If you have questions about how to access these resources to support the development of an assessment system, please feel free to contact the appropriate individual listed below. If you have specific questions about the Alternate Assessment Component of the Comprehensive Assessment System, contact Mona Baker at 624-6825. Questions about the Local Comprehensive Assessment System should be directed to Pam Rolfe at 624-6785, and Brud Macxy can best answer questions about the Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) at 624-6774.
- Learning Results Implementation/Per Pupil Professional Development Funds: Sarah Simmonds @ 624-6786
- Goals 2000 money focused on assessment: Heidi McGinley @ 624-6783
- Technology Learning Challenge Grant Funds: Heidi McGinley @ 624-6783
- IASA Funds
- Local Entitlement Funds: John Kierstead @ 624-6650
- Team Work for Kids Mini Grants (CSPD): Bob McIntire @ 624-6649
- Center for Inquiry on Secondary Education (CISE) Grants: Susan Johnson @ 624-6630
- Local partnerships or businesses
- Local District funds for professional development or assessment
- Title IA: Susan Wishkoski @ 624-6705
- Title II: Elanor Dickens @ 624-6830
- Title VI: Dennis Kunces @ 624-6815
- Title VII: Barney Berube @ 624-6787
- Class Size Reduction: Dennis Kunces @ 624-6815
- Rural Education Achievement Program: Dennis Kunces @ 624-6815
- Local Entitlement Funds: John Kierstead @ 624-6650
- Team Work for Kids Mini Grants (CSPD)
- Bob McIntire @ 624-6649
- Center for Inquiry on Secondary Education (CISE) Grants
- Susan Johnson @ 624-6630
- Local partnerships or businesses
- Local District funds for professional development or assessment
GOAL: All Maine children birth – five with disabilities (including children with challenging behavior, deafblindness, severe communication impairments, autism, and multiple disabilities) will be assured meaningful and high quality participation in early learning standards in inclusive early care and educational environments.
Partnership Development
Building Capacity and Support Systems Change Through Collaborative Efforts
Technical Assistance was provided to over 70 Early Care and Education settings. Topics included:
Two Issues of FACTS Distributed
Winter and Summer issues were widely disseminated to more than 23,000 educators, educational administrators, speech/language pathologists, occupational and physical therapists, parents, institutions of higher education and state and private organizations throughout Maine and within the national University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research & Service network, state departments of education, and national organizations and federal agency partners.
Guest Lectures in Undergraduate and Graduate Education
As part of The DT Leadership Team, technical assistance and consultation was provided to eight regional CDS sites through:
Core Practices for Learning and Teaching
1. Every student is respected and valued by adults and by fellow students.
2. Every teacher tailors learning experiences to the learner’s needs, interests, and future goals.
3. Every teacher challenges learners both to master the fundamentals of the disciplines and to integrate skills and concepts across the disciplines to address relevant issues and problems.
4. Every student learns in collaborative groups of students with diverse learning styles, skills, ages, personal backgrounds, and career goals.
5. Every student makes informed choices about education and participation in school life and takes responsibility for the consequences of those choices.
6. Every student employs a personal learning plan to target individual as well as common learning goals and to specify learning activities that will lead to the attainment of those goals.
7. Every teacher makes learning standards, activities, and assessment procedures known to students and parents and assures the coherence among them.
8. Every student who receives the secondary school diploma has demonstrated, through performance exhibitions, knowledge and skills at a level deemed by the school and by the state to be sufficient to begin adult life.
Core School Practices to Support Learning
9. Students and teachers belong to teams that provide each student continuous personal and academic attention and a supportive environment for learning and growth.
10. Learning governs the allocation of time, space, facilities, and services.
11. Every teacher has sufficient time and resources to learn, to plan, and to confer with individual students, colleagues, and families.
12. Every staff member understands adolescent learning and developmental needs, possesses diverse instructional skills, and is a constructive model for youth.
13. Every school has a comprehensive professional development system in which every staff member has a professional development plan to guide improvement.
14. Staff, students, and parents are involved democratically in significant decisions affecting student learning.
15. Active leadership by principals and others inspires and mobilizes staff, students, and parents to work toward the fulfillment of the school’s mission and, within it, their own learning and life goals.
Pam Flood
pamela.flood@umit.maine.edu
The University of Maine’s Center for Community Inclusion, the Maine Support Network, The Western Maine Partnership, Maranacook Middle School (Union 42), and Mt. Abrams High School (MSAD 58) are working together to implement the core practices of Promising Futures under the auspices of an OSERS (U.S. Department of Education) funded model demonstration initiative titled Leading ME to Promising Futures. Working closely with staff and students, this partnership is joined in a collaborative alliance to bring to life the core principles embraced by Promising Futures.
In order to critically investigate the implications of the changes in practices called for in Promising Futures, it is necessary to review current school systems from a socio-historic perspective. The functions and purposes of school and the subsequent structural components and organizational designs are deeply embedded in our nation’s history. Today, imperative questions for school leaders involve our models of leadership. What are they?; Why did we adopt them?; and How do we know they are effective? It is only through critically reflective practice and an examination of our history that we can begin to respond to the ambiguities of today’s high schools and embrace leadership for the 21st Century.
Yesterday
After the Revolutionary War the purpose of our schools began to take shape. Initially, schools were provided with the mission of teaching students to read, write, and cipher, as well as build the foundation of a new national character, which was being taught even while it was being created (Goodlad, 1984). The transmission of this information to the many immigrants was seen as a key to ensuring the continuation of the values and beliefs of democracy. With the influx of immigrants and the onset of the industrial revolution, our society began to shift from an agrarian to an industrialized culture. The school became the feeder for these industries with the delivery of a small percentage of highly educated individuals (management material) and the masses educated to assume low or semiskilled jobs.
Well into the twentieth century, high school teachers only had to educate a small percentage of the population. There were few students who completed the common school through grade eight, and from that population only a fraction continued on to a high school program (Goodlad, 1984). Donaldson (2000) reported that at the turn of the century in Maine only an estimated 5% of the population of students who attended common schools stayed on to complete high school. With the advent of the Great Depression, the availability of jobs for youth declined, and it was recognized that this larger population required more intensive educational opportunities. The legal age for leaving school was increased to age 16. This led to a nationwide population growth in high schools. In Maine this generated a large number of small community high schools.
According to Schlechty (1990), the vision of school solidified during this period. The tracked curriculum, emergence of vocational schools, and management style all clearly reflected the influence of Fredrick Taylor’s model of scientific management. Students were seen as products to be molded and shaped. Their previous experience, level of perceived intelligence, and social economic status were the raw material used to determine into which product they could be shaped: the worker or the manager.
The consolidation of smaller high schools into large institutions, which began in the late 1940’s, evolved for a variety of reasons. Donaldson (2000) reports that the cost of and ability to provide a wide variety of quality, standardized options and experiences for students were primary considerations for the shift from smaller community high schools to the current larger structures. For many, this only solidified the need for clear structure and Taylor’s management philosophy. Today many high schools still operate on this type of "assembly line" model. Students move through seven to eight 45-minute periods each day. The subjects taught during those periods are often compartmentalized and disconnected from each other, as well as from the lives of the students. As a result of the misfit between school structures and student needs, today’s students—as well as their parents and community members—are increasingly alienated by the educational process.
Today
Maine is indeed in the midst of a major restructuring of our high schools. The Commission on Secondary Education’s Promising Futures is guiding this change in many schools. Most are shifting from an assembly line focus to a student-centered focus, requiring a deep and systemic reorganization of the structure, organization, and norms of the schools. As this shift occurs, the foundation for each of these dimensions is being transformed. Instead of setting the programs first, where students are offered information and it is up to them to sink or swim, schools are accepting the challenge to help all students swim. Schools are questioning some of their previous foundations such as tracking, special education, vocational education, and the way instruction is delivered. Teachers are becoming learners again, and the climate is evolving from a delivery system (delivering knowledge to the masses) to a learning system, where knowledge is valued—knowledge that is already possessed and that is to be acquired. A very real challenge facing our schools is how to make the environment safe for all members of the school community so that they may share what they know, what they don’t know, and what they want to learn.
The extent and form in which these changes will affect schools will depend upon many factors, including a school’s underlying beliefs, values, and assumptions about schooling and students.
A Promising Future
Maranacook and Mt. Abrams will each personalize and internalize the core principles of Promising Futures. Their restructuring will likely look different, but a common thread is that both are putting students in leadership roles and at the center of all decisions. The story of these two journeys will undoubtedly be rich and full of learning for us all. Our charge is to create opportunities and to provide support in trying new things and in taking risks, as well as providing a variety of avenues for descriptive feedback. We look forward to the outcomes of this exciting initiative and will keep you all informed of our efforts. Please contact me if you would like additional information on Leading ME to Promising Futures.
References
Donaldson, G. A., Jr. (2000). A legacy of hope: A short history of secondary education in Maine. Orono, ME: University of Maine, College of Education & Human Development.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Schlechty, P. C. (1990). Schools for the 21st century: Leadership imperatives for educational reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
The following is excerpted from Youthspeak: What We Want Our Teachers To Know (On the web at http://www.ccids.umaine.edu/archive/matp/default.htm)
We have the same needs and desires as all other students; we want to do our best, be respected and supported to feel good about ourselves, and be successful in high school and beyond.
When asked, "What is the number 1 thing you want your teachers to know about you?" teens replied:
We want . . .
We want opportunities for . . .
We worry about . . .
We need our teachers to . . .
The perfect school and community is where . . .
Youthspeak was compiled by youth leaders Jamie Belflower, Shawn Carroll, Cullen Edes, Nick Koppenhofer, Eric Rainey, and Elijah Steward from the words of more than 35 youth from Maine high schools who participated in our initial youth leadership initiatives in 1998. YouthSpeak is an activity of the Center’s collaborative effort with the Maine Bureau of Health under the Maine Adolescent Transition Partnership funded by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, U.S. Dept. of HHS (MCJ-23HRW1).
Kathy Son
kathy.son@umit.maine.edu
Have you ever been in one of those situations where your perspective was totally out of sync with just about everyone else around you? Perhaps you watched a movie that you thought was Academy Award material, but your friends and family (and even the New York Times!) thought it was a bomb. Or perhaps you find beauty in a favorite place or landmark, which nobody else seems to recognize. The phenomenon of appreciating people, places, and things in different ways occurs for everyone, including educators. How often have you had a student in class who was well regarded by you, but was labeled "difficult" or "challenging" by others? Why is it that the very student who did so well in Ms. Jones’ class one year did so poorly with Ms. Doe the next? It seems that one teacher’s Linus can be another teacher’s Lucy. We all know this happens, but why? What guides our impressions and shapes our thoughts and feelings about people or situations, and what are the implications for us as educators as we learn to meet the needs of all students, even the ones described as challenging, in our classrooms and school communities.
Joan (not her real name), like all students, has many strengths and talents as well as unique learning needs and behaviors. She has parents who are strong advocates for her and for the teachers who support their daughter. School staff, Joan, and her parents have all worked diligently throughout the years to provide Joan with an educational program that benefits her with supports and services in entirely regular education settings.
Despite these efforts, Joan arrived at seventh grade with what might be called a "severe reputation." It was a difficult and disappointing year for her, her family, and her teachers. Analysis of teacher remarks about Joan during this period might help clarify some of the reasons why it was such a difficult year. As you read the following comments, consider what impression is created by them. What might you, as a teacher, reasonably expect Joan to learn from and contribute to your class?; What do you anticipate the year with Joan to be like for you?; and What might it be like for Joan as well as the other students in your class?
The following are comments made by Joan’s 8th grade teachers the subsequent year. In light of these remarks, consider anew your impression of Joan. What might you anticipate for the coming year?
What happened here? Nothing about Joan had changed; nevertheless, in a year, Lucy had become Linus. It seems there were two vastly different views of Joan: one in which her disabilities were asserted and emphasized, and another in which her abilities were recognized and celebrated. What a difference a year had made!
Why didn’t this remarkable year happen during 7th grade as well? Without being directly involved, it is impossible to know for sure. It is possible, however, to think about the role of perception in our own classrooms and to ask ourselves some important questions. How do we make sense of two very different views of the same student? How do such different perspectives come about? Many of us have had a similar experience during our years of teaching or have observed a colleague in a comparable situation. How do we, as educators, learn to examine our thoughts and impressions about students who challenge us? Are we willing to expand our point of view? What support needs to be in place to help us in this reflective practice? What is the role of colleagues, administrators, and parents as we learn together to create environments that are positive and learner-centered for all students?
As our classrooms and schools evolve to meet the needs of all students, including the ones described as challenging, we can choose to be educators who question our own assumptions, broaden our perspectives, learn, and grow. In the process, we might discover—as Joan, her parents, and her teachers did—what a difference a year can make.
Alan Kurtz
alan.kurtz@umit.maine.edu
Kathy Son
Kathy.son@umit.maine.edu
Self-advocacy, self-determination, community inclusion, and choice—what do these concepts actually mean, and how have they evolved in relation to people with disabilities and in relation to the work we care to do?
The complex relationships that people with disabilities have established with others in their communities form a rich mosaic, which is not easily summarized. The study of the history of disability can thus be both illuminating and daunting. While limited information is available about the role of individuals with disabilities in some periods of history, there are other times when documentation about the treatment of persons with disabilities exposes the very best—or at times the very worst—of human nature (Ingstad, 1995). Similarly, the attitudes and perceptions about disability vary significantly among cultures.
The struggle of individuals with disabilities and their family members for greater control of their lives, self-determination, community inclusion, and basic civil rights parallels the struggle of many other oppressed groups in the late 20th century. As in other civil rights movements, the struggle has not always been smooth; nor has it been entirely successful as evidenced by the large number of people with developmental disabilities who remain institutionalized. In spite of their movement into communities, people with disabilities frequently lack even the most basic control over their own lives. They remain socially isolated, often living and working in congregate settings even as they have become physically present in our communities. Where equal access and equal participation for people with disabilities exists, it has been brought about largely by organized resistance to the beliefs and practices that support and tolerate segregation and control.
Less than 30 years ago, most people with developmental disabilities lived in what were called state mental retardation/developmental disability (MR/DD) and psychiatric institutions (Anderson, 1998). Over the past 25 years, admission to these facilities has steadily dwindled and many of the people who formerly lived in them have left (Boggs, 1994). Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Washington, DC have closed their large state run institutions entirely.
The development of community services occurred partly as a reaction to abuse, neglect, and deplorable conditions prevalent in institutions. Supporters of community based services adopted a new developmental model that assumed that all people could learn and grow (Bradley, 1994). Rather than simply providing custodial care, providers of community based services would train people with the skills they would need for community integration. As people learned the necessary skills they would progress through a continuum of services, moving regularly to less restrictive environments. This community services culture valued professional skills in instruction and habilitation. Professional training focused largely on the use of behavioral technology that could be used in teaching skills and managing behavior.
The model that helped move people out of institutions had its own limitations, however. People with developmental disabilities continued to have little opportunity to make meaningful choices (Stancliffe & Abery, 1997). The continuum of services turned out not to be a continuum (Taylor, 1999). People who lived in group homes or spent their days in sheltered workshops or day activity centers failed to move on to less restrictive environments. Rules and regulations designed to protect people and to ensure that they were obtaining appropriate treatment produced rigid bureaucracies that squeezed people into existing slots or openings. Individuals continued to be severely isolated from their communities (Walker, 1999; Jameson, 1998; Newton, Olson, & Horner, 1994; Kennedy, Horner, & Newton, 1990).
Nerney (1997) links the pervasive poverty, the lack of freedom, and isolation experienced by many people with disabilities to a lack of control over the resources used for their support. Incredible sums of money are spent on the support of people in community settings. The people receiving those services and their family members have little control how those resources are utilized, resulting in expenditures on services that are inconsistent with the needs and desires of those who receive support.
Bradley (1994) suggested that the problems with the developmental model were leading to a paradigm shift. While intervention by service providers can focus on "1) changing the person, 2) changing the environment, and 3) changing attitudes an expectations" (p. 22) most services have focused on the first. She described a new paradigm that addressed the latter two interventions and moved beyond "the slavish focus on professional services and specialized programs to the exclusion of supports that enhance social presence and relationships."
O’Brien, O’Brien, & Mount (1998) believe that the questions we asked in designing programs for people moving out of institutions are no longer satisfactory.
It was clear that old categories—which had driven institutional reform, deinstitutionalization, and the growth of local services with their focus on accurate diagnosis, therapeutic interventions, and developing skills in small steps—were insufficient to carry people into as full a life as developing technologies of assistance and instruction could support. New procedures directed attention away from questions that generated responses within old categories—questions of the type "What’s wrong with you and how can professionals fix it?"—toward such questions as "What are your capacities and gifts, and what supports do you need to express them?"; "What works well for you, and what does not?"; and "What are your visions and dreams of a brighter future, and who will help you move toward that future?".
If the deinstitutionalizaion movement represents a shift from facilities to programs, then the new paradigm represents a shift from programs to support (Hagner, 2000; Leake, James, & Stodden, 1995). In this new approach those supporting individuals with disabilities try to build the supports necessary for a person to achieve full membership in inclusive communities instead of focusing exclusively on skill-building and preparation for life.
Lovett (1996) claims that there is a significant difference between the struggle of individuals with disabilities and other oppressed groups. In their struggle for acceptance and inclusion, individuals with disabilities are asked to change. Those who are considered successful are those who are seen as having "overcome" their disability (Linton, 1997). The new paradigm rejects an approach that places the onus of responsibility for change on individuals with disabilities themselves.
In the last several years, a growing and increasingly active self-advocacy movement has helped to change traditional assumptions about the respective roles of individuals with disabilities and the people who support them. Self-advocates have begun to demand that their communities accept them as they are and as full and contributing members. Through the self-determination and self-advocacy movements, individuals with disabilities and their family members have begun to demand personalized supports that are based on their needs and desires. This has resulted in new roles for support staff who must now work collaboratively with individuals with disabilities and their families to craft meaningful lives.
The skills needed by direct support professionals under this new paradigm are very different from those needed when support staff were seen primarily as teachers of skills. Direct support professionals in the support paradigm need to develop skills as:
Clearly, this new paradigm requires that the role of the direct support professional shifts from one of theorist, strategist, and modifier to one of ally, supporter, and fellow citizen. In this role, direct support professionals are seen as effective only to the degree that they empower and enable the people they support (Dunst, Trivet, & Deal, 1988). Developing this new role requires listening for and giving regard to the voices of people with disabilities. We must come to know that which people with disabilities say they need and want so that they may lead fulfilling lives. We must listen as we have never listened before. We must learn new ways to share, rather than exert power and control.
In order for personal supports to eclipse entrenched systems and programs, everyone must change the way they work. We are under no illusion, however, that providing direct support professionals with new skills will be sufficient to drive significant systems change. Today, in spite of pervasive rhetoric about self-advocacy and person-centered planning, individuals with disabilities continue to live in extreme poverty, isolated from their communities and from meaningful relationships (Nerney, 1997; Walker, 1999). Ultimately, significant change will occur in human services when individuals receiving supports, their friends, and family members gain control over resources spent in their name.
References
Anderson, L. L., Lakin, C. Managan, T. W. & Prouty, R. W. (1998). State Institutions: Thirty years of depopulation and closure. Mental Retardation, 36, 431-443.
Boggs, E. M. (1994). Benchmarks of change in the field of developmental disabilities. In V.J. Bradley, J. W. Ashbaugh, & B. C. Blaney (Eds.) Creating individual supports for people with developmental disabilities: A mandate for change at many levels (pp. 33-57). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
Bradley, V. J. (1994). Evolution of a new service paradigm. In V.J. Bradley, J.W. Ashbaugh, & B.C. Blaney (Eds.) Creating individual supports for people with developmental disabilities: A mandate for change at many levels (pp. 11-32). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
Dunst, C. J., Trivet, C. M., and Deal, A. G. (1988). Enabling and empowering families. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Hagner, D. (2000). Supporting people as part of the community: Possibilities and prospects for change. In J. Nisbet & D. Hagner (Eds.), Part of the community: Strategies for including everyone. (pp. 15-42) Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Ingstad, B. (1995). Public disourses on rehabilitation: From Norway to Botswana. In B. Ingstad & S.R. Whyte (Eds.) Disability and Culture (pp. 174-195). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Jameson, C. (1998). Promoting long-term relationships between individuals with mental retardation and people in their community: An agency self-evaluation. Mental Retardation, 36, 116-127.
Kennedy, C. H., Horner, R. H., & Newton, J. S. (1990). The social networks and activity patterns of adults with severe disabilities: A correlational analysis. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 86-90.
Leake, D., James, R., & Stodden, R. (1995). Shifting paradigms to natural supports: A practical response to a crisis. In O. Karan & S. Greenspan (Eds.), Community rehabilitation services for people with disabilities (pp. 20-37). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Linton, S. (1998). Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York: New York University Press.
Lovett, H. (1996). Learning to listen: Positive approaches and people with difficult behavior. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes
Nerney, T. (2000, August). The Poverty of Human Services [On-Line]. Available in PDF: http://www.self-determination.com/html/body_topics.html
Newton, Olsen, & Horner, (1995). Factors contributing to the stability of social relationships between individuals with mental retardation and other community members. Mental Retardation, 33, 383-393.
O’Brien, J., O’Brien, C. L. & Mount, B. (1998). In J. O’Brien and C. L. O’Brien (Eds.) A little book about person centered planning (pp.105-111). Toronto, Canada: Inclusion Press.
Schwartz, David B. (1997). Who cares? Rediscovering community. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Stancliffe, R. J., and Abery, B. H. (1997). Longitudinal study of deinstitutionalization and the exercise of choice. Mental Retardation, 35 (3), 159-169.
Taylor, S. J. (1999). On the possibility of reaching a common ground: The continuum and current controversies. Journal on Developmental Disabilities.
Walker (1999). From Community Presence to Sense of Place: Community Experience of adults with disabilities. Journal of Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 23-32.
Four new research associates have joined CCI’s Child Care Plus ME project, our newest early childhood project. The additional staff means that CCI will be able to expand educational and mental health services for young children with disabilities and their families and for the schools and agencies that serve them. CCI announces the following recent additions to the staff:
The new research associates include: Deborah Twomey, early childhood, Kate Laidman, early childhood, Jill Downs, early childhood, and Nancy Larson, mental health. Their work will focus on improving access and quality of child care for all young children in Maine—particularly those with challenging medical and behavioral health care needs—and on preventing children from being excluded from mainstream early care and school aged child care programs.
Welcome, Deb, Kate, Jill, and Nancy to CCI!
Professionals and graduate students from across disciplines who have an interest in or who are working in the field of early intervention are invited to enroll in graduate level coursework in early intervention/early childhood special education offered through The University of Maine. Courses may be applied to the Maine Teacher of Young Children with Disabilities Birth to School-Age Five Endorsement and to a master’s degree. The coursework may be used toward an M.Ed. in Special Education with a specialization in early intervention offered by The University of Maine College of Education and Human Development.
Summer 2001
SEI 502, Foundations of Early Intervention
July 16-20, 2001, Orono
This course will utilize the Intensive Summer Institute format, with students meeting from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. for a one-week period. The course provides an introduction to the field of early intervention for infants and young children with disabilities. Students interested in on-campus housing can call the Housing Office at 581-4576.
Fall 2001
SEI 501, Typical and Atypical Development in Infancy and Early Childhood
This course focuses on children’s development during the period from pre-birth through age 5.
SEI 507, Fostering Partnerships in Early Intervention
This course focuses on the development of knowledge, values, and skills for building partnerships with families and other team members.
Each fall course will be offered on five Saturdays, with classes meeting in Augusta or Orono on alternating Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
For further information about these courses, contact:
Sandy Doctoroff (phone: 207/581-1437, e-mail: sandra.doctoroff@umit.maine.edu) or
Sharon Gilbert (phone: 207/581-1219, e-mail: sharon.gilbert@umit.maine.edu).
For information about registration for classes contact:
Becky Libby (581-2444 or becky.libby@umit.maine.edu).
Maine Division for Early Childhood (MDEC) is a nonprofit membership organization designed for individuals who work with or on behalf of children with special needs, birth through age eight, and their families. Children with special needs include those who have disabilities, have developmental delays, are gifted/talented, or are at risk of future developmental problems. Founded in 1973, the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) is dedicated to promoting policies and practices that support families and enhance the optimal development of young children.
For More Information contact:
Sharon Gilbert (207-581-1219/sharon.gilbert@umit.maine.edu)
Sandy Doctoroff (207-581-1437/sandra.doctoroff@umit.maine.edu)
17th Annual Division for Early Childhood (DEC) Conference
Early Childhood in the New Millennium: Recommended Practices for the Future
December 2-5, 2001
Boston Marriott Copley Place, Boston, MA
How to Get More Information: www.dec-sped.org
Upon request, this issue of FACTS is available on audiotape and on diskette in ASCII format. It will also be made available in other formats to accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities. FACTS is available on our web site in both Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) and html formats at www.ccids.umaine.edu
Contact:
- Debbie Gilmer, Project Co-Director
- Lu Zeph, Project Co-Director
- Pam Flood, Inclusive Education Coordinator
- Linda Labas, Early Care Coordinator
- Betsy Enright, Research Associate
- Martie Kendrick, Research Associate
- Alan Kurtz, Research Associate
- Deb Rainey, Research Associate
- Kathy Son, Research Associate
- Maria Timberlake, Research Associate
- Eric Chapman, Publications Specialist
- Alan Parks, Coordinator of Dissemination and Technology
- Liz Depoy, Coordinator of Research and Evaluation
To contact anyone on the LEARNS team, call: (207) 581-1084.
LEARNS is funded by the Maine Department of Education under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education (CFDA # 84.027A) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
The University of Maine’s Non-Discrimination Policy
In complying with the letter and spirit of applicable laws and in pursuing its own goals of diversity, The University of Maine System shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin or citizenship status, age, disability, or veterans status in employment, education, and all other areas of the University. The University provides reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Questions and complaints about discrimination in any area of the University should be directed to Evelyn Silver, Director of Equal Opportunity, The University of Maine, Room 101, 5754 North Stevens Hall, Orono, ME 04469-5754, 581-1226 (Voice and TTY). This publication is available in alternate formats to accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities.
Tell us what you think.
We’d love your feedback on this issue. Write to us at: