American Teacher Thoughts

The video focused a lot on how much money teachers' make, and the stresses it causes in their everyday lives. Yes, making a lot of money is not in any of our futures unless we marry rich, but if the salary is holding someone back from wanting to do something they love, it is a shame. Wanting to teach has been a passion of mine since I was a little girl. If every day we can leave our classrooms happily knowing that we did everything we possibly could to affect each child in a positive light, then each day it is as if we are making a million dollars. I understand that money puts a lot of stress on current teachers, and I know we can relate somewhat to having to pay off student loans, but if teaching is what we love, then we should stick with it.

There are many things that I am sure could be different that would allow teachers to get paid more, but I honestly do not have the knowledge of how all of that works. I think America as a whole needs to look into the ways Singapore, Finland, and South Korea finance for their teachers. It is amazing to me that the USA does nothing that those three countries do for their teachers. Being a teacher is a very difficult job. I am not saying that a doctor or lawyer is not a hard job, but who teaches them to get to that point in their life? TEACHER’S DO! I believe that if we all collaborate and find strategies that work and do not work so much and continue to do what we do best, something good will come along. Teaching is a blessing in disguise, and each of us have our own personal ways of implementing instruction into the classroom that will one day affect many students lives.

This screening, although depressing at times, has motivated me even more, and made me realize once again that I am sticking with my passion. If I can make an impact like anyone of those teachers have, I would call that success.

IRIS Module on RTI (Blog 2):

Thoughts (Before completing the module)

1.       What procedures do you think Rosa Parks Elementary is using to provide services to struggling students? Why are school personnel dissatisfied with this process?

I think Rosa Parks Elementary is using the wait-to-fail model as well as the IQ discrepancy model to provide services to struggling students. In SED 293, we learned that the wait-to-fail model fails to show a discrepancy which can cause a student to not receive special education services when needed. This then does not allow the student to receive early interventions. I believe that school personnel are dissatisfied with this process because students who need special education services are not identified until third or fourth grade. Students could be struggling in earlier grades, but because that student does not qualify at the specific level below the average IQ (100), they do not qualify for special education services. I also feel that the school personnel are dissatisfied because they have been working with the IQ discrepancy model, but others are starting to question whether or not it is working, which can cause differences of opinions. It is important to make sure everyone is on the same boat and have the want and desire to learn about how different method’s and processes of identifying special needs works.

2.       What approaches are available to schools to help struggling readers and to efficiently identify students who need special education services?

Response to Intervention (RTI) and the IQ discrepancy model are both approaches that are available to schools to help struggling readers. RTI immediately provides intervention for students. With this approach, students are monitored constantly to allow observations of the process they are making. I think it is important for a student to receive immediate intervention if struggling. In this case, students who are struggling to read. If they are helped early on, it can prevent future problems for that child. They should not have to suffer because of an approach that is not working properly for them. RTI eliminates the wait-to-fail model, which I think is fantastic. If a child is being observed to see if they are going to fail later on, if they are struggling now, even if it is only a little, why not give them additional support now? Sometimes it frustrates me that anyone would ever consider the wait-to-fail model. To me it seems like the individual is literally waiting to watch someone fail. I try to compare it to how I learn. If I was struggling to understand a concept at this particular moment in time, what would make more sense…attempting to understand it now, so I have a better grasp on it and can ask for help or wait to see if I fail later on? I hope you are thinking what I am and go with the first choice. I have sympathy for children who struggle and receive no help, whether they have a learning disability or not. The IQ discrepancy model tests to see if a student has a learning disability. The IQ test assesses the student’s mental ability, while the achievement test assesses the student’s positional. This model does not assess the instruction given, and can take years to see if a gap exists between the performance and that of the students peers. This causes problems in identifying early on whether or not a child should qualify for special education services.

3.       What other information might a school find helpful when choosing which approach to adopt?

When choosing which approach to adopt, I think schools need to focus on whether or not students are receiving high quality instruction always.  We learned that students who are pulled out tend to never rejoin the general education class, and that to me is unacceptable. All teachers, no matter where a student may be should be striving to get them to move on to the next level. If we lower our standards as teachers, students will never gain confidence and will accept failure for what it is. Teachers should provide differentiated instruction and use valid assessments. Throughout these processes, I believe that teachers should also collect data whenever possible to help compare how the student has progressed from week to week.  I also think that schools need to compare the differences of models. For example: the two types of RTI which are problem solving and the standard protocol. The difference between the two is in Tier 2. In problem solving, the types of intervention vary, but in the standard protocol model, there is only one standard intervention. It also depends on if a school wants their students to receive immediate intervention or if they only want to know if a student has a learning disability. Another helpful idea would be possibly looking at other test instruments to better understand where students are at.

4.       What steps might the S-Team propose to help its struggling readers?

The S-Team may propose using the RTI model, to first conduct a universal screening, where students would be monitored early on to see if they need any special education services or interventions.  This will involve data analysis and assessments will be considered with instruction. After conducting a universal screening, students will be placed in a specific tier level (1, 2, or 3) based on where that student stands at that particular moment in time. In Tier 1, interventions are given to whole class or the whole school based on the level. In this tier, effective instruction is given in the general education classroom. In Tier 2, small groups in class are targeted. This tier builds upon the first tier and teachers use strategic evidence-based interventions. The last tier, Tier 3, uses intensive, evidence-based interventions for individuals or very small groups. In this last tier, if students are not progressing at the rate they should be, they are then referred for an evaluation to see if they would qualify for special education services.

5.       What are the disadvantages of the IQ discrepancy model and how does RTI address those concerns? What might be difficult in implementing the RTI model?

The IQ discrepancy model has many disadvantages.  It fails to qualify students at an earlier time, so that students have followed under the wait-to-fail model.  In RTI, fewer students fail later on because they receive early intervention right away. The amount of time for a student to receive special education services is decreased.  In the IQ model  when a student does not meet the discrepancy criteria they tend to be overlooked as having a learning disability based upon how low their score was compared to the average IQ level. In RTI, students who are seen as “struggling” receive immediate support, which later on assists them in being included in the general education classrooms.  Another way the IQ model is at a disadvantage is that assessments do not discriminate between students with disabilities and the results of teachers providing inadequate instruction.  In RTI, instruction must be of high quality or students will never stay in Tier 1.  If students stay in the same Tier, they will never improve and that is not the point of providing additional support.

RTI may be difficult to implement in deciding who should be in what tier. We discussed this matter when reading the article that addressed the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students.  Some students may not have a learning disability, but need differentiated instruction based on how they learn.  If teachers are not culturally responsive and are not skilled to be able to teach the same thing in many different ways, then that will affect the child’s learning. That is the last thing I want to be doing as a teacher is not providing a way for my students to learn. One of the first things I learned when wanting to be a teacher is that every child is unique. Each student learns in a different way. I am a visual learner, but I need to broaden my horizons and learn how to accommodate my lessons to allow all different types of learners to understand the material and content.

Chapter 1: Perspectives on Disabilities

Many students tend to have mild disabilities that go unattended. Most people even overlook the fact that students are still struggling and need support. A point that stuck out to me is to have a better understanding of life experiences of both students with mild disabilities and students who have generalized problems learning. I absolutely agree that having a better understanding could help serve some sort of learning strategy for students who have yet to be classified. Even if a student is characterized as having a mild disability, it does not mean we can just ignore it and think of that disability as being "not severe". We must take action to find strategies to spark interest and learning in each child, whether the disability be undiagnosed, mild, or severe.

Although a student may have some sort of classification, having knowledge of that rarely provides enough information to plan programs that would be effective. This is where many have the debate over whether or not labeling is beneficial. There are many pro's and con's. I believe that labeling can be very beneficial if used correctly. Although a student may be labeled, we do not need to know that person because of their disability, but of how to better accommodate their learning style. I find it important to make each child feel so-called "normal" by knowing them by their name, not by their disability, as well as their interest and how best they learn. It is important to be labeled so that they can qualify for special education services, but a label is a label. It should not make the person who they are.

On page 8, I really liked the quote that said, "Language reflects our perceptions, beliefs, and understandings of our world. It also helps shape those perceptions. Thus language can exert a powerful influence on social processes which help shape human lives." This quote to me demonstrates how much power language really does have on an individual. How a person describes another can really shape human's lives. Students are judged based on what they are called instead of who they really are, and I do not think that is fair. I find it important to use person-first language and focus on sentence construction when speaking about an individual who has a disability.

Each team member serves a very important role in educating children with multiple disabilities. I find it important for each member to work together to develop instructional goals and objectives to be met by the student. It seems that if multiple people were surrounding the student at one time, it would be very overwhelming. Communication is huge in keeping up with the current IEP and continuing to help the student progress. By communicating information from one member to another, it can provide the members with a plethora of knowledge, so that only a few need to be present at one time. As a team, I agree that focusing on the four major areas is important. Focusing on assessment, instructional goals, intervention, and evaluation will all assist in helping the student evolve.