- my iParenting
- quick clicks
- special kids today articles
- special kids today q&a
- community & groups
- research baby names
- prepare a birth plan
- content channels
- ip channel rss feeds
- read birth stories
- read parenting stories
- recommended books
- e-newsletters
- safety recalls
- ip diaries
- ip store
- mom of the month
- dad of the month
- editor's letter
- letters to the editor
From Our Sponsors
- e-newsletters
- Sign up to receive our free weekly e-newsletters
- award-winning products
The iParenting Media Awards program helps parents find the best products for their families.
Here's an IDEA
Earlier Help for Special Needs Children By Kelly Burgess
The problem was that, technically, John-Randall didn't qualify for special education because his IQ was too high. It was further testing, done by a private concern, that revealed his severe dyslexia. If the school district had been willing to revise their testing procedures and use some simple subtests, it would have been made clear much earlier in the process. At that point, the district could have made special help available to John-Randall without ever placing him in special education classes.
This is the crux of the legislative changes that James H. Wendorf, executive director of the NCLD, hopes will take effect after this latest restructuring of IDEA.
"IDEA has been a remarkably good law that has helped many children, but it's time to step in and strengthen it, particularly with kids that have specific learning disabilities," says Wendorf. "The main flaw is that these kids are identified too late in the process, and that makes it all the more difficult to step in and address their learning issues."
The NCLD is taking action, such as recommending alternative approaches that will start the process earlier. Currently, a recommendation for special education is based upon a measure of IQ versus performance. The problem with this method is that it's not effective until the child is in third or fourth grade. By that time, they may have been failing for several years. This not only puts the child far behind where he or she should be, it often wreaks the type of havoc on their self-esteem that Ankney witnessed with John-Randall.
"The old saying that these kids are stupid or lazy is simply not true," says Wendorf. "Anyone who has been involved with kids who are struggling know that the vast majority are working very hard and, in fact, are working ovetime. The result is that the children are becoming more frustrated, and the parents are becoming more antagonistic toward the system."
Wendorf and the NCLD would like to see the IQ testing method replaced by an approach called "response to instruction." This method takes struggling children, gives them extra instruction and measures their response. If they still do not succeed in spite of the extra attention, then it would be assumed that a learning disability is present, and they would be tested further for special education services. Technically, it is not special education, and many of the children won't ever end up in the formal special education system, because that early intervention will be sufficient to get them over whatever developmental hump they may be facing. It's a less expensive, less time-consuming and more effective model than what is currently in place.
"We look at it as an 'all, some, few model,'" says Wendorf. "All children start in regular education; some will need short-term intervention, and a few will need to be referred to special education. This method can identify kids with special needs in kindergarten or first grade and doesn't have to happen later with expensive and elaborate tests."