A Question About Inclusion

When I started writing this blog, I had hoped that it would bring about lively online dialogue about the issues that confront our students, teachers, families, and schools. In preparation I did some research on how school superintendents across the country have used blogs to communicate with members of their school communities. I found that many superintendents started out with the best intentions, yet wound up shutting their pages down. You see, the anonymity offered by the Internet attracted people to these well-intended sites who had other motives.

Many of these tech-savvy school administrators found themselves confronted by statements that were charged with hate, anger, threats, and other inappropriate material. Essentially, people could post whatever they wanted on these blog sites with no accountability. With this in mind I instituted a more comprehensive technological form of identity verification on this blog. Sadly, the steps that one must go through in order to post seem to have diminished the quantity of posts that I have received. Irrespective of this fact, I am happy to see that this site is on the verge of recording 12,000 hits.

Over the past couple of weeks I have had the opportunity to meet with many in the community who are concerned about our latest unfortunate turn of events. I have also responded to questions at public meetings, and am now experiencing an uptick in the number of questions that I am receiving via E-mail. I decided that with the permission of those who E-mail me, I will begin posting my answers to their questions online. I hope that this will be one more way for our districts to communicate accurate information with regard to our budget crisis and our efforts to regionalize the Orange, Ralph C. Mahar Regional, and Petersham Elementary schools.

Today’s question came via E-mail from Orange Elementary parent, Rachael Coolidge. Rachael’s inquiry pertained to the difference between an elementary inclusion class and those that were not labeled to be inclusion classes in our recent press release about class size in the Orange Elementary system. If you have not had the opportunity to read the release, it was posted on this very blog just one week ago. In Mrs. Coolidge’s E-mail she wondered why there were more inclusion classes in grade 4 at Dexter Park Elementary than in other grades. I thought that this was an excellent question and I could not wait to get to it this evening. So Rachael, please accept my thanks for taking the time to send me the message.

Before answering this question there is some educational jargon that must be understood by all readers:

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): This term comes from federal legislation (IDEA) that deals with the education of students with disabilities. It refers to the location in which education is provided for students who are educated under this section of law. This law states that children with disabilities must be educated with non-disabled students to the maximum extent possible, and with respect to each individual’s disability.

Full Inclusion Classroom: In Massachusetts a Full Inclusion Classroom is one in which students with disabilities are educated in regular education classrooms with their same aged peers for 80% or more of the school day.

IEP: Individualized Education Plan – the legal binding document that describes the educational program of a student educated under IDEA (Special Education Legislation).

Back in 2001 it appears as though the Orange Elementary Schools had more than 175 full time instructional staff. Today it appears as though there are nearly 70 less full time teachers and classroom aides than there were ten years ago. Over the last thirty days I learned that in 2001 each classroom at Orange Elementary had both a regular education teacher and a special education teacher. So it is my understanding that in 2001, Orange Elementary had what I would call the “Gold Standard” in elementary education staffing. With the advent of school choice, the district has remained with very close to the same student population for all of these years – yet there is significantly less staff.

The 2001 model offered all students with disabilities education in the “Least Restrictive Environment.” Students with special needs were equally dispersed throughout the schools. In this system each child can be provided with his or her daily educational needs in any and all classrooms.

Each year from 2001 the number of employees in the Orange Elementary system was reduced. The reductions were not quite as dramatic as those that took place just a couple of weeks ago. These were quiet reductions. When employees retired, resigned, or were terminated they simply were not replaced. The fact that their positions were not filled did not draw the attention of our recent 22 layoffs. Eventually each classroom that was populated by two teachers each only had one teacher to provide the same quantity of instruction.

According to the law that I mentioned above (IDEA) students with disabilities are required to have services from special education licensed personnel. As staff was reduced students with disabilities were assigned to classrooms with the remaining special education teachers. In the current model, there are many classes in which the classroom teacher and the special education teacher are one in the same. What Rachael sees in the class size report is the serious efforts of the previous superintendent to remain in compliance with special education regulations as resources became less and less available to the school system.

My research has indicated that it has taken several years for this model to evolve. In its current form there must be special education teachers at every grade level. Also, in this model we are not likely to see students who have IEPs in classrooms of teachers who are not properly licensed to provision instruction to special education students.

This special education delivery system will not endure with me in the position of superintendent. I would change it immediately if I could, but funding is not available for professional development to institute a new, more effective model. Also, we are significantly lacking in an even more precious resource…..and that is time.