International trends in the education of students with special educational needs
Download 3.41 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR
- 24.1 Criteria for Data Collection
- 24.2 Data as Portrayed in this Review
- 24.3 The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
- 24.4 Australia’s programme of Nationally Consistent Data Collection on School Students with Disability
23.3 SummaryUniversal Design (UD) had its origins in architecture and engineering, and has been increasingly emphasised in education, where it is usually referred to as Universal Design for Learning (UDL). UD may be defined as ‘the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialised design’. UDL involves planning and delivering programmes with the needs of all students in mind from the outset. It applies to all facets of education: from curriculum, assessment and pedagogy to classroom and school design. Three overarching principles guide UDL: (a) provide multiple means of representation, (b) provide multiple means of action and expression, (c) provide multiple means of engagement.
DATA ON STUDENTS WITHSPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDSWith regular stories in the news of massive thefts of people’s private information and the fears associated with the newly-coined term, ‘metadata’ , ‘data’ are in danger of becoming discredited.1 With proper safeguards, however, SWSEN could be the beneficiaries of recent technological developments that have made it possible to acquire, combine, store, analyse, interpret and report information on individuals during any phase of data management and to make decisions based on such information. This chapter will present a set of criteria for data collection, summarise how data have been portrayed so far in this review, outline WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, and refer to Australia’s programme of Nationally Consistent Data Collection on School Students with Disability as an example of data on disabilities. 24.1 Criteria for Data CollectionThe Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines data as ‘facts or information used usually to calculate, analyze, or plan something.’ In a word, data should facilitate good decision-making. In the case of SWSEN, ‘good’ may be defined as being decisions taken in their immediate and long-term interests as students and citizens. This is the over-riding ethical consideration in obtaining and using data. A related principle is that of the individual’s right to privacy and to control information about himself or herself, which the individuals or someone acting on their behalf with their interests in mind may exercise. Depending on the purposes to which data will be put, they should also meet a range of more technical criteria, as follows: Validity Data should measure what it was designed to measure. Reliability Data should reflect instruments that consistently and accurately measure what they set out to measure. Completeness The latest and most comprehensive data should be available for decision-makers. Relevance Data must be relevant to a decision-making task. Timeliness Data should be available in ample time to be analysed before a decision is made. Availability Data should be available to decision-makers on a ‘need to know’ basis. Comparability Different agencies dealing with disabilities should ensure that their data are comparable across agencies, while at the same time developing data that meet their own programmatic needs (Sirken, 2002). 24.2 Data as Portrayed in this ReviewThe nature of data and the assumptions underlying its gathering and use is one of the threads that runs through this review. The following summarises the way in which data are portrayed in the various chapters: Chapter Three: Paradigms Any data that focuses on an individual’s disability is predicated on the assumption that the psycho-medical paradigm is not only legitimate, but takes precedence over the socio-political paradigm. Chapter Four: Definitions, Categorisation and Terminology Given that there is no universal agreement as to how SWSEN should be defined and categorised, it is difficult, if not impossible, to compare data among countries, and sometimes within countries. Chapter Five: Disproportionality in special education Data on ethnic disproportionality suffer from major problems, including the use different approaches to recording ethnicity and the failure to consider that social class may be the more significant variable to focus on when considering over-representation. Chapter Seven: Response to intervention and graduated response Decision-making in implementing the response to intervention model is characterised by variability in data relating to the criteria for risk and for what constitutes growth in interventions, indicators for students being no longer at risk, and determinations for type and content of interventions. Chapter Eight: The educational context Accountability for the quality of education provided for SWSEN hinges on the availability of sound data on both educational inputs and outcomes, which should be available to all stakeholders. Chapter Nine: Funding and resourcing The means of allocating resources to SWSEN rely on appropriate data on individual students’ needs and schools’ capacities to meet those needs, with appropriate safeguards to prevent unintended consequences, such as gaming. Chapter Eleven: Assessment Assessment of SWSEN has the twin aim of obtaining data to inform pedagogical decision-making and the quality of the education provided at the school and system levels. Chapter Twelve: Evidence-based pedagogy Educators are increasingly being expected to use data-based strategies, not only in the selection of their teaching strategies, but also in evaluating their employment. Chapter Thirteen: Inclusive education Data on inclusive education are bedeviled by variability in its definition, its implementation, and, thus, its outcomes. As well, almost every other chapter in the review refers to data obtained on the characteristics and needs of SWSEN and their parents, and the outcomes of various policies and interventions.
According to WHO (2002), ICF offers an international, scientific tool for the paradigm shift from the purely medical model to an integrated biopsychosocial model of human functioning and disability. WHO describes it as ‘a valuable tool in research into disability, in all its dimensions --impairments at the body and body part level, person level activity limitations, and societal level restrictions of participation’ (p.19). As well, ICF is intended to ‘provide the conceptual model and classification required for instruments to assess the social and built environment and will be an essential basis for the standardisation of data concerning all aspects of human functioning and disability around the world’ (p.19). Although a child and youth version of the ICF has been developed (Simeonsson et al., 2003), to date it has not been greatly used in the categorisation of individual children, nor in the planning and monitoring of SWSEN systems (Riddell, 2012).
The rationale for developing a nationally consistent model for collecting information about the support (‘adjustments’) provided to students with disability centred on the concern that the available information on disability varied across states and territories. The model is designed to reflect the four key elements of the federal Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE):
Students are entitled to reasonable adjustments to address a disability under Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) to access education on the same basis as other students. –Schools must have evidence to support the inclusion of the student as meeting the definition of disability under the DDA. This may be a clinician’s diagnosis or could be a range of other evidence sources proposed by the school. Schools are required to undertake and document the processes that support compliance with the DSE. –Schools must confirm that there was documentation that demonstrated a long-term need (minimum one school term) for ongoing adjustments. Schools are required to consult with the student’s parent(s), carer(s) or associate(s) to identify reasonable adjustments provided to the student. –Schools must confirm that consultation had taken place with the student and student’s parent(s), carer(s) or associate(s). Schools must provide reasonable adjustments for the student’s identified disability under the DDA. –Schools select the level of adjustments provided to the student. –Schools select the types of evidence documenting the DSE processes. –Schools select the broad category of disability of the student The model asked schools to classify each student within one of the following four broad categories of disability: physical cognitive social/emotional sensory These are linked to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Australian Human Rights Commission interpretation:
As well, the model asks schools to consider the level of adjustment being provided to support students to enable them to participate in education on the same basis as any other student, in accordance with the DDA and DSE. The following four categories of adjustment are specified, with more detailed descriptors for each level being included in guidance materials provided to schools: No adjustment Some students with disability, at particular stages during their time at school, may not require any personalised adjustments beyond the resources and services readily available in the school for all students. Supplementary adjustment Supplementary adjustments are provided when there is an assessed need at specific times to complement the strategies and resources already available (for all students) within the school. These adjustments are designed to address the nature and impact of the student’s disability, and any associated barriers to their learning, physical, communication or participatory needs. Substantial adjustment Substantial adjustments are provided to address the specific nature and significant impact of the student’s disability. These adjustments are designed to address the more significant barriers to their engagement, learning, participation and achievement. Extensive Adjustment Extensive adjustments are provided when essential specific measures are required at all times to address the individual nature and acute impact of the student’s disability and the associated barriers to their learning and participation. These adjustments are highly individualised, comprehensive and ongoing. It is beyond the scope of the present review to analyse this model in any depth. Rather, the writer has elected to pose a series of questions arising from consideration of issues addressed in other chapters of this review. (It is recognised that the authors of the model may have already considered some or all of them.) 1. Has consideration been given to the principles of Response to Intervention (Chapter Seven)? In particular, do the gradations of adjustments in the model take account of the extent to which evidence-based teaching has been employed before deciding that a higher degree of adjustment is appropriate? 2 .Is the model is intended to lead to funding decisions? If so, has consideration been given to the issues raised in Chapter Nine of the present review? In particular, would a funding model derived from the classification model meet the criteria of transparency, adequacy, efficiency, equity, robustness and freedom from unintended consequences (section 9.5)? For example, is there a risk of over-identifying students with disabilities? 3 .Is the model conducive to inclusive education (Chapter Thirteen)? 4. Does a deficit paradigm underlie the model (Chapter Three)? What account will be taken of the occurrence of disproportionality in the representation of various ethnic groups, gender and socio-economic status in the resultant data (Chapter Five)? Will there be caps on the number of students allocated to the various levels (Chapter Nine)? Could the model lead to classifications that stigmatise students (Chapter Five)? How often will the classifications be made? Can there be appeals against classifications of individual students and, if so, by whom? Is there a risk that, in making decisions using the model, the medical paradigm will predominate (Chapter Three)? Directory: Documents -> about about -> Analysis of Law in the United Kingdom pertaining to Cross-Border Disaster Relief Prepared by: For the 30 June 2010 Foreword about -> Optus pre-paid mobile broadband service about -> Optus mobile broadband service about -> Optus Pre-Paid Mobile Service Service Description about -> About Ace Computers about -> About atlanta about -> Sir Francis Drake is a historic hotel near Moscone Convention Center, San Francisco about -> Optus ip phone Express Service Service Description about -> Autism Spectrum Disorders Download 3.41 Mb. Share with your friends:
|