World Languages and Students with IEPs

By Kathleen Kosobud, past president, LDA of Michigan

Many education leaders and policy-makers agree that competency in at least one World Language other than English is important if U.S. citizens are going to compete in a world-wide economy, and promote global understanding.  Multiple language policy has been a hot topic for a variety of reasons. Should we provide bilingual instruction to students who are immigrants? Should we teach World Languages to preschoolers and elementary students, at a time when their brains may be more receptive?  What languages should we be teaching, and why?  Should we shift our emphasis away from French and German in favor of Arabic and Chinese?  Can students with disabilities be expected to learn foreign languages? Are students with disabilities less disadvantaged because all students enter on an equal footing as beginners?

The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) has been an active partner in the development of curriculum for World Language instruction, and has been a strong advocate for increasing participation of all students in learning World Languages. In 1995, as part of a move to develop national standards for schools, ACTFL identified five aspects of World Language that are essential to a balanced World Language curriculum: “The Five Cs”—Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities. (With Nod to History, Foreign-Language Standards Unveiled).  “The Five Cs” offer guidance for instructional planning, as well as setting the foundation for assessing accomplished teaching, through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) (go to NBPTS and search for World Languages Standards). [see endnote 1]

Picture source: http://monsieurdoehla.wikispaces.com

By 2000, developers of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) announced their intention to develop assessments for graduating HS seniors in their grasp of Spanish as a foreign language.  However, by 2004, the effort was tabled: there was insufficient participation in the assessment for the developers to establish test validity (National Foreign-Language Assessment Delayed Indefinitely). Foreign Language instruction remained the only subject identified as a core area in national legislation that was not assessed in the NAEP. In 2005, despite legislative cuts to foreign language instruction budgets, the U. S. Department of Defense intensified its efforts to expand instruction in foreign languages and culture, particularly in Chinese and Arabic (Defense Department Takes the Offense on Languages).  As national, state and local funding of education has continued to focus in on reading and mathematics under No Child Left Behind many efforts to maintain or expand World Language instruction have been curtailed. Yet, in the global education arena, many policy analysts and educational researchers argue that U.S. education suffers from a lack of breadth and rigor, including instruction in foreign languages and culture. In many other countries students graduate from the equivalent of high school speaking two or more languages.

This brings us to the Michigan Merit Curriculum requirement for knowledge of a World Language other than English for all high school students expecting to graduate with a diploma. Here’s my disclaimer: I am not a Personal Curriculum (PC) Liaison, but I am interested in ensuring that students with disabilities do not lose ground under the new Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC). If you’re not already familiar with the term, PC Liaisons are district employees to whom you can turn with questions about local district practices involving the MMC.  They are the ones who have information about accommodations and modifications for accelerated students, struggling students, transfer students, and students with disabilities. Contact Mary Head for permission to join the Personal Curriculum Ning, a place where PC Liaisons can share what their districts are doing to adjust the MMC for various kinds of students.

I recently participated in a webinar on the World Language requirement for PC Liaisons hosted by Michigan Department of Education staff and local district consultants (view here: World Languages PC Webinar,  January 19, 2012).  Under the MMC, the graduating class of 2016 (this year’s 8^th graders) will need to complete two years of World Language instruction, or demonstrate a Novice-High proficiency in a World Language other than English (through an assessment based on the ACTFL standards for World Languages).

Picture source: http://www.languagetesting.com/scale.htm

This rating covers students’ skills in speaking, writing, listening, and reading a World Language.  In order for students to achieve this level of proficiency, instruction may be at a higher level—Intermediate—so that students’ performances average out to Novice High levels.  There is no state assessment; this is left for local districts to manage, either through assessment of the Michigan benchmarks for World Languages as students progress through World Language courses, or through assessments purchased or created by the district that align with the ACTFL standards. Formal testing is only necessary for students who wish to demonstrate mastery, either because they elect to get credit by “testing out”, or because they want to enter more advanced coursework.

Presenters in this webinar noted that a variety of strategies improve the performance of all students in World Language courses, including students with disabilities: team teaching with a special educators who have a world language background, peer mentors, National Honor Society tutors, test readers, and block scheduling all seemed to be helpful for students who might struggle without additional support.  In addition, for students with IEPs, presenters reported that the same accommodations and supports identified in an IEP for Language Arts or English instruction may be used to promote success in World Language classes. 

For students with IEPs, it is also possible to write a Personal Curriculum, identifying portions of the curriculum that they can be expected to achieve, applying the term “as much as is practicable” as guidance, and individualizing based on a student’s needs.  Personal Curriculum plans are only considered after other interventions have been exhausted, according to the speakers.  This means that your high schooler may be working on “exhausting interventions” until the junior and senior year of high school.  In the process of exhausting interventions, there is also the distinct possibility that your student will be behind in credit.  If at all possible, parents need to make their Personal Curriculum requests early, and make sure that interventions are not used as excuses to delay consideration of a Personal Curriculum plan. 

I have some thoughts about selecting a particular World Language to learn, and some of the ways of accommodating a student with learning disabilities. The choice of language may contribute to a student’s success.  Spanish is considered by many to be the easiest of languages to learn because of its’ simpler grammar.  From a listening and speaking perspective, this may help a student who has difficulty with vocabulary, since fewer word forms need to be learned. French, Italian and German may be slightly more complex, grammatically, but may also have appeal. A note on vocabulary:  if your student has difficulty with new or specialized vocabulary in English, make sure that this is accommodated in the World Language class.

Reading, writing and spelling may be problems, especially for a person who is considered to be dyslexic or dysgraphic. Languages that use a different written system (Arabic, Japanese, Chinese, Hebrew) than our alphabet may not be as good a choice for those with dyslexia either. Emphasis on speaking, conversation, and oral translation is better for students for whom reading and writing in English is already a problem. (One of these days, I imagine, the same suite of tools that students use for speech to text in English, word prediction, and contextual spelling will be as readily available for World Language learners). Closed captioning on television, either in English or in a World Language allows a learner to listen to a language and connect meaning to the written or spoken word.  Having access to this technology may influence your high-schooler’s choice of language.

There are other language options that naturally emphasize one modality over another.  Latin is not primarily a spoken language; students with auditory difficulties may find it more to their liking than learning a language where their pronunciation of words will be a constant challenge.  “Heritage” languages are primarily spoken and gestural languages. These may be better suited for students who are interested in Native American culture, and find their greatest difficulties in reading and writing.  American Sign Language (ASL--the language of the Deaf culture) [see endnote 2] eliminates listening, speaking, reading and writing, and substitutes viewing, signing, gesture and expression.  Students who are visually oriented may find that ASL meets their needs.

As with all accommodations and modifications, it takes effort on the part of parents to help bring about maximum access for a student with a disability.  In some districts, schools allow students to use community resources as alternative classrooms.  If your district is one that will entertain that possibility, you may be able to connect your student to a member of the community for instruction in a language that is not offered in school in exchange for some bartered service. For instance:  learn a “heritage” language from a tribal elder in exchange for doing household chores.  Many community colleges offer ASL courses.  Although they may go too quickly for some students, you may be able to work on an arrangement between your local district and the ASL instructors to offer a slower version of the course for a group of high-schoolers.

LDA of Michigan is interested in hearing from you about your experiences with the new high school diploma requirement for World Languages. Contact LDA of Michigan with your stories or questions.

Resources:

Link to About World Languages

Link to ACTFL Proficiency Standards

Link to Language Links/Special Needs

            Link to NBPTS World Language Standards for Teachers

            Link to the World Language Requirement Power Point (for PC Liaisons)

World Languages Consultants:

            Dr. Millie Mellgren: newlanguagepathways@gmail.com

            Dr. Barbara Appold: appoldb@bangorschools.org

            Lori Flippin: flippinl@e-hps.net

---

Endnotes:

1.  I had the privilege of working as a liaison to NBPTS on the development of the World Languages teacher assessment, and learned a bit about what sets teachers of World Languages apart from teachers in other disciplines, and how instruction in different languages varies—depending on the unique characteristics of each language.  Some languages are only written (e.g. Latin), some are only spoken (e.g. Native American “heritage” languages), some require additional references in order to produce written text (e.g. Japanese and the use of a kanja dictionary), and some are neither spoken nor written (e.g. American Sign Language).


2.  Rosen, Russell S. (2008). American Sign Language as a Foreign Language in U.S. High Schools: State of the Art. Modern Languages Journal 92, 10-38.

----- 

Abstract:  The last 2 decades witnessed a growth in American Sign Language (ASL) as a foreign language in U.S. secondary schools. This overview of the current state of ASL as a foreign language in the schools consists of a history and a survey. The information on history was drawn from a study conducted by Rosen (2006). This history is followed by a national survey compiled by Rosen (2005) on U.S. secondary schools offering ASL for foreign language credit. The survey provided information on the number and distribution of schools, teachers, classes, students, departments, and the process for program implementation. The information is used to ascertain the current breadth and scope of, and to discern trends in, ASL as a foreign language in public high schools nationwide.

###

This study is comprehensive enough to provide some support for offering ASL as a world language, in my opinion.

Public Comment to the Michigan Board of Education forum in Ann Arbor

To: Members,  Michigan State Board of Education
Date:  May 26, 2011                                 

My name is Kathleen Kosobud.  I am a “temporarily retired” special educator working on my dissertation. My research focus is on family-school collaboration in special education. I am one of the first 87 teachers in the country to have achieved the status of National Board Certified Teacher (NBCT-EA/Generalist, 1993).  I am also the immediate past president of the Learning Disabilities Association of Michigan (LDA), an all-volunteer organization; and I am finishing my service as LDA’s representative on MDE’s Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC).  I am here to speak from my experiences as a teacher, parent, and advocate about righting the course for students with disabilities as they are challenged to meet the High School Content Expectations or “huskies” (HSCEs) of the Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC).

I read the SBE’s recommendations to Governor Snyder: “Education Improvement and Reform Priorities” and heartily endorse your performance focus regarding graduation, and the ability of graduates to “obtain post-secondary credentials that ensure they are well-equipped with skills for work, self-support, starting a business, and contributing to the common good”. This year marks the first graduating class affected by the changes in curriculum requirements through the Michigan Merit Curriculum.  Although the initial legislation was passed in 2006, with additional legislation supporting the development of “Personal Curricula” (PCs) for students with disabilities passed in 2007, it seems that districts across the state are still unprepared or unwilling to implement PCs for students whose identified disabilities interfere with successful completion of the MMC, without such modification.  During the past year I have fielded calls from parents who have encountered varying forms of resistance to their requests for PC plans for their high schoolers.

One parent called me after school personnel at her son’s 9th grade special education planning meeting (IEP), told him that he would not be getting a diploma.  Stunned by this pronouncement, his comment was, “Then why am I bothering to go to school?”

Another parent called me when her daughter, a senior with mathematics learning disabilities, flunked her first semester of Algebra II.  Although this parent had requested a Personal Curriculum for her daughter since her freshman year, the district said that she had to fail courses in order to warrant consideration for a Personal Curriculum. So, until her senior year, she was left to struggle through all of the curriculum requirements at her high school, without PC modifications and lagging in credit. Since she also was having difficulty with the mathematics HSCEs of chemistry, the district suggested that she drop Band (the one course in which she was experiencing success), in order to take a team-taught class in chemistry, and repeat the Algebra II course that she failed.  Finally, because she was going to be short of credits for graduation at the end of the year, the district would not allow her to walk with her graduating class--students with whom she had attended school for all 12 years of her time in this rural district.

A third parent called after a district told her that they “didn’t do” PCs. Period. This troubles me on a number of levels.

First, students with high-incidence disabilities have always had the potential for gainful employment and full participation in the adult world, with appropriate accommodation for their disabilities.  The reluctance of districts to respond affirmatively to requests for Personal Curricula is punitive, and mean-spirited.  Loss of access to a diploma represents, for students with disabilities, lifelong diminishment of opportunity. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics[1] in April of this year, people with less than a high school education experienced a seasonally adjusted 14.6% unemployment rate nationally.  High school graduates for the same time period experienced a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 9.7%.  This is nearly a 5% difference.  Further, for men with disabilities, ages 16 to 64 years old, the unemployment rate was 16.1%, compared to a 9.2% unemployment rate for those without disabilities[2]  Women in the same age range were unemployed at 15.2% with disabilities and 7.8% without.  We don’t need to “help” our students with disabilities add to these sorry statistical outcomes.

Second, denial of the opportunity to complete high school with the support of a PC reinforces the abundantly-felt lack of self-worth that students with disabilities often acquire as part of their school experiences.  From the time that they begin to show achievement differences, students with disabilities are more likely to be bullied, excluded and devalued.  Denial of opportunity to complete high school with a diploma is, in effect, an institutional validation of everything that students with disabilities have internalized since the early years of their schooling.  Without hope, we see a rise in risky behavior, alienation, and ultimately the justification needed for dropping out.

Third, the failure of districts to appreciate that people ultimately contribute to society in a variety of ways has led to a decrease in the wealth of options for students to be successful in completing “as much as is practicable” of the Michigan Merit Curriculum, in alignment with their talents, interests and career goals.  Many Michigan districts are experiencing, for example, a decrease in enrollment in Career and Technical Education courses, even though there could be many opportunities for the embedding of practical mathematics and sciences in these courses, in fulfillment of the MMC.  Like many of you, I depend on skilled technicians when I need home improvements or repairs. It is a short-sighted form of budget-consciousness that comes out of districts interpreting the MMC as a series of “one size fits all” classes.

I don’t think that the Michigan Board of Education had any intention of increasing the stratification of students by recommending the MMC.  In fact, two years ago, while I was still president of LDA of Michigan, we printed and distributed buttons like the one I’m wearing that reads:  “Rigor, Relevance, Relationships…and ACCESS!”   I adhere to the notion of “assuming competence” in all individuals and so I see the MMC as an opportunity for districts to collaboratively create classes and programs that allow for maximum learning diversity.

Button Design, LDA MI Conference 2009

We have many resources in place to offer technical assistance and support through Michigan's Integrated Improvement Initiatives (MI3)[3] for this work. We can make school a much better environment for students with disabilities, from the time they are identified through the time that they successfully complete high school with the appropriate supports, services, accommodations, and modifications. Districts across the state are using the MMC to develop courses that have the capacity to engage a variety of learners through multiple representations of content, differentiation in the ways that students interact with the content, and opportunities for students to demonstrate their mastery of content in a variety of ways.  These need to be widely shared, and easily accessed by those districts that have fewer resources to devote to the task of curriculum development. Finally, we need to remember that the workforce that will bring Michigan out of its economic slump depends on having diverse enough skills that the collapse of a single industry will not bring us to our knees.

Michigan’s Board of Education has laid the groundwork through the policies that it has crafted to make a more equitable and attainable future. In the words of the late Ronald Edmonds, my former Pioneer High School history teacher (1978 speech):

“We can whenever, and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need, in order to do this. Whether we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so far.”

Thank you.

-----
About N Kathleen Kosobud:  Kathleen is a member of the Network of Michigan Educators, a group of 500 or so recognized educators in Michigan who are available to state policy-makers for their expert opinions on policies affecting education and children, through the “Ask the Network” program started by Jean Shane at the MDE.  Kathleen blogs for LDA of Michigan at http://ldamiexchange.blogspot.com/, and for her own amusement at http://backburner-nkk.blogspot.com/.  She was one of the contributors to the revamping of the teacher education program at Michigan State University’s School of Education through a project to infuse inclusive content into all teacher education courses for the preparation of new teachers, under the guidance of Susan J. Peters, Ph.D. After achieving National Board Certification as an Early Adolescence/Generalist as a teacher of middle school mathematics in a special education resource classroom, she served as a teacher-in-residence for Assessment Development at the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.  She is the parent of two adult children with learning disabilities, and identifies as a person with learning disabilities, herself.  You can reach her by e-mail.

[1] US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A4: Employment Status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm, accessed 5/25/11

[2] US Bureau of Labor Statistics: Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm, accessed 5/25/11

[3] http://cenmi.org/About.aspx

Michigan Merit Curriculum Update (with added editorial comments)

by N. Kathleen Kosobud, for LDA of Michigan

The purple prose you see here is an addition to this blog post, to show the convoluted process that learning can take.  Sometimes when you think you have learned something new you are merely questioning the rightness of something you previously believed.  I admit to being fallible, gullible, and vulnerable to having my beliefs shaken.  I didn't go in search of a rebuttal or, in an act of revenge, attempt to prove that I was right and "they" were wrong but somewhere, we seem to have meandered into the territory of what Stephen Colbert used to refer to as "truthiness".  "Truthiness" is having an outward appearance of being correct, with an underlying shaky foundation.  I believe that I was taken in by the "truthiness" of the following:

This month's meeting of the Michigan Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) included a presentation on the Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC). I learned some new things about how things really work in the world of education.

1. The Michigan Department of Education can only flesh out policy.  It cannot force districts to do anything that is not a matter of law. Because Personal Curriculum options are written into policy as an option (in other words, a school district may offer...) there is nothing to make a district offer a Personal Curriculum as an option.

Now, I believed that I had been corrected; I had been misinformed that districts must offer a Personal Curriculum, and this presentation corrected that bit of misinformation.  And so, to soften the blow to readers, I wrote the following to show that there were many ways to achieve the end of making the Michigan Merit Curriculum more "user-friendly" for students with learning disabilities:

2.  The Personal Curriculum option was envisioned as one of a number of ways to help students with IEPs achieve the needed credits for a diploma.  Other options include: academic content embedded in career and tech education classes, academic courses offered in alternative formats (online courses, self-paced courses offered with online and face-to-face components, courses featuring multiple representations of the content, etc.).

3.  The Personal Curriculum was seen as one component of a range of options.  For students with IEPs, it was seen as a way of documenting modifications to the requirements for attaining a diploma, in recognition of the impact of an individual student's disability on learning in a particular area of academic content.

...and in recognition that not everyone's Educational Development Plan (EDP) would list "theoretical physicist" as their career goal--requiring a high level of achievement in math, science and technology.  The EDP might list "house painter" as a career goal, which might not require as rigorous a curriculum in math or science, even though it might be a good idea to have some solid knowledge of business management, financial planning, cost bidding, materials estimation, and small business tax laws.

4.  Once a diploma is granted or a planned program is achieved, a student still is exited from high school.  Therefore, it may be to a student's advantage to take a longer time in high school to achieve the un-personalized curriculum, in order to take advantage of career-readiness opportunities.

... and here I was thinking of the "late bloomer" who might not have the foggiest idea of what she wanted to be in life, but by taking her time to complete all the requirements of the MMC, would have more options as she entered college.

So, if you ask for a Personal Curriculum for your child, and the school district says they don't offer a Personal Curriculum for students with IEPs, that may be true.  (At least in the opinion of some MDE consultants...but read on).  However, it might be worth your while to encourage the district to consider a Personal Curriculum for your child, if there is data on the impact of your child's disability on academic learning. This data could support needed modifications to an area of the curriculum in order for your child to succeed. ...especially, if your child's career goals may make other areas of learning more important than the standard MMC.

However, if your district says "No", you may also ask the district to explain what they are doing to support the graduation of all students.  If there are alternative courses to help students master content, these should be available to your child, as well.  School districts are still expected to show that they are improving graduation rates, and face a variety of consequences for failing to maintain or increase those rates.  In addition, the State uses the test scores that virtually all high school students in Michigan take to evaluate school effectiveness.  Schools with a record of low scores are likely to be changing what they teach and how they teach it to increase those test scores. Finally, if other district students have been offered the Personal Curriculum as an option, you may be able to appeal ...or legally question... the refusal of a district to consider a Personal Curriculum on the basis of equal opportunity.

This is not a static conversation.  As the state gains experience with a highly prescriptive, outcomes-based curriculum, there may be more and more unintended consequences to be seen.  And, there may be improvements in the preparation of all students to meet the challenges of a rigorous high school curriculum.

Again, this is not a static conversation.  I re-read the box on page 2 of the Parents Guide to the Personal Curriculum: Focus on Students with an IEP:  "Districts MUST offer the PC option and respond to all PC requests but are NOT required to approve all PC requests." I'm pretty sure that MUST still means "is required to".  So, I learned something from "learning something new"--and that is to make sure that you have your information straight when you make a presentation.  I'll be sending a note to all people listed below, to make sure that "MUST" means what I think it means...and not "may".  It's not that I have anything invested in proving someone wrong, but in making sure that I don't misinform families when I make statements about the Personal Curriculum as an option.

In the meantime, if you are interested in becoming better informed about the Michigan Merit Curriculum, the Personal Curriculum option for students with IEPs, and the implications of achieving or not achieving a diploma, here are some additional resources for you to use:

• Personal Curriculum Network (where personal curriculum liaisons share information). To gain access to the Personal Curriculum Network, use this link
• ACTpoint Michigan (a site most districts use to identify key curriculum objectives for a Personal Curriculum)

• General Personal Curriculum questions:

Gregg Dionne
Alternative Education Consultant,
MDE Curriculum and Instruction
Phone 517.241.6895

Mary Head
Department Analyst
MDE Curriculum and Instruction
Phone 517.241.6895

• Students with IEP Questions
  

  Sheryl Diamond
  Policy Consultant
  MDE Special Education
  Phone: 517.335.0442

• Algebra II Questions
  

Dan LaDue
Secondary Mathematics Consultant
MDE, Curriculum and Instruction
Phone: 517.241.6895

For further information, please refer to earlier posts on this same blog.  And I hope to keep learning something new that will help families to make good decisions in concert with their children's needs.

The opportunity costs of enacting the MMC

by Kathleen Kosobud, on behalf of LDA of Michigan

2011 is the first year where high school graduates will be awarded diplomas based on the completion of the Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC), a "rigorous" menu of 16 to 18 credit requirements. Although advanced students will have the opportunity to test out of some of these courses and will be able to make special arrangements for early college enrollment, and there are some provisions to enable students to extend the length of time for completing some mathematics classes, the course requirements have made graduation with a diploma far more rigid and prescriptive than in the past. Of course, in the past, Michigan had only one or two course requirements, so pretty much anything went, as long as a student completed 21 credits.

This new curriculum has had a negative impact on enrollment in Career and Tech Education (CTE) courses. Although there was talk of analyzing the course content of CTE to recognize the integration of math and science content in many of these courses, it seems instead to have had the effect of reducing enrollment in CTE courses, as students struggle to fulfill the curriculum requirements by taking the "plain vanilla" math and science courses. As a result, it has left students little or no room in their schedules for CTE. For students with disabilities, this means a loss of opportunity to develop some needed competencies in a meaningful context.

Image: Ladder going up into the clouds; Source: lifehack.org

The same result seems to have happened in the visual and performing arts. Although all students are expected to take one credit in this area, students whose strengths and interests would have led them to take more courses in the arts have found themselves unable to fit these courses into their schedules as they find them conflicting with other academic course requirements. For students with disabilities, part of career development is finding their niche(s) of competence. We don't identify students with disabilities through their failures in the visual and performing arts, nor through their failures in vocational skills. Educational disabilities are mostly defined through the academic cores of literacy, communications, and numeracy.

The "plain vanilla" Michigan Merit Curriculum, which is ideally suited for students who expect to complete 4-year liberal arts degrees in college may, in fact, be hindering students whose career choices are in technical fields or the arts, unless districts are able to see their ways clear to creatively reconfiguring academic coursework to link it with the applied fields in which many of Michigan's young people could be useful and successful. A meaningful, well-rounded high school education could be shaped around the MMC. There are hints of this happening around the state, despite an economic slump the size of the Grand Canyon. However, for many districts, course development is an added cost that simply cannot be taken on.

The problem is, because there are few resources available to devote to making the MMC a robust and truly innovative reform--the kind of reform needed to develop a 21st Century Workforce of unimaginable versatility--we are left with the "bare bones" of a high school education. Narrowing the range of course offerings is unlikely to produce positive graduation and career readiness for students at risk, or with disabilities. Further, moving students with disabilities into segregated "resource" courses may reduce their odds of meeting the MMC.

Readers who thought this blog entry was going to be a continued monologue about the intricacies of applying for a Personal Curriculum (PC) can rest easy. This is the entry where we talk about "fairness". Now, you've all heard it: "Fairness isn't when everyone gets the same thing, it's when everyone gets what they need." Yessir! That's right! But...

Sometimes things come in packages that look pretty darned promising (at least when presented to the legislature), but when you open them up, there's nothing there. I'm thinking this is one of those times: nice package, no substance. The Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC), the golden calf that will save Michigan from a future of decline, has triggered a response that leaves many more children behind, as public school funds become scarcer, and curricular triage becomes the mode of the day.

The impact of the MMC on inclusion has turned the clock backwards. Yes, it is regressive. Students with disabilities who were included in general education classes are being re-segregated into "remedial" or "adjusted studies" classes; the old rational-technical factory model made popular at the turn of the 20th century. Students who fall behind in their studies are being funneled into "credit recovery" classes. Suddenly, the solution to learning diversity is no longer differentiated services, but "differentiated" places.

Instead of assuming competence, these "triage strategies" structurally re-segregate students away from their peers, and away from rich learning environments where everyone contributes their experience to aid in knowledge-construction. Instead, young people are being separated out, based on estimates of their limitations, and placed in environments of "knowledge constriction". This is indecent, at least, and a flagrant violation of the civil rights of individuals with disabilities, children who are English language learners, children in poverty, and children whose skin color triggers assumptions of (in)competence. It is a violation of every child's right to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.

These strategies are punitive; they fail to recognize that people are not all made the same. Struggling students, are counseled out of electives (often the classes where they are able to develop skills in their areas of strength), so that they can take double loads of academics to make up for classes that they have already failed once. These are acts that shame, and discourage. The Dropout Challenge becomes just that--a challenge to be the first to drop out.

Individual districts (some but not all), overwhelmed by regulatory requirements "make it up as they go", often with little or no actual information. Parents call LDA of Michigan as they watch their children with disabilities fail classes where they have inadequate support, are told that they can't apply for a Personal Curriculum for their child until they are taking Algebra II, are told that they can't apply for a Personal Curriculum for their child until their child has failed a class, or they are told that a Personal Curriculum can only be written to adjust the Mathematics curriculum. Parents should be protected from these fabrications, but there is only a meandering path, with many diversions along the way, leading eventually to clarity if they remain resolute.

In crafting the MMC legislation, the legislature made an effort to provide for a Personal Curriculum for students with disabilities, but the information is made inaccessible through its' diffuse distribution. The Michigan Department of Education (MDE) has a Personal Curriculum web page, where official guides to the PC are posted, but much of the information that would help parents to become well-educated advocates for their children is housed in other places: videos on an REMC website, guidance documents, sample course outlines, and legal advice on the MAISA website, an invitation-only "ning" for PC Liaisons. Did you know, for instance that there's a PC liaison at every intermediate school district (ISD) and every regional educational service area (RESA) in the state? Further, the state has so embraced 21st Century Technology (a false economy if it is to serve all of our citizens) that many of these resources are simply not available for those who are "digitally divided" from them.

Information on the PC is distributed piecemeal across a number of people in any local district. School counselors (caseloads of approximately 350 general education students per counselor at many high schools) are identified as the first contacts for requests for PCs. School principals are the next point of contact. Special educators and school psychologists participate in PC development meetings to validate the need for course adjustment, but the PC remains a "general education" initiative. School boards set the cut scores for passing courses and receiving diplomas, and set the adjusted cut scores for PCs. A pay-for-service website (not all districts have subscribed to this) is available to streamline the adjustment process for the PC, and to calculate when the modified threshold is reached.

And then, there are the stories:

LDA of Michigan heard from a parent whose son had struggled mightily with academic content all through school. Anticipating that he would continue to struggle through high school, as he entered ninth grade his special education teacher told him that he would not be earning a diploma, but a certificate of completion. Later, he turned to his mother and asked, "If I'm not going to earn a diploma, why should I bother going to school?"

Another parent called when her child, in her senior year, was taking double courses in Algebra II (parts a and b) concurrently because she was unable to persuade the school that her child needed a PC due to her identified disabilities in mathematical reasoning. She was being asked to take her child out of band so she could take a team-taught course in science that was only offered in conflict with the band schedule.

A parent called because her daughter's school refused to allow her daughter to walk with her class for graduation, because she would need to complete an additional semester's courses before she actually graduated. The parent was not asking for an early diploma, only for her daughter to have the privilege of walking with her class in deference to the hard work that her daughter had already shown, and to her commitment to complete despite having to continue classes after this school year.

A parent called to ask why her son's school refused to consider a PC, and placed him in a first year algebra course, even though he was performing four years below grade level, and was already failing the course.

A parent wrote to say that her daughter, on the basis of her identified impairments had been taken out of general education classes and placed in a resource class. The assumption was that her daughter would derive no benefit from inclusion, in spite of having been included for years.

LDA of Michigan has been encouraged to write our legislators, or school boards if we encounter problems with our local district's enactment of the MMC. Although we have been discouraged (by personnel in the Michigan Office of Special Education) from filing special education complaints for such uncivil treatment of children with identified disabilities, we encourage you to file rather than letting your child's needs go unmet. We are reminded that this is a general education, and not a special education initiative, even though it involves children with IEPs.

Our children with disabilities are facing the denial of opportunity to earn diplomas, under such perverse enactments of the MMC. Further, they face an uncertain future beyond high school, without diplomas. It remains to be seen what other opportunities will be closed to them: technical training, college, jobs with robust career ladders, and the opportunity to earn a living wage. We just don't have very much information about what the lack of a diploma might bring.

Contact LDA of Michigan and let us know what your district is doing to ensure that your child is able to successfully attain a diploma, and if not, how that may affect your child's post-school prospects. We need to know, and share the practices of districts that have risen to the occasion, as well as solving problems where they exist.

MORE ABOUT THE PERSONAL CURRICULUM

by K. Kosobud, for LDA of Michigan, 1/16/2011

Some of the curriculum requirements of the Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC) can be very challenging for students with disabilities. We knew that from the start. The MMC raises the threshold for achievement across the board; along with raising the anxiety of many parents whose children have struggled with various aspects of the curriculum all through school. The MMC, enacted in 2006, is the standard for the graduating class of 2o11. Districts have had several years to prepare for the first class to graduate under the new requirements, and to learn how to make adjustments for students who are struggling through credit recovery options like the Michigan Virtual High School, and through limited Personal Curriculum options. This video (approximately 1 hour long) captures a discussion of the Personal Curriculum, from a State Board of Education meeting held November 2008, two years after the MMC was approved.

IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004) makes it clear that students with disabilities should have access to the general curriculum as much as possible. There is no "special education" curriculum in Michigan, only the general education curriculum: the MMC. This is the curriculum that must be followed in order to receive a diploma.

For four years, I've been LDA of Michigan's representative to the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC), an IDEA-mandated state advisory panel to the State Board of Education and the Michigan Department of Education. We were briefed about the Personal Curriculum, and made public comment on it (including some of the possible unforeseen consequences of not starting early to provide access to a rigorous curriculum; see pages 19 to 24 of the aforementioned link). Even so, for the general public, it seems that information is still hard to come by. The information that we find at the MDE website tells a very limited version of the ins and outs of planning for students with disabilities.

Line of telephone booths toppling like dominoes; Source: soundplusdesign.com

I'm not sure what bothers me the most: that a great deal of information about the Personal Curriculum is available on the web but not at the MDE website; or that there are so many professional players in the system who know limited amounts of information about the Personal Curriculum planning process for students with disabilities. The reality for parents (and occasional advocates, like me) trying to navigate this process is that it is a lot like playing the Telephone Game, only not nearly so fun.

Here, in a nutshell, are some of the things parents need to know and understand as they negotiate the Personal Curriculum:

• Special education is not a place; it is a plan for services and supports;
• There is no "special education" curriculum; instruction of students with disabilities is guided by the general curriculum (in Michigan, these are the Grade-level Content Expectations, and the High School Content Expectations--the GLCEs or "glicks", and the HSCEs or "huskies");
• In middle school, it is a general education requirement that all students complete an Educational Development Plan (EDP) in seventh grade, which school counselors use for high school course selection. The EDP comes partly from inventories of student career interests. The EDP is also useful and important for IEP transition planning.
• When students with disabilities transition from middle school to high school, it is the school counselor who develops the 4-year high school course plan, with advice from parents and special educators, and based on student career goals in the EDP;
• Because the MMC is a general education plan, modification of the requirements through the Personal Curriculum starts with the school counselor. For students with disabilities, any part of the MMC is open for modification based on a student's disability;
• The special education Individualized Education Program (IEP) describes a student's levels of attainment, needs for supports and services based on the student's disabilities, and sets goals and objectives for key areas of growth--academic, social, and/or psycho-motor. It does not develop a Personal Curriculum plan;
• Each local school board in the state sets the standard for students to receive a diploma, with, and without, a Personal Curriculum. The standard is under local control, not a state or federal standard. Many districts use the ActPoint decision-tree for developing a plan that meets the local district standard for course credit.
• Each intermediate school district (ISD) or regional educational service area (RESA) in Michigan has a staff member (search at this link) who is the "Personal Curriculum liaison". This person is usually a curriculum leader, and coordinates the flow of information from the legislature, the MDE, and other districts in the state on this topic linked with other liaisons through an invitation-only "ning"; there is open access to information at the Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators (MAISA) website; and there is also open access at a wiki developed by the Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education (MAASE).
• Once a Personal Curriculum meeting is held, the local superintendent or designee either approves or denies the request. If the plan is approved, then a diploma is granted as long as the student meets the requirements outlined in the Personal Curriculum;
• The EDP, IEP, and Personal Curriculum can all be modified, if there is justification: changes in career goals, identified needs for added support, or additional modifications to course requirements;

Extended time for course completion is one variable that seems to be up for grabs. Right now, budgetary constraints and Adequate Yearly Progress requirements under No Child Left Behind seem to be the factors limiting school districts' eagerness to support five-year plans for high school completion. Ironically, time is often the adjustment most needed for students with "high incidence" disabilities (specific learning disabilities, cognitive impairments, emotional impairments, other health impairments (AD/HD), and speech and language impairments).

Parents should be aware that even with special education supports and services, special education, as it is currently written, is expected to provide access to the general curriculum, as much as possible. This is not just rhetoric. In Michigan, it is becoming practice to include a high percentage of students with high incidence disabilities in the general education classroom, where the new, improved High School Curriculum is being taught. That's where the "highly qualified teachers" of academic content are teaching, and that's where students who are anticipating graduation with a diploma are expected to participate, with supports and services from special education.

LDA of Michigan receives calls from parents whose children are in high school, or about to enter high school from all over the state. It is my hope that this blog entry helps to "de-mystify" the process of developing a workable plan that allows students with disabilities to be successful in the core academics of the MMC and, if possible, to leave high school with a diploma. I have provided links to online resources that may be helpful for understanding the process of planning, requesting a Personal Curriculum, aligning their high school course plan with their EDPs and supported through their IEPs and Individualized Transition Plans, and ensuring that these students leave high school having completed the education that will allow them to take the next step toward further training, education, or entry into a meaningful area of work.

Group of graduates throwing caps in the air,

Picture source: adamblueproductions.com

LDA of Michigan President posts in national discussion!

I just happened to post a question for a weekly chat about Special Education, hosted by EPE Research Center and Education Week.

Question from Kathleen Kosobud, Doctoral Candidate, Michigan State University:

Michigan recently began implementing its 21st Century High School Curriculum, which requires all students to meet certain minimum outcomes within the core curriculum, regardless of seat time. For the "gifted" learner, this means that students can proficiency out of courses, and advance on their own. For students who may struggle in academic courses, there are provisions for taking longer to meet the core proficiencies. These include 4 years of English, 4 years of Math (Algebra I & II, Geometry, 1 other course), 3 years of Science, 3 years of Social Studies, 1 credit of the Arts, 1 credit of P.E., an online experience, and 2 credits of a Language other than English. A personalized curriculum is allowed, if requested by family, emancipated minor, or adult student still in high school. MY QUESTION: What dilemmas or concerns do you anticipate, based on your knowledge of other states where there is a core curriculum requirement? What recommendations would you have for Michigan as it begins this journey?

Kim Sweet:

Unfortunately, I have not studied states that have such a requirement. In general, though, I think flexibility in seat time requirements is an important innovation in educating students with special needs at the high school level. In reviewing the description you've set forth, I'd be concerned that there are adequate protections to ensure that the student/the student's family are the decision makers, and that "personalized curricula" do not become an excuse for segregating students with disabilities or inappropriately reducing expectations.

Too bad that the response to my question was not more robust. I know that one of my concerns would be that schools might be unfairly penalized if students in special education opted to stay in high school until they met the proficiency requirements to get a diploma based on the standard curriculum. Students with special educational needs, and English language learners are allowed up to 5 years, under the latest NCLB regulations issued by Margaret Spellings, to complete high school. If students with special needs take longer than 5 years to complete high school (allowed in Michigan), what happens to the status of schools that allow this kind of "extended time"? Conversely, what happens if a student does not meet the proficiency requirements for the Michigan Merit Curriculum? Are they denied a dipoloma? Are they issued a "certificate of completion"? What would the consequences be for not having a "regular" diploma?

Kathleen