Group items tagged

IDEA’s Definition of “Specific Learning Disability”

instead of using a severe discrepancy approach to determining LD, school systems may provide the student with a research-based intervention and keep close track of the student’s performance. Analyzing the student’s response to that intervention (RTI) may then be considered by school districts in the process of identifying that a child has a learning disability.

There are also other aspects required when evaluating children for LD. These include observing the student in his or her learning environment (including the regular education setting) to document academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty.

Once a child is evaluated and found eligible for special education and related services, school staff and parents meet and develop what is known as an Individualized Education Program, or IEP. This document is very important in the educational life of a child with learning disabilities. It describes the child’s needs and the services that the public school system will provide free of charge to address those needs.

Supports or changes in the classroom (called accommodations) help most students with LD. Common accommodations are listed in the “Tips for Teachers” section below. Accessible instructional materials (AIM) are among the most helpful to students whose LD affects their ability to read and process printed language. Thanks to IDEA 2004, there are numerous places to turn now for AIMs. We’ve listed one central source in the “Resources Especially for Teachers” section.

Assistive technology can also help many students work around their learning disabilities. Assistive technology can range from “low-tech” equipment such as tape recorders to “high-tech” tools such as reading machines (which read books aloud) and voice recognition systems (which allow the student to “write” by talking to the computer). To learn more about AT for students who have learning disabilities, visit LD Online’s Technology section, at: http://www.ldonline.org/indepth/technology

Someone who is controlling his/her right margin must write more slowly.

people who keep their margins even all around are most interested in the visual effect. They actually see the paper as almost like a work of art. They are extremely appearance-conscious and interested in beauty, design, symmetry, order, and balance.

very detailed-minded, and, of course, to give up spontaneity in the process. Such people plan everything ahead to a great degree.

the person who has a very wide left margin is subconsciously putting up an imaginary barrier between himself and the past. This trait is almost always an indication of someone who’s had a terrible past from which he is eager to flee.

When you are moving to the right, you’re moving towards your goals and the future. When you stop too soon at the end of your lines, somewhere in your subconscious is a little voice saying, “Uh-oh. I have to stop. I have to return to the left, to the past and the familiar. This is as far as I can go.”

Writing with margins that are too wide all around is abnormal

. This sort of person needs to be protected by four solid walls. He cannot make it on his own. He doesn’t relate to his environment in a normal manner or fit into society in an average way. 

rapid and spontaneous writing. If you’re writing quickly and spontaneously, you will leave wider and wider left margins as you descend (down) the page.

a tendency to start out brave, going towards the future, but eventually retreating to the past and what is familiar.

Some people write all the way to the side on both the left and right, leaving no side margin whatsoever. This trait indicates one who leaves no room for other people. Such a person doesn’t see things from other people’s point of view

He takes up all the space and doesn’t see himself properly in relation to his environment, leaving no room for the rights and opinions of others. 

. The left margin represents “the line of society.” Thus, each time we return to the left, it’s up to us whether we’re going to align the next word, or we’re going to get “out of line.” That small percentage who do not have a straight left margin are those people who cannot conform to society’s standards. These are also people who, quite expectedly, would not do well in a strict nine-to-five job

With no margins, filling every inch of the paper, indicates someone who feels he must fill every waking moment of his life with an activity. It means compulsively busy, leaving no stone unturned. Very such people have miserly natures as well. This person also leaves no room for the rights or opinions of others

The lower you start, the more you tend to have formal, respectful feelings toward the person to whom you’re writing, such as a letters/papers to teachers, businesses…etc. You waste more paper to show respect, and you “lower” down on the paper. 

a narrow upper margin means you are feeling more familiar than formal toward the person to whom you are writing. By starting high on the paper, you don’t “bow down” or “lower yourself” to show respect.

writing until there was no room left - until the writing is crushed. This means someone who delays the inevitable. Such a person is so eager to express himself that he feels it would take too much time to turn the paper over or get another sheet. 

dangerous impulsiveness. People like this bash their heads into the wall and do it again and again - (They don’t learn from their mistakes.) They don’t have the sense to say it to themselves, “Hey, wait a minute. You know, the paper ends, and I have to accommodate.” They don’t say it because they don’t care or think about it

Grundtvig, regarded as the founder of the folk high school, received inspiration for the concept from the English boarding schools, but Grundtvig's focus was not on formal education but on popular education and enlightenment.

give the peasantry and other people from the lower echelons of society a higher educational level through personal development; what Grundtvig called "the living word"

The folk high school movement was an act against a conservative ideal of both education and culture. An act against an ideal of literacy and book-learning, a use of language unknown to common people and a learning ideal where the primary relation was between the individual and the book alone.

Grundtvig fought for a public education as an alternative to the university elite

The folk high schools should be for those wanting to learn in general and to help people form part of human relations and society

One of the main concepts still to be found at the folk high schools today is "lifelong learning". The schools should educate for life. They should shed light on basic questions surrounding life of people both as individuals and as members of society.

To Grundtvig the ideal was to give the students a sense of a common best and focusing on life as it really is

Grundtvig never set down guidelines for the future schools or a detailed description of how they should be run. He declared that the folk high schools should be arranged and developed according to life as it is and the schools should not hold exams because the education and enlightenment was a sufficient reward.

The first folk high school was founded in Rødding, Denmark, in 1844. It began on the initiative of Christen Kold, who was a follower of Grundtvig

The school was inspired by the need to educate those not fortunate enough to have an education and the poor, or peasantry, who could not spare the time or the money to attend a university

The first folk high schools in Sweden were established in 1868. As of 2008, there are about 150 folk high schools throughout the country, most of which are situated in the countryside, often in remote areas

Tuition is free, and the students are eligible for normal financial aid for expenses such as accommodation and other school costs. After graduating, the students are eligible to study at a university.

These schools were initiated under the programs of the Ministry of Social Welfare with the help of religious missionaries. Malaysia entered its second stage when professional preparation programs for special education were formally established by the Ministry of Education in 1961. Lacking its own expertise and technology, Malaysia entered its third stage when it began importing knowledge and expertise by sending its education professionals abroad for research degrees and in-service attachments in special needs education in the 1980s and 1990s, and attempting to customize what was learned to its national conditions. Malaysia’s participation in international workshops and activities of the UN and UNESCO and subsequent reforms as reflected in the Education Act (1998) describes the active development of policy and changes in practices during this period. In 1993, the first preservice teacher preparation leading to a Bachelor of Education degree program in special needs education was initiated in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. The program was developed alongside a collaborative project in curriculum development with three universities in the United Kingdom, namely, the Universities of Manchester, Birmingham and Cambridge (Jelas, 1996; 1999).

The terms ‘special needs’ introduced in the Education Act 1996 (1998) are defined as follows: “Pupils with special needs’ means pupils with visual impairment or hearing impairment or with learning disabilities” And ‘inclusive education’ is introduced as part of the continuum of services available for children with special needs: “Special education programme” means – A programme which is provided in special schools for pupils with visual impairment or hearing impairment; An integrated programme in general schools for pupils with visual impairment or hearing impairment or with learning disabilities; and An inclusive education programme for pupils with special needs and who are able to attend normal classes together with normal pupils” (Education Act 1996, 1998, p. 341)

However, the eligibility for special education placement is based on the ‘educability’ of children as assessed by a team of professionals. This is documented in the Act, which states: “(1) For government and government-aided schools, pupils with special needs who are educable are eligible to attend the special education programme except for the following pupils: physically handicapped pupils with the mental ability to learn like normal pupils; and pupils with multiple disabilities or with profound physical handicap or severe mental retardation. A pupil with special needs is educable if he is able to manage himself without help and is confirmed by a panel consisting of a medical practitioner, an officer from the MOE and an officer from the Welfare Department of the MWFCD, as capable of undergoing the national educational programme” (Education Act 1996, 1998, p. 342) The eligibility dilemma

While the current public policy for children with special educational needs, particularly those categories of children classified as experiencing ‘learning disabilities’ have access to regular schools as stated in the Act, the ‘educability’ criteria contradicts the goals of providing equal education opportunities as stipulated in the United Nation’s Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1993), The Salamanca Statement (1994) and the Biwako Millenium Framework for Action (UNESCAP, 2002).

Foreign experts are initially relied upon to provide the knowledge and to encourage its development prior to the emergence of a profession within a country. The first professionals to provide services are usually trained abroad. The second stage followed this first stage, in which colleges and universities established programs and departments to teach the discipline and prepare the professionals. The second stage leads to the third stage, in which colleges and universities import developed from abroad to achieve standards that characterised the discipline in more developed nations. During this stage, the concepts, theories and models of implementation found in the more developed countries are taught, applied and tested; some of which may transfer more successfully than others.

Before special programmes were available, students with special needs were described by their characteristics and by the instructional challenges they presented to teachers. When the education system began to respond to the needs of each emerging group of special needs students, services were established and eligibility criteria determined. From that point on, a child was identified (for school and placement purposes) as having or experiencing a ‘special educational need’ and if he or she is “able to manage him or herself without help” (Education Act 1996, 1998), the child will be eligible for a given programme or service. This process was repeated as each new group of special needs students emerged – for example, children with visual and hearing impairments in the 1960s, children with mild intellectual in the 1980s and 1990s, and more recently, children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorders and children with dyslexia.

in the Education Act 1996 (1998) that the perspectives of professionals (“a medical practitioner, an officer from the MOE and an officer from the Welfare Department of the MWFCD” p. 342) have the most power in determining the way children are categorised and whether these children are “capable of undergoing the national educational programme” (Education Act 1996, 1998)

policy makers and professionals continue to see special schools and classes as well as categories as having an important place in provisions. Responses at the Ministerial level revealed an emphasis on diversity and acceptance of human characteristics as problematic and that learning difficulties are technical problems that require specialised discipline knowledge that cannot be dealt with in the “normal classes with normal children” (Education Act 1996, 1998 p. 341).

The National Report on the development of education states: Inclusion in Malaysia subscribed to the concept of placing SEN students into mainstream classes to be educated alongside their peers, either with or without additional support, and within the present school system. This concept of IE (inclusive education) might not be in line with the ideal concept based on “acceptance, belonging and about providing school settings in which all disadvantaged children can be valued equally and be provided with equal educational opportunities … (MOE, 2004, p. 28),

Even though inclusive education was implemented at the policy level more than 10 years ago and school participation has rapidly increased quantitatively, Malaysia is far from reaching its goal of providing “a responsive education path for every child and youth with SEN” (MOE, 2004)

The emphasis on the ability “to cope with mainstream learning” seemed consistent with the integration models that came about in the 1980s. Integration models mainly focused on placing students with mild disabilities, identified and “diagnosed” as having special needs in mainstream schools. In such models, students must adapt to the norms, expectations, styles, routines and practices of the education system instead of the education system adapting to the learner (UNESCO, 2008). The integrated programme is the dominant format for delivering services to special needs students in Malaysia, then and now.

Once placed, few special education students returned to the regular education class on full-time basis. Although the special classroom and special schools continued as options, integrated programmes (placement in regular classrooms) for students with visual and hearing impairments are available with support from the resource teacher

Historically, the disenchantment of many special educators and the concern of the efficacy of the prevailing approach (Ainscow, 1994; Meyen & Skrtic, 1995; Sorrells, Rieth & Sindelar, 2004; Stainback & Stainback, 1992) raised questions about how best to assure a quality and equitable education for students with disabilities and spawned the push for a more inclusive approach to special education programming. While these reforms were mandated in the United Nations Declarations and UNESCO’s Framework of Actions on special needs education of which Malaysia’s policy on inclusive education subscribes to, the focus on diagnosis, prescription, and intervention continued to be central to determining eligibility and making placement decisions. Thus, although special education practices had changed, the grounding assumptions of human pathology and organisational rationality (Biklen, 2000; Oliver, 1996; Skrtic, 1991) have not been critically examined. In this context, special education is used to maintain and legitimise exclusion of students with disabilities within a school culture and system characterised by competition and selection (Skrtic, 1995; Corbett, 1999; Slee, 2001; Kearney & Kane, 2006).

While the philosophical basis of including SEN students into mainstream schools is accepted as a policy, the continued legitimization of paradigms that exclude SEN students is also acknowledged by rationalising between the “ideal” and the “not-so-ideal” concept of inclusive education. This ambivalence is reinforced by the following statements: Prior to inclusion, especially in the early part of their formal education, SEN students are equipped with relevant basic skills and knowledge to enable them to cope with mainstream learning. Only those who are diagnosed capable to cope with mainstream learning would be included fully or partially. (MOE, 2004, p. 29)

In principle, Malaysia is committed to providing education for all with the implementation of compulsory education in 2003 as evident by a high participation rate of 98.49 per cent (MOE, 2004). This statement of intent towards compulsory education for all which was an amendment of the Education Act 1996, however, did not include children with disabilities

The radical perspective that leads to a reconceptualisation of special educational needs have been well documented for the past twenty years (Barton, 1988; Lipsky & Gartner, 1989; Ainscow, 1991; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Clark et. al., 1998; Donoghue, 2003) and critiques argued and showed evidence how the education system creates rather than remediate disabilities (Skrtic, 1991; Corbett, 1999; Vlachou, 2004; Carrington & Robinson, 2006). The new perspective on special educational needs is based on the view that the way forward must be to reform schools in ways that will make them respond positively to pupil diversity, seeing individual differences as something to be nurtured. But, as cautioned by Ainscow (1994): This kind of approach is only possible in schools where there exist a respect for individuality and a culture of collaboration that encourages and supports problem-solving. Such cultures are likely to facilitate the learning of all pupils and, alongside them, the professional learning of all teachers. Ultimately, therefore, this line of argument makes the case that increasing equity is the key to improvements in schooling for all. (Ainscow, 1994, p12)

Education in Malaysia is driven largely by an examination–oriented system characterised by curriculum rigidity and rote learning rather than critical and independent thinking. Like schools in Singapore and Hong Kong (Poon-McBrayer, 2004), school leadership are in great pressure to compete for the best examination results in terms of the percentages of passes and the number of A’s acquired by students in public school examinations

The culture of elitism compels parents to prepare their children to be accepted into high ranking or fully residential schools which usually achieve high scores in examination results.

Although the ‘intertwining of the standards and inclusion agenda’ can lead to positive consequences (Ainscow et al, 2006), the emphasis on the preparation and drill for the public examinations therefore, left little or no time for teachers to accommodate individual learning needs of students in general. Media reports on schools’ and students’ performance intensify competition and further marginalise SEN students, who, to a large extent are not expected to compete. Competing priorities make it more difficult for schools to fully include children with SEN.

Continued advancement of special needs education in Malaysia will require bifocal perspectives. One focus has an international perspective and requires Malaysians’ awareness of the international body of literature and trends in practice that enables them to take advantage of the knowledge and experience gained by those in other countries. Malaysia may also profit especially from knowledge provided by its Asian neighbours namely Japan, India and China, or other countries that seems to be struggling with many of the same issues.

effective special needs education services require awareness of social and educational traditions, social philosophies that manifest in schooling and school culture and ways of resolving conflict that may be unique to one country and the impact these qualities have on general and special needs education services (Peters, 2003).

victories were a culmination of decades of advocacy and dedication that helped build the rich selection of special education resources in the United States today.

In the early 1970s, multiple landmark court decisions giving states the responsibility to provide special education resources and schooling to students in need of it.

During its reauthorization in 1997, EHA underwent a number of substantial revisions and became known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)