Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

The names of these early activists are all but forgotten today. However, their views on the importance of including, rather than segregating, blind and deaf children, and their powerful advocacy that they should be heard and given appropriate rights, make their views seem strikingly modern.

"Special education" emerged in Britain and Europe during the second half of the 18th Century. Thomas Braidwood established a school for deaf pupils in Edinburgh in 1764, which moved to Hackney in London in 1783 due to increased demand for places.

first school for blind pupils opened in Liverpool in 1791

London's School for the Indigent Blind, founded at St George's Fields Southwark in 1799, was by the 1860s educating 160 boys and girls in reading, writing and "useful" trades, intended to provide for their future employment.

1834 Poor Law Amendment Act, the state subsidised school fees for some pupils so that attendance did not push families into poverty - education was neither free nor compulsory until later in the century

Charitable schools were founded primarily as residential institutions intended to provide protection, board, lodging and education to their pupils. Yet the practice of shutting away "blind, deaf and dumb" children in so-called "exile schools" was opposed by an increasingly vocal group of activists in the mid 19th Century.

institutions "immured" their pupils, treating them like prisoners. They were degrading and they perpetuated "pauperism"

The campaigners noted that inclusion promised to benefit all society, not just the deaf and blind themselves.

Organisations such as the Association for Promoting the General Welfare of the Blind, founded by Elizabeth Gilbert in 1854, established workshops for blind handicraftsmen so that workers received better prices for their products than for those produced in institutions.

Whilst the association encouraged basket making, some campaigners claimed that these traditional trades were symbolic of a system that failed to recognise people's potential or range of talents.

Biography of the Blind, written in 1820 by James Wilson, a self-taught blind man who wrote the book "with a view of rescuing my fellow sufferers from the neglect and obscurity in which many of them are involved."

Charities were not always appreciated. Activists claimed that too much of the money donated to the dedicated charities went on buildings and non-disabled staff, rather than on the welfare of the blind pupils themselves. Many of them imposed social and moral restrictions on who could apply for assistance. Some campaigners argued that it would be better if the donated money was paid directly to blind people themselves, to enable them to live in their own homes and support their families.

The education of blind and deaf children in specialist institutions remained the norm until recent years. Far greater effort now goes into integrating disabled children into mainstream schools, and has been backed up by new laws. But integration is not the same as inclusion, and even in 2014 campaigners are still arguing that there is further to go before disabled children are fully included in schools. They say there needs to be greater recognition that they have a right to an education and should be given support in ordinary classes, not in special units.

also compared SEA-indicated evaluation procedures across SEAs to evaluation procedures noted in IDEA-2004

The federal definition of autism preceded the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) [8], and it is essentially unchanged since 1990.

The federal definition is generally compatible with both the category of Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) as described in DSM-IV and Autism Spectrum Disorder as described in DSM-5 [9], but it does not match any specific variety of PDD (see below). Within public school systems, students who have been clinically diagnosed with either a DSM-IV PDD or with DSM-5 Autism Spectrum Disorder are likely to be identified under the federal category of autism for the purpose of receiving special education services

In contrast to the IDEA-2004 definition, criteria for autism are more specific in the DSM-IV clinical diagnostic criteria

DSM-IV was superseded by DSM-5 [9]. The disorders comprising PDD in DSM-IV are largely addressed in DSM-5 by the Autism Spectrum Disorders category, which—unlike DSM-IV’s PDD—has no subcategories.

identification criteria still include substantial social problems (social initiations and responses, nonverbal social communication, and social relationships) and restricted, repetitive behaviors or interests (deviant speech or movements, rituals and resistance to change, preoccupations, and sensory reactivity). State education agencies (SEAs) have not yet incorporated DSM-5 information into their policies, procedures, and practices related to students with autism, and the DSM-5 definition was not involved in the present study.

State education agency (SEA) definitions of a disability do not have to match the federal definition but must substantially address its elements or lose federal financial support for special education.

No doubt the prevalence of ASD naturally varies somewhat with geography [4] but probably not by such a large factor, greater than tenfold in adjacent states. Conceivably, some state-by-state variation might be attributable to the content of SEA definitions of autism and perhaps the evaluation procedures required to accurately measure the concepts presented in definitions.

In a study of SEA definitions of autism, MacFarlane and Kanaya [10] found substantial variation in the eligibility criteria used by different states. By their analysis, 35% of SEAs based autism eligibility solely on the federal definition of autism, while 65% used diverse other criteria including symptoms of autism from the DSM-IV-TR

PISA is one of the few tools we have to compare the outcomes of high school students internationally.  PISA provides valuable information on how prepared high school students are for postsecondary success whether in the workplace, career training, or higher education.

PISA is designed to measure how well students can apply their knowledge to real-world situations. To measure such skills, the test items on PISA are primarily “constructed response,” meaning the test-taker has to write their answers to the questions, and there are few multiple-choice items.

Every industrialized country now educates all their students, including language minority, special needs and low-performing students. Every country that participates in PISA must adhere to strict sampling rules to ensure the country’s results are nationally representative of all 15-year-old students. Indeed, the decision to test secondary students at age 15 was made in part because young people at that age are still subject to compulsory schooling laws in most participating nations, which provides more assurance that PISA will capture the broadest sample.

OECD reports statistically significant differences in performance between nations, which is a more accurate way to look at PISA rankings than a straight listing of average scores.

Does PISA measure the effectiveness of public school systems? Not completely, for three reasons: 1) PISA results are representative of the performance of all 15-year-olds in participating countries including those  attending private schools; 2) PISA makes no attempt to isolate schools from outside factors such as poverty or high proportions of non-native language speakers that may have an impact on  performance —such factors are important to include in the mix when evaluating the effectiveness of each country’s schools; and 3) No single measure can incorporate every outcome we expect from our public schools

look at how much time other countries give teachers for professional development, how much they pay their teachers, how much time teachers spend in the classroom, how much flexibility exists at the local level, how special needs students are taught, and how much time students spend in school.

see PISA results as an opportunity to assess if best practices in teaching and learning in other countries can also work for secondary schools here in the U.S.

just because a high-performing or high-gaining country does something does not mean it will work in U.S. schools.

Many analysts observe that poverty has a greater impact on student performance in the U.S. than elsewhere. For one thing, the U.S. has the highest child poverty rates among industrialized countries. For another, students in the U.S. who live in poverty tend to have less access to resources that research consistently shows impact student achievement, including highly effective teachers, access to rigorous curriculum, and high quality pre-k programs.