Just What Did You Expect?

 Andrew Stutts

The information in this paper was obtained from an article in the Special Edge newsletter. This a publication of the California Department of Education, Special Education Division. This newsletter informs and supports California’s parents, policymakers, educators, and other service providers on special education topics, focusing on research-based practices, legislation, technical support, and current resources. This paper will reflect upon the contributing factors concerning students with disabilities and the achievement. Also, opportunities for narrowing the achievement gap for students with disabilities shall be explored.

In November 2007, California’s State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell sponsored an Achievement Gap Summit. The article referenced from the Special Edge newsletter focuses on comments from Rachel Quenemon, National Center on Education Outcomes, Senior Research Fellow; National Center and State Collaborative GSEG, Project Director, Co-Principal Investigator. Quenemoen conducts research and provides technical assistance on educational change process, in order to ensure that students with disabilities are included in and benefit from reform efforts. She has worked for 30 years as an educational sociologist focused on research to practice efforts, from local, regional, state, and national positions, specializing in building consensus and capacity among practitioners and policymakers. She is the Project Director for the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) partnership of 25 states and five national organizations, the National Center and State Collaborative, one of two federally funded consortia building alternate assessments for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities based on the Common Core State Standards. (The Special Edge, 2008)(National Center on Educational Outcomes)

One could reason that all children who are caught on the wrong side of the achievement gap have much in common. However, a dilemma exclusive to students in special education is the acceptance of lower achievement levels based entirely on their disabilities. There is information to support that this paradigm should be challenged. According to Quenemon, “85 % of children that receive special education do not have a cognitive disability.” (The Special Edge, 2008) What this means is the large majority students that receive special education have the ability to achieve academically to grade-level standards. She even contends with “what she considers to be “common thinking” about the remaining 15 percent of those children with cognitive disabilities. She suggests that most of these children also “can learn grade-level content.” (The Special Edge, 2008)

It can be argued that the reason so few students with disabilities meet grade-level standards is systemic in nature. Quenemoen states, “We have to take a stand. In a country that has followed special education status with money, labels have become how we drive our support services for kids who need extra help. Furthermore, the danger is that labels become their destiny.”(The Special Edge, 2008) She cites “a strong body of research literature in education on the effect of teacher expectations on student achievement” and how those expectations are communicated (often referred to as the “Pygmalion” effect). She cautions against using “labels to define what a child could or should learn” and called on all educators to “reconsider whether you’re expecting too little from students.” (The Special Edge, 2008) According to Quenemoen, “If we can set high standards both for what kids should learn and how well they should learn it in our schools, and we systematically instruct all students in that content toward those achievement targets, and we hold the adults in the systems accountable for that to happen, we can help children be more successful than ever before.” (The Special Edge, 2008)

There many systems-related elements that can have a significant impact on the success of student with disabilities. In the article Quenemoen refers to these things as “stuff in the middle” (The Special Edge, 2008) This would include schedules, the place of instruction, the instruction itself, and the amount of time teachers spend with students, the curriculum, and methods of assessment. It is reasonable to suggest that in order to close the achievement gap for students with disabilities these things might need to change. However, as cautioned by Quenemoen, “the only principals or superintendents I ever saw fired were those who tried to monkey with that stuff in the middle”(The Special Edge, 2008) The community expects schools to look a certain way and inevitable become upset if they are not. Changes that affect the nature of the school day or the way you cluster classes are not easily accepted. This begs an all too important question; how are those important change made?

Both the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are mandating important changes to that “stuff in the middle.” Quenemoen views “NCLB and IDEA as working in concert, especially since the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997, with its emphasis on increased access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities, its raised expectations, and its insistence on improved results.” (The Special Edge, 2008)

In the article Quenemoen explained that throughout the various reauthorizations of IDEA that, “the precise meaning of the law was not always clear. In 2004, the reauthorization clarified that “the same challenging content and expectations that apply to all other students in that state [apply to students with disabilities]’…And many people all over the country are still surprised when I tell them that.” (The Special Edge, 2008) According to the article it is quite possible, at least in part, that the preservice curriculum that is currently in place for special educators in many colleges and universities may be a contributing factor. To counter this, teachers are encouraged to know the law so that they can better understand the degree to which their students who receive special education services should have those services tailored to their needs. In the words of Quenemoen, “go over, around, or through their disability to get to the grade-level content.” (The Special Edge, 2008) Furthermore, educators are strongly encouraged to read three documents that are available online. The first clearly displays how NCLB and IDEA are aligned on the issue of assessment: NCLB and IDEA: What Parents of Students with Disabilities Need to Know & Do http://cehd.umn.edu/nceo/onlinePubs/parents.pdf. The second explains the new policy initiative for the modified achievement standards: Alternate Assessments Based on Modified Academic Achievement Standard http://cehd.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/LearningOpportunities.pdf.

In the article Quenemoen quoted a prominent lawyer in disabilities rights after the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA: “Children with disabilities have the right to a program designed to help them meet the same high standards expected for all children. The IEP should spell out how this child’s special needs should be addressed so that they do not pose a barrier to reaching those standards.

…An IEP that sets lower goals and does not focus on these standards is usually illegal.” (The Special Edge, 2008) What is important to remember is that every child should receive the service necessary to reach their full potential. Once again it bears to mention that perhaps that “that stuff in the middle” is what needs to be addressed to effectively accomplish this endeavor.

Quenemoen referred to a large-scale case study, completed in 2004 by the Donahue Institute at the University of Massachusetts. The Study examines the progress of students with disabilities in certain schools, and it shows these students surpassing academic expectations. “They were seeing a dramatic closing of the achievement gap. Urban districts and schools were seeing better-than-expected achievement among students with disabilities.” (The Special Edge, 2008) Quenemoen pointed out that “these schools displayed eleven characteristics that were amazingly consistent with studies of other schools that were closing the achievement gap for other kinds of students who historically struggle in schools: African Americans, Hispanics and disadvantaged kids of all kinds.” (The Special Edge, 2008)

The eleven characteristics of schools with high-achieving students with disabilities are as follow:

1. A pervasive emphasis on curriculum alignment with the state framework.

2. Systems to support curriculum alignment.

3. An emphasis on inclusion and access to the general education curriculum.

4. Culture and practices that support high standards and student achievement.

5. Well-disciplined academic and social environments.

6. The use of student assessment data to inform decision making.

7. Unified practice supported by targeted professional development.

8. Access to targeted resources to support key initiatives.

9. Effective staff recruitment, retention, and development.

10. Flexible leaders and staff working effectively in a dynamic environment.

11. The determination that effective leadership is essential to success.

These eleven characteristics should come as no surprises. All are part of these eleven appear in literature about effective schools and intuitively most would agree they help kids achieve high levels. However, sometimes kids with disabilities for various reason are not part of that equation. What is unique about this study is its focus on students with disabilities and that it shows these students benefit from the exact same things that benefit students without disabilities.

Quenomoen insists that large-scale assessments “should be a very, very tiny part of the data you use to improve teaching and learning for an individual student, for a classroom.” (The Special Edge, 2008) These assessments are designed for a big picture view and application. They are best suited for use at the whole-school, district, and state level. Formative assessments or other classroom data are more appropriate at the individual or classroom level. Quenemoen expressed the belief that “if you have kids who are far behind,’ the only way to successfully address the problem is ‘through systematic changes and interventions. Universal preschool and RtI (Response to Intervention) are systematic ways of preventing problems before the kids get so far behind that things look hopeless. In the past what has happened, especially for kids with disabilities, when they didn’t pass the high standards that we expected all the kids to achieve, we lowered the standards, rather than change the stuff in the middle.” (The Special Edge, 2008)

The information in this paper was obtained from the article titled Just What Did You Expect? Students with Disabilities and the Achievement Gap in the Special Edge newsletter. The biggest takeaway from the article is that administrators and teachers need to remember that in the word of Quenemon, “the solution to kids feeling bad about not knowing what their peers know isn’t to give them easier material. Just because learning is a challenge for students doesn’t mean we should leave them behind. If a student is performing poorly on a test, but the student has not been taught what is on the test, the solution is not to lower the standards of the test. Teach them first.” (The Special Edge, 2008) This paper was a reflection on the contributing factors concerning students with disabilities and the achievement. In conclusion, there are opportunities for narrowing the achievement gap for students with disabilities that should be further studied and capitalized upon.

Works Cited

The Special Edge News Letter 2008 Vol21 N. 2, Just What did You Expect? Students with Disabilities and the Achievement Gap; http://www.calstat.org/publications/article_detail.php?a_id=92&nl_id=12

National Center on Educational Outcomes; http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/About/staff/rachel.html

Education Article Reflection: Working Memory and Learning Difficulties by Dr. Joni Holmes

Andrew Stutts

The rigors of the classroom and its activities are challenging to most students in regard to learning. However, the challenges of the classroom environment are compounded and present additional obstacles for students that have poor working memory skills. These difficulties usually manifest in the form of an inability to remain on task. This in turn directly relates to the lack of or timely completion of classroom activities and assignments. The information in this paper concerning this subject is derived from the article Working Memory and Learning Difficulties by Dr. Joni Holmes. The information reviewed examines the often overlooked issues students face dealing with memory difficulties. Also, current methods for minimizing the consequences of poor working memory function from the article will be highlighted.

Working memory is loosely defined as the minds ability to store information for short periods of time and use it in current thinking applications. The following description is provided in the article, “It is a mental workspace of sorts that is used for many activities in daily life, including reading comprehension, mental arithmetic and planning a series of thoughts or actions” (Holmes, 2012). In students, there seems to be a direct correlation based on working memory and the ability to maintain focused behavior in the classroom. Furthermore, this ability plays a vital role in supporting learning. Most people have a limitation to the amount of information that can be held and utilize in the working memory at a given time. This capacity will change during the lifetime of each individual and differs vastly between individuals. Most children’s working memory capacity will develop until reaching the age of 14 to 15 years where it reaches adult levels. However, there are some children for various reasons that make smaller gains in working memory and have a lower capacity than what is typical for their age. According to Dr. Holmes, “This deficiency in working memory is a bi product and is associated with many developmental disorders and learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia, specific language impairment, and reading and mathematical difficulties.” (Holmes, 2012) However, deficiencies in working memory are not always associated with these or other known learning difficulties. This is especially concerning since deficiencies in working memory represent a prominent risk factor for poor educational progress.

The working memory is one of many essential cognitive functions and it is responsible for processing and storing information during complex and demanding activities. Many activities students routinely participate in at school are supported by the working memory process. The article by Dr. Holmes provides a crucial example in the typical classroom activity of reading a passage of text. According to Dr. Holmes, “This would include reading sentences, holding them in mind and integrating the information to uncover the meaning. This example depends heavily on the ability to simultaneously process and store information over the short term.” (Holmes, 2012) Another example by Dr. Holmes, “would be following a set of complex instructions, which is routinely expected in the classroom. This would rely on the ability to remember the different parts putting parts back together and then accomplishing the various steps to complete the action successfully.” (Holmes, 2012)

Luckily thanks to previous teacher observations and reports there are some typical signs to look for concerning students struggling with working memory difficulty. According to Dr. Holmes, “these include poor academic progress, difficulties following multi-step instructions, failing to complete common classroom activities that require large amounts of information to be held in mind, problems keeping their place in demanding and complex activities such as writing, and high levels of inattentive and distractible behavior. “(Holmes, 2012) These signs can aid the educator in assisting those students struggling with working memory.

Given the demands that routine classroom activities place on working memory it should come as no surprise that one of the key characteristics of children with working memory deficits is poor educational attainment. Learning takes place step-by-step relying on successfully completing individual learning activities to accumulate knowledge. Working memory impairments often lead to failure in the classroom due to the activity exceeding these student’s capacity. When this happens students can display inattentive behavior. This due the fact that when working memory fails, they forget what they are doing. This also frequently leads to frustration, lost learning opportunities and a slow rate of educational progress.

The identified negative consequences of working memory difficulties has prompted the demand for targeted interventions over recent years. There are currently two primary approaches to help students that struggle with working memory capacity. One focuses on accelerating learning for children with memory problems by adapting the environment, and the second attempts to target and train working memory function directly.

The environment or classroom-based approach emphasizes teacher awareness of the warning signs of difficulties in working memory mentioned earlier. Teachers are encouraged to adapt their approach to teaching in an effort to reduce memory loads in the classroom. Techniques to achieve this are to break task and instructions down into smaller steps, re-presenting information, and using memory aids. Also, it is extremely important to foster an environment in which children feel comfortable asking what they have forgotten or what they should be doing.

Strategies are also introduced to help children with poor working memory overcome their cognitive weakness. There appear to be a direct correlation to children’s literacy and mathematical skills based on the extent to which the principles of this intervention are implemented. According to Dr. Holmes, “Teachers are typically enthusiastic about the ways in which their understanding and practice has improved as a result of the intervention specifically. Teachers have commented that it is relatively easy to implement within existing curriculum activities. That it enables them to understand that many task failures are the result of forgetting and that children benefit from working within their own working memory limits with greater rates of success when the techniques are applied. “(Holmes, 2012) The long-term benefits are not yet known. However, it is obvious that this approach offers a practical starting point to support children with poor working memory.

Another alternative approach in intervention is to improve working memory function directly through practice on working memory tasks. There are numerous computerized training programs available. All of these training programs require intense training for a continued period on tasks that adapt to match the student’s current capacity limit. The nature of these task differ among programs. Some require practice on an array of working memory tasks and others involve only one type of training task.

There is now substantial evidence to support the assertion that these programs improve working memory problems in childhood. According to Dr. Holmes, “Enhancements in memory have been found in children with poor working memory, ADHD and cochlear implants. “(Holmes, 2012) It further states in Dr. Holmes’s article that, “In a randomized-controlled study, we have shown that improvements in verbal working memory in children with memory impairments are sustained 12 months after training without any additional intervention. These training gains are associated with changes in neural activity in areas of the brain important for working memory function. “(Holmes, 2012)

Currently it is highly debated to what extent these improvements in working memory or other skills are improved. Despite the debate, evidence is mounting concerning the acceleration of learning following training. There have been significant improvements in math scores reported several months after training children with working memory impairments. Additionally, there have been improvements in reading comprehension reported post-training for children with Special Educational Needs. According to the article, “in a field trial just completed, it has been shown that training administered at the class-level by educators lead to robust gains in working memory and educationally significant gains in academic performance. Furthermore, greater progress at school, measured by performance against national targets across the year of the intervention, was found for children with low achievement; in math for children aged 9-11 years and in English for children aged 10/11 only.” (Holmes, 2012)

These findings suggest training may have some benefits for academic outcomes. However, the field of cognitive training is a young field of study, and we still know very little about how gains resulting from these training programs might or to what extent transfer to meaningful improvements in an individual’s daily life. For example, it may be discovered that these gains only apply to the specifics of the training tasks but not to real-world situations. What is known is that all these tool, tips, and strategies provide a starting point for educators to assist student struggling with working memory.

Works Cited

Working Memory and Learning Difficulties; Dr. Joni Holmes; Dyslexia Review Summer 2012; http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Working-memory-and-learning-diffculties.pdf

Blue Star Recyclers a 100 Percent Solution

Andrew Stutts

Individuals with cognitive impairment are faced many difficulties during their time in school. However, these challenges don’t end when they exit the school system. The number of cognitively impaired individuals entering adult hood and the work force continues to rise. Unfortunately, the development of post-secondary education and employment opportunities has not kept pace with this demand, leaving many of these individuals’ unemployed and disengaged with their community. Furthermore, there is a great need for what is termed competitive-integrated employment for the cognitively impaired. This is employment that provides at least minimum wage earnings and levels of benefits comparable to those of non-disabled workers. It is also in an integrated setting in which the person with disabilities has the opportunity to interact with their non-disabled colleagues in the same manner and at the same frequency as their non-disabled colleagues.

Blue Star Recyclers addresses this challenging dilemma with a model it calls the 100 percent solution. Blue Star Recyclers is an award-winning 501c3 non-profit social enterprise with locations in Colorado Springs and Denver, CO. It was founded in 2009, with a core mission to ethically recycle electronics and other materials to create jobs for people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and other disabilities. This Mission helps solve two totally unrelated problems. The first is wasted talent within the community. It is hard to fathom that over 80 percent of adults with ASD and other disabilities are unemployed when a portion of this workforce is custom made for repetitive, systematic, procedural, and tactile tasks. The second is wasted resources. Less than 20 percent of electronics are ethically recycled in the U.S. This is unfortunate since up to 98 percent of the materials in electronics can be recycled for the manufacture of new products. Additionally, Blue Star provides peace of mind for security conscious recyclers. For a nominal cost Blue Star will shred and destroy hard drives basically turning them into mulch, rendering it and the data contained unusable.

Blue Star’s 100 percent solution to date has accomplished the following impressive results:

Over 25 local jobs for people with disabilities in 4 Colorado communities, over $4 million in new local revenues and $1 million in taxpayer savings, over 10 million pounds of electronics ethically recycled. In addition to these significant economic, environmental, and social deliverables, their workers with autism and other disabilities have posted the following occupational metrics since 2010; no employee turnover, no employee absenteeism, no lost time due to accidents in an industry where that’s very difficult to accomplish, 97% “on the clock” work task engagement. According to Laurie Sperry, PhD, BCBA-D Yale University, “These results demonstrate that the unemployment rate of people with ASD and other related disabilities is tied to the lack of opportunity, not the lack of ability.”(Sperry 2016).

The idea behind Blue Star has its origins in 2008 when CEO Bill Morris discovered a small group of adults with ASD dismantling electronics as unpaid volunteers in a day habilitation program. Bill was so impressed with the level of inherent skill and proficiency displayed that it convinced him that their aptitude ethically warranted compensation. He help create an employment enclave through a partnership with an electronics recycler in Denver who offered to pay five cents per pound to disassemble computers into their base materials. The first four employees started work in October 2008, and almost immediately another discovery was made. According to Morris, “in their new workplace setting (away from the day habilitation program) two employees with seizure disorders stopped having seizures, and one nonverbal employee became verbal. It was evident their entire overall state of well-being improved by having a purpose to their day and meaningful work where they could apply their talents.” (Sperry, 2016) Capitalizing on these propensities also precludes the need for job coaches. In fact, Blue Star is not a supported employment setting. The employees, who represent the full range of the autism spectrum, all work independently in a variety of positions alongside their colleagues without disabilities making this a truly integrated work setting.

Blue Star continues to grow through new partnerships and create even more future job opportunities for cognitively impaired individuals. In May 2015 Blue Star Recyclers and PC’s for People http://www.pcsforpeople.com signed a partnership agreement to help bridge the digital divide for low-income residents in Colorado. PC’s for People is St. Paul, Minnesota based non-profit organization which has placed over 40,000 affordable computers in the hands of low income residents in Minnesota since 2007. This partnership will create new jobs and new scopes of work for Blue Star employees. It will provide low income residents with affordable computers and internet access and will shift Blue Star’s focus from end of life recycling to reuse and specific IT assets. Thanks to this initiative hundreds of students in Colorado have already received refurbished computers at home to help them do homework and allow their families to connect to school information. This is just one of many partnerships and projects developed by Blue Star to increase employment opportunities of cognitively impaired individuals while at the same time provide the valuable services of ethically recycling electronics.

The Denver facility offers meaningful employment due to unique partnership with Fort Collins based Otterbox. Otterbox has components and cases with manufacturing defects that need recycled. They signed a contract to bring in their defective cell phone cases for recycling. This allows Blue Star to offer paid internships to former students of Jefferson County Public Schools. This allows for additional employment opportunities for individuals with lower functioning cognitive disabilities. As of 2015 some Jefferson County Public schools are recycling their electronics with cognitively impaired students providing training for these individuals to be pipelined into Blue Star after graduation. “However, the goal is that when they move off the cell phone cases, they can mover to computer disassembly”, according to Morris in a March 17 2015 interview with Fox 31 Denver news. (Erdahl, March 17, 2015)

One just has to visit one the Blue Star Recycle center locations in either Colorado Springs or Denver to see the cheerful demeanor of its employees, beaming with pride at the important work they accomplish. In fact, Blue Star employees take so much pride in the contributions their skills provide their communities that routinely hundreds of staff hours are donated. Some employees such as recycling Tech Ian Sabar, have even used their skills learned at Blue Star Recyclers to volunteer with Santa’s Little Hackers, a non-profit group that adapts toys for children with disabilities. At Blue Star every employee is accountable to achieve a daily production goal that each of them take seriously and achieve with vigor. Many have set numerous record goal achievement levels and continuously strive to improve upon them. There is a shared since of pride in breaking down electronics that would otherwise go into a land fill. Blue Star capitalizes on the special aptitudes and interest of their employees. Allowing them to become a motivated and highly skilled workforce.

Blue Star is very transparent on their operation and provides an exhaustive amount information on their organization and contact information at http://bluestarrecyclers.org/index.htm. Please reference the bellow contact information and hours of business to utilize one of Blue Star’s recycling centers:

Colorado Springs, Colorado

100 Talamine Court

Colorado Springs, CO 80907

719-597-6119

Monday thru Friday 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.

Saturday 9 A.M. to 1 P.M.

Denver, Colorado

953 Decatur Street, Suite C

Denver, CO 80204

303-534-1667

Tuesday thru Thursday 9 A.M. to 5 P.M>

Saturday 9 A.M. to 1 P.M.

Works Cited

Laurie Sperry (2016). Employment Opportunities for People with Disabilities. Autism Spectrum News Vol. 8 No. 4 Spring 2016.

Kent Erdahl (March 17, 2015). Workers with Autism Find Jobs at Denver Electronics Recycling Company, Fox 31 News Denver; http://kdvr.com/2015/03/17/workers-with-autism-find-jobs-at-denver-electronics-recycling-company/