EPSE 512 Critical Issues In Special Education

Compiled Reflections
Tamara Quran

Reflection #2: Ideology, Values and Culture (1)

This week's article by Brantlinger (2004) takes a look at the different
barriers to inclusion and the ideologies behind inclusive education. Brantlinger
stresses the importance of understanding the ideological origins behind an inclusive
design or practice, stating that; it is dangerous to design or engage inclusive
practice without an understanding of its ideological roots (p.11).
In the first section, the author discusses the institutional and pre-conceptual
barriers to inclusion. What I found interesting here is the notion of existing
relationship hierarchies; when scholars position themselves above teachers and
ignore teachers' views. Teachers, in turn, position themselves above students and
their families and ignore these groups' preferences for schooling (p.12). In this
description, the educated place themselves above those who are less educated. I
would like to add, from my observations as a learning support assistant, the idea
that the parents have a tendency of doing the same, only they place themselves at
the bottom. It is interesting to observe how parents idolize teachers and other
professionals, and go along with what the said professionals plan for their children
with little say in the matter, when it is them that know the child better than anyone
else. In Jordan there is very little awareness about the different learning difficulties
and special needs of children, and this in turn leads to the previously stated to occur
more often.
Throughout the article Brantlinger insinuates at more than one instance, the
presence of a disconnection between the research which scholars are producing and
the practices of teachers in the classroom; much educational research is of little

significance to teachers and students and has few real connections to schools
(p.12). I can see how research tends to be technical and more concerned with
numbers and figures than in the practices applied. More relevant research is what
can be deemed as desirable in this case. Bu the question here is who is willing to
make the change in the kind of research that is being produced?
Brantlinger moves on to discussing the importance of taking ideologies into
account, by referring to Marels work (1994); failure to attend to ideology leaves
scholars and educators with only partial knowledge of life in schools and
communities (p.15). I think this can be connected to anything in life; where it is
difficult to make decisions regarding anything if you have no knowledge of the
background or context. I do believe it is important to take ideologies into account,
especially with the wide array of cultures, religions, and communities which exist.
And there is no better way to stress the importance of idealism in a world consumed
by hierarchies and the pursuit of power, than the words used by Brantlinger herself;
idealism draws its strength from hope and purpose as well as visions of better
circumstances (p.16). When thinking of inclusion, this notion of hope for a better
world with better circumstances is vital; for without this hope, I believe no progress
can be made in the field of inclusive education, hierarchies will persist, and only
those who are considered to be normal will benefit from the educational system.
Brantlinger makes a distinction between hierarchal mindsets and communal
mindsets; where universal people also differentiate right from wrong and base
many of their judgments on a morality in which human reciprocity and empathy are
key elements. (p20). Here Brantlinger urges researchers and other professionals to

shift to the communal ideology, in order to be able to create a truly inclusive system,
which will benefit those with special educational needs and help them to truly
become a part of society, instead of being viewed as different them.
In conclusion, I would like to hope that this shift to communal ideologies can be
made, but unfortunately, I do not foresee this taking place. As Brantlinger states; in a
hierarchal system there are people who place themselves above others, they benefit
from the system, and they benefit from having the minorities to compare
themselves to (normal, abnormal or us and them). In a world based on economy it
seems to me quite naive to think a great change will take place. But perhaps coming
from a place where little is done to aid those with special needs or those from any
minority group, I have become a bit of a pessimist.

Bibliography:
Brantlinger, E. (2004). Chapter 1: Ideologies discerned, values determined: getting
past the hierarchies of special education. In, Ideologies and the politics of
(in)Exclusion, p.11-31. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=39347847&site
=ehost-live

Reflection #3: Ideology, Values and Culture (2)

First and foremost, this week's reading for me highlighted the progression in
legislation for children with special needs we have spoken about in class and read
about in the week (2) articles. It was interesting to see how a shift was made from
establishing inclusion rights for children with special needs (Seigel & Ladyman;
2000, Proirier & Goguen; 1986), to determining the support these children received
(Williams & Macmillan; 2005). In other words, the Williams and Macmillan article
shows how inclusion (i.e. placement) is no longer a topic of debate, it is here and it is
happening, now the focus is on how to make inclusion successful (i.e.
Programming).
One of the major issues which was addressed or brought up in many of the
cases discussed in the Williams and Macmillan paper is the definition of
'appropriate education'. This made me wonder about who decides what the
appropriate education is? Do the parents have much of a say, or is it the school
board's decision? Also, the definition may vary from one case to the other; given the
wide array of special needs and support needed, so can a definition really be made?
Part of the 'appropriate education' dilemma is the issue of transition
planning. From what I understand from this article is that in most cases children are
switching from private pre-schools, where intensive intervention takes place, to
public schools, where these services are discontinued due to the age cap placed on
many of these intervention programs. I can only imagine how difficult this transition
must be, especially for children with ASD. I am reminded here of how I needed to
prepare a year 2 student with autism, who I worked with when in Jordan, for the

changes he was about to face this year. This student was being held back and kept in
a year 2 classroom; so, I needed to help him understand that he will be in the same
classroom but with a different group of children than those he has been with for the
past 3 years. I also needed to help him generalize when it came to performance. He
was very selective, and only performed well when working with me, and so I needed
to teach him to work with other adults because I was no longer going to be working
with him. It was extremely difficult to get this student to adjust with the changes he
was facing; and this is with him staying in the same environment. Consistency is
very important for all children with special needs, more so for children with autism
(Kluth, 2003). This I believe is a major issue to consider when looking at the
programs offered to students come their transition to school.
Another issue which raised some questions for me is the age cap placed on
some of the intervention programs. Most of the cases discussed in the Williams and
Macmillan paper had disputes over the continuation of intervention programs
which have an age cap of 6 years. The authors discuss how research shows that
these programs benefit the child most between the ages of two and six. More over,
they show how it is difficult to provide most intervention programs with an age
limit to those older children due to funding issues. My question here is; is this age
cap truly there because of the belief that the younger children will benefit more? Or
is it in place because there is not enough funding, or trained professionals to provide
services to the older children? Also, I wonder, what is to happen to the children who
are diagnosed later on in life?

The final point I would like to discuss is the point on 'reasonable

accommodation' (p.54). Parents want what is best for their children. This causes
dispute; because at times they believe the programs being offered by the school
district are insufficient or inappropriate. I do understand that parents want to fight
for their children and their rights, but when are they asking for too much? I
sometimes feel like parents are taking what they are offered for granted and that
upsets me. Special education in Canada, although needs alteration and a little bit of
fixing is supported and being worked on. In Jordan there is barely even any
legislation for the rights of special needs individuals, let alone financial support.
Here I raise the question of how far can the government, or school board keep
accommodating without placing the economic state of the province in danger?
Over all, I agree with Williams and Macmillan; change needs to take place. I
believe the first step towards better services is that the federal government need to
revisit the legal framework and creates one which achieves equality n education for
all students. Also, provincial and territorial legislators need to create policy and
frameworks which promote collaborative models and service delivery.

Bibliography

Kluth, P. (2003). You're Going to Love This Kid!: Teaching Children with Autism in
the Inclusive Classroom. Brookes Publishing Company.
Poirier, D. & Goguen, L. (1986). The Cnadian Charter of Rights and the right to
education for exceptional children. Canadian Journal of Education,11 (3),
231-243.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1494430.pdf?acceptTC=true
Seigel, L. & Ladyman, S. (2000). A Review of Special Education in British Columbia.
Canadian Catalogue in Publication Data: BC Ministry of Education. Retrieved
from http://www.featbc.org/downloads/review.pdf
Williams, M. A. & Macmillan, R.B. (2005). Litigation in Special Education: From
placement to programming. Education-Law Journal, 15(1), 31-59.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/212999031/fulltextPDF/138FD01DA8
45D38F091/4?accountid=14656

Reflection #4: Ideology, Values and Cuture (3)

This weeks Sternberg (2007) reading was thought provoking form the word go.
As soon as I read the title I thought of the Jordanian notion of intelligence. Our cultural
conception of intelligence is much like that of the western world; based on academic
performance and test scores rather than on social intelligence or street smarts. People
who are educated are regarded as intelligent and therefor superior.
Sternberg refers top the traditional view of intelligence when it is defined in
terms of a universal general ability that is fixed across cultures (p.148). He points out
how this view of intelligence can be problematic in education due to how the interaction
between culture and intelligence affect education. This takes me back to the week 4
Brantlinger (2004) article on ideologies; in which the author argues the importance of
taking ideologies into account when considering education. Although the Brantlinger
article is specific to inclusive education, it discusses how it is crucial to take different
belief systems into account in matters of education, as does the Sternberg article in
reference to the definition of intelligence.
One major issue which Sternberg highlights; is the underestimation or writing
off of children who are not deemed intelligent in the traditional sense. Sternberg explains
how this takes place when a teacher does not take into account the cultural differences
between her and the children, or even between the children themselves. I strongly agree
here with Sternbergs statement; a teacher should attempt to capitalize on what the
children do know, using it as scaffolding on which other knowledge can be built the
children could not be faulted for lacking learning skills (p.150). This statement goes
hand in hand with Vygotskys belief that teachers need to help children in developing

their knowledge, building on what they know and guiding them towards the knowledge
they need to acquire (Zuckerman, 2007). I am a big believer that all children are capable
of learning in one way or another, it is the teachers job to find a way to motivate, inspire
and help them transform their basic life knowledge to the knowledge they need to acquire
in the classroom. The children have the abilities, but they are not brought out by the
ways in which they are taught, which divorce academic content from the childrens
reality (p.152). How can a child learn if the learning is not relevant to its own life
experiences?
When thinking about cultural differences and how they affect teaching, I am
reminded of my previous job at a British school in Jordan. One of my students had an
issue with understanding boundaries and knowing when physical contact was
appropriate. In the Jordanian culture, physical contact (hugs, kiss on the cheek) is
something that is regarded as normal between friends and family. On the other hand, in
the British culture it was viewed as inappropriate. The child was very confused because
at home and in his day-to-day life, he was allowed to do these things, where as in the
context of the school it was frowned upon.
In conclusion, although the author points out that in this particular article the
studies used have very small samples, I do believe that they are on the verge of
uncovering a major issue which needs to be considered when assessing students learning
abilities and their intelligence. I also think that the author suggesting that the principles
and issues discussed here do not only apply to culturally and ethnically diverse children,
but also, to children from different classes of the mainstream culture, is an important
perspective which needs to be explored further.

Bibliography

Brantlinger, E. (2004). Chapter 1: Ideologies discerned, values determined: getting past

the hierarchies of special education. In, Ideology and the politics of (in)
Exclusion, p.11-31.

Sternberg, R.J. (2007). Who are the bright children? The cultural context of being and
acting intelligent. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 148-155.

Zuckerman, G. (2007) Child-adult interaction that creates a zone of proximal

development. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 45, 43-69.

Reflection #5: Ideology, Values and Culture (4)

For me the Bui and Turnbull (2003) paper for this week only further stresses the
importance of taking ideologies and culture into account when looking at matters of
special education, which both Sternberg (2007) and Brantlinger (2004) do. What is
interesting in this paper though, is that it discusses the cultural implications on the use of
a specific program (Person-Centered Planning).
One of the major issues Bui and Turnbull address in the article is the under
representation of Asian- American children with special needs in the schooling system.
They state the major reason behind these low numbers in comparison to the real number
of Asian- American children with special needs is the different beliefs Asian-Americans
have about their children with special needs. Here the issue of shame associated with
special needs is raised, and I am reminded of how Jordanian feel about children with
special needs. Although Jordanians do not believe that children are born with special
needs as a forms of punishment for past sins; thus resulting in shame, there is a sense of
shame surrounding disabilities. Families tend to be ashamed of their children with special
needs due to the culture regarding these children as lacking, or as lesser than others. This
prevents parents from seeking support and services to help them.
Moving on to discussing Person-Centered Planning (PCP), one point which raised
a flag for me in this article when referring to the core goals of PCP is on p.22; it
attempts to transform the power relationship between a helper who is dominant and a
person with a disability who is usually in a subservient role (Marrone, Hoff and Helm;
1997 in Bui and Turnbull; 2003). My first question here would be; is it possible to
achieve this in Asian-American families, when typically, children tend to be guided by

their parents and oblige to their wishes? Also, is this a possible method to use when
working with children with Autism Spectrum Disorder?
One aspect of PCP which I believe would be regarded as positive when used with
Asian-American families, is that it focuses on the capacities and the assets of the
individual rather than on the limitations and deficiencies. Maybe this would be a more
acceptable form of intervention because it focuses on strengths rather than weaknesses;
thus, maybe eliminating some of the negative stigma connected with special needs.
It was clear after the authors compared the core values of the Asian-Americans
with the defining factors of PCP that it is highly likely that it would not be successful
when used with the more traditional Asian-American families, that is unless
modifications were to be made. The table on p. 27 describing the modification of PCP to
fit Asian-Americans beliefs made me think; could modification be beneficial for other
subgroups in society? But this also raises the question of how feasible is it to modify
these programs (maybe not only PCP) for every family that is from a different culture?
In conclusion, it would be interesting to see what research studies that incorporate
the modifications Bui and Turnbull address would reveal. I personally believe that the
modifications to PCP would have positive implications and help in reaching out to the
Asian-American families who are more traditional in their views of children with special
needs.

Bibliography

Brantlinger, E. (2004). Chapter 1: Ideologies discerned, values determined: getting past

the hierarchies of special education. In, Ideology and the politics of (in)
Exclusion, p.11-31.

Bui, Y. & Turnbull, A. (2003). East meets west: Analysis of person-centered planning in
the context of Asian American values. Education and Training in Developmental
Disabilities, 38(1), 18-31.

Sternberg, R.J. (2007). Who are the bright children? The cultural context of being and
acting intelligent. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 148-155.

Reflection # 6: Issues in Special Education (1)

Be proactive! I would like to begin this reflection with this term. I believe it is the
most important suggestion made by Mclntosh et al. (2011) within this article. In this
article they are specifically referring to psychologists role in schools, but I believe this
should apply to all professionals working within education. So again I say be proactive!
In this article Mclntosh et al. refer to how schools in Canada are being pushed to the
limits financially in order to meet all the demands to do more, when already time and
resources are being stretched to their full capacity. They suggest that perhaps resources
like the school psychologists could be better utilized if their role were to be more
proactive and intervention-based rather than assessment based.
There are many issues when looking at the validity of classification by using these
cognitive tests, which the authors discuss in this article; I personally believe that one of
the biggest problems in this system is that is a wait to fail system. As pointed out in the
article, a delay in the system can cause children to not receive appropriate intervention in
the years when it is regarded to be most beneficial (between the ages of 2 &6). This takes
me back to the Williams and Macmillan (2005) article we read in week 5. In that article,
it is made clear that most intensive intervention takes place before the age of six, so a
question I raise here is what happens to those who got stuck in the system and were
delayed from receiving these services?
Another issue with the traditional assessments that I believe should be a basis for
change is the fact that it is an all or nothing approach. Here, only students with a large
discrepancy between their cognitive assessment and achievement scores are provided
special education (p.20). How is it fair that the students with mild learning difficulties

not receive support? I completely agree with the authors when they state that these
children are the ones that need the support the most. Instead, this system brushes them
aside and they slip through the cracks with no support to give them that little push
forward.
After reading this paper I thought back to the school psychologist we had at the
International Community School in Jordan. The aim of having her there was to better
enable us, the learning support staff, provide the appropriate support for the children. But
by the end of the year assessments were still being conducted and no form of intervention
was proposed for most of the students. There was also a disconnect between us and the
psychologist. I never felt comfortable approaching her to discuss any of the children I
worked with. I believe if she had adopted a more proactive approach that would have
been different and we could have worked together to improve intervention right then and
there and possibly would have created better outcomes for the students, come the end of
the year.
Mclntosh et al. suggest that the role of the school psychologist should be changed
and an RTI model needs to be adopted by schools to improve support provided for
children, and maybe even decrease support needed at later stages in life. I strongly agree
with them, mainly because RTI is a model which is based on taking action and progress
monitoring; which I believe is more productive than waiting on reports or waiting for the
students to fail before providing them with the support. Why put a child in a situation
where they are sensitive towards learning, when providing early support for all children
would better create equal opportunities for learning? I would like to end this reflection

with one question: if these models are all on paper, and are proven to be effective through
research, why are the majority not applying them?

Bibliography
Mclntosh, K. et al. (2011). Response to intervention in Canada: Definitions, the evidence
base, and future directions. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26(18), 1843.

Williams, M. A. & Macmillan, R.B. (2005). Litigation in Special Education: From

placement to programming. Education-Law Journal, 15(1), 31-59.

Reflection # 7: Issues in Special Education (2)

For this week's reflection I am going to be taking a look at the Epp and Epp
(2001) reading. Within this article, the authors highlight different school policies that
seem to encourage "the exit of difficult students rather than addressing their problems"
(p.231). One thing this paper did, I believe, is further stress the need for the reshaping of
the education system. We are in need of more proactive policies in order to enable
children at risk to access the education system if we want them to be able to grow with
the economy and become active members in society.
Epp and Epp discuss how school policy should be 'teacher proof', where they
provide situations where the students have no other option but to learn; the type of
teacher is irrelevant to the learning. I do not see how this is possible. Even now, as a
graduate, I am still influenced by the professor in the class. If I feel like the teaching style
does not suite me or that the professor does not seem to really care for my opinions, my
performance might be affected. The only difference between me and students at school is
age and experience. I have taught myself to adapt and deal with these situations. A child
or even teenagers, especially those at risk, more often than not, do not have these
adaptive skills.
Another point the authors make about school policies is how they are indifferent
to the student personas as well. Here I feel policies which promote understanding the
different cultural, ethnic, religious backgrounds of students, need to be put in place. By
doing so, teachers are forced to look deeper into the child's background and reasons for
behaviours might be uncovered; enabling the administration and staff to aid the student
through their time of stress.

In the section on student attrition I was reminded of the week (6) Sternberg (2007)
article on intelligence, and its definition. In the footnotes on p.235 of the Epp and Epp
article, they point out how definitions of drop outs differ from school to school. Some
schools include those who leave mainstream school to attend vocational schools or
business schools in the definition. Here, mainstream education is held at a higher
standard. The Sternberg reading refers to how traditional views refer to intelligence as the
ability to perform well in standardised tests in a mainstream school. But Sternberg argues
that this definition of intelligence needs to be reconsidered, after all there are different
kinds of intelligence, and not just book smarts. In my opinion, vocational schools and
business schools are merely routes to a different type of education; does this mean they
are incorrect? I feel schools that support this definition of dropouts are stuck in the past,
and do not take into account the different ways in which students can become active
members in society without attending a mainstream school. As Sir Ken Robinson states:
"They are trying to meet the future by doing what they did in the past, and on the way
they are alienating millions of kids who do not see any purpose in going to school"
(RSAninmate, Changing Educational Paradigms).
One thing I did find interesting in this article is that funding issues are not
discussed. From reading past articles on providing funding for support programs, it seems
that the government is already lacking funds to support the students; so my question here
would be, what about the funding?
The authors call for "questioning the very foundations of schooling in our society"
(Dei, 1996, p.184; in Epp & Epp, 2001). I must point out here the date Dei made this
suggestion; 1996. I found it shocking that most of the events described in this article, in

which children were wronged by the system, occurred merely twenty years ago. I end this
reflection by asking, how much change has taken place?

Bibliography
Epp, J. & Epp, W. (2001). Easy exit: School policies and student attrition. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6, 231-247.
Sternberg, R.J. (2007). Who are the bright children? The cultural context of being and
acting intelligent. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 148-155.
Sir Ken Robinson, 2010. Changing Educational Paradigms. Can be downloaded at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U