RE: Special Education

Mr. Ratliff,
Thank you for listening.  At present the state has two special ed credentials: mild to moderate and moderate to severe.  We are faced with a dilemma.  Those professionals with that training will try to group children into those two categories.  Those with extensive specialized training will try to differentiate subcategories within these two areas.  An example is that you could have a child with severe autism being placed in a moderate to severe classroom with a teacher who has had very little exposure to autism.  That same child could be treated differently in a mild to moderate classroom.  Neither teacher will, under the current credentialing system, have the same level of knowledge to help that child.  I would like to see some very irrefutable research indicating that the new credentials are better for the child than the earlier, specialized credentials.  I think the problem is that school districts, in looking for ways to gain more funds, are trying to find ways to create fewer classes by placing more special needs children in them.  This reduces costs and improves income.  Perhaps the Master Plan should require significant research evidence from several sources including feedback from frontline professionals before changing credentials.  I am tired of someone like universities trying to develop new revenue streams at the expense of the needs of the children.  Let them prove the need for these new credentials.  

In response to your other question, I have not had the benefit of time to consider the implications of some of my suggestions.  In fact, as an aside note, I have talked with a number of senior level administrators and school board members who had little or no idea of what was being developed in the master plan or that a master plan was being developed.  Now because we are almost out of time for input their concerns may not be heard. I think we really need input from more teachers first and then have administrative types work with the teachers on how to implement the plan.  I did not see any input from the state department of special ed on the committee.  They could offer a view of the scope of special ed in the state.  

You might want to consider some form of checks and balances in the Master Plan to prevent districts from reclassifying children to up test scores, generate more revenue, and/or reduce class costs, just to name a few of the reasons districts may reclassify children.

The next concern is that unless significant funds are put in place, changes suggested will find a hard time being applied.

There is much more that could be suggested such as:
How are we going to get the teachers to work in special ed?
How are we going to train the teachers if we use a more specialized approach to class staffing?
Should the approach to special ed be reviewed?
Should we require a more medical approach be developed that requires planned staffing on a weekly or biweekly schedule?

How about California setting the standard for special ed for the rest of the nation for a change?
What way can the Master Plan provide for incorporation new research into programs and how often do we need to review the basis of older programs?  I don't mean it's a good idea to base programs on research but what are the nuts and bolts of making the changes to programs in the shortest possible time?  I have some ideas as to how to answer some of these questions but need to discuss them with others first.

Another concern I have is that because we are using technology to communicate, teachers without access to this type of technology may not have the opportunity to respond with their insights. Given a bit more time, I would try to bring their responses into these suggestions.

I apologize for being so verbose, but these are concerns and ideas that have been developing for the last 33 years in education where I have taught at both the K-12 and University levels.