I agree that skilled teachers are more effective than paras but I don't see how this proposal could be implemented without increasing costs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am from Vermont and here is what I think. In Vermont they are really lacking in teachers, especially good teachers, and especially specialized teachers for this and other things like foreign language and upper-level math and science. And a declining child population has made school budgets tight. So they leaned on paraprofessionals with the idea that a lot of personal attention would be helpful, but also because they were so lacking in teachers. Turns out it hasn't gone so well, so they've made a real effort to switch back to credentialed teachers. So Vermont is becoming more like most states in that way. It's not a model that could be applied to a school district that wasn't already making the error of using too many paras and not enough teachers.

This essay is more relevant to MCPS, which uses paras to provide instructional hours far more than DC does.

Actually it’s not relevant to MCPS and very much relevant to DCPS. I’ve taught in both systems. I’m currently in MCPS, I’ve never worked with paraeducators who had less than a masters or was currently enrolled in a master’s program. The same cannot be said for DCPS. At my current school we have two paras who are certified and have master’s. One in special education/concentration in Autiusm and the other with a masters in elementary education. Funding for paras depends on how well principals balance the budget.

Anonymous wrote:I am from Vermont and here is what I think. In Vermont they are really lacking in teachers, especially good teachers, and especially specialized teachers for this and other things like foreign language and upper-level math and science. And a declining child population has made school budgets tight. So they leaned on paraprofessionals with the idea that a lot of personal attention would be helpful, but also because they were so lacking in teachers. Turns out it hasn't gone so well, so they've made a real effort to switch back to credentialed teachers. So Vermont is becoming more like most states in that way. It's not a model that could be applied to a school district that wasn't already making the error of using too many paras and not enough teachers.

This essay is more relevant to MCPS, which uses paras to provide instructional hours far more than DC does.

I am from Vermont and here is what I think. In Vermont they are really lacking in teachers, especially good teachers, and especially specialized teachers for this and other things like foreign language and upper-level math and science. And a declining child population has made school budgets tight. So they leaned on paraprofessionals with the idea that a lot of personal attention would be helpful, but also because they were so lacking in teachers. Turns out it hasn't gone so well, so they've made a real effort to switch back to credentialed teachers. So Vermont is becoming more like most states in that way. It's not a model that could be applied to a school district that wasn't already making the error of using too many paras and not enough teachers.

Agreed. My son has had too many years where an u trained paraeducator was supposed to basically teach him since the actual teacher was to busy with the other kids. Main reason he’s now in a special needs school and excelling.

DC doesn’t use paraeducatora this way. The Vermont model is in place at most schools here.

We still have a problem with achievement of students with IEPs.

Yes DC needs to do more for students with disabilities. It is not a monolithic population and totals about 15% of the school population.

Even if all SN were at grade level we would have an achievement gap.

A kid is only pulled out if there iep says outside hours. Otherwise- the special education teacher comes to the gen edu room

My child is in DCPS with an IEP and doesn't have any paraeducators on his team! He only leaves the class to see the OT and social worker; and the fully credentialed special-ed teacher pushes into the classroom. However, his needs are more social than academic. I can believe that other kids with IEP could benefit from more instructional hours, though. But I don't think that DCPS (or Charters that I've heard of) use paras to deliver academic supports. The paras are more for behavioral help.

If special ed is improved in D.C., can we help reduce the achievement gap? And no, this is not the topic for another forum.

Excerpts from Washington Post article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/09/26/special-ed-needs-change-vermont-shows-how/?utm_term=.389ead6f53d3

Special ed needs to change. Vermont shows how.
Nathan LevensonSeptember 26 at 8:00 AM

Nathan Levenson is a former superintendent of the Arlington, Mass., schools and now is managing director of the District Management Group. (N/A/N/A)


In too many schools, special education hurts instead of helps kids. Students with special needs are pulled out of core instructional classes and seldom get extra instructional time with a talented teacher. Even worse, too many students with special needs receive instruction from paraprofessionals who seldom have strong teaching skills or content expertise. In short, well-meaning efforts to help kids in need are doing just the opposite.

...

What’s clear is that special education is in crisis. Achievement of students with disabilities is low, the achievement gap high, and despite heroic efforts by schools and teachers, the gap isn’t closing. Few students with even mild disabilities are prepared for college or career.

...

A big part of the problem is the way special education funds are spent. Too often, the dollars are spent on increasing the number of adults, such as paraprofessionals. But these assistant teachers seldom have the expertise to help students master academic subjects.

At the same time, special-education teachers are asked to do far too much, including manage students’ Individualized Education Programs, help with behavior issues, be experts in the law, write reports and teach reading, math and writing. No one can be an expert across such a diverse range of skills.

This strategy is bad for kids, bad for teachers and bad for taxpayers. Hiring more skilled staff and allowing them to play to their strengths works better and doesn’t cost a penny more. Staff morale also rises because teachers do more of what they are great at.

Schools that have taken this approach have seen achievement rise and the gap close.

...

When students with special needs have access to highly skilled teachers and strong curriculum, they learn more because the standards are higher, the materials are better and the instruction is more rigorous. Then add in extra time with expert teachers focused on students’ specific needs — and it’s not surprising that learning skyrockets.

...

The resulting law passed in May, and it discourages districts from using paraeducators for academics; encourages general education staff to help students with special needs; and supports the creation of a cadre of highly skilled interventionists, strategies strongly supported by special-education parents, teachers and leaders.

...

Both general education and special-education teachers are going to need new teaching approaches, more student-centered schedules, leaders willing to allow their staff to specialize. Fortunately, the Vermont law will help with this, too.

But in the end, special education hasn’t kept up with the times. Meeting the needs of students with disabilities requires a forward-thinking approach grounded in an expectation that even students with the most significant needs are capable and ready to learn with the right support.