I recently had the privilege of participating in an ARD (Admission, Review and Dismissal) meeting for one of our students. During this ARD, the school shared their data, what they have observed, and their intentions for the future. The parents and I asked the school about the level of rigor her child, Riley (name changed for privacy), would be facing as well as the possibility of getting more inclusion minutes for her 8th grade student with Down Syndrome.
Background: Riley is a social butterfly who enjoys interacting with other people. He is currently functioning academically between a 2nd and 3rd grade level, but shows strong signs of growth. Socially, he is high-functioning and can participate in complex conversations.
When we requested inclusion time for reading, we were immediately given ambiguous answers in attempts to avoid doing so. The assistant principal (who I believe ran the meeting fairly well) and the other teachers communicated that ‘they could not assign a general education student to make sure Riley was following along with the class’. However, peer-mentoring like this is a common practice in public education schools and her initial refusal was not in compliance with accommodations in the general education setting for students with disabilities.
With this assistant principal’s (AP’s) clear lack of SpEd law knowledge, we simply circled back around and asked the school staff if they thought it would be worth trying to include him in a general education reading classroom to see how it goes. We also asked about giving him the opportunity to listen to the audio version of a book the GenEd class was studying and allow him to participate in the class discussions.
Initially, the AP was not accepting of our proposal. However, as we continued to suggest further inclusion opportunities like having him in a math class, or transitioning him to the GenEd PE class, reading inclusion appeared more and more appealing to the AP and other teachers present. By the end of this informal ARD, we all had a clearer idea of where Riley’s family wanted to direct his education and a plan to include him in the GenEd reading class.
After our meeting, I recommended that Riley’s mom send an email to his LIFE (Living In a Functional Environment) skills, self-contained, classroom teacher and summarize our expectations moving forward. The summary of our meeting included how we are anticipating more challenging goals to support faster growth and progress in his core subjects (Reading, Writing, Math). This email also served as a reminder to initiate and integrate Riley into a general education reading classroom to expose him to different text and discussions with his typically developing peers.
Now, you might be wanting to put your warrior-mom hat on and let this school staff have it about SpEd law, LRE (Least Restrictive Environment), and FAPE (Free and Appropriate Public Education), trust me I did at many points throughout the meeting. However, like with any group of people, there are disagreements, different interpretations and perspectives, and some feeling more ‘qualified’ than others to make decisions. For these reasons we, as non-confrontationally as possible, laid out our requests ranking from what the school might deem as least challenging integration to most challenging: reading class, GenEd PE, then math. After discussing all of these inclusion possibilities, we zeroed in on our “gateway” – GenEd reading inclusion.
Since this particular school staff eventually opened up to the idea of incorporating Riley with his typically developing peers, we did not see a need to push for all of our options at once.
By emphasizing the need for exposure to meaningful interactions that demand higher level thinking and conversation, we were able to passionately communicate the necessity for more inclusion minutes without seeming abrasive or discontent. We were also able to observe, through facial expression and body language, that Riley’s classroom teacher began seeing our perspective and viewpoint. Which, as many of you know, the classroom teacher is really the most important factor here.
The classroom teacher is often the catalyst and cavelier for any new minutes and accommodations requested for implementation; especially if they are informal and not included in the official IEP (Individualized Education Program).
Tell me more...
I’d love to! The classroom teacher is the keeper of our students’ schedules. They determine what they are working on, where they go, and for how long (besides uncompromising times like specials and lunch). Since we are wanting data on how well Riley performs in a general education classroom, we must support his classroom teacher as best we can.
As a former classroom teacher, I was able to offer Riley’s mom with perspective and understanding for how our requests might impact Riley’s teacher.
Now, many of you may say “well it’s his job”. You are 100% right. However, it is worth mentioning that our goal is not just for implementation and time served. We want purposeful interactions and relevant instruction to foster the best possible outcomes. If we bombard the classroom teacher without offering some kind of support and reassurance, we act as yet another burden; which in turn might create animosity towards us and our child.
This is only the beginning of Riley’s story and our journey to getting him included. Stay tuned to see how successful our approach is.
Have a better idea of how we might get more rigor or inclusion for Riley?
Let us know in the comments below.
Think you might benefit from an experienced special education teacher who can advocate for your child in a parent-teacher meeting?
Schedule an appointment today https://www.spedgrowpro.com/need-an-educational-consult
Jasmine Habeeb is a certified special education teacher who graduated from The University of Texas - Austin with a degree in special education. She enjoys sharing her opinions, recommendations, and current events on all things education.