the rainbow continuum: - cnx · web viewempowering stakeholders to make appropriate decisions the...
TRANSCRIPT
A Multidimensional Approach for Educating All Children:
Empowering Stakeholders to Make Appropriate Decisions
The teacher said:“Flowers are red young man.
Green leaves are green.There’s no need to see flowers any other way…
Than the way they always have been seen.”But the little boy said:
“There are so many colors in the rainbow.So many colors in the morning sun…
So many colors in the flowers and I see everyone.”Harry Chapin
Educators are frequently limited by narrow paradigms of thought. Children, uninhibited
and “untrained”, often speak freely and profoundly about the world around them. They tend to
observe things that have long been filtered out by adults who have been “educated” and
socialized into “knowing” what adults say is either right or wrong, true or false.
Principals and other professionals charged with the responsibility of educating students
must rid themselves of the myopic lenses of tradition, usual protocol and blindly accepted
practice. A broader vision of inclusion must be implemented for all children. We offer a model
for inclusion that is founded in the little boy’s view of the rainbow. However, the colors have not
always been so clear and easily perceptible.
The words exclusion and inclusion are keys to understanding the history of education in
America. Generally, schooling in earlier periods of our nation’s past was exclusionary in nature.
Thick clouds of discrimination descended upon large groups of potential learners, resulting in a
significantly un-served, or under-served “lower class.” Children from low socioeconomic
backgrounds attended schools that provided for basic literacy, while the “sons of the upper
classes, in contrast, attended the preparatory Latin grammar schools and, if successful, entered
college” (Ornstein & Levine, 2003). Historically, minority youngsters did not enjoy the full
benefits of education during this early period and were relegated to segregated schools which
were inferior to those provided for the core culture.
Children with disabilities were no exception to this exclusionary trend. According to
Pardini (2002):
Despite compulsory education laws that had been in place nationwide since 1918,
many children with disabilities were routinely excluded from public schools.
Their options: remain at home or to be institutionalized. Even those with mild or
moderate disabilities who did not enroll were likely to drop out well before
graduating from high school. (¶ 1)
As minority children, when the schoolhouse gates did finally open to students with
disabilities, segregation was the still the norm. The response from educators to the inclusion of
these learners in regular schools was to categories students and place them in separate classes
away from the mainstream. However, reformers, such as Lloyd Dunn and Evelyn Deno,
challenged the legitimacy of this system in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Deno (1970) asserted,
“ …the introduction of categorical constructs based on presumed child defects merely adds a
cluttering, unessential administrative and conceptual layer which interferes more than it aids in
realizing the goal of individualized instruction for all children, handicapped and non-
handicapped” (p. 232).
In 1970 Deno not only identified the problem, but also offered a solution to this
restrictive and inappropriate approach to serving children who had special needs. Deno’s (1970)
Cascade Model is portrayed by an upside down triangle with six in-school placement options
connected at the apex to a smaller open-ended triangle that presented two out-of-school
possibilities for placement (see Figure 1). Although the limitations and misuses of the model
would soon become apparent, this simple Cascade schema marked the beginning of substantial
educational reform by prompting federal and state governments to move away from
categorization and ineffective instructional delivery system settings to a more child-centered
approach.
Figure 1. Deno’s Original Cascade of Services
From “Introduction To Special Education Programs: Lesson 5,” by Project PARA. Copyright 2006 by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders. Reprinted with permission of the author.
The purpose of this paper is to build upon the Cascade Model in three significant ways.
Deno (1970) stated, “…the entire educational enterprise is one vast social system constantly
involved in making judgments of achievement adequacy and deportment acceptability which
psychometric measures have been designed to predict” (p. 234). It is evident that this pioneer
author recognized that organizations can be complex systems influenced by an array of internal
and external variables. Using an adaptation of this model, we explored the historical single-
dimensional triangle and expanded it into a three-dimensional Prism which identifies
organizational factors that can have a positive influence on the decision-making process. In
contrast to Deno’s relatively few placement options, we propose 36 possible alternatives of
placement for students. Deno (1970) recognized the placement alternatives and limitations in
deploying sound special education practices. We are offering specific, practical, and effective
administrative processes to facilitate appropriate decisions to meet the diverse needs of all
students.
According to Hoy and Miskel (2005), “An open system is a set of interacting elements that
acquires inputs from the outside, transforms them, and produces outputs for the environment” (p.20).
In order to illustrate a truly open system, we present a metaphorical Prism Model (see Figure 2),
which consist of inputs, a transformation process occurring within the organization and emerging
outputs. Inputs, in this case, include four illuminating vectors: (1) students’ understanding through
attitude; (2) parental care and advice; (3) teachers’ conscientious behaviors; and (4) administrative
leadership (see Figure 2). These informative factors are considered metaphorically as forces which
penetrate the organizational prism.
Figure 2. Stakeholders’ Triangulated Perspectives
The organization then applies transformational processes, namely more placement
options and better administrative practices, to generate desired outputs. We propose that these
transformational processes result in a wider spectrum of appropriate placement options, referred
to as the Rainbow Continuum (see Appendix A).
Comparing Deno’s Cascade Model to the Prism Model, her diagram represents but one
dimension of this multidimensional proposition. When the prism is unfolded (see figure 4), it can
be illustrated graphically that Deno’s Model by itself is but one part of a larger whole and when
viewed narrowly can be easily misinterpreted and misused. In fact, Deno (1994) acknowledged
that the model has been often misapplied for the purpose of securing funding, which resulted in
inappropriate placement. Hence, the Prism Model is not presented as an indictment of Deno’s
earlier work, but rather as a defense to its intended purposes and as an extending framework to
realize greater possibilities for appropriately meeting the needs of students.
The first major dimension of the Prism Model involves potentially illuminating inputs,
which function as triangulated perspectives. Traditionally, students’ opinions have been largely
ignored in the placement process. Parents are often involved statutorily in Individualized
Education Program admission, review and dismissal meetings, but educators frequently dominate
and seem to appreciate only the compliance aspect of parents’ participation. Most often, both
regular and special education teachers are required to be present when placement decisions are
made. However, teachers’ voices are at times muffled by the more powerful tones of
administrators and related service support staff. Alarmingly, school leaders often come to the
placement process ill prepared and inadequately equipped to guide “best practices”
implementation.
Students, parents, and teachers must become true partners in the placement process. The
organization must not only allow, but enable the vectors of input from stakeholders to penetrate
the Prism to meet a transformational process, which results in a “rainbow” of possibilities. Most
stakeholders should be able to provide meaningful and critical insights resulting in optimal
educational strategies within existing instructional settings. It is important to note that a key
stakeholder, a well-informed and empathy administrator, has a greater ability to shed new light
on decision-making that will benefit all students.
The second major dimension of this model is the Prism itself (see Figure 3). It represents
the organization and the transformational processes that occur within a holistic panorama. In this
case, a more comprehensive continuum of placement options and improved administrative
practices. Both serve as internal mechanisms with the capability of absorbing and transforming
current practice and policy, produces a Rainbow of new opportunities for all students in the
school.
Figure 3. Metaphorical Prism Model
Figure 4. Metaphorical Prism Model Unfolded”
>
To attain the best services to meet the needs of all students, we present The Rainbow
Continuum: A Count DOWN to Inclusion (see Figure 5). The best administrative practices of the
transformational process follow. This new Rainbow paradigm provides those involved in
placement decisions with an organized and systematic tool, which will ultimately encourage the
placement of each student to the “least restrictive environment” based on his/her own strengths
and challenges rather than the physical arrangement available on campus. The Count DOWN to
Inclusion also offers a broader approach to proactively addressing the diversity of students (see
Figure 5).
Figure 5. The Rainbow Continuum: Count DOWN to Inclusion
The Rainbow framework includes 8 major placement domains, including Exclusion,
Deinstitutionalization, Limited Placement, Selective Placement, Transition to Mainstreaming,
Mainstreaming, Transition to Inclusion, and Inclusion. Under each domain are specific
placement options. For example, within the Deinstitutionalization Domain, students who need
help can be accommodated through assistive technology with a certified specialist or an aide or
through assistive technology with peer assistance.
The Rainbow framework also includes the Exclusion to Inclusion Numbering Box (see
Figure 5). The disabilities and disorders enumerated within the box range from sensory
impairment and severe/profound mental retardation at the ‘high end’ of numerical scale, to
communication disorders and at-risk at the ‘lower end’ of the scale. The suggested ‘high end’
starting number for placement decisions should always consider an individual’s strengths,
interests, and areas of concern and work down the “Numbering Box” toward an appropriate fit.
In other words, the lower the number suggested by the Individualized Education Program (IEP)
committee, the closer the student will move toward an optimal placement.
Ultimately, Deno recognized that it is one thing to know the solution and quite another
proposition to effectively implement reform. She (1994) asserts:
Special educators have used their developmental capital well to get the right fix
on what needs to be done to optimize the learning of children with disabilities, but
they are barred from putting what they know into practice efficiently because they
do not have the administrative structure they need to make the transition as well
as they might. (p. 10)
Therefore, the administrative structure is another transformational consideration. The
organization must adjust internal mechanisms to facilitate best placements. This Rainbow
framework offers a systematic checklist to ensure that ALL students can be effectively served.
However, the model must be examined in light of local resources, practices, and willingness to
be flexible. It is recommended that appropriate staff review all placement opportunities and note
current district assets that could support each option. In some cases, school systems may not
have the particular resource, program or process in place to support a specific placement.
Fortunately, this model can be easily implemented with minimal difficulty. For example, the
district may not have a formal peer tutoring arrangement. In this case, the district may consider
organizing students to perform this function. An added benefit of this approach to meeting the
needs of all students is the very act of performing a local needs assessment in view of the many
placement options.
A review of local policy and procedures should also be performed prior to deployment of
the Rainbow Continuum. This is particularly important in respect to staffing policy and
budgetary practices. Many potentially beneficial initiatives are often stifled by a lack of
congruence between the well-intended idea and the sometimes cold reality of policies and budget
allocations. To remedy this dilemma, staffing ratios, normally contained within board policy or
administrative regulations, should be aligned with the various Rainbow Continuum options. For
successful use, the district’s budget must correspondingly provide line items to fund adjustments
in personnel and programs. Using this model as a guide during the budget development cycle
may be especially helpful, but it is not anticipated that implementation of these internal
adjustments will add prohibitive budgetary restraint or major personnel shifts in assignment.
Once the district has completed its resource, policy and budget assessments, staff and
parent development is imperative. All individuals involved in placement decisions, including
central office staff, parents, campus administration, teachers, diagnosticians, related service
personnel and others, must receive a thorough presentation addressing various aspects of the
model. This training should include a discussion of local nuances, such as variations in
geographic or professional changes in jargon. Staff and parent development should also describe
how local policy, procedures and budget requirements relate to the array of placements.
In addition to localizing the Rainbow Continuum, the administrative leader must
eliminate the fog that often obstructs the view of the rainbow and fall into the unproductive mode
of tradition and blindly accepted practice. This is evident when the campus leader dictates
members who will attend IEP committee meetings or ignores trends in recent court cases that
uphold a student’s right of being placed in the most productive setting rather than based on his or
her categorical disability. Allowing wholesale learning disabled (LD) diagnoses, acceptance of
central office’s arbitrary cutoff dates for referral, and a refusal to look at systemic problems in
the curriculum are all administrative behaviors that exemplify this tendency. For example,
building leaders often overly rely on norm-referenced tests as opposed to more authentic
assessment. Earl and LeMahieu (1997) contend, “Assessment is one of the most powerful levers
for enhancing student learning and bringing about positive educational change” (p. 158). They
further offer that “large-scale testing programs may be fundamentally inequitable and
disadvantage many groups of children.” There are many more examples of questionable current
practices, which limit the vast opportunities that can be realized utilizing the Rainbow
Continuum. Therefore this framework reaches the real vision of individualized services for all
students on each campus. It is generic as well as specific in its scope, and the Rainbow
Continuum will simplify general education as well as address placement decisions for students
who have protected rights and special services requirement.
We agree with Deno and others who established a strong foundation for special education
reform. But often times, a sound foundation must be expanded upon to realize its original
purpose. We have offered an extending framework of Deno’s Cascade in the form of the Prism
Model, which will only work if the school organization is willing to address the needs of all
students individually.
In the introductory verse cited by Harry Chapin, the child sings: “There are so many
colors in a rainbow, and I see every one!” Like the innocent child who perceives this wonderful
spectrum, educators must free themselves to not only believe in, but to act upon the many
possibilities of schooling. The Prism Model is one tool that hopes to foster a wider view of the
educational landscape that would benefit all children.
References
Chapin, H. (1978). Flowers are Red. Living Room Suite. Lyrics retrieved October 12, 2005,
from http://harrychapin.com/music/flowers.shtml
Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37(3), 239-
237.
Deno, E. (1994). Special education as developmental capital: A quarter century appraisal
[Electronic version]. Journal of Special Education, 27(4), 375-393. Retrieved February 3,
2006, from EBSCOhost database.
Earl, L. M., & LeMahieu, P. G. (1997). Rethinking assessment and accountability, in A.
Hargreaves (Ed.), Rethinking educational change with heart and mind (pp. 149-168).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C., G. (2005). Educational administration: Theory research and practice
(7th ed.). New York: NY, McGraw-Hill.
Ornstein, A. C., & Levine, D. U. (2003). Foundations of education (8th ed.). Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Pardini, P. (2002). The history of special education. Rethinking Schools Online. Retrieved
October 7, 2005, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_03/Hist163.shtml