School/Special Education Misc

504 Plan Musings

by | Nov 4, 2016 |

Sometimes extra time, one of the common 504 Accommodations for ADHD, isn't useful at all.

“504” plans have been so much on the school landscape for  many years that we forget that the “504” did not originate with schools. 504 is part of the ADA (Americans With Disability Act) federal  legislation.

The guiding principle of 504 is that reasonable accommodations help to “level the playing field” for those with disabilities in the workplace or school.

Above all, the operative word is “reasonable.”

The vast majority of 504 Plans developed in the schools are primarily generated to address the child diagnosed with ADHD.

Extra time is the most common of the 504 accommodation provided. Is extra time really helpful for ADHD style kids? The answer is it may be, but it is case by case, child by child.

Sometimes extra time is one of those meaningless ADHD accommodations, providing no legitimate difference.

Case Study: A Useless 504 Plan for ADHD

For example, take Jenna, an impulsive 8 year old, who rushes through her work, with very little consideration as to the accuracy of what she produces. Rating scales completed on Jenna noted many of the features normally attributed to ADHD. Naturally, the parents wanted to get Jenna help in school. A 504 planning meeting was held and Jenna was offered a boiler plate check list of accommodations. Extended time was the chief one given.

Extended time???

Jenna blitzed through her work. Extended time was the last thing Jenna would take advantage of.

Useful 504 Plan Accommodations List

Ideally, create 504 accommodations in conference with the parents and key school staff members who meet to discuss what specific accommodations would help to level the playing field for the child.

Ask yourself, what reasonable classroom accommodations for ADHD would provide some support for the child?

  • Perhaps sitting the child closer to the teacher would help.
  • Maybe having the teacher preview and explain complex words would make a difference.
  • Maybe the child needs directions clarified.
  • Perhaps reducing the number of problems on the page would matter.
  • Perhaps cut down homework by a certain percentage so as not to overwhelm the child.
  • Maybe don’t penalize the child for spelling.
  • Having someone write down the child’s answers after reading him questions on the sheet might be a good accommodation
  • Extra time could help if the child is particularly slow in getting things done.

There are others that could be helpful. In other words, it all depends on each child and his/her needs.

My advice would be that you simplify things. Come up with two or three (at the most) really helpful things that you think your child’s teacher can do to help your child along. To clarify, “reasonable” accommodations will help to make the road a little smoother for your child. You may feel comforted by the report that you have that generated pages and pages of recommendations, but what teacher will be able to implement all of them?

Anything requested beyond a few accommodations, will likely lead to the school will just be checking off boxes on a 504 template that won’t be followed.

Takeaway Point

In short, when it comes to a 504 Plan, less is more.

(Parents can feel very confused about 504 Plans, especially how they differ from IEPs.  If you want a basic explanation of the difference between them, I would direct you to this link:  What’s the Difference between an IEP and an ADHD 504 Plan?)

To consult with Dr. Selznick, you can reach him through email: contact@shutdownlearner.com

To receive blogs and other updates, sign up at: https://shutdownlearner.com.

Special Ed Compromises: Reducing the ‘SEFF’

by | Oct 6, 2016 |

I own a kayak.  Sometimes I think that if I only had a longer kayak, I would go faster.  If I had a longer boat though, then I would have less stability.  If I got a pedal kayak, then I could probably fish easier.  But, then I’d give up the satisfaction that comes from paddling.

With these and other kayaking variables whatever decision is made represents a compromise – I may get this, but I give up that.

I find myself reflecting on compromises when talking to parents about decisions regarding their child in school, particularly when it comes to special education.

It may not be totally satisfying (is any compromise), but no matter the decision  there will be another side to the decision, a compromise.

While you will hopefully be getting something with the decision being made, there is something you will be giving up.

You might say, for example, “Well, I don’t want my child to be missing out on what is being taught in the regular class.”

“Yes, I understand,” I might respond, “but you also want intensive, individualized instruction.  That doesn’t happen in the regular class.  Something has to give.”

Others talk about private school.  Private school might look good on one level, but there is the other side, the compromise with the child  being taken out of the local community into a school that is more than likely a distance from home, with virtually no kids he has known.

If the decoding is the focus of the remedial instructional time, then comprehension and vocabulary typically take a back seat.

You’re getting something, but giving up at the same time.

Takeaway Point

I’m not suggesting that you simply roll over,  play dead and accept whatever is handed to you, but I do think that the sooner you recognize there is a giving up while you are getting inherent in most special education decisions, then the ‘SEFF’ or  “Special Education Frustration Factor” may be slightly reduced.

“The Skill of…”

by | Jun 24, 2016 | ,

I like using the phrase “the skill of ________________” when talking to parents about various kid issues.  Using the phrase helps guide parents in terms of what they are targeting and helps a child to move forward.

Some time ago a friend of mine trained her kids (three boys) at a fairly young age the skill of making their lunch.  Effectively, she sized up their readiness to meet the demands of the task (she thought they were ready) and she taught them the skill.  After showing the boys the steps and having them practice each step to mastery, they internalized the skill.  Inernalizing the skill gave them a sense of mastery and personal competence, not to mention moving one step closer to independence

Here are some other examples of “the skill of” in action:

“We are practicing the skill of short vowels in one syllable words.’

“We are practicing the skill of multisyllabic words with short vowel sounds.”

“The skill of inferences is what we are targeting.”

“This month we are practicing the skill of putting your homework in the right place in your book bag.”

To a child who never looks up from his iPad, when someone is saying hello,  one mom said, “September is devoted to  practicing the skill of saying hello to someone after they speak to you.”

“Skill of” thinking is good for both parent and child.  For the child the identified skill is finite and obtainable.  Once the skill is mastered, the child owns it.  It’s in his skill repertoire.

For the parents, it changes their thinking such things as, “We’re working on improving his ADD or his dyslexia”  to targeting very specific identifiable skills.  Working on ones’s ADD or dyslexia does not define really what it is that is being targeted or worked on to mastery.

Keep in mind that all skills have basically three zones to consider.  The independent zone represents the  zone where the skill is fully mastered and easy for the child.  Within the instructional zone, the skill is close to being fully mastered, but still needs some work. The frustration or difficulty zone is too hard for the child and should be avoided.  It is simply too difficult.  In general people cannot work within their frustration zone.

In the case of the lunch making boys, my friend correctly assessed that her kids were able to be in the instructional zone with this particular skill and that with some practice they could be in the independently managing the skill of making their lunch.

Takeaway Point

Use “skill of” thinking” wherever you can (not just with academics).  Be clear with your child in using the phrase “skill of,” as in,  “We are practicing the skill of making your bed.”

Be mindful of the zones of competence in determining the skill you are targeting and your level of expectation.

 

Getting Beyond the IQ

by | Jun 3, 2016 |

I recently had the pleasure of facilitating a webinar sponsored with the Dyslexia Training Institute called “Assessment Boot Camp for Parents.”  (You can still register for the webinar and listen in your own time by going to this link   www.dyslexiatraininginstitute.org/Bootcamp-for-Parents.html.)

When I do testing one of my least favorite questions that I inevitably get is, “So what’s his/her IQ?”

In previous posts, I have tried to illustrate how the IQ can hold a child back from not receiving services he/she needs.  The IQ  and can also be subject to rampant misinterpretation.

For example, if I say to the parent or the school the child has an “IQ of 100,”  what is formed is an immediate perception of the child being of average intelligence.  That would seem to be a reasonable presumption since an IQ of 100 is smack in the middle of the average range, the 50th percentile.

The problem (among many problems) is that one could line up 100 kids or adults who each have the same exact score of 100, yet they’d all be different in terms of their strengths and  weaknesses, their highs and lows. It would be hard to characterize them under the umbrella of “average intelligence.”

Take Thomas an 8 year old boy I tested recently.  If you looked at his overall IQ score, it wasn’t all that impressive, somewhere in the high 80’s or low 90’s (about the 25th percentile).

However, when I asked Thomas a question from a math word problem task,  the question asked said something about spending, such as “If you have $24 and spend half of it what will you have left.”

Thomas stopped me mid-way and said, “Well, I’m not a spender…I’m a saver.”

“What do you mean,” I asked.

“Well, whenever I get any kind of money I try and save change in a jar.  I think I have almost $400.”

“Really?  I’m very impressed, I complimented him.”

“Yep.  I figure I’ll have a couple of thousand dollars by the time I’m 18.  I’m just not a spender.”

It turns out that Thomas scored in the 90th percentile on this task and he was in a similar range on other tasks that involved fluid reasoning and nonverbal thinking.

IQ indeed!

Takeaway Point:

Often, as in the case with Thomas, the IQ is rendered fairly meaningless because of the variability, the highs and lows of the profile.

Remember to go beyond the IQ score.  It may not be telling you much.

 

 

 

“My IQ is in the ‘Not-Good-Enough-Zone'” – Still Need Help!

by | Mar 25, 2016 |

Those of you have read my blogs or the books know that there are certain aspects of this business (e.g., the over use of worksheets, lengthy IEPs that really aren’t individual, the way writing is taught, the rapid “diagnosing of ADHD, calling dyslexia a medical condition that only doctors can diagnose) that continually get under my skin no matter how much mindful meditating I do to work on reducing my “GQ (i.e., Grumpiness Index).”

One that raise my GQ off the charts is when I see kids struggling but not get services because their IQ is in the “Not-Good-Enough-Zone,” that is the dreaded portion of the bell-shaped curve, the low average range (between the 10 – 24th % iles).
To illustrate why my GQ rises with this issue, let’s look at two different children:

Child A, a seven year old second grader, Zachary, is below average in reading (15%ile in word reading skills and oral reading fluency). Zach obtained an IQ of 107 (68th percentile, but still in the average range). In addition, the school assessed Zach with a bunch of subtests that assessed his “phonological processing,” all of which clustered around the 20th percentile.

In short, Zach was struggling and he needed a lot of support and remediation. Zach was found to be eligible for special education services and started receiving small group remedial instruction.

Child B, Cameron, age 7, a classmate of Zachary’s, is in the exact same level of reading as Zachary (16th % ile). In contrast, though, Cameron received an IQ of 87 (the “Not-Good-Enough Zone”). With similar phonological processing scores to Zachary, she was clearly struggling across the board.

In spite of this, Cameron was found ineligible for any remedial services.

A closer look at Cameron’s IQ profile showed that she demonstrated above average functioning in nonverbal intelligence. Compromised by weaknesses in active working memory, processing speed and language functioning, Cameron’s FSIQ was compromised. The score of 87 did not represent her legitimate ability or potential.

If I had my way (which I almost never do), the FSIQ would be secondary, essentially ignored in a situation like Cameron’s, demonstrating at least average or above average potential in one major domain of cognitive ability.

Takeaway Point
My GQ is running high.

I need to meditate more.

“Evidenced Based?” What about unmotivating?

by | Mar 18, 2016 |

As a psychologist specializing in dyslexia and learning disabilities, I have always valued and embraced reading instruction that has been referred to as “bottom-up” (skills based) for teaching struggling kids how to decode and read more fluently. Over the years I have seen so many reading struggling kids benefit from these approaches.

However, please understand this, decoding instruction should not be confused with literature instruction. “Reading” instruction is much more involved utilizing rich, imaginative literature and interesting non-fiction to generate thinking and to stimulate the imagination.

What is being passed off as literature within the typical worksheets approved as “evidenced based” within Common Core curriculum is having the opposite effect of stimulating imagination and creativity, at least from the kids that I interact with on a regular basis.

Not only is the material stultifying but increasingly in order to stay within “research-supported” fidelity of a given program, teachers are being asked to cut back on diverging from the script and to not use their personalities.

There was a time in the “way-back machine” when teachers taught genuine literature and poetry to children using their own personal enthusiasm as a way of trying to ignite passion in children to connect with the literature.

There was creativity in the process of teaching. Passion and love of literature, character or theme were all part of the interactive educational process. Worksheets were supplemental, if used at all. They were not the primary vehicle as they seem to be today.

Schools should rightfully look to the research evidence to help guide what type of instruction is the most effective with different types of children. But removing the teacher’s personality, joy and enthusiasm will lead to boredom and disconnection. Further, literature presented through dense worksheets leads to uninspired children who learn to detest reading. (Keep in mind that to the average kid reading is already perceived pretty negatively, compared to spending time on something like Youtube or playing video games. I am afraid that misguided “research supported” methods are not helping counter this perception any.)

Takeaway Point:
Teaching fabricated “literature” robotically scripted with no sign of personal passion will lead to legions of bored faces detesting the reading process. Yet, such approaches are “evidenced-based.”

Good teaching is an art that involves many intangibles. How does one quantify and measure enthusiasm? Love of literature and poetry? Connecting the disconnected?

You don’t.

There are some things that you cannot measure.

Overplaying the IQ

by | Jan 8, 2016 |

The following is a letter from nine year old Cassie transcribed from her hand-written letter to a relative:

Dear Uncl mic:
I had a grate time at the lunch/diner. Wer are you getting mered? Haw are you dowing? I love you . Plese rite back (ar you aksw tell ant emmy to rite back to.

In school, she wrote the following as part of a journal entry:

I got a pes of choclit art of moon codineen.
Today I hid cumPyoters. I was partners with Clowe. We plad a game wer you hat to capcher a crock. I hope tomara is a nutther grat day.

Writing samples, especially ones that are part of “open-ended” writing activities as the above from school are the x-ray that tell you something is going on with a child. They offer a window into how the child is processes information, her awareness of sound-symbol relationships, and her sense of internal organization.

Hands up – how many of you reading the samples above think this child may be dyslexic or at least have a writing disability?

Yep. I bet a lot of hands went up.

To me it is clear and self-evident. This nine year old child is in need of significant assistance and remediation. With her severe writing difficulty, coupled with her not so great reading skills, she is drowning, coming home every day upset that she is “so dumb.”

The problem is this is child was found to be ineligible for services after she was evaluated for special education. There was not a sufficient discrepancy between her Full Scale IQ (FSIQ = 91) and her overall achievement score (Global Reading = 87) to warrant giving her any assistance.

The IQ test (typically the WISC-V) is very helpful in yielding rich diagnostic information. Among other things, the test offers information as to what are the child’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses. To my understanding of the original intent of the developer of the test (then called the WISC), Dr. David Wechsler, many decades ago, the instrument was not designed for the purpose of keeping children from getting what they need.

Testing for a learning disability is tricky business. There really is no “gold standard” test that everyone agrees is the one instrument to use. Additionally, the FSIQ often does not fully represent the child’s potential, particularly when there is considerable scatter (as there was in Cassie’s case above). Compounding these challenges inherent in the testing, is the fact that there is a combination of quantitative and qualitative information that needs to be considered as part of an assessment. Just focusing on the quantitative is limiting.

For example, look at the writing samples above. (They would be even more dramatic if you saw the handwritten originals.) Really, I have no idea how to quantify the writing sample, but I do know by looking at them qualitatively and watching Cassie write, that they are suggestive of a pretty considerable learning disability (dyslexia).

The same is true with the IQ. The FSIQ is only one piece of information that needs to be considered within the context of other valuable diagnostic information.

Takeaway Points
Good assessments need to take quantitative and qualitative information into consideration when formulating whether or not a child has a learning disability. The IQ is just one piece of quantitative information and should not be overused.

Clarifying In-Class Support vs. Direct Instruction

by | Dec 18, 2015 |

Those of you who have been with me for some time, know that I will often have questions when parents talk to me about their child receiving “in-class support” to address the child’s reading issues.

Sure, keeping children as close to their regular class as possible and not having them segregated or pulled out would seem to be a value that most would support.

But, I ask this.  If your child is struggling in reading, spelling and writing are they receiving legitimate, “direct instruction” as a part of “in class support.”  The only way you would know this is if your clarify with the child’s team what is involved with the “in-class support” being received.

More often than not, the type of in class support the child receives is the “don’t let them drown” variety.  That is, the child of concern is in the regular class and has work in front of him that is often too hard to manage.  The in class support teacher, whether a special educator or teacher’s aide, comes over to the child and helps him or her with the work.   THIS IS NOT DIRECT INSTRUCTION.

Direct instruction involves the teaching of specific skills in a structured, sequential manner, with one skill being directly taught to mastery, leading to the next skill to be taught.

Without being confrontational, I would suggest that you clarify what in-class support means by asking some of the following questions to seek further information:

“I know that my child receives “in class support,” but is there a specific method that is being used to teach him to read?”

“How much time will he receive from the in-class support teacher and how much of that time involves direct instruction?”

“Will the support be individual or in small group?”

These questions are not meant to put the child’s team or teacher on the spot, but for you to get a better sense of how much, if any, direct instruction the child will receive.

Having been in the business for some time, there are certain truths that come up time and again that stand the test of time.  One of them is that a struggling child will only move forward if he is taught the skills of concern directly, one step at a time. Support and direct instruction are very different. Both have their purpose.

Takeaway Point

If your child is classified in special education and getting “in-class” support, dig a little deeper and clarify what that means.  Try and open up the discussion of support vs. direct instruction. You may need to get the ratio changed to increase the direct instruction taking place.

Dear School Districts: I Beg of You, Please Stop Doing This

by | May 29, 2015 |

Dear School Districts:

I know that you are under a lot of pressure these days.  There’s tons of regulation coming down the pike – Common Core, Student Growth Initiatives, PARCC and all sorts of other initiatives.

I really do try and be understanding.  I used to work in public schools and some of my best friends are in school districts, but you’re not making it easy for me based on this one thing that I keep hearing you say to parents – “You need to see a neurologist to determine dyslexia.”

Please, I beg of you, stop saying that to them.

I understand that the ‘D’ word has caused school problems, but the word has been in special education code for many years.  It’s not a new term, even though some people are presenting it like it was recently discovered.  (The fact is you can go back to the 1930’s & 1940’s to see just about everything you need to know about the ‘D’ word.)

Here’s my advice.  Rather than go into a defensive posture and back up in horror when the parent brings up the ‘D’ word, use it as a learning opportunity.  Parents are hungry for good information and welcome being educated.  I will even provide you with a little script right here that can work in most situations when a parent inquires about dyslexia.

You can tell the parent something like this:

“’Dyslexia is a greatly misunderstood term.  When a child has ongoing difficulty with reading, spelling and writing, and the difficulty involves identifying words accurate and fluently,  chances are that suggests a ‘dyslexic pattern.’  This would be particularly substantiated if one or the other parent struggled in these areas as a child.  Dyslexia (reading disability) is not clear cut.  It never was.  There is no one test or marker. Really the better term that is clearer is ‘reading disability.’  In effect, ‘dyslexia ‘and ‘reading disability’ are one and the same thing.”

Understand this, assessment is a process.  There’s no neurologist that I know who does the type of tests necessary.   It’s not their domain.

I would encourage you to use the data you already have on the kid and take some pretty good guesses.  Parents by and large appreciate that.    Look, I have been testing dyslexia for a long time and sometimes I have no idea whether the child has dyslexia.  Sometimes you have to hedge your bets a little.  It’s the nature of the business.

Hope that helps a little.

Your friend,

Rich Selznick

Common Core State Standards: (Lots of Luck)

by | Jul 12, 2013 |

Most of you probably remember a few years back when all of the buzz was No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Schools scrambled to meet the expectations of NCLB. Fast forward to 2013. No one seems to be talking about NCLB anymore. Its been put away in one of the many dustbins of educational reform.

Instead, the current buzz is the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). As noted in an article on the CCSS, The Common Core State Standards are a coherent progression of learning experiences in English language arts and mathematics designed to prepare K-12 students for college and career success.

Lets take a look at some of the standards under the strand for English Language Arts/Writing for first grade:

With guidance and support from adults, focus on a topic, respond to questions and suggestions from peers, and add details to strengthen writing as needed.

With opinion pieces in which they introduce the topic or name the book they are writing about, state an opinion, supply a reason for the opinion and provide some sense of closure.

Write narratives in which they recount two or more appropriately sequenced events, include some details regarding what happened, use temporal words to signal event order and provide some sense of closure.

Sounds wonderful, doesnt it?

How about young Jarrod, though, who just completed second grade and who was recently evaluated for a learning disability. How will CCSS handle him? Jarrod cannot write a sentence, no less a persuasive essay (keeping in mind he is year beyond the above standards). People that struggle with essay writing often use external services such as customwritingservice to help them write extended pieces, and this may be a good option in the future for someone like Jarrod.

Heres Jarrods essay on a story he saw on television recently, transcribed as close as possible to the original.

Songy gos to the petstoand Dosent hava lof of mony to get a Dog so his shakr kreg Pots in a hahoren pellets and they got 100 Dogs the sogy throo a Ball that axiDently Lah Did in ther naBr NoDm Yar D ant the Dogs get his BloBares anD he COLD the potho. Sogy and Crag weht to the pound and openD a Jarof BLOOBares and aLL of the dogs cam roh Oldt and ther NaBer was trapuled By the Dogs.

So, CCCS is going to emphasize persuasive writing and narrative discourse with Jarrod? Lots of luck.

Developmentally, Jarrod is a great distance away from writing a persuasive essay. At this stage in his development, I do not think that Jarrod could construct a sentence such as, The duck swims on the pond, yet he will be asked to produce a five paragraph persuasive essay (what third graders should be able to do). It’s expected that Jarrod will make good use of the internet to get descriptive essay writing help, and use this to his advantage.

Jarrod needs to be working at the sentence level. Until he has mastered the writing of a sentence, anything more than that is unfair and destined to produce frustration and anguish.

Takeaway Point:

Youve got to be kidding me.

Categories