This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Does anyone have any observations to make about the status of any of the following journals:
If there are no objections to any of them, then I will start searching in them for relevant material for this article. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/emrw/9780470373699/home
It has contributors from over 30 countries. Does anyone have access to it? Dahliarose ( talk) 00:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
David Ryan. British Journal of Special Education, v36 n2 p77-84 Jun 2009
Dahlia,
I see that you've added the words "in the USA" to a general statement, so that it now reads:
Additionally, improved teaching methods and early intervention models such as response to intervention in the USA are being implemented by general education teachers to reduce the need for special education through prevention.
Given that the link to response to intervention is simply one example of improved teaching methods and early intervention programs (that's why it says "such as"), why does it matter what country is associated with the example? I'm sure that we all hope that improved teaching and early intervention are not American-only phenomena, and I think that the unnecessary qualifying statement makes it seem like non-USA schools favor bad teaching methods and letting students struggle and fail before getting them the help they need. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, improved teaching methods and early intervention models (such as response to intervention) are being implemented by general education teachers to reduce the need for special education through prevention.
Most of the examples you have cited above are abstracts and I don't have access to the full papers. They only prove the existence of a "response to intervention" model and don't prove that it is a term which is universally recognised. Authors of scholarly papers will be familiar with the various approaches adopted in different countries, and will write their own papers comparing different approaches. The UK code of practice uses the phraseology in a different context. With regard to Dr Duff's papers without seeing the actual papers, it's difficult to pass judgement. It looks like she is evaluating resources worldwide. The "UK" tutoring site is very odd as it uses American spellings (eg, center and program)and American terminology such as school districts (the UK equivalent being education authorities). In the absence of any reliable references to the contrary and for the sake of clarity, I will go ahead and remove the example. Dahliarose ( talk) 23:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I came across The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education by accident but it would appear to be a most useful resource and one of the few sources which has published numerous studies providing an overview of special needs education in a number of different countries. There are overviews on a country-by-country basis with detailed statistics. I have only skimmed through some of the reports at present. There is no mention of resource rooms. The equivalent European concept is described in one report I read as "the ‘home area system’ – an area that consists of two or three classrooms and where a (small) group of teachers delivers the whole curriculum within a stable environment". The settings are described in terms of the types of provision as in the UK reports (ie, mainstream schools, special schools, and special classrooms in mainstream schools). Inclusion is used in the context of integrating children with disabilities and learning difficulties into mainstream education. The terms "inclusive classroom" and "inclusive education" are commonly used. However, I can find no references to a system of "regular inclusion, partial inclusion and mainstreaming". It seems to me that the reports on this website would be most useful sources for compiling the general section of this article. Have a look and see what you think. Dahliarose ( talk) 12:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd already discovered the SENCO code of practice. I'm not sure whether Individual Education Plan or Individual Learning Plan is the correct terminology. Possibly different education authorities will have their own preferred terms. From your description of a US resource room it is clear that there is no equivalent concept in the UK. A standard classroom in the UK would be split up into different groups as you have described, all doing tasks tailored to their ability levels. Children are put in year groups in primary schools (ages five to 11) and have a single teacher for all their lessons for the entire school year. They would not all be sent off to different rooms for specialist reading lessons, and we don't have any "certified reading specialists". There is however a tendency now for primary school children to be put in sets for subjects such as maths and English. Even within sets the children would still be split up into small groups doing different tasks. All secondary schools (ages 11 to 16/18) in the UK have dedicated subject teachers so the pupils move around the school for all their lessons, and will have a different teacher for maths, history, geography, English, etc. Your description of regular and full inclusion seems to be based on your own local knowledge. We just don't make have this distinction in the UK as far as I am aware. I have not found any references to support such a division, and no one else has managed to find any references either. Approximately 20% of children in the UK have special needs. 18% of children with special needs in the UK are educated in mainstream schools. These children do not have any special provision made for them other than the fact that they have a classroom assistant who attends lessons with them. Otherwise they go to exactly the same lessons as everyone else, albeit sometimes they might be put in sets for certain subjects. I don't know whether that counts as "full inclusion" or "partial inclusion" in your terms but the question is never asked. You never hear people in the UK say, as one editor has done on this page "My daughter attends a nursery school and they do full inclusion there", and people don't ask if schools do inclusive education or not. Dahliarose ( talk) 00:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
unfortunately for the 2globalisation2 thread became too much, and Wikipedia does not allow me to use my text coping strategies ( have a look at how i prefer text)
we have just had a change of Government in the UK and the new government will maintaining the old governments web pages outlining education policies, have also added that these web pages may not represent the policies of the new government.
In 2005 our Disability Discrimination Act was amended to include a requirement for all public service providers (including schools) to have in place by the end of academic year 2008 / 2009 a Disability Equality Duty (DED) policy. Each provider had to produce their own policy base on the physical location environment, and the range of disabilities that they may encounter while providing their services. The governement of the day provided guidance documentation, which included a great many web pages including Is Tom disabled? which says that for the purposes of implementation of the DED policy schools should include dyslexia as a communication disability. This does differ from the post school categories of disability, but by then all dyslexics should have a medial diagnosis of the underlying cognitive disability which causes their dyslexic symptom, such as Auditory processing disorder (unfortunately most dyslexia support agencies are about a decade behind current international research regarding the cognitive subtypes of dyslexia) In 2006 the Chairman of the UK parliamentary Education Committee ( a bit like a USA congress committee)announced that the "UK provision of special needs" was not fit for purpose, and the result was a review carried out by John Bercow (now speaker of the UK House of Commons) And there was also a further review of Dyslexia by Jim Rose, which could used its own working model of dyslexia for the purposes of its review.
The UK Human Rights Commission has been involved in monitoring the implementation of DED policies and disability discrimination in general, as well as Racial, Sexual and other forms of discrimination in the UK.
Segregation is not a word used much in the UK in the education system, so may be we should seek an alternative option. dolfrog ( talk) 02:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dahliarose The problem in the UK is that the terminology use to describe any of these issues varies from one UK government to another, and the terminology used in the 1980 is varies to the terminology used in the 1990s and the 2000s. Changes in so many related areas have each had influences one change or another. So you are correct we need to describe these issues using general global vocabulary, and there are Special education in the USA and Special education in the United Kingdom articles where the more country specific terms can be used. The point i was trying to make above is that special education in the UK has many strands as you say Ofsted is school inspection body, which is guided by various forms of UK government legislation, and the government provides guidelines to implement this legislation on the Teachernet web site. Since 2009 all schools as public service providers have to comply with the Disability Discrimination ACt 2005 which requires all public service providers to have their own Disability Equality Duty (DED) policy in place. And the government (pre May 2010) included issues such issues as dyslexia to be included as a communication disability for the purposes of implementing this DED policy requirement. The UK Human Rights Commission has been monitoring the progress made by UK universities, and colleges, places of employment and public service provision regarding DED implementation. Which is part of their wider aim of greater disability discrimination awareness, to prevent discrimination against those who have a either visible or invisible disability. Many of those who have an invisible disability are those who need some form of special education support. dolfrog ( talk) 20:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I have brought the textbook, Teachers, Education and Society this weekend. I find the book very informative. The term setting is the same as tracking. Read the first sentence. I removed full inclusion because it does not belong in this section. I will add this with the inclusion article. 198.38.10.1 ( talk) 14:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
( ←) Introducing errors does not make the article represent a global perspective. Using your examples, here's what we've got:
Student | Track | Setting |
---|---|---|
Johnny | Vocational track | Separate classroom (probably mainstreaming) |
Susie | General track | Regular classroom (inclusion) |
Alexis | Vocational track | Special school (segregation) |
Mary | College-bound track | Resource room (inclusion) |
Stephanie | Vocational track | Hospital-based education (exclusion) |
The section is all about the concepts presented in the third column, but you have repeatedly renamed it to say that it's about the second column. Do you find words or ideas like "college-bound track" or "vocational training" anywhere in the section that you re-named as "tracking"? If not -- and if you do find the ideas listed in the "setting" column -- then perhaps we can agree that the section is actually about the setting. If so, I hope that you will promptly revert your erroneous mislabeling of this section. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The point is that it is only the US editors who insist that the settings consist of: inclusion, mainstreaming, segregation and exclusion. No reference has been found to support the use of this description on a worldwide basis. The system of mainstreaming seems to be specific to the US, and the words inclusion and exclusion are used in different ways by different organisations (eg, see the Unesco references I quoted above). We don't want to got into lots of specific details about the American tracking system in a general section, though of course if you can find a reference which shows that tracking is used extensively in other countries then it would be appropriate. Germany for instance has a tripartite system with grammar schools for the able children, technical schools and vocational schools, but we wouldn't want to focus specifically on the German education system in a general section. Dahliarose ( talk) 16:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do the US editors keep saying that because the Americans came up with these terms that we have to use it in a global perspective? They said something we have to build a web. They said to focus on what happens to these students under those terms. They look pretty upset whenever those terms are placed under the US. We can’t find a substitute for those terms in a global perspective. In the meantime, that’s what we need to use. It’s to help international editors understand how the tracking system works in America so they know why these students are included, segregated, mainstreamed and excluded. I bolded the statement above. Did you not see it? Why do you keep removing the other section? Not all countries use tracking. They don't use mainstreaming, inclusion, segregation or exclusion. There was a source provided. 198.38.10.1 ( talk) 17:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
But the way it's phrased you suggest that every country uses tracking which is not the case. It seems as though America is one of the few countries that uses this system. The rest of the world is dismissed to an "other" section as though all the other countries in the world don't count and are an afterthought. We need to talk in general terms in a general article based on common practice in the majority of countries. It's like writing an article talking about money and explaining that currency is divided into dollars and cents, but ignoring the fact that there are many other countries in the world who used different currencies such as Euros, pounds, etc. Dahliarose ( talk) 11:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It's getting very difficult to follow all these different comments so I will reply to everything here. I think I understand what you're saying. It is clear that the American education system is very different from the European systems. The point however is that in the general section of the article we want to focus on general issues relating to special education rather than specific issues relating to just one country. You are quite right that the American tracking system needs to be explained but it needs to be done in the section for the US or perhaps in the article on Special education in the United States with extra detail provided in the Tracking (education) article which already explains the US usage of the term at some length. Similarly we would confine discussions of the tripartite German system to the German section or a separate article on education in Germany. Dahliarose ( talk) 11:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I shall try to clear up some of the confusion about terminology, just in the hope that this sheds light and avoids further confusion and unnecessary argument. "Tracking" is a generic term, useable in comparative education contexts. Students may be tracked by the type of program they desire to follow, for example in the French bacclaureate there are literary, scientific, technological and vocational tracks. And student may be tracked by ability, for example in Germany from age 10 students attend one of three types of school. Tracks can be taught in separate schools or there can be different tracks in the same school. "Streaming" was one form of tracking practised in the UK until about the 1970s. It was practised alongside the division into different types of school (the tripartite system. "Streaming" as a term only applied within a school, for example a secondary modern school would have an A stream, a B stream, and a C stream. The streams were taught separately for all classes. Gradually, schools replaced streaming with "setting", which is still in place. Today, a student may be in "top set" for English, but a lower set for Maths, then perhaps also a middle set for History and a top set again for Geography, etc, etc. It is up to schools whether to "set" for all subjects or only for some, but government policy is strongly in favour of setting. Note that "to set" is a verb. A head teacher (school principal) might say "students are set for French" or "we have retained setting in French". This process of "setting" shouldn't be confused with the general "in various settings", which makes sense in international contexts. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I was reverted by the IP but would be interested to know whether others thought I was getting any closer to clearing up the muddle. IP's edit summary for the revert wasn't in itself a particularly coherent argument. "Educationists, particularly in North America have classified" does not rule out "it's mainly the US that does it". Classification in the academic literature of kinds of provision is not the same as practice in schools. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
just a point of interest dolfrog ( talk) 21:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
As it stands the word "setting" is very ambiguous. Until I read the comments about tracking yesterday I was under the impression that "setting" refereed to the physical environment where the special education was provided such as the picture provided in that section of the article, and not how children are categories by ability. This is more about keeping pace with the current terminology being used in the many locations which use the English language, and for the terminology used in the general article to be as universal and universally descriptive as possible. Country specific terminology can be used in the Special education in ..... by country articles, which are dedicated to the UK, the USA, etc where the systems used to deliver special education can be described, a history of the systems included, and professional, advocate and parent comment added relating to those specific system and how they are being implemented by the respective countries (even US State) governments. There are also various cultural issues which vary from country to country as to how they view those who have any form of disability or difference, and how their culture supports those who have any type of difference. These perceptions do vary from country to country, even between countries who appear to share the same language mainly for historical if not cultural reasons dolfrog ( talk) 08:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Here are the definitions from the online Oxford English Dictionary for both meanings of "setting". The confusion is quite understandable:
b. transf. and fig. The environment or surroundings in which a person or thing is ‘set’; the literary framework of a narrative or other composition; the mounting of a play.
set, v.2 trans. To group (pupils) into sets (see SET n.2 2d); also absol. Hence setting vbl. n. 1953 Organ. Comprehensive Secondary Schools (London County Council) 14 A practicable arrangement would be to re-set only across three adjacent forms. ‘Setting’ in this way would not determine the rate at which each set would work. 1957 B. SIMON New Trends in Eng. Educ. II. 46, I will not ask the reader to follow me in the intricacies of fifth-year setting. 1962 J. VAIZEY Britain in Sixties v. 56 Some..feel that..children should be ‘setted’ for each subject. 1965Observer 7 Nov. 4/8 Mathematics teachers consider it necessary to set after two terms. 1973 MORRISON & MCINTYRETeachers & Teaching (ed. 2) iii. 126 There is reason to believe that the practise of ‘setting’ different streaming for each of several subjects reduces these effects. 1975 Language for Life (Dept. Educ. & Sci.) xv. 224 Speaking purely for English, most of us have reservations about arrangements by which pupils are streamed or setted according to ability.
set, n.2 d. A subdivision of pupils or students (esp. in a single year) for instruction on a particular subject: usu. one of a number of such groupings and often constituted according to ability. 1882 in R. S. Churchill Winston S. Churchill (1967) I. Compan. I. iii. 90 Place in 3rd Set of 14 boys for Term 14th. 1889 Boy's Own Paper 7 Sept. 781 Those dry definitions [of Euclid] seem twaddle to me (I admit I am low in my set). 1914 ‘I. HAY’ Lighter Side School Life i. 15 He must know whether Mr. A. in the Senior Science Set is expounding theories of inorganic chemistry which have been obsolete for ten years. 1963 M. BEADLE These Ruins are Inhabited vi. 86 Sets are ability groups. In each subject the boys had been divided into fast, average and slower-moving sections; each of these sets met as a class. 1971 P. D. JAMES Shroud for Nightingale ii. 41 We haven't used the demonstration room since Nurse Pearce's death but otherwise the set is continuing to work according to plan. Dahliarose ( talk) 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
What is more important is to have a section heading which explains the content of each section which is understandable universally and is not spercific to any small group of counties, especially if the words are to be translated using specific english dictionaries, The Oxford English Dictionary is the most used especially for most European based languages dolfrog ( talk) 13:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the term "resource room" has been demonstrated above to lack a global understanding of it intended meaning. So if we add the following descriptive text to the first Wikipedia link to the specifically adapted teaching area (or may be "facility" instead of "area") in the article then the intended mean from that point on in the article will lack any ambiguity for later use of resource room dolfrog ( talk) 09:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
My initial thoughts about the long quotation at Special education#Prerequisites for inclusion are these:
What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
We now have two sections that are about different things, but have basically identical headings: "Provision of individualized services" and "How Special Education can be provided".
One of these sections is about providing services (how it is done, e.g., by changing the curriculum). The other section is about the setting in which these services are provided ("where" it is done, e.g., with or without typical students). Can we go back to having obviously different section headings for these different subjects?
(Also, Wikipedia uses sentence case for section headings, and consequently "Special Education" should never be capitalized.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I found this online research paper bookmarking group for the topic of Inclusion. I have used the sort option so that the articles are in year of publication order. dolfrog ( talk) 14:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
All of this:
Special education is not a location, but the act of educating students in a way that is "special", or different from the usual methods. The provision of education to people with special needs or learning differences differs across countries and (in the US, Canada, Germany, and other federally organized countries) across states. The ability of a student to access a particular resource depends on the availability of services, location, family choice, and government policy. For example, in some poor countries, students with special needs simply cannot attend school.
Additionally, improved teaching methods and early intervention models are being implemented by general education teachers to reduce the need for special education through prevention. [1]
Support can be provided for short periods or long term, and the kinds of support may change over time. For example, a child that required a one-on-one instructional aide for safety reasons while very young might outgrow this need when older.
was in the section that was recently renamed "Individual needs". None of this text is about individualization. It is primarily about the provision of special education services -- which is a completely different topic from what you'll find in the next section, which is now called "Methods of provision". (Yes, that would be the section that contains almost no information about methods for providing special education services, but instead is focused on the setting in which those methods are employed).
It's silly and unhelpful to our readers to dump information about methods of providing services in a section labeled "Individual needs". Either this should be merged into a larger section about how/where services are provided, or it should be put into a separate section about the provision of services. Do you have a preference? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for translating the German names of the schools, but I think "geistige Entwicklung" was ill-translated here. While it is true that "geistig" means spiritual it also may refer to cognition and a "geistige Behinderter" is a person, who is mentally handicapped. So that is what "geistig" means here. I think this should be changed.-- Greatgreenwhale ( talk) 17:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the global tag as I see nothing that warrants such a tag. It is confusing to the readers when it is currently written in a global point of view. Yvonne Liu 20:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Just remember, Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you feel there is something missing that should be included in this article that is relevant to special education, then add it. Yvonne Liu 20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
A student who is expelled is expelled. The term excluded is unnecessary here and only furthers to confuse the reader. A student who is expelled from school is placed on home instruction. Students placed on home instruction can have many teachers helping them. They can have a resource room and a general education teacher. A resource room in the previous revision implies that student must be in the regular school to get that service. The "methods of provision" also implies that students have a specific method that they must use. That is untrue. This article should focus on the services that students with disabilities must have. It is very difficult to talk about inclusion and mainstreaming in a global context. It is best to just discuss the services that students with disabilities must have. And that can definitely be implied on a global view. The varying types of school systems around the world makes it difficult for students with disabilities to get their individual needs met. A list of services that are provided for students with disabilities is much more informative than what method is done. A parent reading this article would find a description of services very helpful to them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is to provide facts to everyone who would have not otherwise got it. This is special education. It does not mean we have to use other Wikipedia articles and link it into this. We can simply link to other articles and put it under "See also". There is a reason for that. To connect everything and clump it into special education is confusing for the reader. I will go ahead and "be bold" and make the relevant changes. Eliane Schlessel ( talk) 19:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, is the school of the German special school, a residential school or a separate school? I'm talking about the picture that is currently in the article. Residential school is like a boarding school and separate school is a day school. Eliane Schlessel ( talk) 20:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the picture since I am not sure rather it is separate school or residential school. Eliane Schlessel ( talk) 20:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sock master Random account 39949472 has admitted via IRC to have willingly copied and pasted the content in the Description of Services section from [ this website] I have tagged the section as copy/paste, but I'm leaving it to someone who is a part of WP:EDU to edit, as I'm not sure of the information. The user is attempting to correct their wrongs with this, in order to possibly be allowed a return next year under the WP:Standard Offer, and I'm willing to AGF for now. The user is concerned about getting in trouble, and appears to want to return to Wikipedia on good terms. We'll see. This looks like a positive step though. -- ANowlin: talk 05:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I was reverted by WhatamIdoing. How is this source a copyvio? I have quoted the text exactly. [10] The Nysut is a union of professionals. If you can't trust them, who else can you trust? The Nysut has its own copyright. This is their website. [11] Summerblush ( talk) 20:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi all For the immediate future I will be busy with a number of projects both in real life and on Wikipedia. I came across this research paper the other day a 2008 review of Special Education Law, which the editors on this and related articles may find useful (I have only read the abstract, and have not yet obtained a copy of the full research paper.) A Review of Special Education Law dolfrog ( talk) 20:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I really like to revert to this revision: [12] as the source is from a gov/ link. It's not a copyvio. I have quoted the exact words from the source. Hteb ( talk) 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Le gouvernement français se trouve, concernant le handicap, devant une situation particulière qui n'est pas du tout désespérée, mais qui nécessite « du punch ». Nous allons montrer quelques points développant cette remarque d'actualité en décrivant le contexte international puis national de la scolarisation des enfants handicapés. Voir l'article de COURTAULT Michel : Note sur la scolarisation des enfants handicapés Revue / Journal Title Pour ISSN 0245-9442 Source / Source 2007, no195, pp. 30-36 [7 page(s) (article)] Langue / Language Français Editeur / Publisher Revue POUR - Groupe de recherche pour l'éducation et la prospective, Paris, FRANCE --Michel Courtault (d) 15 décembre 2009 à 17:34 (CET)-- 90.53.167.82 ( talk) 17:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
About this:
As far as I can tell, the information is verifiable, even if the particular source named is a bit weak, and even if the editor used "developmentally disabled" as a euphemism for people with below average IQ. ( Cleft palate is a "developmental disability", but people with that condition are just as capable of mastering the standard curriculum as anyone else (unless they have other disabilities, same as anyone else).
And the title isn't misspelled; it's just an old variant spelling. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to contribute a section just on some of the disorders that are placed in Special Education, and also give some insight on how it maybe affects the child in the program? Kls092810 ( talk) 05:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have never heard of exclusion as a means of providing SPED services. Should this be removed? Any objections?
Mcuringa ( talk) 00:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Please do not keep reverting to your misleading definition in the first sentence. Special education is far more than "a field of study". Just about everything is a field of study, including "automobiles", "medicine", and "traffic". But you'd think it stupid to see Traffic begin with "Traffic is a field of study..."—even though there are thousands of people who have carefully studied "traffic"—rather than the actual definition, which is "Traffic is people and things moving on a road". It's equally stupid to say that " Special education is a field of study..." rather than telling people what it actually is, which is the education of people with special needs. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not changing the article without consensus. Editing Wikipedia is about being bold and discussing on the talk page. Xcueta ( talk) 02:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Xcueta is now re-blocked as a sock of a banned user. Any edits they have made either here or in the article may be reverted as needed or desired per our banning policy. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC) |
This:
The characteristics of effective instruction are reported by educational researchers who study the critical teacher behaviours in classroom settings. [2] it must be noted that effective instruction is not defined as a single method of teaching but rather as a series of characteristics which can be embedded into a range of teaching approaches. [3] Effective instruction enables the efficient use of class time to maximise learning outcomes for students maximises on-task behaviour of students and minimises inappropriate behaviour. Effective instruction involves implementing strategies in planning, managing, delivering and evaluating instruction. [4] Meta-analyses of the research indicate that teaching approaches that combine direct instruction (explicit, teacher-directed instruction in basic skills and content) and strategy instruction (explicit instruction to teach cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies) are most successful. [2] Effective teachers are competent with a wide array of instructional strategies, including teacher-directed, explicit instruction and are able to select the most appropriate strategies for individual students and specific content. [5] [6] There is a danger of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy when teachers have low expectations of students with special educational needs. [7] [8] Teachers and school executive are able to create a positive school climate that values and accepts all students. [9] With the advent of inclusive curriculum, collaborative partnerships between students, families, special educators, teachers, teacher aides and other relevant professional are imperative. [10] [11] Collaboration provides the vehicle for the pooling of knowledge about curriculum, current curriculum trends, and the knowledge of effective practices to meet the needs of the diverse range of students in any class. [10] [12]
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
was buried under ===Australia===, as if this only applied to the one country. What should we do with this? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This new section seems to describe practices in North America and is lacking in sources, and also refers to US-specific organisations and uses odd words such as "accommodations" which would appear to be peculiar to America. It might be best to move this whole section to the article on special education in North America. It is quite acceptable to write an article in American English, but it is different when American-specific terminology is used which is only used in one country and not familiar to readers in the rest of the world. Dahliarose ( talk) 18:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you are having trouble finding the sources I added to that section. They are:
These are the only three sources cited in the definition of the terms accommodation and modification. Can you tell me which of these three sources is the "American textbook"? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
esp. Room and suitable provision for the reception of people; entertainment; lodgings. (Formerly, and still U.S., mostly in pl.)
which confirms that accommodations is only used in the US in the plural form. That is just one word. What about all the other Americanisms in the article? Dahliarose ( talk) 00:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Overall though, the available information shows that all of the countries make presentation accommodations and most of them make response or scheduling accommodations as well. Setting accommodations, however, were much less apparent. (Pepper, pg 14)
Equality of opportunity with other candidates, by providing a foundation in law for adjustments to/accommodations in examination conditions. (Pepper, pg 18)
Such adaptations/accommodations may include the provision of a reader or assistant, for example, or the use of a tape recorder or other adaptive equipment. (Pepper, pg 21)
OED isn't really relevant for jargon like this, which can change quite quickly. Use what the relevant policymakers and academics use. Also, the terminology doesn't matter that much anyway; just note any synonyms and reliably sourced usage differences, and focus on the content. Rd232 talk 15:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the use of the term "block letters" it seems there is considerable confusion and I suspect this another difference between American English and British English. The OED has the following definitions: (1) block capital n. a capital letter written or printed without serifs. (2) block letter n. (a) in pl., printing-types of large size cut out of wooden blocks; (b) = block capital n. These internet references demonstrate the confusion [13], [14]. In British English it is not a term in general usage other than in the phrase block capitals. I suggest for clarity the term is avoided altogether. The linked Wiki article is lacking in sources and not particularly helpful. Dahliarose ( talk) 15:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
About this:
Is it your belief that the exact word "disapplication" somehow magically does not appear seven times in the SEN Code? That the glossary of testing terms does not directly define the term as meaning the student is not participating because "even allowing for the full range of special arrangements/reasonable modifications that can be made", the student is still not participating in some aspect of the school program?
More importantly, do you think that this is not the official jargon used in the UK to describe dropping subjects from a student's teaching program? If so, I suggest you look at documents like this.
I don't actually mind removing it, as I think it unnecessary to provide the UK-specific jargon, but I had thought you would be pleased, rather than rejecting my efforts to provide non-US terminology. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
In Czech republic there are two possible ways of education of children, pupils and students with special education needs. The first is the so called traditional way (for CR) - education at special schools. There are special schools for pupils with hearing impairment; visual impairment; mental retardation (sorry for the terminology - it is still used in CR); physical handicap; speech and language disorders; dyslexia, dysgraphia, ...; and behavioural disorders. The second way is the integration (inclusion) pupils with disability into mainstream schools. There are two possibilities - individual and group integration. The group integration (special classes at mainstream schools or special schools for other type of disability) is not widelly used. The individual integration is mostly used with pupils with physical handicap and visual impairment, but the other groups of pupils can be integrated too. It is a bit difficult topic to be decribed in short.-- Jerabkova78 ( talk) 09:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 10:16, 27.11.2011
Posted as “Education in Canada is the responsibility of the individual provinces and territories.”
Should be “The Federal Government mandates education in Canada, with the responsibility downloaded on to the individual provinces and territories and administrated through local school boards.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.153.10 ( talk) 03:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Please remove the "Exceptional education" link from the See Also section; it is a circular redirect, i.e. comes back to this article. Thanks.-- Shantavira| feed me 11:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section Special education#History of special schools there is a link to Inclusion. Inclusion is a disambiguation page. That link should have the piped link Inclusion. Thank you. SchreiberBike ( talk) 17:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
SchreiberBike ( talk) 17:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sir or Madame:
Placing students with disabilities in a setting other than the regular classroom is a form of discrimination. I cannot believe that Wikipedia allows this practice to be referred as segregation. I would prefer that this subject be described in a respectful manner. Thank you, Plantinthewindow ( talk) 18:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox segregation seems disrespectful to you? The word means "setting apart" or "separating". It would also suggest the Special Education in the USA is run by the Ku Klux Klan discriminating on grounds of race and disability. That is the association made with that word in thed UK and elsewhere. Especially going back to the 1950s 1960s and 1970s. You could be right may be the Ku Klux Klan do run Special education in the USA, and you are using the correct terminology to explain the system to those who live outside the USA. dolfrog ( talk) 15:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I've put the global tag back on the article. There have been extensive discussions about this issue in the talk page archives. Although there are sections on different countries the whole introductory section of the article is still written very much from a First World perspective and specifically from an American perspective. Dahliarose ( talk) 10:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, I am very aware of the differences of terminology between countries, who share the same basic language, and even between researchers and professionals when discussing an identical topic, condition, or symptom. This can be very confusing for visitors or readers not familiar with the terminology, and wording being used. So may be the inclusion of a Glossary of terminology options used in these various countries may help both editors, and visitors alike, and help this article have more global content and understanding. providing only a single form of terminology will serve to exclude those who have been educated using a different form of terminology to describe the same thing. The problem is due to a lack of co-operation between the various national and international professional bodies, researchers etc, who seem incapable to agree to use a single form of terminology, so Wikipedia needs to reflect the various type of terminology being used to help all who use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. dolfrog ( talk) 19:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
This issue here is that we need to use a universal vocabulary, that is based on reality and not the idealistic dreams of one particular population, to make the article GLOBAL. Otherwise the article does not meet the Global requirement. So we need to explain all of the variations and how things actually happen day to day and not the dream theory of WhatamIdoing and others. We keep on demonstrating that there is a need to decribe Special ~education as it is in real life globally and not just how all in the USA want to make out it is in some form of USA based fantacy of how the world should be. So a glossary is the answer so that those in the USA can begin to learn about life outside of the countries borders which will probably be a new experience for many of them. dolfrog ( talk) 21:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I came across this important document from UNESCO which really ought to be mentioned in the article and is particularly useful for providing the global context on special educational needs: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000984/098427eo.pdf. The report dates from 1994. I don't know if there is a more recent report. Note that it says on page 13: "The vast majority of students with special needs, especially in rural areas, are as a consequence provided with no services whatsoever. Indeed, in many developing countries, it is estimated that fewer than 1 per cent of children with special educational needs are included in existing provision". Here is a report which describes the European model: https://www.european-agency.org/publications/ereports/key-principles-in-special-needs-education/keyp-en.pdf. Note that on page 15 it says: "at times, small groups of learners with SEN require particular attention and some withdrawal sessions may enable those learners to be maintained in the mainstream classroom. It is important that these arrangements have a natural and flexible character and are not confined to learners with SEN but are used occasionally for all learners in the classroom". I think one of the problems here is that "inclusion" has a very precise meaning in America with children spending just half the day in mainstream schools. In other countries inclusion means inclusion in mainstream education and children are much more integrated than they are in the American model. Dahliarose ( talk) 00:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem WhatamIdoing is that you do not live in the UK, and have no idea what you are talking about. The theory is fine but what happens in real life is as Dahliarose has described. Yes those who have learning disabilities need support specific to their disability, unfortunately in the UK the support they need is not provided, and the various agencies, and governing bodies blame each other for the lack of basic support. So time for you to stop dreaming and live in reality and listen to those who have to live wit the situation in the UK, and not as you would prefer it in your idealised dream world. dolfrog ( talk) 09:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Does anyone have any observations to make about the status of any of the following journals:
If there are no objections to any of them, then I will start searching in them for relevant material for this article. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/emrw/9780470373699/home
It has contributors from over 30 countries. Does anyone have access to it? Dahliarose ( talk) 00:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
David Ryan. British Journal of Special Education, v36 n2 p77-84 Jun 2009
Dahlia,
I see that you've added the words "in the USA" to a general statement, so that it now reads:
Additionally, improved teaching methods and early intervention models such as response to intervention in the USA are being implemented by general education teachers to reduce the need for special education through prevention.
Given that the link to response to intervention is simply one example of improved teaching methods and early intervention programs (that's why it says "such as"), why does it matter what country is associated with the example? I'm sure that we all hope that improved teaching and early intervention are not American-only phenomena, and I think that the unnecessary qualifying statement makes it seem like non-USA schools favor bad teaching methods and letting students struggle and fail before getting them the help they need. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, improved teaching methods and early intervention models (such as response to intervention) are being implemented by general education teachers to reduce the need for special education through prevention.
Most of the examples you have cited above are abstracts and I don't have access to the full papers. They only prove the existence of a "response to intervention" model and don't prove that it is a term which is universally recognised. Authors of scholarly papers will be familiar with the various approaches adopted in different countries, and will write their own papers comparing different approaches. The UK code of practice uses the phraseology in a different context. With regard to Dr Duff's papers without seeing the actual papers, it's difficult to pass judgement. It looks like she is evaluating resources worldwide. The "UK" tutoring site is very odd as it uses American spellings (eg, center and program)and American terminology such as school districts (the UK equivalent being education authorities). In the absence of any reliable references to the contrary and for the sake of clarity, I will go ahead and remove the example. Dahliarose ( talk) 23:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I came across The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education by accident but it would appear to be a most useful resource and one of the few sources which has published numerous studies providing an overview of special needs education in a number of different countries. There are overviews on a country-by-country basis with detailed statistics. I have only skimmed through some of the reports at present. There is no mention of resource rooms. The equivalent European concept is described in one report I read as "the ‘home area system’ – an area that consists of two or three classrooms and where a (small) group of teachers delivers the whole curriculum within a stable environment". The settings are described in terms of the types of provision as in the UK reports (ie, mainstream schools, special schools, and special classrooms in mainstream schools). Inclusion is used in the context of integrating children with disabilities and learning difficulties into mainstream education. The terms "inclusive classroom" and "inclusive education" are commonly used. However, I can find no references to a system of "regular inclusion, partial inclusion and mainstreaming". It seems to me that the reports on this website would be most useful sources for compiling the general section of this article. Have a look and see what you think. Dahliarose ( talk) 12:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd already discovered the SENCO code of practice. I'm not sure whether Individual Education Plan or Individual Learning Plan is the correct terminology. Possibly different education authorities will have their own preferred terms. From your description of a US resource room it is clear that there is no equivalent concept in the UK. A standard classroom in the UK would be split up into different groups as you have described, all doing tasks tailored to their ability levels. Children are put in year groups in primary schools (ages five to 11) and have a single teacher for all their lessons for the entire school year. They would not all be sent off to different rooms for specialist reading lessons, and we don't have any "certified reading specialists". There is however a tendency now for primary school children to be put in sets for subjects such as maths and English. Even within sets the children would still be split up into small groups doing different tasks. All secondary schools (ages 11 to 16/18) in the UK have dedicated subject teachers so the pupils move around the school for all their lessons, and will have a different teacher for maths, history, geography, English, etc. Your description of regular and full inclusion seems to be based on your own local knowledge. We just don't make have this distinction in the UK as far as I am aware. I have not found any references to support such a division, and no one else has managed to find any references either. Approximately 20% of children in the UK have special needs. 18% of children with special needs in the UK are educated in mainstream schools. These children do not have any special provision made for them other than the fact that they have a classroom assistant who attends lessons with them. Otherwise they go to exactly the same lessons as everyone else, albeit sometimes they might be put in sets for certain subjects. I don't know whether that counts as "full inclusion" or "partial inclusion" in your terms but the question is never asked. You never hear people in the UK say, as one editor has done on this page "My daughter attends a nursery school and they do full inclusion there", and people don't ask if schools do inclusive education or not. Dahliarose ( talk) 00:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
unfortunately for the 2globalisation2 thread became too much, and Wikipedia does not allow me to use my text coping strategies ( have a look at how i prefer text)
we have just had a change of Government in the UK and the new government will maintaining the old governments web pages outlining education policies, have also added that these web pages may not represent the policies of the new government.
In 2005 our Disability Discrimination Act was amended to include a requirement for all public service providers (including schools) to have in place by the end of academic year 2008 / 2009 a Disability Equality Duty (DED) policy. Each provider had to produce their own policy base on the physical location environment, and the range of disabilities that they may encounter while providing their services. The governement of the day provided guidance documentation, which included a great many web pages including Is Tom disabled? which says that for the purposes of implementation of the DED policy schools should include dyslexia as a communication disability. This does differ from the post school categories of disability, but by then all dyslexics should have a medial diagnosis of the underlying cognitive disability which causes their dyslexic symptom, such as Auditory processing disorder (unfortunately most dyslexia support agencies are about a decade behind current international research regarding the cognitive subtypes of dyslexia) In 2006 the Chairman of the UK parliamentary Education Committee ( a bit like a USA congress committee)announced that the "UK provision of special needs" was not fit for purpose, and the result was a review carried out by John Bercow (now speaker of the UK House of Commons) And there was also a further review of Dyslexia by Jim Rose, which could used its own working model of dyslexia for the purposes of its review.
The UK Human Rights Commission has been involved in monitoring the implementation of DED policies and disability discrimination in general, as well as Racial, Sexual and other forms of discrimination in the UK.
Segregation is not a word used much in the UK in the education system, so may be we should seek an alternative option. dolfrog ( talk) 02:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dahliarose The problem in the UK is that the terminology use to describe any of these issues varies from one UK government to another, and the terminology used in the 1980 is varies to the terminology used in the 1990s and the 2000s. Changes in so many related areas have each had influences one change or another. So you are correct we need to describe these issues using general global vocabulary, and there are Special education in the USA and Special education in the United Kingdom articles where the more country specific terms can be used. The point i was trying to make above is that special education in the UK has many strands as you say Ofsted is school inspection body, which is guided by various forms of UK government legislation, and the government provides guidelines to implement this legislation on the Teachernet web site. Since 2009 all schools as public service providers have to comply with the Disability Discrimination ACt 2005 which requires all public service providers to have their own Disability Equality Duty (DED) policy in place. And the government (pre May 2010) included issues such issues as dyslexia to be included as a communication disability for the purposes of implementing this DED policy requirement. The UK Human Rights Commission has been monitoring the progress made by UK universities, and colleges, places of employment and public service provision regarding DED implementation. Which is part of their wider aim of greater disability discrimination awareness, to prevent discrimination against those who have a either visible or invisible disability. Many of those who have an invisible disability are those who need some form of special education support. dolfrog ( talk) 20:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I have brought the textbook, Teachers, Education and Society this weekend. I find the book very informative. The term setting is the same as tracking. Read the first sentence. I removed full inclusion because it does not belong in this section. I will add this with the inclusion article. 198.38.10.1 ( talk) 14:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
( ←) Introducing errors does not make the article represent a global perspective. Using your examples, here's what we've got:
Student | Track | Setting |
---|---|---|
Johnny | Vocational track | Separate classroom (probably mainstreaming) |
Susie | General track | Regular classroom (inclusion) |
Alexis | Vocational track | Special school (segregation) |
Mary | College-bound track | Resource room (inclusion) |
Stephanie | Vocational track | Hospital-based education (exclusion) |
The section is all about the concepts presented in the third column, but you have repeatedly renamed it to say that it's about the second column. Do you find words or ideas like "college-bound track" or "vocational training" anywhere in the section that you re-named as "tracking"? If not -- and if you do find the ideas listed in the "setting" column -- then perhaps we can agree that the section is actually about the setting. If so, I hope that you will promptly revert your erroneous mislabeling of this section. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The point is that it is only the US editors who insist that the settings consist of: inclusion, mainstreaming, segregation and exclusion. No reference has been found to support the use of this description on a worldwide basis. The system of mainstreaming seems to be specific to the US, and the words inclusion and exclusion are used in different ways by different organisations (eg, see the Unesco references I quoted above). We don't want to got into lots of specific details about the American tracking system in a general section, though of course if you can find a reference which shows that tracking is used extensively in other countries then it would be appropriate. Germany for instance has a tripartite system with grammar schools for the able children, technical schools and vocational schools, but we wouldn't want to focus specifically on the German education system in a general section. Dahliarose ( talk) 16:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do the US editors keep saying that because the Americans came up with these terms that we have to use it in a global perspective? They said something we have to build a web. They said to focus on what happens to these students under those terms. They look pretty upset whenever those terms are placed under the US. We can’t find a substitute for those terms in a global perspective. In the meantime, that’s what we need to use. It’s to help international editors understand how the tracking system works in America so they know why these students are included, segregated, mainstreamed and excluded. I bolded the statement above. Did you not see it? Why do you keep removing the other section? Not all countries use tracking. They don't use mainstreaming, inclusion, segregation or exclusion. There was a source provided. 198.38.10.1 ( talk) 17:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
But the way it's phrased you suggest that every country uses tracking which is not the case. It seems as though America is one of the few countries that uses this system. The rest of the world is dismissed to an "other" section as though all the other countries in the world don't count and are an afterthought. We need to talk in general terms in a general article based on common practice in the majority of countries. It's like writing an article talking about money and explaining that currency is divided into dollars and cents, but ignoring the fact that there are many other countries in the world who used different currencies such as Euros, pounds, etc. Dahliarose ( talk) 11:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It's getting very difficult to follow all these different comments so I will reply to everything here. I think I understand what you're saying. It is clear that the American education system is very different from the European systems. The point however is that in the general section of the article we want to focus on general issues relating to special education rather than specific issues relating to just one country. You are quite right that the American tracking system needs to be explained but it needs to be done in the section for the US or perhaps in the article on Special education in the United States with extra detail provided in the Tracking (education) article which already explains the US usage of the term at some length. Similarly we would confine discussions of the tripartite German system to the German section or a separate article on education in Germany. Dahliarose ( talk) 11:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I shall try to clear up some of the confusion about terminology, just in the hope that this sheds light and avoids further confusion and unnecessary argument. "Tracking" is a generic term, useable in comparative education contexts. Students may be tracked by the type of program they desire to follow, for example in the French bacclaureate there are literary, scientific, technological and vocational tracks. And student may be tracked by ability, for example in Germany from age 10 students attend one of three types of school. Tracks can be taught in separate schools or there can be different tracks in the same school. "Streaming" was one form of tracking practised in the UK until about the 1970s. It was practised alongside the division into different types of school (the tripartite system. "Streaming" as a term only applied within a school, for example a secondary modern school would have an A stream, a B stream, and a C stream. The streams were taught separately for all classes. Gradually, schools replaced streaming with "setting", which is still in place. Today, a student may be in "top set" for English, but a lower set for Maths, then perhaps also a middle set for History and a top set again for Geography, etc, etc. It is up to schools whether to "set" for all subjects or only for some, but government policy is strongly in favour of setting. Note that "to set" is a verb. A head teacher (school principal) might say "students are set for French" or "we have retained setting in French". This process of "setting" shouldn't be confused with the general "in various settings", which makes sense in international contexts. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I was reverted by the IP but would be interested to know whether others thought I was getting any closer to clearing up the muddle. IP's edit summary for the revert wasn't in itself a particularly coherent argument. "Educationists, particularly in North America have classified" does not rule out "it's mainly the US that does it". Classification in the academic literature of kinds of provision is not the same as practice in schools. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
just a point of interest dolfrog ( talk) 21:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
As it stands the word "setting" is very ambiguous. Until I read the comments about tracking yesterday I was under the impression that "setting" refereed to the physical environment where the special education was provided such as the picture provided in that section of the article, and not how children are categories by ability. This is more about keeping pace with the current terminology being used in the many locations which use the English language, and for the terminology used in the general article to be as universal and universally descriptive as possible. Country specific terminology can be used in the Special education in ..... by country articles, which are dedicated to the UK, the USA, etc where the systems used to deliver special education can be described, a history of the systems included, and professional, advocate and parent comment added relating to those specific system and how they are being implemented by the respective countries (even US State) governments. There are also various cultural issues which vary from country to country as to how they view those who have any form of disability or difference, and how their culture supports those who have any type of difference. These perceptions do vary from country to country, even between countries who appear to share the same language mainly for historical if not cultural reasons dolfrog ( talk) 08:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Here are the definitions from the online Oxford English Dictionary for both meanings of "setting". The confusion is quite understandable:
b. transf. and fig. The environment or surroundings in which a person or thing is ‘set’; the literary framework of a narrative or other composition; the mounting of a play.
set, v.2 trans. To group (pupils) into sets (see SET n.2 2d); also absol. Hence setting vbl. n. 1953 Organ. Comprehensive Secondary Schools (London County Council) 14 A practicable arrangement would be to re-set only across three adjacent forms. ‘Setting’ in this way would not determine the rate at which each set would work. 1957 B. SIMON New Trends in Eng. Educ. II. 46, I will not ask the reader to follow me in the intricacies of fifth-year setting. 1962 J. VAIZEY Britain in Sixties v. 56 Some..feel that..children should be ‘setted’ for each subject. 1965Observer 7 Nov. 4/8 Mathematics teachers consider it necessary to set after two terms. 1973 MORRISON & MCINTYRETeachers & Teaching (ed. 2) iii. 126 There is reason to believe that the practise of ‘setting’ different streaming for each of several subjects reduces these effects. 1975 Language for Life (Dept. Educ. & Sci.) xv. 224 Speaking purely for English, most of us have reservations about arrangements by which pupils are streamed or setted according to ability.
set, n.2 d. A subdivision of pupils or students (esp. in a single year) for instruction on a particular subject: usu. one of a number of such groupings and often constituted according to ability. 1882 in R. S. Churchill Winston S. Churchill (1967) I. Compan. I. iii. 90 Place in 3rd Set of 14 boys for Term 14th. 1889 Boy's Own Paper 7 Sept. 781 Those dry definitions [of Euclid] seem twaddle to me (I admit I am low in my set). 1914 ‘I. HAY’ Lighter Side School Life i. 15 He must know whether Mr. A. in the Senior Science Set is expounding theories of inorganic chemistry which have been obsolete for ten years. 1963 M. BEADLE These Ruins are Inhabited vi. 86 Sets are ability groups. In each subject the boys had been divided into fast, average and slower-moving sections; each of these sets met as a class. 1971 P. D. JAMES Shroud for Nightingale ii. 41 We haven't used the demonstration room since Nurse Pearce's death but otherwise the set is continuing to work according to plan. Dahliarose ( talk) 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
What is more important is to have a section heading which explains the content of each section which is understandable universally and is not spercific to any small group of counties, especially if the words are to be translated using specific english dictionaries, The Oxford English Dictionary is the most used especially for most European based languages dolfrog ( talk) 13:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the term "resource room" has been demonstrated above to lack a global understanding of it intended meaning. So if we add the following descriptive text to the first Wikipedia link to the specifically adapted teaching area (or may be "facility" instead of "area") in the article then the intended mean from that point on in the article will lack any ambiguity for later use of resource room dolfrog ( talk) 09:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
My initial thoughts about the long quotation at Special education#Prerequisites for inclusion are these:
What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
We now have two sections that are about different things, but have basically identical headings: "Provision of individualized services" and "How Special Education can be provided".
One of these sections is about providing services (how it is done, e.g., by changing the curriculum). The other section is about the setting in which these services are provided ("where" it is done, e.g., with or without typical students). Can we go back to having obviously different section headings for these different subjects?
(Also, Wikipedia uses sentence case for section headings, and consequently "Special Education" should never be capitalized.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I found this online research paper bookmarking group for the topic of Inclusion. I have used the sort option so that the articles are in year of publication order. dolfrog ( talk) 14:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
All of this:
Special education is not a location, but the act of educating students in a way that is "special", or different from the usual methods. The provision of education to people with special needs or learning differences differs across countries and (in the US, Canada, Germany, and other federally organized countries) across states. The ability of a student to access a particular resource depends on the availability of services, location, family choice, and government policy. For example, in some poor countries, students with special needs simply cannot attend school.
Additionally, improved teaching methods and early intervention models are being implemented by general education teachers to reduce the need for special education through prevention. [1]
Support can be provided for short periods or long term, and the kinds of support may change over time. For example, a child that required a one-on-one instructional aide for safety reasons while very young might outgrow this need when older.
was in the section that was recently renamed "Individual needs". None of this text is about individualization. It is primarily about the provision of special education services -- which is a completely different topic from what you'll find in the next section, which is now called "Methods of provision". (Yes, that would be the section that contains almost no information about methods for providing special education services, but instead is focused on the setting in which those methods are employed).
It's silly and unhelpful to our readers to dump information about methods of providing services in a section labeled "Individual needs". Either this should be merged into a larger section about how/where services are provided, or it should be put into a separate section about the provision of services. Do you have a preference? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for translating the German names of the schools, but I think "geistige Entwicklung" was ill-translated here. While it is true that "geistig" means spiritual it also may refer to cognition and a "geistige Behinderter" is a person, who is mentally handicapped. So that is what "geistig" means here. I think this should be changed.-- Greatgreenwhale ( talk) 17:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the global tag as I see nothing that warrants such a tag. It is confusing to the readers when it is currently written in a global point of view. Yvonne Liu 20:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Just remember, Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you feel there is something missing that should be included in this article that is relevant to special education, then add it. Yvonne Liu 20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
A student who is expelled is expelled. The term excluded is unnecessary here and only furthers to confuse the reader. A student who is expelled from school is placed on home instruction. Students placed on home instruction can have many teachers helping them. They can have a resource room and a general education teacher. A resource room in the previous revision implies that student must be in the regular school to get that service. The "methods of provision" also implies that students have a specific method that they must use. That is untrue. This article should focus on the services that students with disabilities must have. It is very difficult to talk about inclusion and mainstreaming in a global context. It is best to just discuss the services that students with disabilities must have. And that can definitely be implied on a global view. The varying types of school systems around the world makes it difficult for students with disabilities to get their individual needs met. A list of services that are provided for students with disabilities is much more informative than what method is done. A parent reading this article would find a description of services very helpful to them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is to provide facts to everyone who would have not otherwise got it. This is special education. It does not mean we have to use other Wikipedia articles and link it into this. We can simply link to other articles and put it under "See also". There is a reason for that. To connect everything and clump it into special education is confusing for the reader. I will go ahead and "be bold" and make the relevant changes. Eliane Schlessel ( talk) 19:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, is the school of the German special school, a residential school or a separate school? I'm talking about the picture that is currently in the article. Residential school is like a boarding school and separate school is a day school. Eliane Schlessel ( talk) 20:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the picture since I am not sure rather it is separate school or residential school. Eliane Schlessel ( talk) 20:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sock master Random account 39949472 has admitted via IRC to have willingly copied and pasted the content in the Description of Services section from [ this website] I have tagged the section as copy/paste, but I'm leaving it to someone who is a part of WP:EDU to edit, as I'm not sure of the information. The user is attempting to correct their wrongs with this, in order to possibly be allowed a return next year under the WP:Standard Offer, and I'm willing to AGF for now. The user is concerned about getting in trouble, and appears to want to return to Wikipedia on good terms. We'll see. This looks like a positive step though. -- ANowlin: talk 05:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I was reverted by WhatamIdoing. How is this source a copyvio? I have quoted the text exactly. [10] The Nysut is a union of professionals. If you can't trust them, who else can you trust? The Nysut has its own copyright. This is their website. [11] Summerblush ( talk) 20:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi all For the immediate future I will be busy with a number of projects both in real life and on Wikipedia. I came across this research paper the other day a 2008 review of Special Education Law, which the editors on this and related articles may find useful (I have only read the abstract, and have not yet obtained a copy of the full research paper.) A Review of Special Education Law dolfrog ( talk) 20:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I really like to revert to this revision: [12] as the source is from a gov/ link. It's not a copyvio. I have quoted the exact words from the source. Hteb ( talk) 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Le gouvernement français se trouve, concernant le handicap, devant une situation particulière qui n'est pas du tout désespérée, mais qui nécessite « du punch ». Nous allons montrer quelques points développant cette remarque d'actualité en décrivant le contexte international puis national de la scolarisation des enfants handicapés. Voir l'article de COURTAULT Michel : Note sur la scolarisation des enfants handicapés Revue / Journal Title Pour ISSN 0245-9442 Source / Source 2007, no195, pp. 30-36 [7 page(s) (article)] Langue / Language Français Editeur / Publisher Revue POUR - Groupe de recherche pour l'éducation et la prospective, Paris, FRANCE --Michel Courtault (d) 15 décembre 2009 à 17:34 (CET)-- 90.53.167.82 ( talk) 17:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
About this:
As far as I can tell, the information is verifiable, even if the particular source named is a bit weak, and even if the editor used "developmentally disabled" as a euphemism for people with below average IQ. ( Cleft palate is a "developmental disability", but people with that condition are just as capable of mastering the standard curriculum as anyone else (unless they have other disabilities, same as anyone else).
And the title isn't misspelled; it's just an old variant spelling. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to contribute a section just on some of the disorders that are placed in Special Education, and also give some insight on how it maybe affects the child in the program? Kls092810 ( talk) 05:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have never heard of exclusion as a means of providing SPED services. Should this be removed? Any objections?
Mcuringa ( talk) 00:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Please do not keep reverting to your misleading definition in the first sentence. Special education is far more than "a field of study". Just about everything is a field of study, including "automobiles", "medicine", and "traffic". But you'd think it stupid to see Traffic begin with "Traffic is a field of study..."—even though there are thousands of people who have carefully studied "traffic"—rather than the actual definition, which is "Traffic is people and things moving on a road". It's equally stupid to say that " Special education is a field of study..." rather than telling people what it actually is, which is the education of people with special needs. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not changing the article without consensus. Editing Wikipedia is about being bold and discussing on the talk page. Xcueta ( talk) 02:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Xcueta is now re-blocked as a sock of a banned user. Any edits they have made either here or in the article may be reverted as needed or desired per our banning policy. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC) |
This:
The characteristics of effective instruction are reported by educational researchers who study the critical teacher behaviours in classroom settings. [2] it must be noted that effective instruction is not defined as a single method of teaching but rather as a series of characteristics which can be embedded into a range of teaching approaches. [3] Effective instruction enables the efficient use of class time to maximise learning outcomes for students maximises on-task behaviour of students and minimises inappropriate behaviour. Effective instruction involves implementing strategies in planning, managing, delivering and evaluating instruction. [4] Meta-analyses of the research indicate that teaching approaches that combine direct instruction (explicit, teacher-directed instruction in basic skills and content) and strategy instruction (explicit instruction to teach cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies) are most successful. [2] Effective teachers are competent with a wide array of instructional strategies, including teacher-directed, explicit instruction and are able to select the most appropriate strategies for individual students and specific content. [5] [6] There is a danger of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy when teachers have low expectations of students with special educational needs. [7] [8] Teachers and school executive are able to create a positive school climate that values and accepts all students. [9] With the advent of inclusive curriculum, collaborative partnerships between students, families, special educators, teachers, teacher aides and other relevant professional are imperative. [10] [11] Collaboration provides the vehicle for the pooling of knowledge about curriculum, current curriculum trends, and the knowledge of effective practices to meet the needs of the diverse range of students in any class. [10] [12]
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
was buried under ===Australia===, as if this only applied to the one country. What should we do with this? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This new section seems to describe practices in North America and is lacking in sources, and also refers to US-specific organisations and uses odd words such as "accommodations" which would appear to be peculiar to America. It might be best to move this whole section to the article on special education in North America. It is quite acceptable to write an article in American English, but it is different when American-specific terminology is used which is only used in one country and not familiar to readers in the rest of the world. Dahliarose ( talk) 18:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you are having trouble finding the sources I added to that section. They are:
These are the only three sources cited in the definition of the terms accommodation and modification. Can you tell me which of these three sources is the "American textbook"? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
esp. Room and suitable provision for the reception of people; entertainment; lodgings. (Formerly, and still U.S., mostly in pl.)
which confirms that accommodations is only used in the US in the plural form. That is just one word. What about all the other Americanisms in the article? Dahliarose ( talk) 00:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Overall though, the available information shows that all of the countries make presentation accommodations and most of them make response or scheduling accommodations as well. Setting accommodations, however, were much less apparent. (Pepper, pg 14)
Equality of opportunity with other candidates, by providing a foundation in law for adjustments to/accommodations in examination conditions. (Pepper, pg 18)
Such adaptations/accommodations may include the provision of a reader or assistant, for example, or the use of a tape recorder or other adaptive equipment. (Pepper, pg 21)
OED isn't really relevant for jargon like this, which can change quite quickly. Use what the relevant policymakers and academics use. Also, the terminology doesn't matter that much anyway; just note any synonyms and reliably sourced usage differences, and focus on the content. Rd232 talk 15:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the use of the term "block letters" it seems there is considerable confusion and I suspect this another difference between American English and British English. The OED has the following definitions: (1) block capital n. a capital letter written or printed without serifs. (2) block letter n. (a) in pl., printing-types of large size cut out of wooden blocks; (b) = block capital n. These internet references demonstrate the confusion [13], [14]. In British English it is not a term in general usage other than in the phrase block capitals. I suggest for clarity the term is avoided altogether. The linked Wiki article is lacking in sources and not particularly helpful. Dahliarose ( talk) 15:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
About this:
Is it your belief that the exact word "disapplication" somehow magically does not appear seven times in the SEN Code? That the glossary of testing terms does not directly define the term as meaning the student is not participating because "even allowing for the full range of special arrangements/reasonable modifications that can be made", the student is still not participating in some aspect of the school program?
More importantly, do you think that this is not the official jargon used in the UK to describe dropping subjects from a student's teaching program? If so, I suggest you look at documents like this.
I don't actually mind removing it, as I think it unnecessary to provide the UK-specific jargon, but I had thought you would be pleased, rather than rejecting my efforts to provide non-US terminology. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
In Czech republic there are two possible ways of education of children, pupils and students with special education needs. The first is the so called traditional way (for CR) - education at special schools. There are special schools for pupils with hearing impairment; visual impairment; mental retardation (sorry for the terminology - it is still used in CR); physical handicap; speech and language disorders; dyslexia, dysgraphia, ...; and behavioural disorders. The second way is the integration (inclusion) pupils with disability into mainstream schools. There are two possibilities - individual and group integration. The group integration (special classes at mainstream schools or special schools for other type of disability) is not widelly used. The individual integration is mostly used with pupils with physical handicap and visual impairment, but the other groups of pupils can be integrated too. It is a bit difficult topic to be decribed in short.-- Jerabkova78 ( talk) 09:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 10:16, 27.11.2011
Posted as “Education in Canada is the responsibility of the individual provinces and territories.”
Should be “The Federal Government mandates education in Canada, with the responsibility downloaded on to the individual provinces and territories and administrated through local school boards.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.153.10 ( talk) 03:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Please remove the "Exceptional education" link from the See Also section; it is a circular redirect, i.e. comes back to this article. Thanks.-- Shantavira| feed me 11:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section Special education#History of special schools there is a link to Inclusion. Inclusion is a disambiguation page. That link should have the piped link Inclusion. Thank you. SchreiberBike ( talk) 17:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
SchreiberBike ( talk) 17:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sir or Madame:
Placing students with disabilities in a setting other than the regular classroom is a form of discrimination. I cannot believe that Wikipedia allows this practice to be referred as segregation. I would prefer that this subject be described in a respectful manner. Thank you, Plantinthewindow ( talk) 18:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox segregation seems disrespectful to you? The word means "setting apart" or "separating". It would also suggest the Special Education in the USA is run by the Ku Klux Klan discriminating on grounds of race and disability. That is the association made with that word in thed UK and elsewhere. Especially going back to the 1950s 1960s and 1970s. You could be right may be the Ku Klux Klan do run Special education in the USA, and you are using the correct terminology to explain the system to those who live outside the USA. dolfrog ( talk) 15:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I've put the global tag back on the article. There have been extensive discussions about this issue in the talk page archives. Although there are sections on different countries the whole introductory section of the article is still written very much from a First World perspective and specifically from an American perspective. Dahliarose ( talk) 10:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, I am very aware of the differences of terminology between countries, who share the same basic language, and even between researchers and professionals when discussing an identical topic, condition, or symptom. This can be very confusing for visitors or readers not familiar with the terminology, and wording being used. So may be the inclusion of a Glossary of terminology options used in these various countries may help both editors, and visitors alike, and help this article have more global content and understanding. providing only a single form of terminology will serve to exclude those who have been educated using a different form of terminology to describe the same thing. The problem is due to a lack of co-operation between the various national and international professional bodies, researchers etc, who seem incapable to agree to use a single form of terminology, so Wikipedia needs to reflect the various type of terminology being used to help all who use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. dolfrog ( talk) 19:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
This issue here is that we need to use a universal vocabulary, that is based on reality and not the idealistic dreams of one particular population, to make the article GLOBAL. Otherwise the article does not meet the Global requirement. So we need to explain all of the variations and how things actually happen day to day and not the dream theory of WhatamIdoing and others. We keep on demonstrating that there is a need to decribe Special ~education as it is in real life globally and not just how all in the USA want to make out it is in some form of USA based fantacy of how the world should be. So a glossary is the answer so that those in the USA can begin to learn about life outside of the countries borders which will probably be a new experience for many of them. dolfrog ( talk) 21:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I came across this important document from UNESCO which really ought to be mentioned in the article and is particularly useful for providing the global context on special educational needs: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000984/098427eo.pdf. The report dates from 1994. I don't know if there is a more recent report. Note that it says on page 13: "The vast majority of students with special needs, especially in rural areas, are as a consequence provided with no services whatsoever. Indeed, in many developing countries, it is estimated that fewer than 1 per cent of children with special educational needs are included in existing provision". Here is a report which describes the European model: https://www.european-agency.org/publications/ereports/key-principles-in-special-needs-education/keyp-en.pdf. Note that on page 15 it says: "at times, small groups of learners with SEN require particular attention and some withdrawal sessions may enable those learners to be maintained in the mainstream classroom. It is important that these arrangements have a natural and flexible character and are not confined to learners with SEN but are used occasionally for all learners in the classroom". I think one of the problems here is that "inclusion" has a very precise meaning in America with children spending just half the day in mainstream schools. In other countries inclusion means inclusion in mainstream education and children are much more integrated than they are in the American model. Dahliarose ( talk) 00:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem WhatamIdoing is that you do not live in the UK, and have no idea what you are talking about. The theory is fine but what happens in real life is as Dahliarose has described. Yes those who have learning disabilities need support specific to their disability, unfortunately in the UK the support they need is not provided, and the various agencies, and governing bodies blame each other for the lack of basic support. So time for you to stop dreaming and live in reality and listen to those who have to live wit the situation in the UK, and not as you would prefer it in your idealised dream world. dolfrog ( talk) 09:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)