Marc Finks

Module 3, Unit 1, Activity 3

During the past two decades, brain research by neuroscientists has had a direct influence on new teaching theories about how students can best learn and what we, as teachers, can do to improve our classrooms and teaching styles in order to benefit our students. The Sonomo County of Education has established twelve principles that form the basis of brain-based learning according to the Talking Page Literacy Organization (2014).

The first principle states that the brain is a parallel processor, which means that thoughts, intuitions, pre-dispositions, and emotions operate simultaneously and interact with other modes of information. According to Marilee Springer (2013), music has a direct effect on the emotions of students and should be used as part of the classroom environment (p.35). In the classroom teachers should play different kinds of music at different times in the class, for example, low classical music during reading time, or fun, bouncy pop music that the students can sing along to when they work in groups and need to be more active and awake.

The second principle states that learning engages the entire physiology, which includes how well the students eat and how much they sleep. While teachers can’t necessarily control the amount of sleep students, besides offering suggestions to parents during one-on-one meetings, we can make design activities that require students to get out of the chairs quite often. We could have students act out scenes from books while reading them, or have them measure something on the playground, and or challenge them to activities that require them to be active in the classroom.

The third principle states that the search for meaning is innate, which means students need to have a chance to reflect on what they’ve learned. It’s important to let students write journals, or even have them fill out exit-cards (Springer, p.49-50) that allow them to think about what they’ve learned. Keeping an online journal would make it easier for both the student and the teacher to access it.

Principles four and five state that the search for meaning occurs through patterning and that emotions are critical to patterning. It’s important for teachers to try and make sure that their lessons are thematically connected across different subjects. It’ll help students better connect and remember the content. Meanwhile, besides playing music, students’ emotions are also affected by group work, and teachers should make an effort to organize students in groups where they feel relaxed and safe, yet also respected.

Principle six states that every brain simultaneously perceives and creates parts and wholes. Instead of just teaching to right-brain or left-brain, it’s best to understand that it’s best to activate the entire brain at once. This ties into principle four, but teachers should try to incorporate cross-disciplinary lessons, where students learn about art and math simultaneously, or music and science.

Principle seven states that learning involves both focused attention and peripheral perception. Basically, this means that it’s important for our classrooms to be rich learning environments. Instead of just reading about World War II, have students reenact the movement of armies using an online Risk game and talk about how things could’ve been done differently. Engage students with projects that involve doing research in the community and interacting with people outside of the classroom.

Principle eight states that learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes. This ties back into allowing the students opportunities to reflect upon what they’ve learned, and giving them chances to internalize new information and later show what they have learned through different varieties of output.

Principle nine states that we have at least two types of memory -- a spatial memory system and a set of systems for rote learning. Most of our students have smart phones that they can use to take photos. A photo scavenger hunt, where students must find things from a list, take their photo with it, and then have them later write a journal about how and where they found certain items, and it means to them, could help achieve this principle as well as several others.

Principle ten states that the brain understand and remembers best when facts and skills are embedded in natural spatial memory. This means that we learn best when our learning involves our environment. For a lesson on rainforests, the teacher could talk about it, have students watch videos and do research, and then have them try and recreate a rainforest in the classroom somehow.

Principle eleven states that learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat. This goes back to making the classroom a safe environment, which comes from giving positive feedback to the students, and always being aware of the shifting social situations in the class. Once the students feel like they can trust one another, which could be done by setting up an Edmodo site and having students have discussions and share ideas in a controlled environment, then their collaborative work should improve as well.

Principle twelve states that each brain is unique. Basically, students all learn in different ways, and with ready access to the various form of media, we should try different ways and formats to teach information to our students. Whether it means playing music or watching videos from Youtube, or doing an online mental puzzle, or even reading an e-book, all students can learn. It’s up to us to figure out how to use the tools that are available to us.

 

References:

Springer, Marilee (2013) Brain-based Teaching in the Digital Age.  Retrieved on February 18, 2014 fromhttps://www.aa.edu/ftpimages/109/download/ABCs_XYZs_Sprenger.pdf.

Talking Page Literacy Organization. Retrieved on October 18, 2014 from http://www.talkingpage.org/artic011.html.

Marc Finks

Module 1, Unit 4, Activity 3

I will be working with second graders and teaching them the different parts of flowering plants and what their functions are.

Jin has recently arrived in the states, and she didn’t learn any English in her home country, South Korea. Even though she is clearly watching everything around her and taking in as much as possible, she doesn’t say anything in English, and so she is in the Pre-Production phase. To accommodate Jin and other students like her, I will use a lot of colorful pictures that show each plant part and videos that show them functioning.  We are also lucky to have a school garden near the playground, and so we will visit it a couple of times and examine the flowering plants, while pointing to and identifying the different parts of the plant. We will also play Plant BINGO as a class, and I will have the students work as partners, so that she start to follow along as her partner shows her which square to cover each time a certain word is announced.

Howard is also from South Korea, but he has been in the United States for several months, and he has begun talking regularly in English – especially among his friends. While he still has severe grammatical and vocabulary errors, he seems to be growing confident in his ability to speak English. He seems to be in the Speech Emergent phase. While looking at the images and examining the plants is interesting to him and helps him understand everything better, he is also able to read and learn some of the written words. Howard really enjoys Plant BINGO and is able to do it without any help once he learns the words, and, later, he is able to draw a plant and label the parts correctly based on what he has learned. He is also able to fill out simple worksheets, as long as the contextual clues in each sentence are clear enough for him to deduce the word needed to fill in the blank.

Julia has been in the United Stated for almost nine months. When she is among her friends, she chats without any hesitation or self-consciousness, and she is more confident about volunteering in class. She still has trouble finding the correct word sometimes when she is trying to explain something, and she has some difficulty understanding all of the words in our textbooks. She is in the Beginning Fluency stage, and, like Howard, she benefitted from learning the parts of the plants by studying the colorful images and walking through our garden. She finishes the worksheets much quicker than Howard does. She is asked to choose a flower from the garden and to write down facts about it, and then try to write that into a short paragraph. She struggles with decoding the information from the encyclopedia, but once she has everything organized, Julia is able to write a paragraph about the flower, using short, simple sentences. She is also able to give a speech about it, but feels most comfortable just reading aloud from the paragraph that she wrote.

John arrived in the United States in kindergarten from Costa Rica, and he speaks really well. He doesn’t hesitate when he speaks, and is able to decode text as well as the other students. He still uses the wrong word or idiom from time to time, but, in general, he is in the Advanced Fluency stage. John enjoyed the images, the walks, the BINGO, and easily did the worksheets. He had much less trouble than Julia on summarizing information about his flowering plant, and he spoke confidently in front of the class when giving his presentation. John has shown an eagerness to learn more information, and so he will be assigned to do a report about the life cycle of the flowering plant that he chose, and to explain how insects play a key in the flowering process. He will work with a partner on this, and they will have to create an illustrative guide that they will use when they present their research to the class, and he will also have to write up a short report explaining what he learned. While he may have a little difficulty with some parts of this assignment, he and his partner should be able to successfully complete the work with very little assistance from the teacher.

Citation:

Language Acquisition: An Overview | ELL Topics from A-Z | Colorín Colorado. (n.d.). Retrieved October 13, 2014, from http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/26751.

Marc Finks 9/21/2014

 Marc Finks
9/21/2014


Ability Grouping

In my school in South Korea, students are grouped together by ability level. Some classes may be made up of all fourth graders, but the majority of classes have students from different grades, ranging from fourth to sixth grade students, or from seventh to tenth grade students. In general, this system seems to work. The students who are in higher levels don’t seem to think they’re better than students who are in lower levels, mainly because they know that it’s just for one subject – English. They still talk to their friends and hang out with them during break times, and outside of class and school, they are equals and get along well.

According to NCEE.org, in South Korean lower secondary schools, there is ability-based grouping for some subjects, including mathematics, English, Korean language, social studies and science. Core subjects which are not differentiated are moral education, PE, music, fine arts and practical arts. This does seem to be working for them as 97% of Korean students graduate from high school (NCEE, 2013), and they often do well on Program for International Student Assessment exams (PISA), where they were ranked 5th, 5th, and 10th  in the world, in Mathematics, Reading, and Science respectively, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

As a result, I’ve wondered why most education systems are so dedicated to having students grouped by age as opposed to ability. All students learn at different rates, and so why would we insist on keeping them all together, just because of arbitrary dates that we use to decide who is in fourth grade and who is in fifth grade? For certain classes, like physical education and recess and lunchtime, it makes sense for students of similar ages to be together, but for in-class education, it seems that ‘ability-grouping’ could be a better way of educating our students.

One slight issue between what I consider “ability grouping” and what others do is seen clearly on the National Education Association’s website, which states that “ability grouping, also known as tracking, is the practice of grouping children together according to their talents in the classroom (NEA, 2014). I do not consider these to be the same thing. I think that ability grouping means teaching students what they are ready to learn in different subjects. It would mean that after each lesson is finished, the students remix and then separate into their next class levels, and go to that room. Students could be in different levels for different subjects, and students could level up when they are ready. Ah…but I see the problem. If I’m in level B and someone else is in level A, and we are both moving forward, how could I ever catch up with them? I think this is where differentiated instruction and individual learning using technology would have to come into play, similar to the Khan Academy (Khan, 2011). As I’ll discuss below, the NEA points out that poor and minority students are often placed in low tracks where they often receive poor instruction and never really have the chance to catch up (NEA, 2014). I wonder, though, if the NEA’s willingness to substitute ‘ability grouping’ and ‘tracking’ as identical terms comes from the fact that they openly admit to supporting the elimination of all groupings. In addition, they include five links at the bottom of their page, but all five talk about the negative effects of grouping. From reading the comments on that page, it seems that several other teachers also disagree with the NEA’s stance on ability grouping.

According to the School Superintendents Association, AASA.org, most people would agree that the goal of school-based learning is to make yearly academic progress, but the students who have a lesser chance of making progress in a normal classroom are not the struggling students, nor the average ones, but the gifted, high achieving students who could possibly be two to three grade levels ahead of their classmates in certain subjects (Brulles, 2014). She discusses implementing a Schoolwide Cluster Grouping model, where a certain number of gifted students are mixed into a normal class and the teacher is given special training to effectively teach them and differentiate the lessons for the varying levels of ability. While I do think that this is a bit better since we’re addressing the needs of ALL students, including the gifted ones, I still wonder if expecting the teacher to differentiate her lessons to accommodate all ability levels for each subject is a reasonable expectation.

In an article from Achieve.org, Delia Pompa of the National Council of La Raza says something similar about English Language Learners (ELL) students. As she points out, with the increasing number of ELL students in the United States, it is urgent for us to redesign policies that can benefit all of these students. Instead of treating them as if they’re all the same, it is important to recognize that they have differences between them, and we need to develop ways of assessing their English ability so that we can group them accordingly in the correct classes (Pompa, 2014). Students who have just recently arrived in the United States and have little formal education in English will do worse on the grade-level standardized tests than students who have had some English education in their home countries, and the way that they are grouped should affect how we teach them and how we test them. Even though, by definition, standardized tests are trying to set the standard or norm for a certain age level, these students should not be held to the same standards, and thus should be grouped accordingly.

Even though I’ve taught ESL for quite a few years, I’ve never really considered what a big issue it is at home, especially now with how important standardized testing is to schools and our education system. Given the large number of ELL students that are entering the American education system each year, one would think that a lot of attention would be given to designing a system that could best seamlessly incorporate them into our school systems.

    In a study on ELL students, and whether they should just be taught separately for the entire day for all subjects, it was found that “Keeping students of different achievement/ability levels in entirely separate (homogeneous) classes for the entire school day (and throughout the school year) leads to depressed achievement among lower-achieving students with little to no benefit for average and higher-achieving students” (Saunders, 2014). And so, this supports my idea that they shouldn’t be split up for the entire day. The article goes on to state that grouping students by ability levels in all subjects throughout the day, whether with their own class or other classes, leads to a high level of enhanced learning for all students, which does make sense because students are being taught what they’re ready to learn. The authors also make the point that students should be regularly monitored and assessed so that they can move up to different groups, and/or will continue feeling a sense of accomplishment as they improve.

Again, though, I’m surprised that when I thought about this before that I had such a blank spot for ELL students. I assume that these students should be fine in math, even if it’s taught in English, but science, social studies, and reading all rely extensively on English, and so would ELL students need to be given easier books and grouped accordingly? Some people would say that the best teachers should be able to teach the concepts of science without relying on the need for specific terminology, but I doubt that that would always be possible, no matter how amazing the teaching is.

However, according to an article from ACSD.org, grouping students by ability increases the inequality between students (Gamoran, 2014). He states that even though students in high-level ability classes do better than their counterparts in traditional classes, the students who are in a remedial ability level perform worse, and so there is no improvement to the overall level of achievement in the school. But Gamoran does make a good point when he raises the question about why students who struggle aren’t improving as quickly in a classroom that should be geared towards helping them improve. And what he found was that the best teachers teach the “brightest” students and are energetic and prepare more for their classes, while teachers in the low-level classrooms spend more time on behavioral management.

I think part of this probably stems from how the students themselves perceive learning and their role in the classroom, which only get exacerbated the longer that certain students excel and others struggle.  Maybe if this system were set up from the very instant that students start school, then hardly any students would ever feel inadequate and doubt themselves. It would be like the Khan academy, where some students struggle to understand one concept for a few weeks, while other classmates pass them, but once they finally understand that concept, they zoom ahead quickly, taking everything in stride (Khan, 2011).

Among the many issues found in the ELL programs in Buffalo schools, the council reported that “references to the instructional needs of ELLs are framed as accommodations rather than reflecting unique language needs” and that there was no effort to group the students by ability level or intensity (Council of the Great City Schools, 2009). It goes on to list a number of problems as to why ELL students aren’t improving and ability grouping is one solution that is suggested, as well as a more systematic approach to creating classes and lessons for these students, but I am surprised that this is actually an issue throughout the majority of the United States. I would’ve guessed that it was an issue for the southern states and California where one would expect a higher rate of immigration, but this seems to be a major problem that isn’t being dealt with accordingly. I wonder if part of that problem is that we are trying to accommodate these children in a way that matches our current education system, even though it seems as if our system isn’t really working right now.

Differentiated instruction is a buzzword that I heard throughout my Master’s degree courses. The goal is to teach students according to their needs, as opposed to teaching all students as if they learn the same way and have the same prior knowledge. I think that with today’s technology, and the inclusion of tablets and computers in the classroom, that it actually is more possible to differentiate our lessons so that students are studying what they need to study at the level that they need to study at. Leaningforward.org has an article which states that we are beginning to move towards flexible groupings in classrooms which allow students choices about how they want to complete certain standards-based activities, which could lead to higher motivation and less behavioral issues (McKinney, 2013). And while this is a good idea, I still don’t understand why we remain committed to grouping students by age. If differentiated instruction is best for our students, and giving them choices about how to accomplish a project has beneficial results, then why would we not do our best to make sure this happens in every aspect of the classroom? Students are in school for seven or more hours each day. How much of that time do they think is just wasted time, and what can we do to help them realize that everything they’re doing is actually valuable, and that they’re learning and improving and doing well?

In support of differentiated learning, an article on http://www.naeducation.org states that different kinds of pedagogical strategies work best for different kinds of students and suggests that grouping students, with the goal of grouping them by characteristics, could improve performance in a classroom (Natriello, 2014). It isn’t clear by what characteristics the authors hoped we could begin grouping students. Besides ability, should we look at other things as well? Learning styles, or what about how energetic or calm students are in a classroom? Of all of the different characteristics that we have to choose from, I still think that for a classroom setting, ability grouping is the best idea. Maybe it could be possible to have sub-groups and divide them up the certain characteristics, but trying to judge and label students to that extent seems like too much, even to me, and I’m recommending that we separate students by ability in the classroom.

Another idea, Project-Based Learning (PBL) is a chance where students can work together in groups to solve problems. Among other things, PBL promotes good peer to peer relationships and changes things so that the teacher is more of a facilitator, rather than the all-knowable giver of knowledge (PBL Guide, 2014). When things like this are included in a classroom, it does make me doubt whether grouping by ability is the only way to do things. I like the idea of PBL, where students learn from one another, they work together, they share ideas, and – together – they come up with a final plan that is a combination of all of their ideas…in an ideal world. However, we’ve been trying to implement PBL into our classrooms for the last few years, and it rarely works as it should. It’s difficult to find projects that all students will be excited about, and there are always a couple of students who are content to let everyone else do the work. But this could go back to the idea of grouping students by characteristics, as I’ve taken all of my low-effort students before and put them together into one group. It seems to me that the reason students act like that are 1) they don’t have confidence that their ideas are good, 2) they’re not interested in the topic, or 3) they don’t really care about their grade, and so it’s even more important to find a topic that could interest them and motivate them.

This kind of goes back to something that I touched on previously, but if the problem is number two or three, is that the school’s/teacher’s fault that the student won’t make an effort if they’re not interested, or is it the child’s upbringing? Most kindergarten students are happy and excited to do something, and so what happens between that age and fifth or sixth grade? How do they lose interest or the desire to show effort? Have they learned that even if they try, they’re not going to be the best? I wonder if setting up an ability based grouping system would actually raise the feeling of competitiveness, which could make some students just give up because they think they’re going to lose anyway.

Dwight L. Burton also connected ability in the classroom to outside influences. He points out that ability grouping in English (the high school class) works well when students are carefully selected and the material is chosen accordingly to ability levels and culturally-relativity, but that this grouping generally ends up being divided by socio-economic level (Burton, 1964), which is something that I remember writing an essay about before. It’s not a given, but people who live in low socio-economic areas probably don’t have the best education, and most likely won’t spend as much time (or have as much time available) reading to their children and teaching them about things that they wouldn’t normally encounter for another year or two in school. Parents have such a huge effect on how well-prepared children are on the very first day when they enter school, and from those first weeks where certain students know how to read, while others don’t even know more than a few levels, it already starts to separate the students within their own minds. And so, this is a huge question which I’m not equipped to deal with here, but how can we encourage low-socio economic families to become more invested in the education of their children? Is this what is needed? Of all of the struggling students in the elementary classrooms across America, how many come from low socio-economic families and/or immigrant families? Would ability grouping help these students or is it their lives outside of school that is overshadowing anything that happens inside of the classroom? Mr. Burton wrote his essay in 1964, and it’s an issue that only seems to have worsened in the last fifty years. Is it time that we just gave up on all of these children, or it is time for a radical shift in perspective?

The National  Council of Teachers of Mathematics has a number of statistics that shows that ‘tracking’ is detrimental to students are marked as having low ability. It states that students in low tracks have a slower growth than other students, and that members of minority groups and others from low socio-economic classes were overrepresented in the low-tracked groups (Hill, 2004). As an alternative, Denise Hill suggests integrating mathematics and science into one class, and implementing Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory into activities or assessment. From the initial results, bi-lingual and previously low-tracked students had a higher than average improvement in both mathematics and science, and so this does seem to a possible alternative to our current educational system. Personally, I like the idea of un-standardizing standardized tests because it is true that all students have differing ways of learning and ways of expressing themselves. With ability grouping, though, it could be possible to eliminate ‘standardized tests’, and just have students continually make small level-up increments over six to eight years. Why does there have to be one huge test at the end of the year? It would make more sense to just have students try to reach little goals at their own pace, and when they reach them, then they move on. I agree that integrating different subjects together is more realistic and could interest students more, but if a student isn’t able to read or comprehend something, then how well will they be able to do any work on their own in that level?

According to NAESP.org, the number of fourth graders who have been placed in reading ability groups has increased from 28% in 1998 to 71% in 2009. While the principals who were interviewed about this had differing opinions about its effectiveness, most agreed that if ability groups are used, then they should be used with sensitivity. Nancy Nettik echoed what I mentioned earlier when she said, “Flexible grouping that changes depending on students’ abilities in different subjects and where students move from group to group as they grasp concepts can be effective. But when students are ability grouped into classrooms for the entire school year, it is detrimental—not only to academic achievement but also to self-esteem” (Snapshots, 2013). Personally, I agree with this. It’s not about separating the students completely. It’s about giving them the extra help (or extra high-level instruction) that they need for each level. And so, some students could be level 1 for math but level 3 in reading, while other students could be reversed. This would require a shift in perspective from our society so that we could accept that just because students are in a lower level, it doesn’t mean that they’re stupid or less than other students. It just takes them a little longer to learn this one certain thing.

And so, I started this blog post with the idea that maybe ability grouping could help differentiate instruction in the classroom, but while writing this and reading about the different facts and opinions shared on these educational organization websites, I wonder if I’m trying to find a solution for the effect…and not the actual cause. Why do so many students lose the joy that they have on the first day of school? My sister, whose daughters are in first and second grade, said that her oldest daughter was already losing interest in school in first grade, and only looked forward to recess and lunch. This is a student who tested at a fifth grade reading level, and she’s already giving up on school. If the low-end and high-end students are checking out this early, then I don’t think that ability groups is going to be the cure for this illness…it seems to be something more ingrained in how we are teaching our students and how we transmit information to them. Why do we teach about nature and science while sitting inside of a classroom staring at a book? Or learn about counting money by doing worksheets? I realize that the Common Core Standards are trying to change things, but from what I’ve seen, it’s just more of the same type of one-size fits all learning that isn’t working right now.






Citations –

Brulles, D., & Winebrenner, S. (n.d.). Maximizing Gifted Students' Potential In the 21st Century. Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://www.aasa.org.

Burton, D. (1964, January 1). ENGLISH EDUCATION AS SCHOLARLY DISCIPLINE. Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://www.ncte.org.

Council of the Great City Schools.  Raising the Achievement of English Language Learners in the Buffalo Public Schools. (2009, December 1). Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://www.cgcs.org.

Gamoran, A. (n.d.). Synthesis of Research / Is Ability Grouping Equitable? Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://www.ascd.org.

Hill, D. (2004, October 1). The Mathematics Pathway For All Children. Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://www.nctm.org.

Khan, Salman. (2011, March 9). Let's use video to reinvent education. Retrieved from September 21, 2014 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTFEUsudhfs.

McKinney, G. (20103, August 1). Building Common Knowledge. Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://learningforward.org.

National Center for Education Statistics - PISA. (2012, January 1). Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://nces.ed.gov.

Natriello, G. (n.d.). Adaptive Educational Technologies and Educational Research: Opportunities, Analyses, and Infrastructure Needs. Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://www.naeducation.org.

NCEE » South Korea: Instructional Systems. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://www.ncee.org.

NEA - Research Spotlight on Academic Ability Grouping. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://www.nea.org.

Project Based Learning - A Resource for Instructors and Program Coordinators. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://naf.org.

Pompa, D. (n.d.). Next Generation State High School Assessment and Accountability: English Language Learners. Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://www.achieve.org.

Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Marcelletti, D. (n.d.). English Language Development. Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://www.aft.org.

Snapshots - Grouping Students by Ability. (2013, May 1). Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://www.naesp.org.

September 21, 2014, 08:47

Marc Finks
October 6, 2014

Activity 3: Special Education Referral Process

Transcripts of the interviews are below.

From what I can tell, the referral process in South Korea is similar to that in the United States. The teacher or parent notices a problem and then they contact the school, who usually fill out an evaluation. I was surprised by several comments, though. Similar to the United States, parents can protest if they don’t acknowledge that their child might have a problem, but it was interesting that it’s just accepted for CCTV footage to be available from every classroom, and readily available to show the parents in case they want to see how their child acts in the classroom. I wonder how most parents feels when they watch this because I have no doubt that how most parents believe their child acts in the classroom isn’t usually completely correct.

The IEP process seems similar to the United States, but I was surprised at what age most students are diagnosed with a learning disability. If they wait until the student is in fifth or sixth grade to identify them, then, to me, that seems quite late in the child’s educational life to try to help them and begin addressing possible problems. By this point, after a few years of struggling and not understanding why they aren’t succeeding, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of these students have developed negative attitudes towards school or towards themselves.

It was interesting to note, as well, that the teacher thought that having students evaluated for a learning disability was a good way to motivate non-disabled students to behave better in the classroom. I know that the Korean culture places a high emphasis on the perception of others, and so maybe this is just an effect from that.

I would really like to see Korean schools make more of an effort at identifying students with special needs at a much younger age, similar to how Finland does. The goal needs to be how to help all children at the earliest age possible to succeed in school, as opposed to trying to identify them when they’re not doing well enough, or when you think that they need extra motivation to try harder in class.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrator – Eunsun Choi

• How is a student identified for special education referral?

They are usually identified by referrals from parents or school personnel.  They request an evaluation, and then after filling out a form, we contact the child’s parents or teacher and ask if they have noticed anything and think that the child should be evaluated.

• Have any parents ever said no, or refused to acknowledge that there may be a problem?

Several times. We are usually able to convince them, or we let them observe the cctv footage that we have in every classroom.  If they still won’t give permission, then we usually convince them to allow an independent evaluation…as some parents seem to think that we are intentionally biased against their child, for some reason.

• I see. How does the evaluation process work?

First we look at the child’s existing work or data, which comes from the classroom, previous test results, information from the parents, and so on. If it seems as if the child has an impairment, then we will evaluate the child using a range of tests, depending on we suspect may be an issue. The goal here is to figure out if there is something wrong, and to what degree the impairment is, which will then allow us to create an IEP, if necessary.

• And an IEP is…

An individualized education program. What we do is we assess the child’s current levels of academic performance, and then set goals for the child and decide what type of special education and personnel will be needed to help reach these goals.

• Who takes responsibility for the progress of the child before and after the referral?

Our school does. Our teacher who is in charge of our special education program constantly checks in on the progress of each child in the program every week, and meets with the parents at least every other week…more often, if desired, though.

• What is the school administration's directive for special education?

According to the Korean Ministry of Education, special education students should be integrated as much as possible in normal classrooms, but the IEP should be utilized to help the child progress and reach the goals set for him or her.

• What provisions are made for students identified for special education?

We give them the individualized attention and treatment that they need in order to succeed.  When needed, the child will be accompanied in a regular classroom by his or her special teacher, who is there to make sure there are no problems.

• What is the level of parent involvement in referral process and special education?

Quite a bit. They are part of the IEP team. Most of them meet with our teacher 2-3 times per month. We probably talk to them on the phone twice a week. Korean mothers are really involved in their children’s education, and it seems as if students receiving special education have mothers who are even more so.

• At what age are most children identified?

The severely disabled ones are identified before they even begin kindergarten and often go to a special school. The ones with behavioral issues or slight mental issues are usually not recognized until fifth or sixth grade, and then begin the evaluation process as I mentioned before.


Teacher –  Jihye Kim

• How do you identify a student for special education?

 Usually through test scores or observing how the student acts in the classroom around other students and when they’re alone. If a student continues to make the same mistakes and can’t improve, then we are supposed to recommend an evaluation. Also, if the student seems anti-social, or doesn’t interact well with others, or has trouble sitting still or paying attention, I may recommend an evaluation as well.

• What are the signs of a struggling student?

 Difficulty sitting still. Doesn’t progress like the other students in many subjects. Sometimes, they are withdrawn or angry, and will throw things. I’ve had a couple of students who urinated in the classroom when they were angry.

• Are there alternate methods of instruction tried out before referring the student for special education? If yes, what are they?

I try to help them one on one, but if they still can’t learn, it is recommended that we request an evaluation.

• How many children do you request evaluations for each year?

Maybe 3-4.

• And do they return to the classroom?

They don’t usually return to my classroom. Some feel like there’s a stigma attached to them, and since we have twelve fifth-grade classes, they just join another one for certain periods, while also doing their special education.

• Have you ever had a child evaluated but then was told that there was nothing wrong with them?

  Yes. Once or twice, and when they came back, they were much better behaved. Sometimes the threat of special education seems to be almost as good as special education itself, I think.