Dianne,
I am somewhat familiar with the issues of inclusion of ASD students in the general education classroom. As I have mentioned in past blogs, the school where I teach has few facilities for specialized special instruction. As a result, I have worked with students with mild autism in the classroom, one of whom is the son of a friend and colleague. That being said, your description of the various forms that autism can take were very enlightening to me - like slide 2 of your powerpoint states "...[I]f you know one person with autism, you know ONE person with autism." Each of the (admittedly few) students I have encountered in class were at different points in the spectrum, and my methods of instruction would, by necessity, be individualized depending on how they could access the information presented. Because I work in a private parochial school, however, the students I encountered were all relatively high functioning, which is why your topic interests me greatly. I had no idea of the amount of time involved in using Applied Behavior Analysis model for classroom inclusion. Of course, I had originally read your presentation in terms of my own experience as a high school teacher, until I realized you are writing about the whole, long-term student experience. I have to admit, I calmed down considerably after that realization.
Overall, I thought yours was a well-written presentation on the subject, very informative and detailed. Your discussion questions led to the overall points you were trying to make, and as a whole, caused me to reflect on some ideas I did not know. What strikes me was your emphasis on re-mediating the lack of trained teachers, both in the general education field, and in the special education field, which is critical for the continued success of the ABA model. I agree with you that the emphasis on training needs to start at the post-secondary level, as part of the general education curriculum especially. My question to you, however, (and one that is perhaps out of the scope of your paper) would be how to incentivise current general education teachers to seek out the training they need to better effect the learning outcomes we are seeking? I ask this from experience, as I, for example, currently teach full-time, including devising instruction, grading papers, and the like, plus I am the lead adviser for our fledgling robotics team, assistant coach for the Lacrosse team, and I have a life on the outside, as well as current enrollment in a Masters program, with all that entails. I am not unique in this position, as many of us in this class are full-time teachers as well, and many of you also have families to tend to. Couple that with teachers nearing the ends of their careers who might not be willing to extend their training, and you can see the dilemma we face. I made a choice to further my education in this field, and am considering the possibility, daunting as it seems, of pursuing additional special education training in the future. Many of our colleagues may not have the resources available to them, or may not have the incentive to do so. Mandated participation may prove counter-productive, as it may drive otherwise good teachers out of the field. As the teaching population ages, and as the number of teachers with permanent licenses is reduced through attrition, continuing education requirements for licensure could be changed to require at least one course (or workshop/in-service/pre-service program) in special education. This will take some time, but, in my opinion, might hold the best promise for special-needs students, including those with ASD.
No comments:
Post a Comment