Leading Progressive Schools PITP

​To see artifacts from my PITP, click here

​

Progressive Special Education: Meaningful Modifications and Work That Matters

​

Jumping In
What does it mean to be “progressive” in the context of a full-inclusion Special Education program within a project-based setting?  As Special Educators, our mission is to ensure that all students, with their myriad learning profiles (and more often than not, their very real physiological and neurological challenges), can engage with the curriculum.  Over the course of this PITP, I have framed and re-framed my perspective about “deeper learning” in the context of Special Education. 

I began this course with a sense of frustration.  I told myself that while I embrace and celebrate the pursuit of “deeper-learning” in the classroom, our community of Inclusion Specialists is not there yet.  I felt like the group is overwhelmed with every day structures, and we need to develop a stronger foundation before we can begin exploring these more nuanced, higher-order topics.  But my thinking has shifted significantly over the course of this class.

I started my PITP with a whole-group meeting of all of the Inclusion Specialists.  I introduced to them my goal of “creating a rich, professional learning community across our schools.”  We talked in pairs and as a whole group about this goal, and discussed and brainstormed about our group’s vision and purpose.  We also worked in groups and recorded information about current successes and challenges.  We created a list of topics that we are curious to learn more about. We then did a gallery walk and annotated the lists, writing a “star” next to any topic that we wanted to explore in the future.
​

There were two topics that received the highest number of stars: 
a) Supporting students with anxiety and mental health needs;
b) Supporting students who are significantly below grade-level in accessing the curriculum within a full-inclusion setting.
I began planning workshops centered on these two topics for our next whole-group meeting in February.  I enlisted one of the counselors who works with our students to design an interactive workshop for the first topic, and I began working on the second topic myself.

Over the course of the last four weeks, figuring out how to explore the second topic (supporting students enter our schools significantly below grade level) has vexed, perplexed and confounded me.  On one hand, I think the answers are simple: projects that are thoughtfully and artfully designed provide access to all learners.  Further, personalization means that before you are a chemistry teacher or a writing teacher, you are a teacher of children.  Plain and simple.  Yet, the reality is that this is much easier said than done, and not every project at every school provides points of entry and access to all.  Inclusion Specialists struggle daily with dilemmas around this topic, such as, “The teacher assigned a 12th grade text to all of the students, and Jose is just starting to be able to answer literal questions using a 3rd grade text!” and “They are supposed to use parabola equations to design their solar ovens, but Jenny just finally figured out how to add fractions with like denominators!”

I began working with one of our Inclusion Specialists to design a workshop focused on supporting Inclusion Specialists to share strategies, resources and ideas to provide access to the curriculum to students who, for a variety of reasons (both neurological and environmental) are struggling to access and execute the same work as their peers.  In the back of mind, a lingering feeling kept surfacing: this is a conversation that should be had with all teachers.  If the Inclusion Specialists are the only ones tackling this complex topic, then it somehow becomes “our problem to solve.”  We should be working together to create projects and curriculum whose very design provides universal access!  This question becomes further complicated when viewed through the lens of deeper learning across our schools.  I started asking myself, what does deeper-learning look like for students who operating significantly below-grade level?  Are students who do ST Math on the computer instead of problem solving with the rest of math class engaged in meaningful work?  What about struggling readers who are asked to answer a few literal questions about a text instead of writing about the theme or character motivation?  Are they engaged in meaningful work?

Then, an opportunity surfaced to explore this topic with a group of Inclusion Specialists and classroom teachers in North County.  The North County Directors asked if I would work with them to develop a series of professional development workshops focused around the topic of “modified curriculum.”  It was a perfect opportunity to begin exploring and experimenting with how we have these conversations with both Inclusion Specialists and with Classroom Teachers.  It also provided an opportunity for me to push my own thinking about what deeper-learning could look like for students who come to us with significant deficits in basic academic skills.

​

Backing Up
Since I moved into the world of Inclusion at High Tech High, I’ve struggled with the question of how to support students who literally don’t know how to read or do basic math.  Our programs are not inherently designed to teach these skills – we don’t ask classroom teachers to teach phonics and basic concepts of numeracy; we ask them to teach rich, meaningful projects.  On one hand, I feel strongly that our students develop skills that are infinitely more valuable than “foundational academics.”  Skills such as resiliency, self-advocacy, self-awareness, and self-confidence.  They develop the ability to speak in public and to resolve conflicts thoughtfully with peers and adults.  They learn how to collaborate, how to “share the air,” and how to problem-solve.  They develop an ethic of critique and revision with an emphasis on the journey over the destination.
I do, however, feel strongly that our kids need to read, and they need to read well.  They need to understand numbers and to have strong math skills. In her essay “Making Compromises: When School Decision Conflict with Educational Beliefs,” Cassie Pergament describes her thinking about developing “basic skills” at her urban charter school in Washington DC: “…providing a well rounded education is less of a priority than ensuring all of our students can read, write and do math at the same or higher levels as their peers from higher socioeconomic backgrounds” (Pergament 4).  Like Cassie, I do feel strongly that we have an obligation to ensure that our students develop skills that put them on par with “the other” (be it an “other” defined by socio-economic status OR an “other” defined by learning profile and ability). 

Conversely, in her reflection about her visit to Kipp Adelante (a school with a similar “no excuses” approach like Cassie’s school in DC), Lillian Hsu writes, “In short, KIPP has staked its reputation on proving that it can help these students achieve high test scores, but at what cost?  Why is it that these low-income students of color just spend the bulk of their days on work that emphasizes factual recall, when their counterparts in a wealthier part of town likely spend a larger proportion of their time on more meaningful tasks?  Does their behavior need to be molded so strongly, their time apportioned so narrowly, that they have such little opportunity for self-expression?”  (Hsu 3).  These questions resonate with me deeply.  Ultimately, I think that having opportunities to think critically, to question, to explore and to take risks is paramount to any other learning or skill development.  Though both Cassie and Lillian are exploring a subtext that is linked to socioeconomic status, there remains an underlying question about what kind of learning should be prioritized when working with students who, for example, don’t read at grade level.  And I wonder, can High Tech High achieve some kind of ideal balance between the acquisition of “foundational academic skills” and the acquisition of the rich, meaningful “life skills” that I described above?

Moving Forward
I set out to start unpacking some of these questions with the teachers in North County.  The school directors and I designed two sessions of Professional Development.  Our goals for our first session were to increase awareness about the wide range of learners in our classrooms, to activate prior knowledge by talking about times when we’ve adapted a project successfully, and to then brainstorm possible adaptations and modifications for a current project.  Though we did not explicitly talk about “progressive” education for students on a modified curriculum, we did elicit thoughts and ideas about “meaningful, real work” for this population of students.  I viewed this first Professional Development experience as a means of learning about the current thinking and perspectives of the teachers regarding the notion of “meaningful work” for this population of students.  The next step (in our second February 6th session) will be to push people’s thinking further about how to ensure that these students are doing authentic work that matters.

We started our PD by watching a film clip from “FAT City,” a dated but fantastic video that depicts Special Educator Rick Lavoie enacting a series of simulations with teachers and parents, in which he puts them in the shoes of students with learning disabilities.  We then pair-shared and shared-out about past experiences, and then worked in small groups to brainstorm about modifications for our current projects.  I found that the “FAT City” portion of the PD was highly effective.  On her exit card, one teacher wrote, “I love the video shown because it put me in the shoes of someone that perceives things differently.”  Another wrote, “Always be mindful of their perceptions.  Sometimes we forget this.”  This take-away is wonderful – we wanted teachers to start thinking about the very real neurological differences that exist for some of these students, and to then examine their own practice and process with a new awareness. 

The focus on meaningful, authentic, “progressive” work surfaced during the pair-share and whole-group discussion about our past experiences with changing or adapting a project for a student who was operating “below grade level.”  During our share-out, one teacher described a student who made his POL Presentation into a Yugio card power point: each slide represented a different Yugio card that he meaningfully connected to the content of the project.  Another teacher described a kinesthetic learner who needed some additional scaffolds and structures before he was able to really dive into a deep exploration of ROVs and under-water submarines.  He learned about sodering and electrical circuitry and he studied propulsion and marine biology, and spoke eloquently about all of these concepts in his POL. In my small group, I spoke about a student who was reading at a first grade level, and who participated in a Shakespeare Intersession.  The students read excerpts from several plays, and in spite of the teacher and academic coach’s best efforts to provide creative accommodations, I think the student understood very little of what the class read.  But I will never forget the moment I saw her perform their play in front of the school.  This was a student who suffered from incredibly low self-esteem – she was virtually inaudible when she spoke, and she talked about feeling “dumb” and cried often.  Watching her light up on stage was an incredible moment for me – though she may not have understood the greater context of the play, she knew her lines, and she delivered them loudly.  Her pride in being part of the group was so evident – she was glowing and breathless as she ran around the stage.  Watching her hold the hands of her classmates and take a bow at the end took my breath away. 

All of the students that we discussed in our groups were absolutely engaged in work that matters.  During our whole group discussion, we noticed a few common threads that bound our stories together.  In each instance, the students:
• Had permission to bring personal passions and interests in to the sphere of their learning
• Were excited and passionate about the work
• Were acquiring skills that have a real and authentic application beyond the walls of the school
In contrast, more “traditional” modifications to projects tend to look like a rote, “drill-and-kill” approach to learning, even within our schools at HTH.  It looks like learning that parallels what Martin Haberman (quoted in Alfie Kohn’s article “Poor Teaching for Poor Children”) describes as “the overly directive, mind numbing…anti-intellectual acts that pass for teaching in most urban schools” (Kohn 2).  My greatest fear is that “modified curriculum” become a euphemism for “mind-numbing curriculum.”  Our mission, then, is to explore how to foster meaningful, progressive, real learning experiences for this population of students. 

Our hour-long experience created a strong foundation of shared knowledge and experiences around the topic of modified curriculum.  It was an important first step, and I now feel poised to peel back more layers of complexity as we look at a current project and brainstorm not just “modifications” but “meaningful modifications” during our next session.  For their “take-away” on their exit cards, teachers indicated that our session acted as a catalyst some really meaningful thinking about these topics.  One person wrote, “Don’t fear the emotional, self-pitying process.  Use their emotion to drive a dramatic interpretation, or a song or a spoken word piece that shows growth and mastery.”  Another wrote, “Start with personal interest of student and be flexible with planning.”  From another: “Never be afraid to trust a student.”  I love that teachers are taking on this topic, and being thoughtful about what it means to give access to a student who is below grade-level, but to do it in a way that is not a mindless, “anti-intellectual” act.  Instead, to do it in a way that assumes every student should be engaged in rich work that matters. 

 

Reflection
I appreciated this PITP for the meaningful (albeit frustrating!) journey it set me upon.  I began with a feeling that asking Inclusion Specialists and teachers to think about deeper learning and “progressive” education for struggling students was too much to take-on.  I felt like it was a topic to strive to explore later down the road.  But over the course of both experiences (meeting with all of the Inclusion Specialists and then later meeting with all of the teachers at High Tech North County), I began to recognize how truly imperative it is that we tackle both challenges simultaneously.  If we don’t, we risk a serious regression toward the norm of what special education looks like in a “typical” setting: structures that are convenient for adults, “learning” that emphasize rote, mindless work focused around worksheets and memorization rather than, as Kohn puts it, “the exploration of ideas” (Kohn 1).

As I reflect about the Inclusion Program that I hope to lead, my vision is to change our rhetoric.  I’d like to move away from labels like “Special Education” and even “Inclusion,” and to use universal language like “Personalization” for all students.   Ultimately, “good teaching” meets the needs of all, and it does so in a way that is meaningful and authentic and energizing (like the experiences that classroom teachers described in North County during my PITP).  I’m wondering about how we, as Inclusion Specialists, can become more integrated in the dialogue about curriculum and project design.  Instead having Classroom Teachers “consult” with the Inclusion Specialist after the project is developed, my hope is that the Classroom Teacher and Inclusion Specialist act as co-creators and collaborators from the onset of project design.  My hope is that they act in unison to design meaningful, rich, exciting, and authentic learning experiences for all students.  Instead of talking about “modified curriculum,” I hope that we can talk about “personalized” curriculum for a broad spectrum of learners (from students who are struggling with basic skills to students who are excelling and need to be pushed and challenged).  I think that if we can begin shifting our rhetoric, we will also be shifting toward the creation of a progressive program that ensures all students are engaged in meaningful work that matters.