Content provided in partnership with
Heartland Area Education Agency's Problem Solving Model: An Outcomes-Driven Special Education Paradigm
Rural Special Education Quarterly, Fall 2003 by Jankowski, Elizabeth A
Abstract
In this article, an alternative outcomes-oriented special education model currently in use in Iowa is discussed, the Heartland Area Education Agency Problem Solving Model. Described are the rationale of the model, its evolution, and a description of the assessment and delivery system of the model. The core beliefs necessary for successful implementation of the model are also described.
- More Articles of Interest
- A problem-solving model for special education's 'storms'
- Prereferral intervention: Problem-solving method and curriculum-based...
- Use of Problem-Based Learning in Rural Special Education Preservice Training...
- The pluses and perils of RTI
- A procedure for integrating math and science units
Heartland Area Education Agency (AEA) 11 is the largest of 15 area education agencies created in 1974 by the Iowa Legislature to ensure equal educational opportunities for all children. Support to local schools is provided through a vast array of programs, services, and resources. The staff serves a large, increasingly diverse, and often geographically distant clientele though Heartland's Johnston, Iowa, headquarters and 10 branch offices geographically located throughout 11 counties covering 6,600 square miles in central Iowa. Schools within Heartland range from small rural districts with fewer than 250 students to large districts with student populations greater than 7,500 students. Presently, Heartland Area Education Agency 11 serves about 123,000 students, nearly one-fourth of Iowa's total student population as well as 9,000 teachers and administrators. This includes 56 public school districts made up of more than 300 buildings and 35 approved non-public schools.
In many Iowa districts, special education entitlement decisions are made using an alternative intervention and assessment system. Services are delivered through an alternative service delivery system as well. Alternative, in this case, describes a system different than the traditional refer-test-place models. The model requires use of functional assessment rather than a battery of standardized tests. Students are served in special education by being an "Entitled Individual" (EI) rather than being labeled in traditional disability categories.
Rationale for Alternative Assessment and Service Delivery Systems
For approximately 30 years, special education services, in large part, have been determined by educational disability categories (Morison, White, & Feuer, 1996; Ysseldyke & Martson, 1999). These definitional categories have been used in the federal legislation to define which children are disabled, such those labeled as Mildly Mentally Retarded, Learning Disabled, etc. (Ysseldyke & Marston, 1999). Familiar arguments in the educational arena in support of categorical identification have been summarized by Ysseldyke & Marston (1999). They note that among these are notions that the categorical approach helps to clarify which students arc disabled due to extensive inclusionary and exclusionary criteria and claims that the categorical approach has important instructional ramifications. An additional principle includes the argument that categorical approaches help in administering and funding programs.
Ysseldyke & Marston (1999) offer rebuttals for arguments in favor of categorical approaches. First, inclusionary and exclusionary criteria are not applied consistently among practitioners, thus, making categorical placement unreliable. Second, effective instructional practices may be the same for students exhibiting similar educational needs, not necessarily by categorical disability. For example, instruction that is effective with students with a diagnosis of a learning disability may be the same instructional method that is effective for other students, e.g., students with a diagnosis of mild mental retardation. Therefore, categorical definition does not lead to identification of specific effective instructional strategies. Third, administrative funding based on a categorical label docs not lead to the best outcomes for students since individual educational need is overlooked. Ikeda & Gustafson (2002) argue that categorical approaches have led to a large group of students falling into the "sea of ineligibility." These include groups of students who arc outside the circle of general education, but who do not meet the definitional criteria needed to be considered for special education.
Evolution of the Model
Because of concerns surrounding the legitimacy of categorical service delivery systems meeting the needs of students, Iowa began exploring alternatives to the traditional test-and-place system. Other factors related to reform included the movement toward outcomes criterion to evaluate what is done in special education and meeting the needs of at-risk students. Also, the idea of using a problem solving process to define problems, directly measure behavior, design interventions, and frequently monitor student progress was appealing and played an important role in system reform.
Heartland's Problem-Solving Model began in 1988 when the Iowa Renewed Service Delivery System (RSDS) was developed to improve educational services in local schools by planning and implementing educational innovations across the state. The original oversight committee of RSDS was comprised of 22 persons including school principals, general and special education teachers, school psychologists, university faculty, and State Department of Education personnel. The group's purpose was to examine concerns within Iowa's special education delivery system, to identify guiding principles that would become the foundation of reform efforts, and to make recommendations to help guide innovation implementation (Reschly, Tilly, & Grimes, 1998). Through the work of the committee, a set of foundational principles was developed. These principles represented guiding themes educational agencies were asked to consider when designing reforms for their districts and schools. The key principles for innovation planning, training, and implementation are presented in Table 1.
Find Research Guides for:
Find Featured Titles for: Technology
Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »