Jeff, I think you are exactly right in wanting to see these skills and others taught over a long period of time but what actually happens is short, unsustained teaching of concepts and skills.
Young children understand iconic representations better than symbolic ones, but the skill of understanding a symbolic representation is important to develop. Understanding symbolic representation begins to immerge around age 10 to 12 years; therefore, the skills needed to read maps must be revisited over and over to be developed to any level of effectiveness. I think what I would like to see in all IEP?s for blind children and those who are able to perform grade level work is that the child is learning the same skills at the same time as the children without an IEP. I wonder how many blind children are not taught to a sufficient degree to read bar charts, line graphs, and pie charts, not to mention how many are not expected to read at the same rate as their sighted peers. I recently sat in two IEP meetings for high school students. Both IEP meetings provided for the accommodation of the student to have a raised desk, so that the student could read 18 point bold font or larger within four inches. The reading speeds at 45 and 60 words per minute were praised. I wanted to cry. Braille was not recommended and deemed inappropriate to be taught. Our blind children should learn to read maps; should learn to read charts and graphs; and should learn to do those things that their sighted counterparts are doing, but they should not be forced or made to believe that they cannot go anywhere without a tactile map. Sighted kids go plenty of places without a tactile map and I have never seen a sighted kid use a map of any kind in a school to get around. I have seen kids use maps in schools to get around for the purpose of learning to read a map, but every kid I have seen at school learns, when given the opportunity to do so and the expectation to do so, the way to the classroom, office, bathroom, and cafeteria as well as the playground, gym, and library. For that matter even toddlers are able to get around their houses, day care facilities, and other familiar environments.
Justin, I agree with you that the 90% does not make much sense. Are they expecting the child to make it 90% of the way to the desired destination, or make it to the bathroom or class 90% of the time? And, what are the parameters? May the child ask for directions or assistance? These are rhetorical questions, and I realize I am writing to the choir.
One of my pet peeves is poorly written IEP goals. I have two children with IEP?s. I have been rewriting goals for the past twelve years for staff. The most common mistake I see is a goal that cannot reasonably be measured. The second most common mistake I see in goals is that the goal does not address the desired outcome or that the team does not really know what they want to see happen. On Monday, I participated in my son?s IEP meeting. One of the goals suggested was to have him reduce a particular behavior by 10% during each grading period. The behavior was countable and they defined exactly, after discussion, what would constitute that particular behavior, but when I asked what the current frequency is, I was told that they do not have that data. My response was until you have that data you will not know if he is meeting the 10% reduction, so you have developed a goal that you cannot measure.
Percentages of common actions such as walking to the library or other locations on a school campus are impossible to measure without a test. They happen too often and teachers and aids have too much to do than to record every instance the child walks to a location. In my opinion, what happens with these types of goals based on a percentage is that when the grading period closes, the case manager or teacher or whoever is doing the reporting thinks back to the last couple of weeks and makes a subjective assessment of progress. This may or may not be a true measure of progress, and even if the teacher thinks that the child is making progress, without data no one knows how much or how little progress is being made.
And, now choir, I shall step off the soap box. *grin* I hope you all have a wonderful day!
Best,
Lucy
From: NOMC [mailto:nomc-bounces at lists.nbpcb.org] On Behalf Of Altman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 6:59 AM
To: Jane Lansaw <widearc2000 at gmail.com>; Merry-Noel <owinm at yahoo.com>
Cc: NOMC at lists.nbpcb.org
Subject: [EXT] Re: [Nomc] Question about IEP Goals
Growing up first in a suburban area, and later in a more rural part of western Pennsylvania, learning to understand cardinal directions and how to read maps, was simply a part of the culture. My father was a sportsman who had enjoyed hunting and fishing, and I grew up exploring the forests trails and back roads, so it was just natural to learn these things. Also, my father emphasized these skills, as did my schools, as far as that goes.
I think that introducing these skills as early as possible is desirable, but I do have some concern that the nature of the goals as written appears to be making a big push in the immediate year, but I have to wonder if this is something that will continue beyond this time frame for this child. I sort of under stood these concepts when I was five, but I would say that my skills didn?t become solidified until I was closer to ten or eleven. Children do learn more quickly than adults, but I think they learn better if their exposure is in the natural course of experiences, rather than a highly structured environment. So often instruction in public schools tends to be short and intense, rather than gradual and sustained. It also tends to be in isolation from the real world, rather than experience driven. So, while I think learning these skills as a young child is perfectly appropriate, I have concerns as to whether the approach being employed here is going to be the most effective.
Jeff
From: NOMC