I have chosen to focus my dialogue and connections on assessment in the Inclusive Education field. The Ministry of Education states: “Inclusive education creates environments where students feel accepted, valued, confident and safe to engage in learning and where collaborative teams are committed to a shared vision to support students in reaching their full potential”(Government of Saskatchewan, 2017). I want to investigate how assessment is slightly different in an inclusive classroom, in addition, explore the similarities it has to mainstream classrooms. Assessment is not always about grades but rather it can be focused on goal setting, as it is at the core assessment is reaching an established goal. My dialogues will be with two Inclusive Education teachers in the field. Both will offer a unique view of how they implement assessments in their classrooms. Both interviews are conducted with educators who work in Inclusive Education, one in a Functionally Integrated Academic Program (FIAP) and the second in a Developmental Program (DC). These questions are tied to how assessment plays a role in the inclusive classroom. Both interviewees hold an Inclusive Education certificate through the University of Regina. The dialogue is meant to highlight how goals are adjusted and carried out to meet students’ needs.
First, I wanted the interviewees to share the programs they are teaching. Both programs fall under the umbrella of Special Education however, they offer different experiences for student learning. Teacher DC for students with severe medical and cognitive disabilities, DC is where students focus on daily living, personal hygiene, routines, communication, mobility, and building meaningful relationships with those around them. A typical day for DC students includes public outings, music therapy, culinary class, swimming, and grocery shopping. Teacher A pointed out that the main focus of the culinary class is on sensory engagement and independence in the kitchen. Teacher B teaches in a Functionally Integrated Academic Program (FIAP) which focuses on supporting students with moderate intellectual disabilities in developing life and vocational skills. The hope is that all students experience a high quality of life and success following their high school experience. FIAP additionally includes opportunities for students to integrate into the mainstream classroom for additional classes, for example: Practical and Applied Arts, Cooking, Drama, Art Education, and Life Transitions. Each of these classes focuses on an end goal of independence and helping students towards success.
I wanted to explore how assessment is executed in the Inclusive Classroom, which is one of the questions Teacher A tackled during our conversation. Because most intensive support programs do not have a planned curriculum assessment is all goal-focused and more specifically, focused on Inclusion and Intervention Plans. Prior to my interview with Teacher A, I had never fully thought of Inclusive Education as formative or summative, this conception was reworked during our conversation. Teacher A explained that though DC has no curriculum the IIP goal observation is done in the heat of the moment with the lead educator constantly taking note of what is being completed. This was a new way of looking at assessment in the Inclusive Classroom for myself, as I often neglected to consider summative assessment as t part of intensive support. This discussion moved further into how formative and summative assessment played a role in completing IIP goals. Teacher A explained that formative assessment is based on what students know and or are capable of doing. For example, if a student can sign to ask for assistance, this is formative. Whereas summative assessment is done on the go rather than sitting to write a test or completing an essay. Teacher A explained that summative assessment in intensive support is specifically watching students reach the IIP goals that have been set for them. Prior to this conversation I always carried the lens that formative and summative assessment could only really be applied in mainstream classrooms but Teacher A helped me to see that in fact, formative and summative assessment can take on many forms.
Both Teachers A and B shared how goals are set and tailored to each student in their classroom. Teacher A explained that goals in the DC classroom are focused on independence and accessing the world around them. For students who are nonverbal, these goals include American Sign Language, Picture Exchange Communication System, and Pragmatic Organization Dynamic Display Communication Books. Teacher A explained that goals are set with students’ strengths or abilities and asking how can these goals improve their challenges. Teacher B explained that sometimes goals are initiated by paraprofessionals and or guardians, but for some students, the lead educator is the one who initiates these goals. When these goals are initiated the teacher works with guardians and paraprofessionals to help students reach these goals Teacher B explained that it is crucial that student goals be achievable and unique to that student. Both teachers agreed that goals are based on a students’ highest needs and these goals need to be revisited regularly to assess success. It is important to add to the conversation that when an IIP goal is created with any professional or team member, the goal needs to be specific, measurable, meaningful or manageable, attainable, realistic, and time-related (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 2017). These are often referred to as SMART goals and students are given a time frame where they will reach this goal. For example: By June 2023 Student A will be able to initiate a conversation with another student using PECS 50% of the time. This goal has a time, is meaningful to a student, and is achievable.
I asked both teachers who are involved in the IIP goals-setting process. Both agreed that supports are diverse and differ from student to student. Teacher A explained that in the DC involvement includes classroom teachers, Educational Assistants depending on the circumstance, parents/guardians, therapists such as Speech, Physical and Occupational Therapists to meet speech and or mobility goals. All these goals are discussed with a specialist. An example teacher A explained is that goals related to speech are discussed with a Speech-Language Pathologist. Teacher A further explained something critical to understanding IIP goals setting in intensive support is working within students’ capabilities, as they may not reach that goal but the success they reach is no less important. Teacher B offered an additional perspective on those involved in IIP goal setting, which included Education Assistants and professionals in outside-based agency supports which included Children and Youth Services, Community Living Service Delivery workers, and social workers. Both teachers agreed the involvement of outside sources and intervention is dependent on students’ needs.
I felt it was necessary to ask Teacher A what are some of the common misconceptions about assessment in inclusive education. Teacher A disclosed that one of the common misconceptions about inclusive education and working in inclusive education was the lack of paperwork because there are no grading papers or exams. In reality, goal setting and lesson planning are important parts of teaching in an inclusive education environment and there is just as much work as mainstream teaching. Teacher A went further to explain that there is a tendency to underestimate what students are capable of especially when a student is non-verbal when in reality students have a unique set of skills that they bring to the classroom. This sentiment shared was so important and one of the main reasons I chose to follow a path in Inclusive Education. A disability or different ability does not define a student, it is important to look past these barriers to see the person inside. This discussion led to my final question, regarding the most rewarding part of working in an inclusive classroom.
In my own experience, working in an Inclusive setting allows one to create strong bonds with students from all walks of life. Teacher A shared a similar sentiment with me during our interview, explaining the most rewarding part was the students themselves, watching students succeed, building connections that go beyond verbal ones, and having fun. An additional perk Teacher A shared is the opportunity to watch students grow over a long period of time. Teacher B shared a similar sentiment, as Teacher B has worked with some of her students for almost five years. Watching students grow and accomplish their goals is arguably one of the most important parts of an assessment in an inclusive classroom.
Through these dialogues and conversations, I was able to explore what assessment means in an Inclusive Education classroom. Both teachers offered diverse perspectives on inclusion as they both work in very different settings. Teacher A’s role is much more communication, mobility, and independence related, whereas Teacher B works in an academic setting to support students in day-to-day life. Despite the differences, both Teachers use assessment and more specifically IIP goals for students. I have been fortunate to shadow Teacher A and intern under the guidance of Teacher B and both professionals have offered guidance and are personal role models. What they have offered me is something I will certainly consider going forward in my education journey at university and beyond.
References
Government of Saskatchewan (2017). Inclusion and Intervention Plan Guidelines. Ministery of Education. Retrieved from: https://www.srsd119.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Inclusion-Intervention-Plan-Guidelines_2017.pdf
Government of Saskatchewan (2017). Inclusive Education. Ministry of Education. Retrieved from: https://www.srsd119.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/SSS_RL_SKED_Inclusive_Education_2017.pdf