Learning Disabilities and WIA Reauthorization
From LiteracyTentWiki
Back to WIA Community Conversations
|
Learning Disabilities WIA Community Conversations
[edit] DescriptionWhat are the real issues impacting adult learners, practitioners, and programs in adult education today? Brenda Dann-Messier, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, invites you to participate in a conversation January 11-15, 2010 about reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). The Obama Administration is preparing for WIA reauthorization and has asked the National Institute for Literacy’s Discussion Lists to engage in a candid and constructive discourse about what the field’s successes and needs are in providing adult education programs and services. The Administration is particularly interested in hearing feedback from discussants around 2-3 questions specific to each discussion list topic. To learn more about these discussions, visit: http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/discussions/10WIA To see the questions that will be discussed on each List, visit: http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/discussions/10WIAQ To participate in these discussions, subscribe to a discussion list of your choice by visiting: http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/discussions/subscribe_all.html Questions for the Learning Disabilities Discussion List
Learning Disabilities/WIA Discussion Transcripts WIA Community Conversations Learning Disabilities Discussion List January 11 – 15, 2010
Under the current system, there are so many challenges, that a full response to this question would require volumes. However to just list three: 1) The on-going failure of the field, or at least the state entities, to recognize the extent that LD exists in the Adult literacy systems. • Since the field has neither the funds nor the expertise to pay for diagnostics, nor do they have the connections with the K-12 systems to obtain previous diagnostics, the system basically operates under a relative “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to LD. If someone can’t prove they have a disability, leave it at that. If they do have proof, basically keep the person uninformed of what that proof means. o This disconnect between the requirements of the NRS and the other reports implies a systematic approach by States and the NRS to artificially keep the numbers of LD reported as very low and therefore have it seen as a relatively unimportant matter. • This failure to recognize the disability greatly impacts the approaches and service of the students in classrooms, but also denies the students the civil rights protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) since they can not “prove” they have a disability. o In the classrooms, teachers can not provide appropriate accommodations and assistive technology, based on recognized disability teaching models, since the student is not officially “disabled.” Students can not gain accommodations on the GED or other evaluation since they can not prove the disability. The GED testing accommodation rates over the years have been less then ½ of one percent. All efforts to try to make the GED comply with the ADA that would require states to be more flexible in recognizing past history of disability has been met with sharp resistance (based mainly on cost issues, which are mainly unfounded.) 2)The ongoing concept that Learning Disabilities is a “teaching disorder” rather then a disability. This issue also plays out in the classroom and the civil right venues • In the classroom, despite decades of work and effort on the part of some staff at NIFL and OVAE, most people in the adult literacy system still act like they consider Learning Disabilities as a failure in teaching, as opposed to what it really is by definition, a disability or a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more of the daily living activities of the person (as defined by ADA. Therefore, the system still assumes that most adults with low literacy skills can still be taught to read with proper teaching approaches and issues of literacy training for persons with LD from an “educational point of view” rather than from a disability point of view. This concept of “everyone can learn to read” is fundamentally not true, but remains as the cornerstone of adult literacy approaches (or as the old slogan goes, all adult literacy providers need is a degree in caring. LD by definition as a disability means that there is an “impairment” that prevents persons from learning to read or read well enough, despite the efforts of teachers. • The Disability point of view looks to ensure that the person can gain skills and knowledge despite the impact of the disability (or in the case of learning disabilities, reading skills) The disability point of view would focus far greater on assistive technology and accommodations to enable the learner to far quicker gain access to the skills and knowledge they need to compete in the modern economy. What we have seen through the “educational approach” is for the adult populations with LD in adult literacy systems, people being stuck in early literacy programs for years with limited advancement, and frequently dropping out as a result of the frustration in progress, and a greater sense of failure on the part of the learner (now an adult literacy dropout.) The educational point of view model clearly has failed the vast majority of persons with LD in the system. Clearly it is time to focus on addressing the needs of persons with LD as persons with disabilities and use a model of intervention that is designed for such populations. • From the Civil Rights perspective, the failure to address LD as a disability issue as anything but as a teaching issue, helps to keep the person with LD unable to create the means to access the protections of the ADA, since they are not provided proper information about the nature to the disability nor the rights associated with the disability through adults literacy systems. By maintaining, the ideas that this is a teaching issue rather than a disability issue, the adult learner is not prepared to: o Better understand their disability and to advocate for themselves based on the disability in work and other educational settings Based on reports from the Office for Disability and Policy (ODAP), of the US Dept of Labor, these three areas, (self awareness/self advocacy, accommodations and assistive technology) are the key areas that enable success for persons with disabilities. o The current approach of the adult literacy system for persons with learning disabilities deemphasizes all three of these approaches, and continues to operate as if LD is not a disability. 3) The ongoing failure to work with other state agencies to develop a more global approach to LD. • Adult literacy systems tend to work in isolation (smokestacks) within states, therefore there is little effort by state literacy agencies to make work with these agencies to better ensure that persons with LD are able to obtain services that could enhance their experience in Adult Education, and enable them to better transition from adult education programs to other training and education programs or to workplace settings. • This issue goes far beyond the role of adult literacy in the state workforce system (which has shown to be a major problem). Here the specific problem lays in that failure of the adult literacy system to work together with existing services in other agencies and programs that could better enable persons with LD to be successful in the literacy efforts. • Some of the more logical alliances that could be made but seemingly rarely happen, are connections with: o The K-12 systems for both student records and technical support on educational approaches The obvious reason for this failure by the states to actively seek out these services, is that to do so would require the states to acknowledge there are high rates of LD in their adult literacy populations, which is something they simple do not want to do; and their lack of willingness is supported by the false figures created by the faulty approach of the NRS. The most important innovation that could be addressed is moving the whole field towards the concept of Universal Design (design everything making it work for persons with disabilities and all persons benefit). This would both allow more use of accommodations and reduce the pressure on systems to find ways to pay for LD diagnostic testing. In addition, as part of a Universal Design model, the system would move away from a “teacher” focused top-down approach” to a “learner focused” bottoms up approach. And what is clear is that most learners (with or without disability) can not afford to wait for years to become better able to gain knowledge through the teacher focused model currently offered. Included in this bottoms up approach would be a focus on how new technologies (the new cell phones, e-books, etc) can make people “virtually literate” quickly, and get them learning very quickly. By using technology we can enable people to access and “read” almost any items in weeks rather than years. Therefore, as part of the state resource centers (or perhaps in replacement of these centers) we need to have “virtual literacy” technology centers where low literate learners can be provide with and trained in the use of these modern tools and enable them to quickly gain access to information and knowledge (through the internet and other means) needed to become far more competitive in the current employment market. Through the use of virtual literacy technology and some ongoing support, we can get people out of the “learn to read” phase to “reading to learn” phase in a matter of weeks (or months) rather then the current teacher centered, standard classroom, low tech model that results in an average stay of 3-5 years stay in an adult literacy program (0ften with limited literacy gains). This new approach would also create a whole new source of much needed jobs (the technical trainers and support) and allow teachers to actually teach far more subject matter rather then rote literacy skill development. To put it simply, we need to start using 21st century tools and technology to get people successful. This approach would work well for those with limited literacy skills but in fact is essential for those with LD, and perhaps even legally required for the LD population, under ADA. This is the major innovation that needs to occur in the adult literacy system; we need to join the 21st century. However, there are other innovations needed; including (but no way limited to): 1) End the Controversy on Rate of LD - Fund an independent, random selection study of adult learners in the adult literacy system, (independent of the adult literacy system for conduct, overview or administration). And in these studies use “adult” LD definitions (Voc Rehab) and gender, race, and class-adjusted diagnostic protocols (that include such items as regression scales). Such a study was funded in or around 2005 with USED money ($6 million) not part of OVAE’s Budget, and was killed at the last minute by DAEL. NIH could be a candidate for program administration, but using non-governmental university based research teams could be better. Actually running simultaneous independent studies, with each unaware of the others work, would be best. Similarly designed research has been conducted looking at LD rates in Welfare populations, and found far higher rates then expected. As a result of these studies several CBO reports now state that up to half of the remaining TANF populations have undiagnosed disabilities. 2) End the conflict in Approach to Education Issue
OVAE needs to clearly state that LD is in fact a disability and needs to be addressed as such, in national and state policies and approaches. 3) Hold states accountable for addressing issues OVAE needs to revisit this requirement for LD plans and ask states to update these plans to address Learning Disabilities specifically from a disability point of view, (with a statement from OVAE which defines LD as such). States would therefore be required to create plans that would address the need for: • Policies on disability determination that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Two years ago, such an approach was undertaken by GED internally, which met harsh resistance from states. The result was a top GED official was fired and the effort stopped. There was no support from OVAE/DAEL for the internal GED effort and no pressure put on states to go along with the reforms. The current language of the bill almost ignores the issues of disabilities. We need to infuse this final law with language that includes such issues as fully recognizing LD as a disability, and the rights of these persons under Title II of the ADA for equal opportunity to participate and equal opportunity to benefit from adult literacy services (and the right to accommodations and assistive technology). We need this language through the act, including the new adult focused NIFL, the proposed new research, new technology centers, and other places. The bill can also include language on holding states accountable for disability plans, and requiring the GED to develop policies that are more in line with ADA. In addition, the bill should include more about a universal design model, and a “virtual literacy” approach. Persons with LD need to be treated as persons with disabilities, using the ADA approaches (not the IDEA model). Therefore, the support services they need in classrooms include:
Most important, the person with LD needs to be in a system that is open and supportive of having a disability, not a “hostile environment” within the classroom. The current hostility, whether overt or covert, intended or not, comes from both teachers and administrators. Some of this hostility comes from lack of understanding of “disability” and clinging to the “teacher centered” models. However, much of the hostility comes from the current systems preference not to recognize the disability, for fear of cost obligations and civil rights issues. Therefore, most people with LD are in classrooms that are in fact “hostile” to them, their disability, and their needs. Teachers are mostly required to approach the LD issues through trying “teaching techniques” and not through the approaches based on a disability (more accommodations and assistive technology). Teachers are often not allowed to provide information on potential accommodations for training in testing in the classroom, or in helping the student gain existing records (since that would provide “proof of the disability” which would require the systems to act differently). Sometimes teachers are just not informed of options, but other times teachers are mandated by administrators not to provide this information. Teachers often do not prepare the learner to take the GED in the accommodated fashion, since the GED resists providing large numbers of person tests in an accommodated fashion. The GED retains a very costly and out of date “proof of disability” system that is very slow in response, to help limit the numbers of persons who can obtain accommodations. Most students can not afford the testing required, or can’t wait for the slow reply. Therefore, the current system: • fails to provide appropriate recognition of the disability, This combination, with many other factors not listed, results in what would be considered a “hostile work environment” for persons with LD, if they were involved in a work situation, and covered under Title I of the ADA. Despite the concept of the adult literacy class being open and supported and with great friendly teacher, the fact that LD is not allowed to be fully recognized or supported, makes that image a falsehood for those with LD. And on an individual basis, the person with LD has no apparent redress available to them. Therefore it is the role of OVAE/DAEL to require the states to make their systems, overtly and covertly, intended or unintended, a place that is far less hostile for persons with learning disabilities. Glenn Young Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4512] Learning Disabilities Adults with learning disabilities often struggle. Five critical issues impede their progress: 1) Recognition of the disability; For example, let’s consider Glenn Young’s GED* concerns. Glenn cites data suggesting that the GED model did not increase accommodations. Statistical data at the time of the national GED training of state directors of adult education suggested otherwise. GED statistical reports in the past reported the number of candidates requesting accommodations due to learning disabilities. This information seems to be missing from current reports. Data now available seems to be on accommodations for vision and hearing impairment as indicated by the “special testings requested” category. Even if that data alone is considered, review of the 2006 report shows a significant increase in requests for special editions beginning in 1999 and going forward until 2001, the years in which significant training occurred. (Figure 11, 2006 GED Testing Service Data.) Move forward. Review subsequent information in a training booklet developed on GED accommodations written by a program in Florida. This manual moves understanding and services forward. It is written clearly. It is written in a manner adult educators can use to make certain accommodations are requested and provided. Data on the effectiveness of this program would be informative.
How might WIA reauthorization support improving services to adults with learning disabilities? Training and research What qualified support services do adults with Learning Disabilities need to help them be successful in the classroom? Adequate assessment of cognitive strengths and weaknesses to understand how the learning disability impacts their learning and employment. Staff trained to understand what the assessment means so that appropriate accommodations or strategies can be implemented.
Kathleen Ross-Kidder, Ph.D. Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4513] Re: OVAE Discussion Glenn, the response to Question 2 is precisely the right answer. What harm is there to use a method that will specifically meet the needs of the 20% of the population that are dyslexic? Every day educational specialists dyslexics benefit from a method that specifically meets their needs. Children with unmet needs become illiterate adults. Lucille Cuttler Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4534] Re: Learning Disabilities Assessments indeed are expensive. However, by applying methods appropriate for dyslexics, may we ask if that would do any harm? Clearly, no. That's exactly the policy of Project Literacy/Outreach, Inc., (a non-profit) that I founded in 1986. Lucille Cuttler Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4514] Re: Learning Disabilities Questions I believe that the best WIA reauthorization support would be to reinstate endorsement of and training on PowerPath. In addition, I would like to see more onsite, face-to-face trainings available from our AEL PD staff in the area of reading and math manipulatives and dyslexia. Linda Dishman Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4515] Re: Learning Disabilities Questions I agree with Glenn and feel that LD issues in education are additionally civil rights issues. Below are my thoughts on the questions. I am trying to bullet so as not to be repetitive.
The Department of Justice is doing a lot of good work in the general area of disability compliance, they could dedicate time and study to look at disability compliance in the adult education system. Although I am not directly involved in WIA anymore, it does not seem to have changed much in terms of LD or any disability. The services are pretty non-existent. Difficulties seem to be:
Solution: Frankly, portion off an appropriate amount of dollars for services and give it to Vocational Rehabilitation for services. They may be able to alter part of their program to meet WIA standards and be better at serving the population. What qualified support services do adults with learning disabilities need to help them be successful in the classroom?
Robin Matusow Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4516] Re: OVAE Discussion Sorry, but we must never stop assuming that people can learn. Low literacy skills is not the same as 'disability' (and being unable to learn, however taught, is a disability). The assumption that 'most adults with low literacy skills can still be taught to read' is fundamental to, for example, my own practice. I never met one who couldn't. To assume they can't is, by definition, learned helplessness and will, to the exact extent it is accepted by its victim, be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hugo Kerr Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4517] FW: Learning Disabilities -- GED and WIA It would seem that Dr Ross-Kidder and I are in agreement on the key areas of need. However, I am not clear on what she is saying about the GED. Let me try and make my point a little clearer. Despite years of pressure on the GED, and repeated efforts to get them to change their current approaches we have seen from their own data that the limited changes they have made has had no real “significant” impact on the numbers and from what we can tell no more then one half of one percent (0.5) of those taking the test has received accommodations in a given year ½ of one percent is not a good or reasonable figure. And about three years ago or so GED stopped reporting the data on accommodations for LD since they continued to be so low so they simple stopped reporting them so no one can point to the annual lack of progress. Now Dr. Ross-Kidder said the there was significant increases in a time frame here we may disagree for moving from less then one tenth of one percent or what it was in the early 1990’s to half of one percent, or what it was reported in the mid 2000’s may be significant on some scales, but it clearly does not meet the reasonableness test. Even in special education the rates for LD are 5% and therefore the GED would have to increase their current rate tenfold to get to the Special Ed rate, and it would appear based on reason that the population trying to get GED would actually have LD at a far higher rate then the general public but just lets say that Dr. Kidder-Ross’s comment on “significant increases in GED accommodation rates” is not compete in explaining what was the initial baseline and how few continue to get accommodated in caparison to the great overall need. The Florida training manual and NIFL trainings on the rights of persons to have accommodations under the ADA and such have not moved the numbers because there is extensive resistance to the issue on the state and local levels of GED because of the great fear of the added cost to the testing process if the GED was real held accountable for providing accommodations. So, in recognizing state concerns, there needs to be a reasonable approach that will both allow for the proper number of persons obtaining accommodations while not destroying the system and actually these approaches were offered in previous efforts. I can provide these options to OVAE upon request. I do think, however, that with OVAE’s support and perhaps some dedicated funding through WIA to address state needs on accommodations we can finally get some progress in this area and allow so many who could pass the GED with accommodations to get these accommodations and get on with their lives. Glenn Young Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4520] Re: Learning Disabilities-forgotten populations There are a great many "forgotten populations" that appear to have LD at similar rates to the "general populations" and for the most part OVAE/DAEL has not focused much attention on the impact of the disability on these groups. Perhaps it's not the general groups that are "forgotten," but the subgroups within these groups who have LD that are "forgotten." When LD is addressed at all in the Adult Literacy System it seems to be look at it as a separate subgroup of learners, rather than what it truly is, a disability that cross cuts all other groups of those in adult literacy programs. In addition, if systems do attempt to recognize the crosscutting nature of LD, agencies tend to look at LD as a minor issue for the group of learners, rather then perhaps a key element that prevents success. Included in these forgotten LD populations those with LD who are also:
Some proportions of all of these groups have LD and in many cases, the unidentified LD could be the root cause of on-going problems. And there is a great deal of cross cutting within these groups. For example you could have an ex-con female on TANF, who is primarily Spanish speaking, and just "teched out" of a job, and that person also has (unidentified) LD. It is most likely that none of the multiple groups "helping her" would, 1) consider that she does have LD, and Yet, research has clearly shown that LD could be the root cause of her failures in school, her impulse issues that led to both teen pregnancy and criminal activities, and her inability to both master language skills and technology needed to compete in the new economy. And the failure to recognize the underlying disability or to give it much credence could lead to ongoing failure in work, TANF requirements, and language and literacy skill development. Yet there is currently only limited effort to identify and address the disability in these groups, and even when identified we continue to basically provide standard "teaching" approaches, when in fact many of those with LD in these groups would benefit greatly though identification of the disability, and the use of "disability” approaches that include accommodations and technological supports to enhance outcomes. For example; one of the prime noted accepted educational issues for those English speaking populations with LD is extensive trouble with second language acquisition. And waiver of second language learning requirements is the second or third most common waiver offered those English speaking students with LD in colleges. However, what if an immigrant in need of learning English has unidentified LD and has some of the same second language acquisition issues? "Waivers" are not an option for this person (and much of their future rights and citizenship is based on learning English). However, if the LD was identified, "waivers" actually do become an option, as well as a justification of teaching language in other means then the present offering. But we have almost no tools available to identify LD in non-English speaking populations. We can bring up and attempt to address this issue through WIA reauthorization. Another group that needs a focus for LD is the correctional populations. One of the key issues under your office, and under WIA II is the issue of correctional education run through state agencies in state prisons. From a wide range of sources, it appears that most persons in these prison systems have very limited literacy skills and it has been projected that a great many of them actually have learning disabilities (as well as other "shadow disabilities" including ADHD. However, few have the current documentation to prove this disability and few, therefore, are able to obtain some critical supports in their literacy development that would enable them to take the GED in an accommodated fashion. And few prisons offer evaluations of the prisoners that would enable them to obtain this status. Again, this failure has major impacts on the prisoner, in some cases parole is linked to GEDs, and if they can't get the GED for lack of accommodation, they can not get parole. Another example is that few if any of the new efforts aimed as reintegration of prison populations back into society look at the potential of disability and therefore do not include disability awareness and support services in these training programs. The very high rate of recidivism could be linked to this lack of connection. I feel that OVAE/DAEL’s responsibility for correctional education efforts should make you responsible to bring this learning disability/correctional issue to the fore, help states find services for recognition and accommodations for those prisoners with LD, (and of course, any change would require that security issues always be paramount). I have suggested that through WIA, a national taskforce be established to develop guidelines for states on how to address LD issues within correctional education settings. Without a mandate through WIA, such action will not be taken. I also hope that through WIA reauthorization, OVAE could develop means to attempt to address all the cross-cutting issues of LD. There are no quick fixes for these issues, but I hope that injected into WIA could be funding and a directive to address the cross-cutting nature of LD, and not treat it as a stand-alone isolated limited issue. Glenn Young Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4525] Re: OVAE Discussion Glenn, I do not read most of the emails that come across my computer, but I happened to read yours, and it left me speechless. "Wow!" is all I can say. Working at an adult ed. center, I have often questioned many of the premises about teaching everyone to read. I also have a colleague who has told me that my expectations are too high to teach people quickly since many of our students will be here for years trying to "catch up." I feel for people whose economic prospects would be greater if they had a GED. And I feel as if I am leading them on because I don't indicate how long it might be before they are able to take and pass the GED. So my first question is, What is this technology and how does it work so that people with learning disabilities can access information within a shorter timeframe? How available is the technology and how expensive? I recently have received a number of calls from students who by virtue of remaining in high school have received diplomas. Many of those with learning issues do not have the requisite skills to pass the Accuplacer to enter community college; and since our community colleges charge for remedial classes to bring students up to snuff, the potential college students call here, where our services are free. Am I politically incorrect in thinking that not everyone is "college material," and perhaps there are other careers or meaningful jobs people could pursue? The idea that everyone should be able to go to college is pervasive in our society, and I'm not sure this is valid. So my next question is, Do you think college should be available for all, and if you do, how can students with learning disabilities access the material? Restructuring adult education based on the "disability point of view" is a radical notion here, one I doubt would be embraced. My final question is, What percentage of adult ed facilities have embraced this model, and what is the contact information for a few of the more prominent ones in the field? Joyce Kahn, Teacher/Coordinator Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4518] WIA Reauthorization Response Many students in our adult education program struggle with reading and math. Most of them are economically disadvantaged, and many did not graduate from high school. While the majority of our students seem to have at least an average intelligence, many feel they are stupid and are discouraged about their academic future. Most of these students, I believe, have an undiagnosed learning disability. They do not understand their disability, how it influences their learning, and the services for which they may qualify. Adults with learning disabilities need access to affordable and professional screening services. They need to be taught about their learning disability and how to succeed with it. This lack of assessment, and lack of understanding, contributes to added frustration and lack of persistence in adult students with LD. WIA reauthorization may help channel funding towards scholarships for assessments, and/or classes and counseling for students to educate them about their learning difficulties. Students with different learning disabilities will need different support services. The students in my program receive one-on-one individualized instruction, so there is no larger classroom per se. However, many of my students are also dually enrolled in GED prep classes, vocational training classes, etc. at other institutions and share their struggles with their tutors. The adult education students at the Literacy Council of Buncombe County could benefit from the following:
Becca Loli Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4521] Re: Learning Disabilities WIA changes I encourage you to re-draft WIA, Title II, so that state and local basic skills providers are allowed to change their programs as needed: curricula, design, modes, etc. to respond to the unparalleled educational technology development that is predicted by organizations such as Educause and KnowledgeWorks to take place over the next decade, much of it coming in the next five years. Perhaps a "just-in-time change certification" process could be added that would sanction state, regional or local entities to adapt to these changes while still keeping faith with the intent of the law. The intent of the law would need to change as well. While the population remains the same, I think we need to find new ways of describing them that relate the technology that they generally cannot easily or fully access, rather than to the basic skills they need to improve. I would also recommend that WIA allow for other kinds of instruction beyond remediation. It is critical that students have access to compensatory education approaches that make use of the robust assistive technologies that are now available, or soon will be. I think it is time to have classes like "Calculator Math," "Screen Reader Mastery," and "Speech to Text Mastery" that would allow any basic skills student, but especially students with a learning disability to learn to compensate for their deficits/disabilities. This would allow them to learn something that will make an immediate difference in their lives in the short time they can invest in our classes. Certainly, they should also be able to access more basic skills instruction, but only if it is provided thru approaches that are research-based. For students with LD, we need to make much more use of Strategy Instruction, so that they can learn how to learn. I would also make a plea that WIA encourages all programs to adopt Universal Design (UD). Universal Design is not just for students with disabilities. It's for all students. We can already personalize our coffee, our cars; it's time to personalize our educations, and our students’ educations. As CAST puts it, there should be multiple ways of representation, expression, and engagement. I like the UDL Guidelines that CAST has created, and I think it would be easy enough to scale them to our students and their situations. UD doesn't start and end with teachers. It needs to be implemented in registration, counseling, in every part of the program. Finally, while standardization has been the word in education for the last century, I would say that personalization is the word for the 21st century. There is a prediction that we are on the first step of the most profound social change that humans have ever encountered. Education is going to need to be nimble, flexible, and forward-looking if it is going to serve anyone's needs. After centuries of passing on the old ways, we now need education to lead us to new ways. To do that, WIA and other enabling legislation need to allow for imagination. Michael Tate Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4522] Learning Disabilities Many adult students with learning disabilities know nothing of their disability or how to explain their academic needs, nor how to accommodate for it in the classroom, while studying and test taking. So it becomes more than just providing them an education; they must understand their disability and its implications in the classroom and work place - that often takes time beyond instructional time. Their common long-term absences from the classroom can make learning and academic gains slow - students often get frustrated so we must get them to buy into the process and see the short/long term possibilities. There are hundreds of successful strategies for doing so. WIA reauthorization needs to allow for more instructional time, increased technology and curricular supports, specialized instruction (special education), counseling, and a method of acknowledging gain not necessarily noted via the current NRS system. Valerie Fischer Subject: None I have taught, coordinated and directed adult education programs in Arizona and Alaska. I am not a SPED teacher, but many adult clients in the programs where I have worked have learning disabilities and the opposition to education that was instilled in them from their earliest encounters with education in schools. Question #1: Challenge: Client motivation. They have had little success in the educational area and are not happy for a repetition. Challenge: Diagnoses. Diagnoses are expensive. Challenge: Professional teaching staff. The requirement for an instructor in ABE/ASE is a high school diploma or GED. They do not know how to teach LD clients. Challenge: NRS levels are difficult for LD clients to complete by June 30. Classes in post-secondary institutions are based on semester, not self-paced and LD clients do not succeed in such a pressure environment.
Allow a slower learning curve without penalizing the program. Fund more research for training and transitioning LD adults into the workforce with jobs that earn a living wage. Funds for employers who hire LD clients. Many LD clients get the lowest paying jobs and never are promoted. Question #3 Disabilities need to help them be successful in the classroom? CBI programs with adaptive technology; self-paced; a trained SPED instructor for consultation with programs. Local instructors who are trained to recognize when a client is not learning so they can ask the SPED instructor for assistance. Plato online maintains an administrator record of time on task, how many times a client repeats a single module, lesson and test scores. When a client takes too long or repeats a module, I intervene and we work together to accomplish the task at hand before the client gets discouraged and quits. NRS levels modified for learning disabled adults so that the program is not penalized for working with them. Lighten up on the official definition of learning disabled adults for this area so that we don't need an expensive diagnostic tool in adult education programs to give help and assistance. Presently, if an adult cannot move up one NRS level by June 30 - the person has failed and the ABE program has failed. Anonymous End of Transcript Summary of the WIA Community Conversations on the Learning Disabilities Discussion List
A. Greatest Challenges B. Solutions C. WIA reauthorization support D. Support Services |
