Shift from Traditional Programs

to Integrated Comprehensive Services

Traditional Programs / Persistent Assumption That Inhibits Change / Integrated Comprehensive Services
Core Principles: Focusing on Equity
Source of student failure is student; hence, student needs to be fixed to fit the system / Source of student failure is the system; hence, the system needs to accommodate the student
Students not helped until after they fail / Primary aim of teaching and learning is prevention of student failure
Primary aim of all educators is building teacher capacity
Overlooks individual needs; slots student into “program” / Administratively easier to plug a student into an existing program, than to creatively plan how to best meet a student’s needs / Student needs met on an individual basis
Equitable Structures: Location
Separates students either at the classroom level, or forces students to attend a school they would not attend if they did not have a label / More cost effective to cluster students with similar labels in schools and then bus them to those schools
Easier on staff if students with similar labels are clustered in schools and classrooms
Educators can provide individual attention and support only in a setting or situation separate from the student’s peers / Students receive services with neighborhood peers or school of choice (they do not have to go someplace else in the district or in school to receive support)
Fragments a student’s day by moving from location to location to receive support / No rooms/schools set aside for labeled students (e.g., LD, ED, special education resource, ESL, at-risk)
Prevents transfer of educator and student knowledge
Students homogeneously grouped by like categories (LD, CD, ESL, etc.)
Tracks and marginalizes students of color and lower social class students
Students segregated with those with similar labels for extended periods of time
Students move in homogeneous groups from class to class / Flexible grouping patterns used throughout day depending on content and students needs (i.e., 1:1 or small or large group)
Access to High-Quality Teaching and Learning:
Building Staff Capacity and Educator Roles
Staff adhere to their professional, expert roles
Staff develop territories and “program identification” (e.g., “my kids,” “my at-risk program,” “ my specialty,” “your resource room”) / Certification in a specialty area means that the person has some magical skills that no one else can ever learn
What specialist teachers do (ESL, special ed, GT) is something other than good teaching
Professionalism of staff and job security are undermined when support staff, who are not professionally certified to provide instruction, do so / Requires teachers/staff to share knowledge and expertise with each other and with students
Staff are organized by the needs of each learner
Staff build each other’s capacity to work with a range of students
Access to High Quality teaching and Learning: Curriculum and Instruction
Separate from the core teaching and learning of the school
Requires students to be identified and labeled for them to receive help
Students denied access to content-based instruction, which adversely affects performance on standardized assessments
Instructional techniques developed using group norm rather than individual goals and objectives
Instruction often driven by available supports, classes, and instructional resources / If students fail, it is the students’ fault
Core teaching and learning need not or cannot be changed
Schools are incapable of changing to meet student needs / Supports and builds on culturally relevant, differentiated curriculum and instruction
Based on principle of universal access – curriculum is differentiated to address range of needs instead of developed and then adapted after the fact
Students do not have to qualify or be labeled to receive a curriculum and instruction that meet their needs
Requires students to be identified and labeled to get “help” / Special education teacher cannot support students who do not have labels
Educators are incapable of differentiating curriculum and instruction / Students do not have to be qualified for nor labeled to receive an education that meets their needs
Implementing Change: Funding
Separate funding and resources focused on fixing student deficits
Separate policies that are compliance, not quality driven
Separate programs are costly due to replication of staff and materials / We cannot merge funds and resources
The problem is with students / Funding and resources are merged to build teacher and system capacity with a focus on prevention of student struggle
Policies are unified around all learners in a proactive/supportive manner

Frattura & Capper (2007). Leading for Social Justice. Corwin Press