“Don’t tell me we have another referral? Where are they coming from? Why are there so many students being referred to special education? “

Like many other K-12 educators, we have asked these same questions. As tribal educators, we have been especially concerned with the number of Indian students in special education. Consequently, we have undertaken a journey to help more teachers and students achieve success without referral to special education. Along the way, we have made some advances, but we have also experienced disappointments.

Our community

More than 15,000 people live here at the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Indian Reservation and surrounding Rolette County in north central North Dakota, near the Canadian border. The total school enrollment for the special education service area is approximately 4,500, including Head Start, and 99 percent of these students are American Indian. The federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funds the Special Education Unit, which serves three schools: a K-8 BIA day school, a K-8 tribal contract school, and a “cooperative” K-12 school that is both a BIA and a state-funded public school.

We have a very high incidence of poverty, with 57 percent unemployment compared to a state average of 2.5 percent. One quarter of the residents of the county receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), according to Bureau of Indian Affairs and local statistics (Turtle Mountain Times, Dec. 28, 1998).

Research consistently has shown that poverty strongly correlates with academic problems for children. Many poor children lack the skills they need for school. Those who enter our schools are excited and eager to learn. Teachers, however, soon discover that these students struggle with concepts that children in other communities seem to know, and they often lack skills based on Standard English vocabulary.

The school system is often not well matched with the students. Teacher training does not always prepare teachers to respect other Ways of Knowing or perceive them as valuable. These alternative ways are not typically represented in the standard textbook approach to learning. For example, outside of the classroom, many of our children learn by observing adults demonstrate skills, and then, by trial and error, the students learn the skills themselves. The conventional classroom format does not typically use this “style” or method of teaching. Family and community members here do not encourage children to “boast” of their achievements or to demonstrate their knowledge, but schools reward such behavior. Information about our community and culture is infrequently incorporated into daily lessons.

As a result of the dissonance between the system and the student, children who are perceived to be “unprepared” are almost immediately targeted for referral. The teacher may want to help, but the system dictates that children who are not succeeding in the standard curriculum should be referred to special education because they are not performing at their grade level.

High numbers of special education referrals are not unique to our reservation. The U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in its yearly report to Congress indicated that increasing numbers of children were identified in the learning disabilities category, and especially increasing numbers of ethnic minority students. Eleven percent of all Native American children were identified as eligible for special education in 1994, the last year that the Office of Civil Rights collected such data. Our local statistics indicate that 25-33 percent of our students was placed in special education in 1998-1999. Nearly one-third of last year’s senior high graduating class was identified as special education (32 out of the 101 who graduated in 1999).

Teachers are sometimes ill equipped to meet the academic needs of these children, needs that are much greater than the needs of other students around the nation. Yet Native children must achieve academically if they are to succeed in the larger community and to help break the cycle of poverty. In reality, about half of the youth of our community drop out of school before reaching the 12^th grade.

School-based study group

Given these startling statistics, we began a journey in 1994 to discover alternatives to the standard special education approach: assessment, referral, and placement. With the permission of the superintendents and principal of one of the elementary schools, we initiated a study group. We invited 12 general education and special education teachers and administrators, and eight of us met regularly each week to discuss current school reform issues. We read and discussed current theoretical literature about children who experience problems in school settings similar to ours. We examined research describing practical approaches–what works and what doesn’t work. In addition, we reviewed local research.

Our study group began asking ourselves the same questions that other educators have asked. We have an extraordinarily large number of children who are at-risk to fail in school when measured by national standards. How can we address this issue without referring 38 percent of our children to special education?

Why do children with mild handicaps, such as mild mental retardation and learning disabilities, appear to be assigned to special education without consequential differences between them and other students? We examined local archived special education files from the previous 12 years looking for significant and relevant differences. Instead, we found that the test scores of our children identified as learning disabled differed very little from children referred, tested, and NOT placed in special education.

Could we better identify children who need an Individual Education Plan (IEP)? Prepared for a student identified with special needs, an IEP consists of goals, objectives, and method of evaluation. It includes the amount of time to be spent with each teacher and the resources that will be needed for this student in the general education classroom as well as the special education resource room (Dauphinais, 1995). Without an IEP, would students make it through the system and graduate?

Kindergarten screening determined that about half of our children do not have the incidental learning necessary to understand conventional vocabulary and grammatical structure. (For example, our students might use colloquial terms such as “oven” for the whole stove, or descriptors such as “locker” for padlock, “horse thing” for saddle, “pokey plant” for cactus or “movie place” for theater, etc.) With so many of our children lacking standard English skills, what can we do in their first two or three years of school to help them master language skills before they get frustrated and drop out?

To address these questions over the year, our study group chose a facilitator, determined reading assignments, and copied articles for each participant. Materials were distributed before each meeting, and we devoted 45 minutes to 1 hour each week to group discussions about the readings and their implications. We made several important discoveries.

We had important data obtained from a battery of tests administered to 300 randomly chosen children ranging in age from 6 to 16 in 1989-90. The tests included the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised, WoodCock Johnson Achievement Test, Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised, Test of Language Development, and Clinical Evaluation of Language Function. As we explored current research in school reform, we discovered that these nationally normed tests were not valid with our population and only marginally useful (Morison, 1996). We also found that these tests do not link directly to our classroom curriculum. Thus they are little help to teachers who need to make instructional decisions for students having academic difficulty (Reschly, 1997).

Instead of relying upon these tests, we created curriculum-based tests and administered them to 1,000 students from first through sixth grades to establish a local normative database. This local database allows our school to compare our children to themselves to best determine whether special education is appropriate or whether a larger, school-wide problem of achievement and learning exists. It also allows us to monitor the progress of interventions made on an individual and/or grade level basis. Without assessment of any intervention, we could not determine the benefit of the intervention and whether the students were moving toward a conventionally accepted benchmark and standard.

We determined that the language deficits our children exhibited were closely connected to their poor reading achievement. The children lacked grammatical understanding, phonemic awareness, and Standard English vocabulary. Without these basic skills, our children would not become proficient readers by grade four (Kaminski & Good, 1998). They would not have the reading skill to learn other subjects. Instead, students would be held back, learning to read instead of reading to learn.

We identified existing models of good practice that could help all children who had difficulty learning, not just those identified for special education (Reschly & Tilly, 1999).

Guiding principles

After our research, our study group began to discuss potential solutions. The group generated 21 points for consideration and then consolidated the points into the following three guiding principles:

• Principle One: The continuum of services for all students should be addressed across their life spans. Parents and students should be partners with the school in planning for beneficial academic, social, and life skills.
• Principle Two: Students have diverse learning needs, and teachers, collectively, have most of the instructional skills necessary to meet those needs. This requires teachers to plan collaboratively and share their knowledge about student skills and needs throughout a student’s academic career. (This seems obvious, but we find it is typically not followed in most schools.)
• Principle Three: Assessment is a problem solving process. Again, this principle seems obvious, but in fact assessment in a busy school system may rely simply on an underlying schema of categories, e.g., high/low, average/above average; normal/ learning disabled, etc. This categorization does not solve problems. Real problem solving means coming to terms with the many elements of poor achievement; the student is just one element. Real problem solving results in an illustrative profile of student strengths and weaknesses. This profile, in turn, allows for measurable interventions to determine the specific nature of the problem–and the accuracy of one’s initial assessment.

Regardless of the cause for low academic achievement, we believe that children should not be left to flounder in general education classrooms without appropriate interventions. But we wanted to dispel the notion that referral to special education was the only option. The key was to find appropriate interventions.

Proposing Solutions

Our journey led us to the Iowa Model of Problem Solving (Reschly & Tilly, 1999). This is a nationally recognized program tested throughout the state of Iowa. We were able to visit schools in Iowa and find trainers from the Iowa Area Education Agency #6 to provide workshops for us.

The Iowa Problem Solving Model differs significantly from the standard model of refer, test, and place in special education. Instead, the model focuses upon monitoring each child’s progress and analyzing his or her behavior and difficulties. If the difficulty is complex, as many learning difficulties can be, the problem solving approach can meet that complexity on equal terms. The more intense and resistant the problem, the more extensive the intervention. The Problem Solving Model involves three levels:

Level 1: Meeting with Parents

The teacher meets with the child’s parents, and together they plan how to achieve success. The background knowledge of the student provided b y the parents can be very helpful. If the teacher exhausts the solutions that he and the child’s parents have discussed, then the problem is considered for referral to Level 2. Both the teacher and the parents must agree to a referral to Level 2.

Level 2: Team of Professionals

A team composed of general and special education teachers and the principal meets to review the problem, suggest possible solutions, and identify methods for monitoring progress. As these possible solutions are implemented, student progress is checked through a variety of tools, such as curriculum-based measures or counting the frequency of behaviors. It is important to notice that in the problem solving approach described here, we are proposing possible solutions rather than special education placement.

The team meets periodically to assess progress or lack of progress.  If the student makes progress with the selected interventions, the strategies continue. Insignificant progress may result in new suggestions for interventions or adjustment in interventions. If progress has not occurred, and the team is unable to further assist the teacher or parent, then the team considers whether an Individual Education Plan is needed for the child. However, every effort is made to solve problems at Level 2.

Level 3: Formal Evaluation for Eligibility for Special Education.

The referral to Level 3 is only made after securing parent permission. If needed, an Individual Education Plan (IEP) is created, and formal special education assistance is provided. On the recommendations of our group, the Iowa Problem Solving Model was formalized into a specific pilot model in one elementary school. This pilot project was called the WE Unit. WE is an abbreviation of WeechihitOutawk, an Ojibwe word meaning, “helping each other.”

In the WE program, collaboration occurs among all resources that assist in meeting the needs of all students. These resources include bilingual programs, special education, teacher aides, speech/language therapists, the general education classroom teacher, and Chapter 1. (Chapter 1 provides federal funds for supplemental programming to schools with high percentages of low-income students.) This WE Unit included 120 students in kindergarten through fifth grades. The total elementary school has 900 students.

Our journey, what we learned, and our future

Our journey is ongoing. Some aspects of the WE Unit continue; some do not. Although the WE Unit was meant to be implemented in all three schools, this did not occur. We realize that change takes time and that real change involves a great deal of effort on everyone’s part. All staff members need to be informed and need to share the same vision and guiding principles as the WE Unit staff shared. Without this background, successful implementation in a complex institution is unlikely (Grimes and Tilly, 1996).

With administrative support, we receive ongoing in-service training on the Problem Solving Model. The elementary school principals have appreciated the local research as well as best practice issues that affect our children. We obtained a grant during the 1999-2000 school year to maximize efforts to provide early literacy development in primary grades.

As a way of meeting this need for shared vision, we have begun to develop a key partnership with the tribal college, Turtle Mountain Community College (TMCC) that is very promising. If we are to successfully implement a program in the K-12 schools, we need to work with the tribal college’s teacher training programs. As tribal college graduates obtain positions in our schools, they can help implement change. (See Vol. XI, N. 2 for more information about the TMCC teacher education program.)

Our partnership with Turtle Mountain Community College has been facilitated by the Alliance Project for Tribal Colleges. In March 1999, the alliance sponsored a seminar in Los Angeles on Disproportionate Representation of Students of Color in Special Education. Dr. Dan Reschly, former director of the Iowa Problem Solving program, was a main presenter at that Los Angeles seminar. Knowing of our work to adapt the Iowa Problem Solving approach for Indian students, the Alliance invited me to participate in the seminar. Reschly and I were able to continue a conversation on how best to adapt the Iowa Model for our area.

Then in August 1999, the alliance sponsored a special education grant-writing workshop on the reservation. The workshop was designed to assist Turtle Mountain Community College in its quest to secure funding to train special education personnel from the community. Several members of our discussion group from the K-12 system were invited to share our perception s and programs at the workshop. This format was designed to help shape a grant proposal that would reflect the actual academic needs of the students and to help design a training program to meet them. The workshop also involved a representative of Turtle Mountain Community College’s teacher education program, and Alliance representatives from mainstream universities, who helped us, develop a common vision. Turtle Mountain Community College will write a grant proposal for the Office of Special Education Programs competition to train teachers and paraprofessional educators.

We feel that we have completed our initial steps on this difficult road of learning. While always looking upward, there has been a great deal of “downward” travel as we examined our situation to learn what could be avoided or changed. We have a long road ahead, but the tribal college commitment to train community members as para-educators and teachers has widened our circle.

In the meantime we continue our work, examining books, tests, curriculum, and other academic imports that don’t work well for us and exploring alternatives. It may take a long time to reform the special education system itself, but our efforts have led to more recognition of the genuine abilities of each of our students. Our remaining challenge is to translate this respect for individuals into a corresponding change in the school system. We must meet our children the first day of kindergarten with open arms and a matching curriculum.

Paul Dauphinais is a licensed psychologist and also a school psychologist at the Turtle Mountain Community Schools in Belcourt, N.D. A member of the Turtle Mountain Ojibwe Tribe, he has been working on the reservation since 1981. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Oklahoma.

References/Bibliography

Dauphinais, P., & Vraniak, D. (1995). Local norming test results for American Indian school-aged children. Unpublished manuscript.

Grimes, J., & Tilly, D. (1996). Policy and process: Means to lasting educational change. School Psychology Review, 25, 465-476.

Kaminski, R.A., & Good III, R.H. (1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem-solving model, dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced application of curriculum based measurement (pp. 113-142). New York: The Guilford Press.

Morison, P., White, S., and Feuer, M.J.(Eds.). (1996). The use of 10 tests in special education decision making and planning: Summary of two workshops. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Reschly, D. J. (1997). Utility of individual ability measures and public policy choices for the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 26, 234-240.

Reschly, D. J., & Tilly, W. D. III (1999). Reform trends and system design alternatives. In  D.J. Reschly, W.D. Tilly III, & J.P. Grimes (Eds.), The future of special education: Functional assessment and non-categorical programming (pp. 15-38). Longmont CO: Sopris West.

Turtle Mountain Times, Vol. 6, Issue 11. Dec. 28, 1998.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: 20^th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, D.C. Available to download on the website, <www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/OSEP98AnlRpt>