My personal philosophy of education remains grounded in humanistic theory. I believe that knowledge is important to the well-being of the individual and in turn, a society where all people should benefit from knowledge, and through knowledge, society benefits (Chatelier, 2015). This approach has been fundamental to my teaching practice, even before I knew exactly what I was doing. Teaching in areas with high populations of low socioeconomic status, I focused my teaching efforts on what I called “exposure.” This fits into the humanistic theory of equity for all people, and in this case, all students. It is this belief that all students should be afforded an equitable education. There is a notion of attainable opportunity that drives my thinking, and my interest in researching how public schools can provide more equitable education to all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or disability. My focus here is on students with disabilities, specifically those students with learning disabilities and their access to equitable, high-quality education, and how it relates to their educational outcomes. It is easy for a school to praise itself for the many opportunities that it may provide to students. Here is where I question the true attainability of these opportunities for marginalized subgroups within the student population.
The acquisition of knowledge is guided by the inherent nature of people wanting to learn. This learning happens through discovery and experience. With this thinking, learning happens through implicit (individual discovery) and explicit (ideas specifically taught by others). Students with learning disabilities may have the need for more explicit teaching of skills that their typically developing peers are assumed to have learned on their own. This self-efficacy or as Bandura (2002) states it, “personal agency” is not as naturally developed in students with learning disabilities or other disabilities. I think that as a society we need to move away from an economy based educational system that rewards those with wealth while punishing those in poverty. Our schools and student’s achievement are measured by a system that is designed to fail. Quality in education as it exists today is based on an economic value system coupled with “accountability” through the use of standardized testing as set forth by federal and state law (Clarke, 2014, Kohn, 1999). Clarke (2014) points out that basing curriculum on economic values and education standards measured by standardized testing reinforced by state and local school policy fails our students by creating winners and losers. Tests were meant to fail students, if too many people, in this case, students, pass the tests then the test is deemed too easy or not rigorous enough (Clarke, 2014). An equitable educational system is possible once educators realize that a student’s income does not determine their academic performance.
Students should have equal access to learning experiences and “fair play” during these experiences. Fair play means that all students should “get it,” with “it” being equitable educational opportunity no matter the time or cost; no matter what it takes (Karns & Parker, 2007). Presently there is no strict definition of equity or quality in education. Equity and equality are too often used interchangeably when there are distinct differences between the two. Where equality provides that everyone gets the same thing, equity provides that everyone gets what they need. My philosophy in education stems from the belief that all students have the ability to learn, to thrive, and to be an integral, contributing part of society. Not everyone learns the same way or has the same strengths or weaknesses, yet together anything is truly possible. Society is created and molded by those individuals within it. As long as we are part of this society and we allow an inequitable distribution of knowledge and education, we will remain divided in the same pattern, those with the economic backing to gain knowledge through education and those without the means. Opportunities in education, opportunities to gain knowledge should be attainable by all people, by all students, regardless of socio-economic status, race, gender, or disability.
When I took my current position as Section 504 Coordinator for El Paso ISD, it was a newly created position. Prior to working here, I was in another district where I was the Special Education Director and District Section 504 designee. The federal law (34 CFR, Part 104, Subsection 104.7) requires all public schools to have a district appointed Section 504 designee. Until recently, within the last five years or so, most districts did not have a specific position dedicated to administering Section 504. While being in this position, I have been given the Title IX responsibilities for the district as it is closely related to Section 504 and deals specifically with students. Over the last five years, Section 504 has grown and become more defined in public schools as it has become more ligated. Section 504 is still not fully understood in many school districts. For example, last year I worked with another district that was still under the false assumption that students could only qualify under Section 504 if they had an academic need. As special education laws evolve and litigation in special education changes course, so will Section 504. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is closely linked to Section 504. Whereas in special education law, there are many details and specific regulations, Section 504 remains very vague and open. Due to this vagueness in Section 504 law, most districts, like mine, create policies and procedures for Section 504 that are in line with special education policy and procedure. An example of that is in annual review timelines. Section 504 does not specifically state a specific time for review or re-evaluation of a student’s 504 plan, where special education law requires an annual review of eligibility, placement, and progress on established goals, with a 3-year re-evaluation. My district, like most others, follow the same timelines for annual review and re-evaluation as in special education law. I can foresee that Section 504 will continue to evolve in a way that more closely mirrors special education in the future. Currently, the complaint process for Section 504 complaints to the Office of Civil rights is being reviewed to be more specific in its process and procedure. This is due to the increasing number of complaints filed each year over the last three years. I can also see an increasing need for designated and knowledgeable staff within school districts in Section 504 practice as the availability of Section 504 plans for students increases through public awareness.
References:
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 51(2), 269-290.
Chatelier, S. (2015) Towards a renewed flourishing of humanistic education? Studies in the cultural politics of education. 36(1), 81-94.
Clarke, M. (2014). The sublime objects of education policy: quality, equity and ideology. Discourse: Studies in The Cultural Politics Of Education, 35(4), 584-598. doi:10.1080/01596306.2013.871230
Karns, M. S., & Parker, D. R. (2007, January-February). Fair play: accepting responsibility for student results: equity in education relies on equal access to learning experiences and fair play during those experiences. Leadership, 36(3).
Kohn, A. (1999). The schools our children deserve : moving beyond traditional classrooms and “tougher standards.” .Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.