Vermont Parent Information Center - Helping Children with Special Needs and their Families in Vermont

Vermont Special Education Regulations Survey Results

Comments made by Parents to a Survey Regarding the Proposed Special Education Regulations,
Submitted April 4, 2006

SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS

→ Scientifically-Based Research; Peer Reviewed Research

The new IDEA requires the use of teaching methods that are scientifically-based, research-based and/or peer-reviewed research when teaching children with disabilities, wherever practicable.

Should these terms be defined in the Vermont special education regulations?

Yes:

No:

Don't Know:

Comments:

This will open a kettle of worms! The research just isn't that good. But I do think this one would spur more and better research.

I totally agree with this. Our SPED children's futures are at stake and there is no time to waste. Teach them with materials and methods that are proven to be effective with most children.

And perhaps promising practices that are in use (also would need to be defined). I am particularly concerned about what practices are in use for students on the autism spectrum since I believe there is little hard science to back one approach over another. some effort would need to be made to make sure that when Scientifically-Based Research; Peer Reviewed Research refutes or suggests an alternative instructional method than promising approaches in use, that educators plan transitions to the methods that have better science behind them.

These terms can be used but also keep in mind that their are methods that work that may not be under these terms and that doesn't mean we should not try every method possible to meet each individual's needs. We need to be creative!!!!

Parents should be concerned when their special needs child is not being taught in an environment that doesn't have these regulations of course each individual will be different in the process.

The better defined, the less litigation or fighting with districts (I would hope) translating to better services for a child. My concern, however, would be to make sure that it is not one size fit all learning. Defined in a way that accommodates many different styles

This may be a good idea, if it doesn't stop a team from exploring options that may not be "scientifically-based, researched-based and/or peer-reviewed". There needs to be the flexibility to discover the way a child learns best - which may not be based in scientific/research - but in observation of the child and conversation with those around the child that know him/her best. There needs to be the option to try imaginative and innovative things that grow out of those observations/conversations that may not be in the text/research books... yet.

This sounds good at first glance, but given that these are students qualifying for INDIVIDUALIZED education plans, I believe this wording would limit the creativity and improvisation of special educators trying to reach many children. And frankly, I doubt there is extensive enough research to adequately assess many of the typical teaching strategies being used, let alone the innovations. Finally, I believe this type of regulation does more to stymie innovation than protect students. Defining "whenever practicable" would be critical to what the outcome of this requirement.

Much of what is done is based on anecdotal info.

Without a clear definition of these terms it is nearly impossible to implement the regulations in a consistent manner. Lists of all such programs should also be made easily available

Where wouldn't it be practicable? I think "wherever practicable" should be removed.

There are often researches that contradict each other and the school districts will only chooses the one they want; cost effective.

Often special education, especially for children with behavior issues consist of the school trying to control the children instead of teaching them using established proven methods of teaching.

If this is IN FACT TRUE, I would think that we would want this information available to ALL within Vermont.

To comment intelligently on this question, I'd need to have an idea of what is being proposed, specifically. I could not blanketly give a "yes" to this question.

That said, if this is definitely going to happen, my answer would be YES, these terms MUST be defined!

Yes, if the state is going to audit programs for this, they should be prepared to define what THEY mean by these terms. They should stop short of listing specific programs to be used, but rather define how they are making the determination regarding a program.

Absolutely! We waste tremendous amounts of money and time using pseudo-science as a basis for practice.

I think time is needed to get to really know the child and his/her school environment.

Not sure what wherever practicable means.

The more clarity (definitions) the better for all parties involved (parents and schools)

They have to be defined clearly so everyone will understand what they mean and not be working off of multiple pages at the same time.

My son has Down syndrome and there are numerous research-based methods that have proven most effective in teaching children with this disability. It is certainly in his best interest to have his educational instruction be inclusive of these methods.

Always a listing of what those methodologies might be. I'd like to add that there is professional training and evaluation from a certified trainer in these methodologies to the given instructor of student.

The only reason not to include this verbiage would be if the state feels it should not be held accountable for its teaching techniques. Using research based peer-reviewed research when teaching children with disabilities is a best practice, and the only "replicatable" way to consistently produce successful results and outcomes.

Research is helpful to determine progress; although it takes quite a long time for research to become accepted. If the research is accepted, is proven to do no harm, but doesn't have long term results, if the team agrees it should still be allowed to be used in a child's program if the team agrees. I fear that the definition may be limiting.

We are not watching closely enough if the efforts in teaching are having ANY educational benefit to our children. We need to at least look at data collection and measurable goals so we don’t waste both the child and the educator’s time.

VPIC Publications

Additional Resources

Legislative Updates

Workshops Schedule

News & Events

Donate Now!

Family, Infant
& Toddler Program

getatstuff.com is the Assistive Technology Exchange in New England. Do you need Assistive Technology? Find it on the AT Exchange! Do you have an Assistive Technology device you no longer need? Sell or donate it on the AT Exchange!

We are a United Way Agency in Rutland County.