Best of Class: "Changing Lives - our passion and sense of urgency...

Best of Class: "Changing Lives - our passion and sense of urgency...: Changing the life of a learner with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) is no simple task. Teetering on master of the obvious, cognit...

"Changing Lives - our passion and sense of urgency"

Changing the life of a learner with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) is no simple task. Teetering on master of the obvious, cognitive and neurological disorders are incredibly complex. Treating them has proven to be a challenging, but not an insurmountable task.

The uniqueness of ASD compounds therapeutic interventions, treatments, programming, and services.  Understanding and then prescribing a course of action for each ASD learner is problematic as identifying the “right” course of action for each learner cannot be simplified to a “one size fits all”. Each ASD student is a unique individual, with unique ways of learning, but not all therapy programs seem to recognize this.

Yet, every day the number of ASD learners making progress and demonstrating improvement in their social, emotional, and behavioral skill development is not what it can be – must be.  The acquisition of these skills are critical to enabling ASD learners access to an educational experience not previously thought possible.  This is life changing!

Education and educators need a tool that produces unprecedented impact and value for ASD learners. Moreover, ASD learners, their parents, their families, and their communities desire and expect effective and efficient programming that provides and creates growth, improvement, and progress towards a higher level of “normalcy” for that ASD individual.

Arguably, any conversation involving the complexity of ASD and “normalcy” is controversial at best.  Yet, when a program as effective as robots4autism continues to change lives in dramatic ways, the hope of normalcy or moving towards more neural-typical especially in social, emotional and behavioral development and practice creates both a sense of urgency and hope for parents of ASD learners, schools and school districts, and most importantly the ASD learner.


Undeniably, education needs Milo and the robots4autism program. Policy and decision makers must be urged to embrace and implement this program now, ASD learners deserve to have this opportunity sooner rather than later. By advocating for robots4autism, educators, policy and decision makers, as well as legislators will ...

1. demonstrate proactive rather than reactive leadership;
2. equip educators with an evidenced-informed, results proven intervention; and
3. signify a commitment to address, accelerate, and amplify the acquisition of social, emotional, and behavioral skills necessary to grow, improve, and make progress toward meeting and exceeding their academic, behavioral, and life goals.

As a superintendent of schools, I recall vividly a statement Dr. Larry Lezotte used to challenge educational leaders to “think and act” with a sense of mission and urgency. To paraphrase, “How many ASD students do you have to see successful as a result of robots4autism to believe it works? If you need to see more than one, then you have a different agenda.”

I am not advocating or suggesting being reckless or not doing due diligence on implementing a program. Yet, I ask, how many does one have to see successful?

Far too often, we try to fit “different” into a mental model of what we know. What is most alarming in education, are those who most espouse and champion “learning” are resistant to learning themselves. 

Looking at robots4autism requires accepting and admitting that what is currently being used to develop social, emotional, and behavioral skill development is not – I repeat, is not working for a majority of ASD learners.

My point and in conclusion is with over 1.3 million ASD learners in public schools with an annual cost of approximately $27 billion and an expected life span cost of $4.1 trillion, we should be compelled to look at what has proven successful in creating life changing impact at as much as 1/20th of the cost of current practice. Anything less is akin to this oft use quote - “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”

Education needs robots4autism – moreover ASD learners, their families, and our communities need a program that produces life changing impact.

Three Truths underpinning Endrew v Douglas - A Significant Opportunity

In the coming weeks and months, much will be written, discussed, and debated on and about the recent unanimous Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision, Endrew. v Douglas (2017).  As a former superintendent and one who lived through the birth as well as each iteration thereafter of the initial PL 94-142, now Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), I offer a few thoughts, insights, and truths about the realities of this decision.

The foundation and goal of IDEA is to provide children with disabilities the “same opportunity” for education as their non-disabled peers.  There are six components of IDEA.  They are: Individualized Education Program (IEP), Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), Appropriate Evaluation, Parent and Teacher Participation, and Procedural Safeguards.  Though there have been legislative changes as well as litigation to further clarify these elements, the quality of “guaranteed education” for students with disabilities under IDEA had not been addressed – until Endrew v Douglas (2017).

The central issue before the court in Endrew. v Douglas (2017) was the level of educational benefit school districts must provide students with disabilities as defined by IDEA.  In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that “meaningful, appropriately ambitious” progress versus a “de minimis” standard for educational progress was not only appropriate, but the standard for schools to meet.

Central to the parents’ argument was the lack of measurable progress in meeting IEP goals and the fact that the IEP did not address “escalating” behavioral problems.  In this specific case the student was Autistic or ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder).  Understanding ASD is challenging given the unique and individual nature of the disorder. 

The reality that “if you have seen one person with autism, you’ve seen one person with autism” creates a very difficult but not insurmountable challenge to providing an educational program.  What we have learned about ASD is that with aggressive, early identification and intervention specifically in social, emotional, and behavioral skill development, ASD learners can generalize and transfer these skills in daily interactions with family, peers, and in their academic setting.  This has been done effectively and efficiently, avoiding significant costs to local and state government, not to mention life changing impact for the learner and their families.

Prevention as well as innovation are difficult concepts and practices for educators.  In the world of special education, this is even more so.  Hence, embracing “different” to achieve unprecedented results is a significant dilemma for policy and decision makers in education.

The SCOTUS ruling provides a tremendous opportunity for schools and school systems to be proactive in providing programming that can and will significantly reduce or avoid costs associated with meeting the needs of ASD learners.  To do so will require policy and decision makers to think differently.

Educators are committed to providing the highest quality educational experience for each learner. Arguably, there are situations and exceptions where educators and the education system has failed or fallen short of fulfilling this commitment. 

Endrew. v Douglas (2017) decision also calls into question the level, depth, and objectives of IEP goals with respect to educational attainment, progress, and improvement.  Simply put, such goals and those actions, strategies, and learning activities cannot be of the lowest standard.  Rather, IEP supported students must have services of a higher standards to ensure they are, in fact, progressing in their education.

From my perspective, there are three truths that are critical to understanding Endrew v Douglas.

The first truth has to do with the reality that special education funding comes from three sources, federal, state, and local revenue.  The original commitment of IDEA (PL 94-142) was a 40-40-20 funding distribution, with the federal and state government sharing the higher responsibility.  At best, the federal government has provided between 15% to 22% but never the 40% as authorized by IDEA.  This truth, unfortunately, is harsh and is fraught with conflict as IDEA is a federal law that schools and school districts must adhere and meet.

Endrew. v Douglas (2017) exposes some harsh realities that cannot and will not be discussed publicly or candidly.  That is, the actual costs to educate children with disabilities versus the costs to educate their non-disabled peers.  The issues underpinning this case would be moot if funding, resources, programming, and services were not constrained.  Money is not an answer unto itself.  Rather, fiscal resources do create opportunity to embrace different.   

The second truth is that schools and school districts have, in a significant way, provided services within the fiscal constraints they are forced to operate within.  The reality, not excuse, of limited dollars, limited resources, and limited services is not something that any educator feels good about.  In fact, in my experience, special educators including their paraprofessionals or assistants, despite the aforementioned constraints, care and act daily of, by, and for the best interests and welfare of each student they are tasked to educate.

The impact, however, of Endrew v Douglas will be significant if schools do not seize the opportunity to adjust, amend, or add services that will reduce the number of requests by parents specifically those with ASD to attend private or specialty schools to have their educational needs met.  Not to be argumentative, but a harsh reality to this truth is that outplacement and costly hours of traditional therapy have produced mixed, conflicted, or limited results.

The third truth is that the practice of “de minimis” is the confluence of limited resources and services and ineffective programming.  Underpinning “de minimis” is meeting compliance or more easily achieved goals that are not ambitious or that lead to substantive growth or improvement.  Lastly, oft conflicting or contentious learner guardian expectations and demands and the propensity to threaten or engage in actual litigation are factors contributing to a lower standard.

The ruling calls into question the level, depth, and objectives of IEP goals with respect to educational attainment, progress, and improvement.  Simply put, such goals and those actions, strategies, and learning activities cannot be of the lowest standard.  Rather, IEP supported students must have services of a higher standard to ensure they are, in fact, progressing in their education.

For my former colleagues, Endrew. v Douglas (2017) may in fact open a flood gate of requests, demands for programming and services that are not necessarily in the best interest of the learner.  This is a fear that I hope does not become reality.  However, without substantive evidence of programming effect, progress, improvement, and growth, these request, demands will in many cases be approved irrespective of the costs. 

Endrew. v Douglas (2017) is equally an opportunity to be proactive.  Over the past several years, there is a growing body of evidence that not only suggests, but demonstrates the power of aggressive, early intervention specifically with ASD learners in social, emotional, and behavioral skill development that avoids short and long term costs, creates life changing impact for the learner and their family, and results in greater participation and achievement in their academic program.

Lastly, it is times like these that the content of our character is challenged.  Knowing that school and school system leaders are committed to the proposition that “each” learner is worthy of our very best – day in and day out, I am confident that, once again, educational leaders will rise to the occasions to do what is right, good, and true for each learner entrusted to their care. 

Best of Class: There is a Solution to Universal Numeracy

Best of Class: There is a Solution to Universal Numeracy: I have for most of my professional education career and with more intensity over the past 15 months, devoted myself to the proposition that...

There is a Solution to Universal Numeracy

I have for most of my professional education career and with more intensity over the past 15 months, devoted myself to the proposition that we could, if we really wanted to, ensure universal numeracy.  So much so that I have been honored and privileged to work for DreamBox Learning.   

DreamBox Learning is "the" new breed technology that leverages intelligent analytics that literally learn, adapt, adjust and personalize learning as the learner is learning.  Though I experienced firsthand the power and results of DreamBox with learners in North Carolina and Texas respectively in my role as Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent of Academics, I am convinced, now more than ever, that universal numeracy is within our reach.

More than a pipe dream, universal numeracy and its' pursuit is within our individual and collective control.  To achieve it, three areas must shift – mental models, prevention from intervention, and “now” rather than “later”.

The first shift requires turning away from the long held belief that there will always be learners who are unsuccessful in math.  Universal numeracy is just that, universal.  Rather than focusing on "all" learners, we need to focus on “each” learner.  To do so, necessitates personalized learning that authentically adapts and adjusts specifically and individually to the learning needs of each learner as they need them - in real time.

The second shift is moving from a treatment or intervention model to a prevention model.  In many respects, treatment or response to failed learning in the form of an intervention was and is based on the limitations of assessment and data. Never before have we been able to peek inside the learning process to engage, equip, and empower teachers to activate learning specifically to the need of each learner.  Moreover, this activation of learning leverages the profound skill, knowledge and experience of classroom practitioners to build and reinforce learner capacity, confidence, and competence in math.

Lastly, "now" rather than "later” is the third and critical shift yet the most difficult to make.  The sense of urgency to address learner inexperience, skill or knowledge gaps must compel us to act now – not later.  What this means is suspending compliance to aspects of the broader grade level curriculum to ensure that the necessary skill and knowledge sets critical to numeracy are mastered.  This doesn’t mean learners are constrained to 6 to 8 hours of math instruction.  Rather, it means teachers have the access, means and permission to leverage insight about the individual learning needs to activate learning in the moment. – not wait until the next day due to “having” to move on to the next subject, special, or etc.

School and school system leaders must give permission to teachers as well as to themselves to ensure each learner is successful by leveraging, utilizing, and committing time – dedicated time to ensure mastery.  The days of marching on through the curriculum with the best hopes that those learners who are marching to a different “pace”, different "need" will catch up at some future date are over.

Rethinking, reprioritizing, and reallocating the use of time is a salient component of personalized learning.  Without it, all doesn’t become each, prevention doesn’t replace intervention, and the sense of urgency never manifests into action.

My passion for universal numeracy is fueled by the knowledge and experience that there is a powerful solution – one that authentically and intelligently learns from the learner as the learner is learning; one that authentically and intelligently adapts and adjusts to the learners needs albeit to relearn or stretch to a new concept, construct or procedural application; one that authentically and intelligently engages, equips, and empowers learners and teachers alike; and one that can ensure that each learner is successful in math.  That solution is DreamBox Learning.