Creating Effective Participation Plans for Students with Extensive Support Needs ~ 806

Jennifer Kurth:
I remember when I was a special education teacher people would say, “Why is this child in my class? He can’t…” and then they’d fill in the blank. He can’t read, he can’t talk, he can’t whatever. “What are they going to get out of it? They’re so far behind grade levels.” All of this deficit thinking focused on these students. And I would always say, they’re going to get a lot out of it. There are so many things happening in the general education classroom that are so helpful.

Tim Villegas:
Hello, and welcome to season eight, episode six of the Think Inclusive podcast presented by MCIE. I’m your host, Tim Villegas. This podcast features conversations and commentary with thought leaders in inclusive education and community advocacy. Think Inclusive exists to build bridges between parents, educators, and disability rights advocates to promote inclusion for all students. That’s right, y’all. All means all. To find out more about who we are and what we do, go to thinkinclusive.us, the official blog of MCIE, and check us out on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

So it’s April everyone, and you know what that means. It’s Autism Acceptance Month. On the blog, I wrote a piece about ways educators can learn Autism acceptance from Autistic individuals. One of those ways is to amplify disability rights activists in your classroom. If that sounds interesting, check it out and lots of other great information at thinkinclusive.us.

Today on the podcast, we talk with Jenny Kurth, professor of special education at the University of Kansas. We discuss preparing for and implementing participation plans for students with complex support needs to be included in general education and why we should all carry around a pocket-sized version of IDEA.

Will you be the person to bring our patron number to double digits? Go to patreon.com/thinkinclusivepodcast to become a patron today. Your contribution helps us with the cost of audio production, transcription, and promotion of the Think Inclusive Podcast. Thank you for helping us equip more people to promote and sustain inclusive education. Stick around—after the break, our interview with Jenny Kurth.

Tim Villegas: Today on the Think Inclusive Podcast, I would like to welcome Dr. Jenny Kurth, who is the associate professor of special education at the University of Kansas. Her research centers on inclusive education for students with extensive and pervasive support needs. Welcome to the podcast, Jenny.

Jennifer Kurth:
Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for having me here, Tim.

Tim Villegas:
So the reason why I even thought about getting Jenny on is the article that you wrote in CEC. And of course, I don’t have it in front of me. Well, let me grab it. You can see I’m very prepared.

Jennifer Kurth:
I know the feeling.

Tim Villegas:
All right. Yeah, so the article is called Preparing for and Implementing Effective Inclusive Education with Participation Plans. Something at MCIE that we really love doing is individual student planning for students who are included in general education. I love the article and I have lots of questions. So I wanted to dive into this with you. But before we get into what a participation plan is and everything, I’d love for you to talk about why inclusive education is a matter of social justice.

Jennifer Kurth:
Yeah. I think that’s a great question. It made me think about a couple of different things. One of the things that we know—really solidly know—is that people with disabilities or who experience disabilities have inequitable outcomes upon leaving school. When we think about what has been happening for people with disabilities over the past 45 years or even longer, they’ve been separated, segregated, controlled, decisions made for them, lack of communication supports—all of these sorts of things have just been the status quo in education for all of this time. So when we start talking about inclusive education, I think we’re really talking about disrupting those practices that are focused on control and segregation—things that can maybe lead to better outcomes for people.

When you look briefly at what social justice means, the dictionary talks about the distribution of wealth, opportunity, and privilege within a society. If you think about where the wealth, opportunity, and privilege are within schools, it’s in general education—it is not in those separate special education classes. So what are the “wealth” elements in general education classrooms? It’s the kids without disabilities, who you can talk to, play with, and learn with. It’s the teachers who are content area experts. It’s the opportunities to have a structured curriculum with scope and sequence. The opportunities tie into all of those things as well—having a real curriculum and not just a series of random worksheets that people are pulling together to teach with.

And then obviously, the privilege—the opportunity to learn, the privilege of having high expectations, of being a member of a classroom and a valued member of the classroom nonetheless. The dignity of learning and the dignity of having opportunities to learn from and with other people. So even simply, there are so many opportunities related to social justice that happen in these inclusive settings that we really need to focus on.

Inclusive education in and of itself doesn’t automatically do that. You can’t just put a kid in a classroom and suddenly there’s social justice happening and all inequities disappear. You have to plan for it. We have to really think about how we’re going to support people, meet their needs, and have that general education classroom be the place where they are valued, where they’re learning, and where they have opportunities.

To me, those are some of the reasons why inclusive education is an issue of social justice. I’m really anxious as a field to start moving into a place where we don’t have to talk about advocacy for students with disabilities—that we can really say everybody belongs. There’s no false binary anymore about either special education for special things or general education for everybody else, but that there’s really this one common education that can meet the needs of everybody.

What’s exciting to me is that we’re at a place in our field where we know how to do that. When people started advocating for inclusive education—before I was born—it came only from that place of social justice, that it felt like the right thing to do. Separating and segregating felt wrong. But now we know how to do it. We know it results in positive outcomes for kids with disabilities and without disabilities. Parents prefer it. We have overwhelming legal, philosophical, and research-based reasons to do it. There’s just no reason to continue with the status quo, in my opinion.

Tim Villegas:
With the new focus on equity—especially in education—we’ve been focusing on equity for a long time, but it seems like there is a change in other fields to look at equity. Are you hopeful that this is going to bring some new light?

Jennifer Kurth:
I am always hopeful about that. I was talking about this in our class last night, where I’m teaching people to be special education teachers. We discussed some of the things they were raised with in terms of having kids with disabilities in their classrooms or schools. The focus around social justice and equity happening nationwide and even worldwide right now starts to help us move in that direction. And I feel, maybe as an older person now, that the next generation has a lot going for it in terms of what they’re going to offer. But part of it is that we still need to keep doing the work. We can’t just wait for the next generation to come and say, “We’re woke, we understand social justice and equity.”

We need to teach people—and teach ourselves—to look for and really think critically about the instances of inequity that happen in our schools. You peel back the lid a little bit and you see it everywhere. It reminds us there’s a lot of work to do. Equity, opportunity, and high expectations can play out in so many different ways. One of the things I often see is that we have so many examples in our schools and communities that keep positioning people with disabilities as being special and needing special things. It’s anything from “Night to Shine” or unique learning systems—those sorts of things that assume people with disabilities have special needs versus human needs.

Getting away from that euphemism about being special and having special needs can help us focus more on human needs. That takes us closer to this place of equity that I think we’re seeking. I’m trying really hard in my teacher preparation to have people look for those things and ask: What’s happening that makes people with disabilities seem special or different? How can we reframe that through advocacy or simply by saying, “Everyone goes to the same prom. It’s the prom. We should all be able to have fun together.” By taking that close look, we can start to get there faster.

I think there’s also work for us to do in teacher education and research. We need to be at the forefront—changing the ways we do research, involving students with disabilities more, centering them in our decisions, and not doing things for and about them as we have historically done. We need to make sure research agendas are based on their needs, preferences, and desires—not what’s easy for me as a researcher. And even the language we use matters. I hate the term “special education.” When you say you’re a special education teacher, people assume, “Oh, you must be really patient and kind.” I’m not—I’m impatient and probably not very nice either. I want to make things happen for people. Maybe instead of “special education,” we start talking about “specialized supports”—supports that follow people wherever they go, versus having a special education program or place. That might help us move in other directions as well.

Tim Villegas:
Yeah. You know, I don’t think I ever realized that in the law it doesn’t actually say “special education” until I really started to look at it. It’s interesting.

Jennifer Kurth:
I feel the same way. When you look at IDEA, Congress did a good job. There are things I would change, but there’s a lot in there that is strengths-based and forward-thinking, really focusing on outcomes. It’s almost like when you watch people in the Senate pull out their copy of the Constitution from their pocket—I wish we could pull out our copy of IDEA from our pockets and say, “Well, section 600.331 says…” It’s there, and we just need to live up to those lofty aspirations already in IDEA.

Tim Villegas:
Right? Yeah, yeah. It’s like the original document.

Jennifer Kurth:
Exactly.

Tim Villegas:
That’s a good idea, Jenny. Maybe we should market that.

Jennifer Kurth:
A pocket IDEA. Kind of dorky, but I think it might be helpful.

Tim Villegas:
What are you reading there? Oh, just IDEA.

Jennifer Kurth:
Just IDEA.

Tim Villegas:
Fine. And then I’ve got a binder of the Federal Register.

Jennifer Kurth:
Right. Exactly. Good stuff.

Tim Villegas:
Good stuff. Well, let’s talk about the participation plans because I really enjoyed reading this. Why don’t you set it up for our listeners? What is the participation plan and why should educators use them?

Jennifer Kurth:
When we were thinking about creating these participation plans, it was based on two things. One is that I remember when I was a special education teacher, people would say, “Why is this child in my class? He can’t…” and then fill in the blank. He can’t read, he can’t talk, he can’t whatever. “What are they going to get out of it? They’re so far behind grade level.” All of this deficit thinking focused on these students. And I would always say, they’re going to get a lot out of it. There are so many things happening in the general education classroom that are so helpful.

For me, the participation plan is one way of outlining those things and saying, here’s why general education is a meaningful place for every student. It’s not a place you have to earn your way into—it’s helpful for everybody. We also wanted a plan co-created by general and special education teachers, bringing their joint expertise to planning and making sure it’s oriented around research-based practices. It gives them a structure to think through so that when they’re planning for a student coming into their classroom for a unit, they can draw on research-based practices to guide their discussions.

Jennifer Kurth:
It starts with an ecological assessment. This is something we’ve talked about in special education forever—you need to understand the demands of the environment and where a student does and does not need support during typical routines. Taking the time to say, “Jenny needs support here, but not here,” is really helpful so I’m not over-supported and developing learned helplessness, but I do get the support when I need it so I can keep learning.

For example, in a science class, maybe it starts with a warm-up on the board, then the teacher does a lecture, then there’s a lab, and then writing in planners at the end of class. Those are the four things that typically happen. Let’s see what supports Jenny would need for each of those four parts. Having that as the foundation helps us layer in support so we know when and what to do.

We also wanted to focus on hidden skills. The participation plan identifies times to work on IEP goals and priority learning skills, but beyond that, there are hidden opportunities to learn. Maybe I’m still learning to raise my hand instead of calling out, or I’m learning to communicate with my lab partners using my communication device. Those are opportunities to work on additional skills that aren’t the priority for that content area.

Then we think about what supports I would need. Are there general supports that everybody has, or really individual supports that I would need? One thing I like about focusing on general supports is that in a typical general education classroom, there are already a lot of supports—words on the wall, a timer, a schedule. We can build from those and make sure they’re available to everybody, while recognizing that some kids will also need more individualized supports, like extra words written on their desk.

Then it goes into embedded instruction—how we’re going to find opportunities to teach skills and link those to the content. For example, if we’re learning about the digestive system, I’ll have some priority skills related to that. That’s a helpful conversation to have with the general education teacher. When I ask a science teacher what kids will learn in this unit, they might give me 57 vocabulary words, 30 lab skills, and 25 content-related things. That’s great for some kids, but others will learn a subset of that.

So I ask, “Out of all those great things, what are the most important things you want every person to remember 15 years from now?” Those become the priority learning skills for students with extensive support needs. Thinking about those priority skills helps us decide what to base accommodations and modifications on, and what the general education teacher should emphasize every class period so we reinforce those big skills.

To me, the participation plan brings those ideas together. It ensures we know what we want students to learn, how they’ll learn it, and how we’ll support them. It aligns instruction and modifications so everyone is on the same page.

Section 7

Tim Villegas:
How do we support teachers when they don’t have built-in collaboration time? It’s that same idea, right? “What is this kid going to get out of it? I’m going to have to spend all this extra time planning for this student.” How can we speak to that?

Jennifer Kurth:
It’s a legitimate, good question because I hear it all the time—and it sounds like you do too. It’s the reality. We are asking teachers to do so much without giving them the time and resources to do it. I don’t want this kind of planning to feel like one more burden. So, a couple of thoughts:

If my student is involved in this science class all year long—which hopefully they are, as a full-time member—we might spend extra time planning together for the first one to three units. But then we know what to do during lectures, labs, and note-taking. Even if the content changes—from the digestive system to astronomy—we’ve already planned for those structures. If the teacher does something really out-of-the-box, we might need to sit down again, but that’s rare. So this becomes a skill and a task that’s transportable across the student’s day.

I could then say, “Hey, when I was talking to Tim, the science teacher, I’ll bring these ideas to Kayla, the English teacher: ‘Here’s what we thought about for lectures—how would that work in your classroom?’” That makes conversations easier.

The other thing is that being a teacher means being a leader and an advocate. If you want high-quality instruction, you have to bring those leadership and advocacy skills to your principal and say, “I need to be part of grade-level or content team meetings so I can talk to teachers during the dedicated times already built into the schedule.”

We can also be more flexible in how we plan. There’s no reason this participation plan couldn’t be on a Google Doc where we take notes and fill it out together online—but not necessarily at the same time. Then, when we do have two or three minutes in person, it’s just catching up on what’s already written. That’s an example of being a flexible thinker and an advocate. There’s never going to be more time or more money, so we have to be creative about finding another way to do things.

Jennifer Kurth:
I think it was Mark Gold in the seventies who coined the phrase “find another way” when talking about special education. That’s kind of my mantra. If this way didn’t work, we’ve got to find another way because it’s so important that we keep doing these things. Think of this as an upfront investment that saves time later. Over time, it reduces the need for constant collaboration and on-the-spot decision-making that can lead to bad decisions for students. Without a plan, you’re left thinking, “I don’t know what to focus on, so we’ll just do this activity.” A plan makes us more conscious and mindful of the goals for students and how they’ll be supported to meet those goals, rather than leaving it to chance.

I know I did too much of that as a teacher. I didn’t have a great plan, and I wish I had. Because I didn’t, a lot of decisions were left to paraprofessionals. That was my first job—being a paraprofessional—and it’s a really difficult position to put untrained staff in, asking them to make those decisions. We need to be upfront, helping people make those decisions and giving them a structure to fall back on.

Tim Villegas:
Let’s say you were appointed the U.S. Secretary of Education. Sorry, Dr. Cardona—Dr. Kurth is now the Secretary of Ed. What would be your biggest priority?

Jennifer Kurth:
It’s hard to pick one, but I would really want to address this outdated notion of the least restrictive environment (LRE). Think about it: the only people in the U.S. we talk about in terms of “degree of restrictiveness” are kids with disabilities and prisoners. It’s odd that we even talk about how restricted some kids should be when they’ve committed no crimes—they’re just kids trying to go to school and learn. But for some reason, we treat them like prisoners. I’d like to get rid of that.

When LRE was first proposed, it was meant as a short-term thing to get kids into schools, but it has far outlasted its use. There’s no reason to have a continuum of placements in federal law. We have so much evidence showing that separating and segregating students is not helpful—ever. You can find hundreds, probably thousands, of research articles showing the positive outcomes of inclusive education for students with complex support needs. But I challenge you to find even one demonstrating a positive outcome for a separate or segregated setting. The evidence is clear—we don’t need that continuum anymore.

Jennifer Kurth:
I’d also like to eliminate the very idea of “special education” and start focusing on supports. Right now, kids qualify for special education because of an educational label and a need for special education—both markers for segregation. Instead, what if we asked: What are the support needs this student has? Communication support needs, behavior support needs, academic support needs, physical support needs—whatever they are. Then design an education system that addresses those supports through specialized supports, not through “special education,” which honestly isn’t very effective. Those two changes—eliminating LRE and reframing special education as supports—would make a huge difference in how we think about dignity, the right to learn, and promoting inclusive education for students with complex support needs.

Tim Villegas:
Awesome. Awesome. Well, I would nominate you.

Jennifer Kurth:
Thanks, Tim. I don’t want the job. That sounds like a lot.

Tim Villegas:
Yeah, it does. It does. This has been a great conversation. Let me see if I missed anything. I think we covered it all. Is there anything you wish you could tell our audience?

Jennifer Kurth:
I’ll base this on living in Kansas for the last seven years. When people hear you’re from Kansas, they bring out all the Wizard of Oz jokes—“Where’s Toto?” “Click your shoes.” But one thing I like about the Wizard of Oz, and this is something I heard someone else say, is that Dorothy was stuck over the rainbow and desperately wanted to go home. She didn’t know the whole time that she could have just clicked her shoes and gone home. She had a lot more power than she realized. That’s what I want people listening to think about: You have so much power you might not even recognize—in terms of promoting positive outcomes, a dignified experience, and inclusive education for learners with the most complex support needs. I hope you use that power and aren’t afraid to use it to do good work.

Tim Villegas:
All right. Thank you again to Dr. Jenny Kurth for being on the Think Inclusive Podcast. We appreciate your time.

Tim Villegas:
That will do it for this episode of the Think Inclusive Podcast. Subscribe to the Think Inclusive Podcast via Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify, or on the Anchor app. While you’re there, give us a review so more people can find us. Have a question or comment? Email us at podcast@thinkinclusive.us. We love to know that you’re listening.

Thank you to patrons Pamela P., Veronica E., Kathleen T., and Mark C. for your continued support of the podcast. This podcast is a production of MCIE, where we envision a society where neighborhood schools welcome all learners and create the foundation for inclusive communities. Learn more at mcie.org.

We’ll be back at the end of April with a special bonus episode. If you don’t already subscribe to our newsletter, The Weeklyish, check us out at weeklyish.substack.com. Thanks for your time and attention. See you next time. And remember: inclusion always works.