Don’t Forget the School Counselor!
Issues, Implications, and Ideas for Serving Students with Spinal Cord Injuries and Physical Disabilities in the School Setting
Susan Schaming McNiff, EdD, LPC, NBCC
More than one million people suffer from spinal cord and brain injuries each year (Carnes & Quinn, 2005). In addition, nearly three decades of epidemiological studies have consistently reported that significant psychosocial adjustment difficulties continue to escalate for children and families (Breslau, 1985; Cadman, Boyle, Szatmari & Offord, 1987). In addition to a child’s challenge of adaptation with family and friends following a spinal cord injury or physically disabling event, school counselors and teachers are faced with the exigent task of supporting a student’s re-integration and assimilation back to the academic setting. Characteristically, psychologists, mental health counselors, and social workers develop the child’s transition to home and school as part of the disposition and discharge planning from a treatment facility. Nonetheless, school counselors are a vital resource and liaison to assist students upon their return to school. Therefore, the question of how psychologists and social workers might “partner” with school counselors and educators to provide an optimal transition and service provision must be explored and addressed.
Elementary, middle, and high schools across the United States have embraced the notion of “inclusive education” for students with spinal cord injuries and physical disabilities. In sharp contrast to the United States, the inclusion of children with physical disabilities in general education to the fullest extent possible is not legally mandated and implemented in many European countries (Mrug & Wallander, 2002). Despite offering a continuum of special services, depending on the individual needs of the child with a spinal cord injury or physical disability, various questions arise for parents when selecting the least restrictive, yet most appropriate, educational placement for their child. Although the legal mandates in the United States have advocated maximum integration, some educators and parents maintain separate schools for children with special needs. Why? What are the issues related to educating students with physical disabilities such as spinal cord injuries? Regardless of the implications of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990), it appears that tradition, values, and beliefs drive parental decision-making and placement choice for their child.
First, students with physical disabilities—spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries most especially included—represent a heterogeneous population in our elementary, middle, and high schools today (Bowe, 2000). Anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests that general education teachers, school counselors, and paraprofessionals are not fully prepared for the inclusion of these students in their classrooms. Although “inclusion” is perceived as an honorable practice, general education teachers, school counselors, and paraprofessionals report they are not adequately prepared to manage students with physical disabilities in their classrooms. Furthermore, the typical current professional development opportunities for general education teachers, school counselors, and paraprofessionals are inadequate in most school districts, particularly in the area of teaching and counseling students with physical disabilities. To improve the quality of education and related services for students with spinal cord injuries and other physical disabilities, Futrell (2001) concluded it is imperative that general education teachers, school counselors, and paraprofessionals be provided with the requisite knowledge and skills to work with students who have physical disabilities.
In order to provide in-service training and professional development that is meaningful and beneficial to general education teachers, school counselors, and paraprofessionals, a survey instrument—General Educators and Students with Disabilities—was created by Delar K. Singh (2001). The instrument was particularly designed to explore the in-service training needs of general elementary and secondary education teachers and school counselors as they relate to learners with physical disabilities. The survey includes questions about the educators’ attitudes about, and knowledge of, children with physical disabilities, the specific educational needs of students with physical disabilities, the educators’ knowledge level of adaptive equipment and environmental adaptations, and overall self-confidence and general knowledge level. Most items on the survey ask the participant to rate statements on a five-point Likert scale, with “five” meaning the participant strongly agrees with the presented statement and “one” meaning the participant strongly disagrees with the statement.
Besides improving the fundamental knowledge and skill level of general education teachers, school counselors, and paraprofessionals with regards to students with spinal cord injuries and physical disabilities, other foci involve examining the traditional “bottom-up” developmental approach, according to Barnes and Whinnery (1997) and Bidabe (1998). Snell and Brown (2000) purport that one of the fundamental goals of educating students with spinal cord injuries and physical disabilities is increased independence to promote integration into life activities. Unfortunately, this population has frequently been denied the option to participate in mainstream life activities because of their inability to perform all the necessary skills (Falvey, 1989). Consequently, they find themselves isolated from peers, excluded from many life activities, and facing decreased opportunities to learn functional tasks results.
Fortunately, there has been a paradigm shift in the education of these students. In lieu of the “deficit model,” whereby the student’s limitations are emphasized, Barnes (1999) notes that future capabilities are accentuated via a “support model.” Incorporating the support model into educational programs results in more opportunities for these students to become active participants in life activities. The Mobility Opportunities Via Education (MOVE) curriculum (Bidabe, 1998) is such a program, and it embeds the support model into its strategies and techniques.
Top-down and activity-based, MOVE is a six-step curriculum designed to teach students with physical disabilities the basic functional motor skills needed within school and home settings. The first three steps of the MOVE curriculum—testing, setting goals, and task analysis—form the foundation for what to teach (Bidabe, 1998). Conversely, the latter three steps—measuring prompts, reducing prompts, and teaching skills—determine intervention strategies or how to teach. Snell and Brown (2000) note that the MOVE curriculum follows a top-down or ecological approach to educational program planning.
Aside from offering improved professional development opportunities and exploring the usefulness of a specific curricula to address the needs of these students, how might psychologists and social workers informally “partner” with school counselors and educators to provide an optimal transition and service provision for students? A basic premise should be: School counselors and teachers can deal effectively with students that have physical disabilities! Psychologists and social workers must create a collaborative and collegial rapport with school counselors and general education teachers, whereby they familiarize one another with the essential academic, emotional, and physical accommodations and options that a student requires to successfully transition back to school. The contributions of a multidisciplinary approach that includes general education and special education teachers, social workers, psychologists, school counselors, and parents, will facilitate and promote consensus when determining placement and accommodations for these students.
For teachers specifically, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1999) emphasizes the notion of a classroom climate with conditions that foster “mentally healthy attributions” that are available to all learners—those with disabilities, those from diverse cultural or language backgrounds, and those from at-risk backgrounds. Psychologists and social workers represent an imperative role in helping school counselors and teachers to readily adapt and create an accommodating environment for students with spinal cord injuries. In the final analysis, school counselors, general education and special education teachers, psychologists, social workers, and parents share the same goal: achievement at their highest level in the least restrictive environment.
References
Barnes, S. B. & Whinnery, K. W. (1997). Mobility opportunities via education (MOVE): Theoretical foundations. Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 16, 33-46.
Bidabe, D. L. (1998). The evolution of MOVE. Symposium conducted at the Second Annual MOVE International Trainers’ Conference, Bakersfield, CA.
Breslau, N. (1985). Psychiatric disorders in children with physical disabilities. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24, 87-94.
Bowe, F. (2000). Physical, sensory, and health disabilities: An introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Cadman, D., Boyle, M., Szatmari, P., & Offord, D. R. (1987). Chronic illness, disability and mental and social well-being: Findings of the Ontario Child Health Study. Pediatrics, 79, 805-813.
Carnes, S. L. & Quinn, W. H. (2005). Family adaptation to brain injury: Coping and psychological distress. Families, Systems, and Health, 23(2), 186-203.
Falvey, M. A. (1989). Community-based curriculum: Instructional strategies for students with severe handicaps (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Futrell, M. H. (2001). In educators meet to improve the quality of special education teaching. Today 8(1). Arlington, VA.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990—Public Law 101-476.
Mrug, S. & Wallander, J. L. (2002). Self-concept of young people with physical disabilities: Does integration play a role? The International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 49(3), 267-280.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1999). What teachers should know and be able to do. Southfield, MI: Author
Snell, M. E. & Brown, F. (2000). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Susan Schaming McNiff, Ed.D., LPC, NBCC, is an assistant professor at Widener University’s Center for Education.