A Multidimensional Approach for Educating All Children:
Empowering Stakeholders to Make Appropriate Decisions
The teacher said:
“Flowers are red young man.
Green leaves are green.
There’s no need to see flowers any other way…
Than the way they always have been seen.”
But the little boy said:
“There are so many colors in the rainbow.
So many colors in the morning sun…
So many colors in the flowers and I see everyone.”
Harry Chapin
Educators are frequently limited by narrow paradigms of thought. Children, uninhibited and “untrained”, often speak freely and profoundly about the world around them. They tend to observe things that have long been filtered out by adults who have been “educated” and socialized into “knowing” what adults say is either right or wrong, true or false.
Principals and other professionals charged with the responsibility of educating students must rid themselves of the myopic lenses of tradition, usual protocol and blindly accepted practice. A broader vision of inclusion must be implemented for all children. We offer a model for inclusion that is founded in the little boy’s view of the rainbow. However, the colors have not always been so clear and easily perceptible.
The words exclusion and inclusion are keys to understanding the history of education in America. Generally, schooling in earlier periods of our nation’s past was exclusionary in nature. Thick clouds of discrimination descended upon large groups of potential learners, resulting in a significantly un-served, or under-served “lower class.” Children from low socioeconomic backgrounds attended schools that provided for basic literacy, while the “sons of the upper classes, in contrast, attended the preparatory Latin grammar schools and, if successful, entered college” (Ornstein & Levine, 2003). Historically, minority youngsters did not enjoy the full benefits of education during this early period and were relegated to segregated schools which were inferior to those provided for the core culture.
Children with disabilities were no exception to this exclusionary trend. According to Pardini (2002):
Despite compulsory education laws that had been in place nationwide since 1918, many children with disabilities were routinely excluded from public schools. Their options: remain at home or to be institutionalized. Even those with mild or moderate disabilities who did not enroll were likely to drop out well before graduating from high school.(¶ 1)
As minority children, when the schoolhouse gates did finally open to students with disabilities, segregation was the still the norm. The response from educators to the inclusion of these learners in regular schools was to categories students and place them in separate classes away from the mainstream. However, reformers, such as Lloyd Dunn and Evelyn Deno, challenged the legitimacy of this system in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Deno (1970) asserted, “ …the introduction of categorical constructs based on presumed child defects merely adds a cluttering, unessential administrative and conceptual layer which interferes more than it aids in realizing the goal of individualized instruction for all children, handicapped and non-handicapped” (p. 232).
In 1970 Deno not only identified the problem, but also offered a solution to this restrictive and inappropriate approach to serving children who had special needs. Deno’s (1970) Cascade Model is portrayed by an upside down triangle with six in-school placement options connected at the apex to a smaller open-ended triangle that presented two out-of-school possibilities for placement (see Figure 1). Although the limitations and misuses of the model would soon become apparent, this simple Cascade schema marked the beginning of substantial educational reform by prompting federal and state governments to move away from categorization and ineffective instructional delivery system settings to a more child-centered approach.
Figure 1. Deno’s Original Cascade of Services
From “Introduction To Special Education Programs: Lesson 5,” by Project PARA. Copyright 2006 by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders. Reprinted with permission of the author.
The purpose of this paper is to build upon the Cascade Model in three significant ways. Deno (1970) stated, “…the entire educational enterprise is one vast social system constantly involved in making judgments of achievement adequacy and deportment acceptability which psychometric measures have been designed to predict” (p. 234). It is evident that this pioneer author recognized that organizations can be complex systems influenced by an array of internal and external variables. Using an adaptation of this model, we explored the historical single-dimensional triangle and expanded it into a three-dimensional Prism which identifies organizational factors that can have a positive influence on the decision-making process. In contrast to Deno’s relatively few placement options, we propose 36 possible alternatives of placement for students. Deno (1970) recognized the placement alternatives and limitations in deploying sound special education practices. We are offering specific, practical, and effective administrative processes to facilitate appropriate decisions to meet the diverse needs of all students.
According to Hoy and Miskel (2005), “An open system is a set of interacting elements that acquires inputs from the outside, transforms them, and produces outputs for the environment” (p.20). In order to illustrate a truly open system, we present a metaphorical Prism Model (see Figure 2), which consist of inputs, a transformation process occurring within the organization and emerging outputs. Inputs, in this case, include four illuminating vectors: (1) students’ understanding through attitude; (2) parental care and advice; (3) teachers’ conscientious behaviors; and (4) administrative leadership (see Figure 2). These informative factors are considered metaphorically as forces which penetrate the organizational prism.
Figure 2. Stakeholders’ Triangulated Perspectives
The organization then applies transformational processes, namely more placement options and better administrative practices, to generate desired outputs. We propose that these transformational processes result in a wider spectrum of appropriate placement options, referred to as the Rainbow Continuum (see Appendix A).
Comparing Deno’s Cascade Model to the Prism Model, her diagram represents but one dimension of this multidimensional proposition. When the prism is unfolded (see figure 4), it can be illustrated graphically that Deno’s Model by itself is but one part of a larger whole and when viewed narrowly can be easily misinterpreted and misused. In fact, Deno (1994) acknowledged that the model has been often misapplied for the purpose of securing funding, which resulted in inappropriate placement. Hence, the Prism Model is not presented as an indictment of Deno’s earlier work, but rather as a defense to its intended purposes and as an extending framework to realize greater possibilities for appropriately meeting the needs of students.
The first major dimension of the Prism Model involves potentially illuminating inputs, which function as triangulated perspectives. Traditionally, students’ opinions have been largely ignored in the placement process. Parents are often involved statutorily in Individualized Education Program admission, review and dismissal meetings, but educators frequently dominate and seem to appreciate only the compliance aspect of parents’ participation. Most often, both regular and special education teachers are required to be present when placement decisions are made. However, teachers’ voices are at times muffled by the more powerful tones of administrators and related service support staff. Alarmingly, school leaders often come to the placement process ill prepared and inadequately equipped to guide “best practices” implementation.
Students, parents, and teachers must become true partners in the placement process. The organization must not only allow, but enable the vectors of input from stakeholders to penetrate the Prism to meet a transformational process, which results in a “rainbow” of possibilities. Most stakeholders should be able to provide meaningful and critical insights resulting in optimal educational strategies within existing instructional settings. It is important to note that a key stakeholder, a well-informed and empathy administrator, has a greater ability to shed new light on decision-making that will benefit all students.
The second major dimension of this model is the Prism itself (see Figure 3). It represents the organization and the transformational processes that occur within a holistic panorama. In this case, a more comprehensive continuum of placement options and improved administrative practices. Both serve as internal mechanisms with the capability of absorbing and transforming current practice and policy, produces a Rainbowof new opportunities for all students in the school.
Figure 3. Metaphorical Prism Model
Figure 4. Metaphorical Prism Model Unfolded”
To attain the best services to meet the needs of all students, we present The Rainbow Continuum: A Count DOWN to Inclusion(see Figure 5). The best administrative practices of the transformational process follow. This new Rainbow paradigm provides those involved in placement decisions with an organized and systematic tool, which will ultimately encourage the placement of each student to the “least restrictive environment” based on his/her own strengths and challenges rather than the physical arrangement available on campus. The Count DOWN to Inclusion also offers a broader approach to proactively addressing the diversity of students (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. The Rainbow Continuum: Count DOWN to Inclusion
The Rainbow framework includes 8 major placement domains, including Exclusion, Deinstitutionalization, Limited Placement, Selective Placement, Transition to Mainstreaming, Mainstreaming, Transition to Inclusion, and Inclusion. Under each domain are specific placement options. For example, within the Deinstitutionalization Domain, students who need help can be accommodated through assistive technology with a certified specialist or an aide or through assistive technology with peer assistance.
The Rainbow framework also includes the Exclusion to Inclusion Numbering Box (see Figure 5). The disabilities and disorders enumerated within the box range from sensory impairment and severe/profound mental retardation at the ‘high end’ of numerical scale, to communicationdisorders and at-risk at the ‘lower end’ of the scale. The suggested ‘high end’ starting number for placement decisions should always consider an individual’s strengths, interests, and areas of concern and work down the “Numbering Box” toward an appropriate fit. In other words, the lower the number suggested by the Individualized Education Program (IEP) committee, the closer the student will move toward an optimal placement.
Ultimately, Deno recognized that it is one thing to know the solution and quite another proposition to effectively implement reform. She (1994) asserts:
Special educators have used their developmental capital well to get the right fix on what needs to be done to optimize the learning of children with disabilities, but they are barred from putting what they know into practice efficiently because they do not have the administrative structure they need to make the transition as well as they might. (p. 10)
Therefore, the administrative structure is another transformational consideration. The organization must adjust internal mechanisms to facilitate best placements. This Rainbow framework offers a systematic checklist to ensure that ALL students can be effectively served. However, the model must be examined in light of local resources, practices, and willingness to be flexible. It is recommended that appropriate staff review all placement opportunities and note current district assets that could support each option. In some cases, school systems may not have the particular resource, program or process in place to support a specific placement. Fortunately, this model can be easily implemented with minimal difficulty. For example, the district may not have a formal peer tutoring arrangement. In this case, the district may consider organizing students to perform this function. An added benefit of this approach to meeting the needs of all students is the very act of performing a local needs assessment in view of the many placement options.
A review of local policy and procedures should also be performed prior to deployment of the Rainbow Continuum. This is particularly important in respect to staffing policy and budgetary practices. Many potentially beneficial initiatives are often stifled by a lack of congruence between the well-intended idea and the sometimes cold reality of policies and budget allocations. To remedy this dilemma, staffing ratios, normally contained within board policy or administrative regulations, should be aligned with the various Rainbow Continuum options. For successful use, the district’s budget must correspondingly provide line items to fund adjustments in personnel and programs. Using this model as a guide during the budget development cycle may be especially helpful, but it is not anticipated that implementation of these internal adjustments will add prohibitive budgetary restraint or major personnel shifts in assignment.
Once the district has completed its resource, policy and budget assessments, staff and parent development is imperative. All individuals involved in placement decisions, including central office staff, parents, campus administration, teachers, diagnosticians, related service personnel and others, must receive a thorough presentation addressing various aspects of the model. This training should include a discussion of local nuances, such as variations in geographic or professional changes in jargon. Staff and parent development should also describe how local policy, procedures and budget requirements relate to the array of placements.
In addition to localizing the Rainbow Continuum, the administrative leader must eliminate the fog that often obstructs the view of the rainbow and fall into the unproductive mode of tradition and blindly accepted practice. This is evident when the campus leader dictates members who will attend IEP committee meetings or ignores trends in recent court cases that uphold a student’s right of being placed in the most productive setting rather than based on his or her categorical disability. Allowing wholesale learning disabled (LD) diagnoses, acceptance of central office’s arbitrary cutoff dates for referral, and a refusal to look at systemic problems in the curriculum are all administrative behaviors that exemplify this tendency. For example, building leaders often overly rely on norm-referenced tests as opposed to more authentic assessment. Earl and LeMahieu (1997) contend, “Assessment is one of the most powerful levers for enhancing student learning and bringing about positive educational change” (p. 158). They further offer that “large-scale testing programs may be fundamentally inequitable and disadvantage many groups of children.” There are many more examples of questionable current practices, which limit the vast opportunities that can be realized utilizing the Rainbow Continuum. Therefore this framework reaches the real vision of individualized services for all students on each campus. It is generic as well as specific in its scope, and the Rainbow Continuum will simplify general education as well as address placement decisions for students who have protected rights and special services requirement.
We agree with Deno and others who established a strong foundation for special education reform. But often times, a sound foundation must be expanded upon to realize its original purpose. We have offered an extending framework of Deno’s Cascade in the form of the Prism Model,which will only work if the school organization is willing to address the needs of all students individually.
In the introductory verse cited by Harry Chapin, the child sings: “There are so many colors in a rainbow, and I see every one!” Like the innocent child who perceives this wonderful spectrum, educators must free themselves to not only believe in, but to act upon the many possibilities of schooling. The Prism Model is one tool that hopes to foster a wider view of the educational landscape that would benefit all children.
References
Chapin, H. (1978). Flowers are Red.Living Room Suite.Lyrics retrieved October 12,2005,from
Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital.Exceptional Children, 37(3), 239-237.
Deno, E. (1994). Special education as developmental capital: A quarter century appraisal [Electronic version].Journal of Special Education, 27(4), 375-393. Retrieved February 3, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.
Earl, L. M., & LeMahieu, P. G. (1997). Rethinking assessment and accountability, inA.
Hargreaves (Ed.),Rethinking educational change with heart and mind(pp. 149-168).Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.
Hoy, W. K., &Miskel, C., G. (2005).Educational administration: Theory research and practice (7th ed.). New York: NY, McGraw-Hill.
Ornstein, A. C., & Levine, D.U. (2003).Foundations of education (8th ed.). Boston,MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Pardini, P. (2002). The history of special education.Rethinking Schools Online. Retrieved October 7, 2005, from