Paul Hogan teaches severely handicapped children in New York City, yet he’s evaluated with a framework designed for teachers of mainstream students. This is “tantamount to punishing and penalizing teachers who go into this demanding, difficult and highly *specialized* type of teaching,” he writes. The union hasn’t helped.
A classroom teacher can earn a “highly effective” rating only if students are observed by the evaluator to formulate high-level questions and take “responsibility for the success of the discussion.”
Many students in District 75, which serves severely handicapped children, can’t speak.
In some cases these non-verbal kids may be trained to push buttons on electronic devices to communicate basic needs. “Bathroom,” for example, represented on the device by an icon or pictograph, is a basic need; as is “Hungry”. There are various picture/symbol communication systems (TEACCH, PECS, etc.) that are used with some success with some students. This is the kind of thing we do in special ed.. . . And let me tell you: if you are talking about a non-verbal child, classified by the DOE as “untestable,” who is incontinent and has struggled from birth with tripelgic or quadriplegic spastic cerebral palsy, you can take the Danielson Framework and burn it. It has no relevance to the proper education of the child I just described.
Some students have IQs too low to measure. They don’t “initiate or adapt activities and projects to enhance their understanding.” They don’t exhibit “grade-level understanding.”
Exasperated Educator teaches and tests students with less-severe disabilities.