A little insight into our admissions process

Lisa Saunders is back with another guest blog.  This one is really interesting as it gives some terrific insight into what Bridgeway's process is for reviewing and accepting students into our program.  As you'll read, the process is not as straighforward as you might think.

Rhonda

By Lisa Saunders

Of course we have the same sort of discrete problems as the public schooling system: ordering supplies, setting the bell schedule, how many staff to hire and so on; the emergent problems we experience are quite unique.  The public schooling system is called that because they exist to serve the public, they have very few choices in terms of who attends the school other than geographic limitations.  The very issue that is our emergent problem, who is accepted into our program, is more of a discrete problem for them.  Currently, our program is designed for students who meet a specific set of criteria: diagnosed learning disability, no emotional/behavioural issues as a primary concern, no global or cognitive delays and no diagnoses of autism – sounds pretty straight forward, almost as though the decision to accept a student would be considered a discrete problem for us as well, right? 

In answer to this emergent problem we have established an Admission and Review committee, a group of people who each bring different perspectives, expertise and investment into this complex decision-making process.  Involved are a psychologist, neuropsychologist, myself (Director of Programs) and our Executive Director.  Each of us bring to the table various perspectives through which we meet, filter the information each of us have on the topics at hand and arrive at a decision that is implemented and monitored.  Most of our decisions are based on emergent problems in that the effects of our decisions are long reaching and have various outcomes depending on each individual case.

As more and more studies surrounding children’s learning emerge, new diagnoses and ways to diagnose come about in answer to those findings.  Most specifically, the very definition of learning disabilities is changing leaving our Admissions and Review committee with an emergent problem to deal with.  This is not the first emergent problem of this nature we have had to contend with; recently the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) has become a prevalent occurrence on psycho-educational assessments.  The spectrum is wide-reaching and we have experienced success and disappointments in accepting this new diagnosis under our program umbrella.  The party line remains – no diagnoses of Autism, but ASD doesn’t really fit there any more than it fits and LD diagnosis.   Our acceptance criteria continue to be weighed on a child-by-child basis, however; the impact of being wrong is much more devastating than ordering the wrong kind of printer ink!

The Learning Disabilites Association of Canada defines a learning disability as follows:

Learning Disabilities refer to a number of disorders which may affect the acquisition, organization, retention, understanding or use of verbal or nonverbal information.  These disorders affect learning in individuals who otherwise demonstrate at least average abilities essential for thinking and/or reasoning.  As such, learning disabilities are distinct from global intellectual deficiency.

This is the guideline we follow in determining those students whom we accept into our program.  The trend we are starting to see, though, is a move away from the inclusion of average cognitive ability as part of the diagnostic criteria.  We are receiving psych-ed reports with final diagnosis of an LD, but the child does not have the full scale I Q to support the diagnosis (according to LDAC criteria). 

This is not to say that our program would not help those students who have a cognitive delay and an LD, just that those students will need more intense remediation over a longer period of time.  Parents are only able to rely on Department of Education funding for four years, if they even qualify.  We have based our program on an average three-year stay with a transitional return to alternate education (public, private, post-secondary).  If we begin to admit students who meet the alternative diagnosis of an LD, the guidelines set-up will not meet the needs of the learner.  As well, moving forward we are hoping to incorporate more research within our program, too many variables may not be conducive to providing useful data.

Involvement of the committee members proves an invaluable resource to maintaining and growing our program.  Each member of the committee brings a different perspective, level of experience and investment to the table helping to solve just one category of emergent problems we face.  Although the organizational leader plays a role in this committee, which does not necessarily translate to the role played in the organization-that of leader.  Rather, each participant has a key role in the emergent problem solving process.

If you're interested in more information on Bridgeway's programs or our admissions process, please give Lisa a call at 902-464-0134.

What's the best way to teach our kids?

Thanks once again to Lisa Saunders, Director of Programs at Bridgeway for contributing more of her writing on education.  Lisa is working on her Master's degree at Acadia, and will sharing some of her studies with us in guest postings on our blog.

Enjoy!

Rhonda

By Lisa Saunders

Over our history there have been and continue to be many great debates: is the world flat or round, does God exist, are carbohydrates good or bad?  Within educational circles one debate rages on; what is the best way to teach our kids?  Traditional education offers the stability and predictability of reading, writing and arithmetic, long-established customs found in schools that our society has historically deemed appropriate.  Progressive education, on the other hand, has the qualities of well-rounded education that western society has come to covet; a focus on each student’s strengths and interests, assessing in various ways that support diverse learners.

Throughout the past 100 years many studies have been carried out with the sole purpose of investigating how we learn.  Many of these studies have shown an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the implementation of the characteristics of progressive education: individual instruction, informality in the classroom, multi-sensory teaching practices and the use of group discussions and laboratories as instructional techniques.  Successful implementation of this very practice has been seen all over the world.  From establishment of progressive education techniques by John Dewey in the early 1900’s to the public uprising against the No Child Left Behind Act, progressive education has been a supported teaching practice spanning over two centuries, albeit with varied success.  As long as we have administrators and policy makers fully immersed in traditional education, progression will not be fully realized.  Difficulty lies in separating the two ideas in that, elements of traditional education: external motivation, memorization of rote facts and concentration on skills in reading, writing and math, are sewn into the very fabric of our educational system. 

Each generation experiences the upcoming generation doing things a little bit differently – how did our parent’s parents feel about television, or our parents feel about computers; how do we feel about social networking and assistive technology?  These tools can be seen as barriers to learning or they can be seen as tools, stepping stones for the next generation to express what we have taught them.   As each generation learns more about how the next generation of students learn, educators attempt to predict what skills will be most beneficial in the next generation’s society.   Central skills include the need for workers to have a proficient ability to receive, store, process and communicate information.  Teaching our students to be independent thinkers will always serve them, no matter their career choice. 

Critics in education will always exist, projecting their view on an education system that is slow to change and seems to cater to the average student.  The essence of learning is not to regurgitate facts, memorized for that expressed purpose, rather it is to understand, investigate and discover in a way that is meaningful to each of us.  As we are all different in thoughts, experiences and viewpoints, so must our learning and evaluation be diverse from that of our classmates.  There are many students who have gifts that reach far beyond memorizing multiplication tables and mastering spelling bees, who require creative and out-of-the-box teachers to guide them towards becoming the forward thinkers of the next generation. 

It makes sense to tailor education to each individual. Though many of our traditionalist teachers and administrators work in their comfort zone, relying on those methods that were bestowed upon them as students,   we all want to teach and support our next generation of children in a way that will be beneficial to society.  Teach a student what to think and humanity stays stagnant, teach a student how to think and who knows how far we will go.

What are your thoughts on education in the future?  Share them in the comments section below!