Student assessment and program evaluation are essential to identifying, selecting and evaluating effective interventions and educational programs for students with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). As the number of children classified as autistic increases, school personnel can benefit from increasing their understanding of the role that evaluation plays in determining student instructional needs and designing and evaluating effective programs and interventions. Evaluation provides the data needed to design appropriate and effective instructional contexts that promote student learning and achievement, goals of our federal laws (IDEA, 2004; NCLB, 2001).

Students with ASD are a heterogeneous group presenting with a wide range of neurodevelopmental deficits and high rates of learning and behavior disorders; all of which can challenge their ability to access the general education curriculum, engage in the instructional process, and participate in the least restrictive environment. With features of the disorder affecting multiple developmental areas and symptoms varying in severity across students and across the age span, school personnel need to routinely evaluate the unique learner characteristics and instructional needs of each of their students. In addition, the instructional context (e.g., curriculum, instruction, positive behavior supports) also needs to be routinely evaluated in order to identify and provide effective interventions and supports.

It is only when the instructional context is aligned with the student’s instructional level and contains the appropriate social and behavior supports that he/she will learn. While this might seem the sole responsibility of the individual teacher or therapist, school administrators need to ensure that district infrastructure supports educational personnel in the use of these evidence-based practices. Therefore, formalized on-going program evaluation is a necessary component in all districts wishing to ensure that their students are achieving. This requires a commitment by the school district to ensure that its policies and procedures support school personnel in gaining the knowledge, skill and ability to engage in meaningful student evaluation that allows for the identification of the student’s instructional needs, identification and application of appropriate interventions, progress monitoring, and evaluation of the student’s response to the intervention.

Because educational programs and/or interventions derived and evaluated in the context of research do not always translate to the field, student and program level evaluation are necessary to demonstrate that a district and its personnel are applying effective practices. Evaluation should, therefore, become a part of the daily repertoire of all school personnel. Successful ASD programming requires school leaders to understand the needs of their students, create school contexts that contain elements of effective practice in ASD education, and policy and procedures that ensure research-based elements are translated into practice to improve student outcome.

Evaluation provides the data that are needed to make informed decisions about student and district programs and to assist with problem-solving for those programs, interventions or practices that are ineffective. Please join our talk scheduled for 8:30 am on March 7^th to hear me discuss the fundamental role that evaluation plays in evidenced-based practice in ASD education, and the issues and considerations in designing appropriate student assessment and program evaluation protocols.

When I was a child, I was good at drawing and art and terrible at algebra.  My parents encouraged my ability in art and I used my ability to visualize in my career designing livestock facilities.  People on the autism/Asperger spectrum have uneven skills.  They are often good at one type of learning and bad at another.  Educators need to work on building up the area of strength.  There is often too much emphasis on deficits.  The most successful individuals developed their areas of strength.  I have observed that there are three different cognitive patterns in autism/Asperger’s:

1. Visual thinkers like me.  I think in photo realistic pictures. Suitable careers would be graphic   design, industrial design, or animation. The area of weakness is algebra.  Some visual thinkers can do geometry and trigonometry.

2. Pattern thinkers have more abstract visual thinking.  They are able to see patterns and relationships between numbers.  Good careers would be engineering, math or computer programming.  Reading is often a weak area.

3. Word thinkers who know every fact about their favorite subject.  They are not visual thinkers and they are often good at journalism and technical writing.

Teachers and parents need to work with people on the autism/Asperger spectrum to develop their strengths.  Additional information may be found in my books:  Thinking in Pictures and Developing Talents.

Teachers and parents need to work on helping the individual to develop skills that can be turned into good careers.  I am a visual thinker and my ability in art was encouraged.  I use my visual thinking skill in my work designing equipment.  Another child may be good at math.  He may be able to do advanced math, but need special education in  reading.  A big mistake is to put too much emphasis on the deficits and not enough emphasis in building up the area of strength.

As reported by the federal government’s Centers for Disease Control, the rate of children being diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has risen dramatically, to an estimated one in 150 children.

Where are these children being educated? How well are they doing?

In 2002, educators in the New York City Department of Education, the largest public school district in the country, sought to answer these questions. They conducted a study of the growing number of higher functioning students on the autism spectrum attending New York City public schools. Led by District 15 Superintendent Carmen Farina, and with support from Dorothy Siegel of New York University and Shirley Cohen of Hunter College, the educators studied the research findings of the National Academy of Sciences’ 2001 report, Educating Children with Autism. That report stated that the school environment must be the “major vehicle for therapeutic change.” That became the goal of the ASD Nest Program, which Superintendent Farina piloted in September 2003 in Brooklyn’s PS 32.

The ASD Nest Program is built on the Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) model, modified to meet the needs of higher functioning children with ASD. Nestled within supportive neighborhood schools, the program helps children with ASD learn how to function well academically, behaviorally and socially in school and in their community.

The program creates a therapeutic environment in which the requisite supports are provided by a transdisciplinary team of specially trained educators and therapists. Weekly team meetings/case conferences, professional development and time for co-planning and collaboration are built into the program.

ASD Nest classrooms provide the same academic curriculum as other classrooms in their schools on that grade level. In addition, Nest classrooms utilize selected instructional strategies and behavioral supports designed especially for children with autism spectrum disorders and other exceptional conditions. The Nest program also utilizes a Social Development Intervention curriculum derived from a combination of the concepts and practices of Relationship Development Intervention by Steven Gutstein, Social Thinking by Michelle Garcia Winner, and other social-cognitive approaches. The SDI curriculum, developed primarily by Susan Brennan, a speech/language pathologist who has been working with the ASD Nest program since 2003, is implemented across all settings across the school day.

As of the 2008-09 school year, the Department of Education supported 59 ASD Nest classrooms from kindergarten to eighth grade serving 235 children with ASD in 15 neighborhood schools (14 elementary schools and 1 middle school) across all of New York City. Nest programs begin with two kindergarten classes. As the children progress through first, second and higher grades, their schools open Nest classes to accommodate them. Linda Wernikoff, Executive Director of the Office of Special Education Initiatives of the New York City Department of Education, has guided and nurtured the ASD Nest program from its inception.

Interested parents/guardians of New York City schoolchildren should contact:

CSE 1: Dorothy Leone, 718-294-1109

CSE 2: Karen Reis, 718-324-2854 x1740

CSE 3: D. 25, 26: Melissa Haidary, 718-281-7668; D. 28, 29: Xicheng Zou 718-281-7517

CSE 4: Elissa Finkelstein, 718-391-8468

CSE 5: Aña Rodriguez, 718- 240-3542

CSE 6: Freya Novack, 718-968-6224

CSE 7: Linda Clark, Brooklyn: 718-759-496; Staten Island: 718-556-8304

CSE 8: Elementary: Maritza Quinones-Buckley, 718-330-9295 X151 (T, W, Th)

Middle: Madeline Fisher, 718-330-0329 x5191

CSE 9: Nilofer Naqvi, 917-339-1752

CSE 10: Diane Carnegie, 212-342-8391

For general information, contact Terry Feuer at tfeuer@schools.nyc.gov or Dorothy Siegel at Dorothy.siegel@nyu.edu.

When I tell people I work in outreach, their response is generally, “What do you call outreach?” This is a sticky question with a lot of grey areas; one whose answer changes depending on our outreach audience and climate. It is much better to define the work my colleagues and I do in Cyberchase Outreach by the goals we set:

• Develop new and nurture existing partnerships
• Present interactive training sessions for formal and informal educators
• Support the STEM education goals of organizations and individuals that work with children
• Develop, organize and facilitate hands-on activities at children’s events
• Overall, extend the impact of Cyberchase educational resources and lessons nationally.

That last one sounds a lot like the last line on any job description – “and other duties as assigned” – a dubious statement that I prefer to shine in a more positive light as an open door to innovation.

2008 has been a pioneering year for Cyberchase Outreach as we found and acted upon new ways to meet our goals and expand the scope of our outreach. Some year-end highlights include:

• The launch of a new Outreach page online. We created this page in order to support our partners and place resources particular to their operations in an easily accessible space. This page will allow us to post specific information related to outreach news, events, resources and trainings.
• Designing new web based trainings through a partnership with the Educational Enterprise Zone at New York Institute of Technology. Through online trainings we intend to extend our reach without expanding our budgets. By using the open source software, Moodle, we will manage our trainings while creating a collaborative resource for partners and Cyberchase teacher consumers.
• Extending our collaborative efforts to new children’s and science museums and events including World Science Festival in NYC; Liberty Science Center in Jersey City, NJ; and Minnetrista in Munice, ID.
• An increased acceptance to educational conferences nationwide including New Jersey Educational Association Conference, International Technology Education Association Conference and the National Conference on Science and Technology in Out of School Time.

The New Year brings more exciting opportunities to redefine Cyberchase Outreach from broadening our relationship with PBS through PBS Teacher Connect, to launching our web based trainings nationally to facilitating an informational summit with professors of pre-service and in-service teachers. Only a few days in and 2009 is already on its way to exceeding 2008!

At NYIT/NUPT Nanjing, China we are endeavoring to find out. So far we have found PBS materials not only helpful but crucial.

In 2007, New York Institute of Technology opened its American-style Nanjing campus in collaboration with Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications (NUPT). Four academic degree granting programs are offered to qualified Chinese students. All programs are taught in English by NYIT professors; the curriculum mirrors the programs offered in the United States.

The Problem

As the only American degree granting program in China, NYIT/NUPT found their entering students to be in need of EFL help. Though their grammar and reading were adequate, writing coherence and listening comprehension were not.

The Solution

In 2007 an intensive six-hour-a-day, three-week program was created to address this. The program was taught by three American ESL instructors and nine Chinese English teachers. Limited improvement occurred in the 300 students. Comprehension studies included excerpts from NPR shows as well as PBS films (without educational support materials).

In 2008 the program was expanded to five weeks using all American ESL or speech instructors and incorporating new materials.

Thirteen’s Education Department Materials Introduced

The primary tool for this was the use of PBS programming and their collateral teaching aids. Program choice was based on student need to prepare for an American education based in western culture; preparation for future course work, concepts; and vocabulary, with a simple to moderate degree of difficulty.

The students had had ten years of Chinese-taught English. They all had the same materials, and the same vocabulary They had memorized and learned by rote. English conversation was limited, and comprehension of anything of length was nearly impossible.

The PBS materials were excellent tools, as they are visually arresting and of the highest quality. The programs were well received in rooms of 150 students with no air conditioning and 90 degree temperatures (with humidity to match).

We started and ended with CYBERCHASE. Cartoons are favorites with these 18 year olds. We also showed WHAT’S UP IN FINANCE (Economics), WILD TV (Environmental studies), THE SECRET LIFE OF THE BRAIN (science and psychology), and the WIDE ANGLE presentations “The Empty ATM” and “Turkey’s Tigers.” Also included as part of educational readiness was the POV special, “The Hobart Shakespeareans.” The WIDE ANGLE ‘Back to School’ segment gave them a global perspective.

Each presentation was divided into 40-minute segments. We accompanied each with vocabulary, outline topics, discussion items and listening goals. We followed up the presentations with break out Q&A sessions of 25-30 students.

We tested their comprehension and note taking with open notes quizzes. We held to an English only, no dictionaries or electronic devices rule.

Conclusions

Though rules of the Chinese educational system prevented us from formal pretesting, using informal short tests and subjective written student feedback we concluded the following.

Students improved in listening for main ideas and listening for details. Listening for inference was still a challenge. The students’ abilities and backgrounds were not as uniform as anticipated. The non-urban students were less prepared. Motivational levels of students were highly mixed. The students appreciated the openness of the classroom, the opportunity to freely ask questions, and the “kindness” of the teachers.

Subsequent teacher evaluations, as the students began their academic term, noted that the students had an increased readiness from 2007, participating in class discussion with original and well articulated ideas.

Most significantly, Chinese students, fearful of school, exhausted from the rigors of a high school experience concerned only with the test score, expressed a first-time joy of learning.