Current Status and Effects of Special Education Learning Resource Center Program in Taipei County

[[abstract]]The purpose of this study was to explore the current status and effects of special education learning resource center program in Taipei County. Data were collected through self-designed questionnaires and student’s Individualized Educational Plan (IEP). The researcher used evaluation checklist designed by Tai-Hwa Emily Lu & Ching-Ching Chang (2003) to analyze IEPs. One hundred questionnaires filled by administrators, regular-class teachers, special education teachers and parents from total 23 learning resource centers and 55 IEPs from 17 learning resource centers were analyzed in this study. The main finding were as follows: 1.Schools transformed from what used to be self-contained special classes for the mentally retarded to learning resource centers had expanded their services to those in the regular classes whom needed additional attention. 2.Under the Education Bureau’s impetus, school assessment personnel had an explicit increased which allows more support in the identification process. Schools would also use referrals, checklists and standardized tests as evaluation methods. Although these were not fully included in the IEPs. 3.Learning resource centers mainly provided direct teaching and test adjustment. Direct teaching was to remediate students’ weaker subjects and provide functional curricula. However, test adjustment information was not found in the IEP analysis. 4.IEP goals were not appropriate due to the following reasons: a.Goals were set too high. b.Short term objectives were students already known. c.The plan did not present students’ capabilities, therefore, unabled to allow further evaluation. d.Curriculum designed did not meet individual’s learning level. e.Designed IEP goals and objectives were not based on the students’ needs and preferences. f.The plan did not coincide with grade level and capabilities of students. g.Some IEPs did not have annual goals. h.The individual designed goals were overly detailed. 5.Learning resource centers assisted regular-class teachers with methods to assess and identify students suspected of mental retardation, and to provide them with information and consultation. Regular-class teachers were pleased with these supports. 6.Regular-class teachers discussed with staffs the emotional behaviors and social difficulties of students suspected with mental retardation. School administrative staffs and parents often discussed with special education teachers students’ problems. However, special education teachers rarely discussed students’ issues with school administrators. 7.Regular-class teachers thought identification, teaching, special education services, consultation and communication having better effects than special education teachers and school administrators. School administrators, on the other hand, were more satisfied with the administrative and public relation division. This study discussed outcomes of the research as well as offered suggestions to enhance operations for learning resource centers, administrative authority, schools, teachers and future research.