After a few observations, we’re back in the classroom again. This time we’re learning how to actually take the S.M.A.R.T program and put it into the classroom setting. I’ve just had a spirited conversation with Charlotte. The more I discuss it, the more value I see to the program. I don’t believe that it will solve all of a child’s problems, nor do I think it will make every student a star. It does seem to me that it can help set students up for success by eliminating issues that may not be severe enough to warrant an IEP, but that can still have a direct effect on their learning.
To put it simply, a child with a mild auditory processing problem has a strike against them before they ever step in to a classroom. They may have perfect hearing, but have difficulty processing auditory input. Simple, everyday tasks may be a serious challenge to these children. If you have to exert a tremendous amount of effort just deciphering the directions, then how much energy will you have to complete the task at hand? The problem may be something as simple as a pathway in the brain being slightly underdeveloped that with practice could be developed full?
Without question, there are other sorts of issues that children can have. This is not a miracle cure all. I file it in the same category as social emotional development in kindergarten; children may learn to compensate for poor social emotional development in time, but if they learn those skills during early childhood, they will be naturally internalized for life. A child that learns to empathize with others in Kindergarten will probably not become a bully in middle school. In contrast, a child that never learns to consider other student’s feelings won’t even realize when they are engaging in bullying behavior.
Similarly, a child that learns internalizes these auditory and visual skills as well as the reflexs described, will have a distinct advantage in the educational environment over students who haven’t developed them yet. Let me put that a different way. They won’t be disadvantaged when they step into the classroom. It’s not about providing them with any sort of advantage, it’s ensuring that they don’t have a disadvantage. That doesn’t sound quite as sexy, but it’s closer to the truth.
Of course, buying into the theory is a completely different matter than buying into the system to address it. The system seems pretty well designed and I’m looking forward to implementing it. I do wonder if there are better ways to address these issues out there. If this program ever gets nationwide recognition and becomes mainstream, I wonder if people will come up with more efficient exercises for developing these skills. How were these skills created? I’m assuming that some activities are more effective than others, perhaps there are ways that the same goals could be achieved in a shorter time span (this program recommends 80 hours).
So where does this leave me? I feel like I’ve gained some valuable insight into my students that will help me better address their needs as individuals. I look forward to putting these theories into practice and seeing just how much of an impact they really have. I will continue to question it though. The day I stop questioning the way we do things is the day I should probably leave the field of education. More information is always more better though 
People who teach PreK-3 may want to look further into it. If anyone has any questions or want to hear more about specific aspects of the program, leave me a comment and I’ll try to fill you in.