A reader wrote to ask whether the Senate revision of No Child Left Behind would permit states to develop alternate curricula and assessments for students with disabilities, and whether the bill will eliminate Secretary Duncan’s mandate that only 1% of children with disabilities could be allowed alternate assessments.
My inside source on the Senate committee staff told me that the authors of the bill wanted to permit states to have more flexibility but the “disability community” insisted on the status quo. They want all children, except the 1% who are most severely disabled, to take exactly the same tests. He suggested that if there were disability groups and parents who thought differently and who wanted greater state and local flexibility, they should make their voices heard.
In New York, when the first Common Core tests were given, only 5% of children with disabilities reached proficient, as compared to 30% of children without disabilities.
Contact the staff of Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and/or Senator Patti Murray of Washington State if you disagree with the lobbyists who want the stays quo.
In 2010, I visited with Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, who was the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee at that time. Along with Richard Rothstein, we explained the damage that No Child Left Behind was doing to children and education. He responded that “the disability community” loves NCLB. We were baffled.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
Diane et al….here is the most well researched and comprehensive article I have read on poverty and how it affects our society. It was posted only an hour ago and is written by Professor Peter Dreier and I hope, though it is long and full of citations, that you all will read it and pass it along to all your lists.
—————————————————————————————–
From Peter Dreier…..
“Philanthropy’s Misguided Ideas for Fixing Ghetto Poverty: The Limits of Free Markets and Place-Based Initiatives,”
published in the current (Spring 2015) issue of Non-Profit Quarterly, summarizes my views about what we need to do to address the outrage of persistent poverty and widening inequality. It is also a critique of mainstream philanthropy’s narrow view of the problem and thus its limited approach to addressing it.
Focusing narrowly on revitalizing poverty-stricken neighborhoods, and relying on “market” forces to solve these problems, is shortsighted and misguided.
Social-justice philanthropy has a long and valuable tradition in the United States, but it is still a marginal part of the foundation world. If philanthropists want to help create a more humane, fair, and democratic society, they should support the many organizations and activists who are building a movement for shared prosperity.
LikeLike
Thank you for answering my question Diane. It is time for parents of children with disabilities to let everyone know that WE are the advocates for our children. WE live with the consequences of this abusive testing. WE want this arbitrary percentage gone! Let parents and their special education teachers determine who can and should take these tests!
LikeLike
I don’t know who these people are that say we agree with all this because we DON”T. I agree with MonicaNY!!!!
LikeLike
I’d love for people like Senator Harkin and all of those in favor of NCLB to come to the school where I work, to see the harm that NCLB does to students that have severe disabilities.
Many of these students are in wheelchairs, are non-verbal, have severe medical problems, must be fed ( either through tubes or fed pureed foods through an aide), and cannot control their bowel movements. Many wear diapers, and must be changed many times by aides during the day. We have lost some of our students to their medical problems, at least during the years that I have been working in this school.
Yet, people like Harkin are expecting these students to be prepared for college and to work?
The reality is that as a society, these severely disabled students will ALWAYS need someone to take care of them, because, quite frankly, they are not able to take care of themselves in any way. Merely by thinking that NCLB will solve the woes of these students that are most neediest among us, will not make thier problems go away.
As teachers, we are always being admonished to “differentiate” our lessons, so that everyone can learn, no matter what their level of learning is. WHY is it that laws relating to education for people that have severe disabilities are NOT differentiated?
Do people like Tom Harkin and those of his ilk throughout our law making bodies have any answers to these questions?
LikeLike
Typo correction- “their”.
LikeLike
I would also like to add that we do have alternate assessments in my state for the student population that we serve. However what really happens when these students are tested, is that invariably, the teachers and the aides administering the “tests” must use techniques such as “eye gazing” or “pointing” on the part of the students to record whatever answer can be elicited.
This is all done to satisfy the Common Core, NCLB requirements and Race To The Top. Frankly, in my opinion, it’s all so hypocritical. I just don’t understand why we are subjecting people that have severe medical problems and other major life issues to this type of testing.
LikeLike
As a parent of a developmentally disabled child (with 46 years experience) my personal experience was that my husband and I were just absolutely sure that the next intervention would make our beautiful child “normal.” She’d be just like her brother and able to “learn” and go to regular school.
We made sure that many, many different approaches were tried.
Over the years, I have seen many parents who have been just absolutely sure that the next intervention….
It took us many years to grasp that she was able to learn, but at her own rate. She still does not know her numbers or how to read. She is a charming adult, with a wonderful sense of humor.
Having lived their experiences, I believe the intense desire of these parents drives their efforts to protect their child’s access to the next perceived intervention.
LikeLike
I, too have a developmentally delayed child, now 27 years of age.
She had been diagnosed as having a slight case of mental retardation ( formerly abbreviated as MMR) since birth.
I had my daughter placed in early intervention programs, all kinds of academic enrichment activities, and spent a good portion of my 30’s running around to various doctors to try to find out what was “wrong” with her. She also had a number of physical disabilities, since corrected by surgery. I can understand how you felt, trying to make your child fit into the “normal” mode. I often wonder why we can’t just accept people for what they are, rather than trying to fit everyone into a mold.
Today, she is a verbal, active, and independent person. However, though she was the valedictorian of her special education school, she can only read at a 2nd grade level, and do math at an upper first grade level.. Yes, she is capable of learning, as well, but due to her condition, can only attain so much.
Unfortunately, from what I have seen of public schools ( now that I’m an insider), it really doesn’t appear to me that we know how to deal or educate people that are classified as “Special Education” students.
There are so many variations of people that have varying disabilities, from those that can function independently to those that can’t and everyone in between. In my school. We have students with varying levels of autism, students severely disabled, and those that are similar to my daughter. Is it realistic to expect that everyone can “achieve” at the same levels? How many of us, the so called “normals” will ever become rocket scientists, or discover a cure for cancer?
I’d like to know who those people are in the “disability community”, too, that wanted this bill passed.
In my opinion, it’s high time that we had dialogue going on in this country about what “education” should consist of for the many varying “special education” populations.
LikeLike
I personally feel the alternative assessments do not serve a productive purpose for the students with the most significant disabilities.
There are some misunderstandings about what the “1% rule” is and how it should operate. The guideline is 1% of overall student enrollment, not 1% of students with disabilities. Further there is no requirement that only 1% of a school’s total enrollment can receive the alternative assessment. If a school or district thinks that is the case, they should go back to their state assessment office for clarification.
The limitation is that only a number of students scoring proficient or better on the alternative assessment up to 1% of total student enrollment may be counted toward AYP calculations. There is no hard cap on the number of students who may take the alternative assessment and whether a student should be in the alternative assessment should always be decided on an individual basis by the parents/guardians and educators in an IEP meeting.
In our district, the alternative assessment is decided on a case by case basis in IEP meetings and 0.7% of our total enrollment have the alternative assessment designated in their IEP.
LikeLike
I suspect the “disability community” is much in the same thought line as civil rights group who believe the tests make these students “visible” and count for something. I believe we get better yearly indicator if students with disabilities growth on their IEPs. These tests and the alternative assessments are more paperwork and stress for students, that yield no useful information.
Do you know which “disability groups” are pushing the status quo?
LikeLike
I don’t know but obviously there are Inside the Beltway groups who claim to represent all students with disabilities, and tell members of Congress they want exactly the same tests as everyone else.
LikeLike
Absolutely true, Diane, & also explained by R. Teacher, above. The National Council on L.D. has repeatedly advocated for testing, etc., so as not to “discriminate” against their population, & that L.D. students should be held to the same “high standards” & “rigors” as the gen. ed. pop. R. Teacher explains that stance well. Also, the National Council for Exceptional Children has–for years–been having “dialogues” with Arne, asking no hard questions, thus receiving nothing indicating anything that would be favorable to our children. It is beyond unfortunate that groups which should be advocating for their very raison d’etre do not–in fact, they are aiding & abetting the enemies of public education. SHAME on your “leadership” for their gross negligence of children’s rights!
Thus the child abuse and WITHHOLDING of a real education (for every child, save for those of the 1%) continues.
LikeLike
My memory of a sequel to Rick Lavoie’s Frustraion, Anxiety Tension workshop video is that he said that NCLB was put together with no regard for students with learning disabilities. Those parents with assets put their LD students in schools for students with learning disabilities to get them away from NCLB.
LikeLike
Here is the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) legislative update. Washington Update 4.7.15. Note there is no specific info about CEC’s position on alt. assessments ot the testing requirements in general. CEC has traditionally taken the same position as the NCLD- that exempting kids with disabilities from testing is discriminatory. This version eliminates the “highly qualified” language.
Dear TED Board:
As anticipated, the Senate HELP Committee has released a bi-partisan draft of their ESEA reauthorization bill – the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015. You can see the press release, the bill summary and the entire bill here:
http://www.help.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=4cea5b0a-0acb-448c-bad9-d3fa00de0e66&groups=Chair Committee staff are interested in feedback from education stakeholders.
At a packed briefing this morning in the Senate Committee hearing room, staff for Chairman Alexander (R-TN) and Ranking Member Murray (D-WA) reviewed the key provisions of the bill and took questions. They announced that the markup for the bill has been scheduled for next Tuesday, April 14 at 10 am.http://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=ca9f813d-5056-a032-524a-3c725c42209a They further noted that the markup may take as long as four days given pending Senate business on the floor and the multitude of amendments that are likely to be offered. If you tune in to the website you will likely be able to watch the markup.
In addition, Chairman Alexander’s staff noted that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was actively pursuing finding time to bring the bill to the Senate floor for full consideration in the not too distant future. There is no word on when/whether the House ESEA reauthorization bill will reappear on the House floor for final passage. (You will recall that that bill was pulled midway through consideration on the floor due to conservative opposition.)
In a related matter, the Committee is scheduled to vote on April 14 on the nominations of Michael Yudin to be Assistant Secretary for OSERS and Erica Miller to be the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
The bill is truly a compromise, meaning no one is thrilled with it, but most agree that it is a reasonable compromise to move the process forward. A few key highlights of the compromise:
· Annual state testing for students remains as it is in current law with the addition of the authority for states to innovate and pilot new assessments;
· States would determine their own goals for their statewide accountability systems, but they must include student growth and graduation rates as two of the metrics; states could add additional metrics and determine how to weight the components;
· Rigorous academic standards must be adopted, however the federal government may not mandate or encourage any particular set of standards;
· States may intervene with low-performing schools; however there is no percentage of schools required to be targeted, nor can the federal government proscribe turn around strategies;
· No portability provision; Maintenance of Effort retained;
· “Highly qualified” is eliminated;
· Teacher and principal evaluation systems are an optional use of Title II funds;
· Teacher leadership and support for a continuum of professional practice may be supported by Title II funds;
· Expansion of early childhood activities is authorized throughout the bill, but there is no new Title solely dedicated to early childhood;
· Residency programs and use of teacher performance assessments are authorized in Title II;
· The bill puts a cap on the percentage of students with disabilities who may be assessed using an alternate assessment tied to alternate standards to 1%; the former “2%” assessment provision is not included in the bill;
· “Such sums” is the spending level authorized for each program/Title.
The White House has called the bill an important “next step.” Education, civil rights and business groups are combing through the bill and will be providing feedback in the next few days. The conservative groups which blocked the House bill will likely be looking askance at the bill, just as they did in the House. Committee members will be putting together the amendments they want to offer, which must be filed with the Committee by next Monday. Presidential hopeful Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) sits on the HELP Committee, so it will be interesting to see what role he might play at the markup.
LikeLike
I am (yet and still? continually? since forever?) dumbfounded by the “disability community” reference. As if there’s a single voice. Have we not known of within-group variance always being greater than between-group variance, no matter the social setting or issue? In my day it was the “black community” (and don’t even get me started on things racial), as if there was one voice. Please put this one behind us.
LikeLike
It appears that whoever the “disability community” is, they simply want their children to be part of the mainstream. However, they are doing it in a destructive way. Destroying their kids with a test that is merely 2nd class achievement and ignoring the whole child which is 1st class achievement is a pathway to more failure.
The solution, however, is to make the shift for all students to 1st class achievement as a priority. In doing this ever child has an individual pathway to success (My Action Plan; MAP) In doing this, all children means all children.
Rather than forcing those with “special needs” to perform in an artificial manner, we recognize that all children are different and have different needs. While meeting those needs the need for public labels is totally eliminated and the dignity of every child restored.
For incite into that plan, go to http://www.wholechildreform.com and click on “A new way of thinking, aka why buy our book.
LikeLike
On this issue I fear that sometimes we are our own worst enemies. The “disability community” in all areas (not just education) has spend a few decades primarily fighting for those who are disabled to get access – get the chance to participate in society as a full member rather than find their options cut away because of a disability that doesn’t affect their ability to contribute. And that’s excellent.
But it also creates a tough spot in education. I’ve heard first hand stories of parents demanding that their severely disabled kids live in the mainstream – even though this would cost the district untold amounts and even though child psychologists recommended the child would be healthier with specialized services.
Having a son on the spectrum, we live these tensions. When do we advocate for the school to deliver something exceptional for our son? When do we just sort it out ourselves? There are no easy answers.
Morally, I struggle with concluding how much “special” should we demand for our son from our publicly funded schools which lack the money to deliver the “typical” for most students.
And we’ve had vast numbers of well meaning people tell us to “lawyer up” and “fight the district”. (We’ve achieved far more by being smart and firm but working with the district…without lawyers.)
Anyway, I can easily imagine how the advisors and staff would come to the conclusion that the general weight of opinion from “disability groups” was that children participate in the mainstream as a preference because it is the logical seeming extension of the past 40 years of disability battles.
My own sense is that we must change this – but we’re lacking a simple “theory” to help legislators understand how to draw the lines between “mainstream” and “accommodated”.
LikeLike
Is this “disability community” funded by the same people as the “civil rights community” which also advocates for tests?
LikeLike
I am so sick of “the disability community” getting a voice and actual parents who are living this fresh hell don’t.
LikeLike
Good comment, Julie B. I’ quite certain it is the “leadership” of the groups I’d mentioned above–& not the vast majority of members–who perpetrate testing, NCLB, RTTT, etc.
Do they own shares of Pear$on?!
LikeLike
In Maryland we had a 3 paragraph bill introduced that would have affirmatively given parents the power to say no to the standardized testing. Speaker Michael Busch, Chair Sheila Hixson and Chair Anne Healey prevented it from seeing the light of day. What gives them the right to decide for parents?
LikeLike
I’m conflicted about these bills that are popping up. Parents by definition have the right to opt out. We don’t need a law that tells us we have that right (or a bill that tells us we have any other right, for that matter). Laws exist to make things illegal, not legal. I’m very wary of this growing idea that you don’t have the right to do something unless there is a law saying you do – that’s a very dangerous precedent being set, and not just in the educational world. It should be up to the opponents of Opt Out to try to get a bill through outlawing it, not up to supporters to get a bill through allowing it.
LikeLike
Hi Ms. Ravitch,
I am a college student currently enrolled in an education psychology class where we discuss different methods of teaching and implications of school reforms, as well as how to make a difference through advocating to different realms of the teaching world, from the individual classroom and teachers all the way up to the administrative and political levels. I was extremely shocked by the Senate’s absurd generalization of the “disability community”, as the gap that splits the higher achieving students from the lower is a fraction of the variance between the individual levels and types of learning disabilities. I recently discovered an article by David C. Geary, et. al. (2000) titled “Numerical and Arithmetical Cognition” that compared the testing results of students with Mathematic Disabilities, Reading Disabilities, M&D Disabilities, and regular achieving students. The study revealed that each disability provided its own deficits and areas of difficult for the students. For example, testing revealed that both MD students and regular achievement students were able to understand the basic concepts of counting structures, but the MD students viewed counting as a standard, one direction process and had no ability to manipulate or work backwards in order to solve different problems. When the methods of solving were compared, the MD students were severely stunted as they constantly utilized elementary methods of finger counting or min summation for each problem with little evidence of LTM storage of automatic operations, while the regular achieving students could switch between procedural problem solving and pulling memorized answers out from concepts that had already transferred to LTM such as multiplication tables. However, while these students had extreme difficulty in matching the speed and success of the math testing of achieving students, their reading ability scores was just as consistent if not higher than the regular achieving students. On the other hand the RD students were severely behind in testing on reading capability, word speed, and comprehension, but had no trouble succeeding on target success on different math tasks. This study is evidence enough that grouping all learning deficits into one “disability community” is not an effective way to help students overcome learning disabilities, and in fact it can be extremely detrimental to their self esteem and further progress as students tend to label themselves as overall disabled or slow when in reality they can still perform at the highest level in certain realms and simply need extra guidance and remediation in others. Schooling and education is too complex and crucial to naively blanket issues together and believe that these extremely vague and overarching bills will somehow help our students overcome their disabilities. Students need to have focused methods implemented that target their individually specific needs because they deserve to feel like they can succeed and cannot do so if they are simply thrown into a mass of other struggling students. By stunting that ability, there can be serious detriments towards the success and progress of children’s education, and I believe that is an issue policy makers need to address, and change. Thank you for posting such an intriguing article and I look forward to reading the subsequent comments that I am sure will follow.
~Carrie L.
LikeLike
I am not sure who these disability groups are. They never seem to have been around when my wife and I raised (are raising) our child on the spectrum. I suspect they are insular lobbying groups protecting a revenue stream. IEP meetings are no replacement for working with teachers and advocating in a collaborative, productive manner.
LikeLike
Testing = Self preservation.
LikeLike
“Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa responded that ‘the disability community’ loves NCLB.”
Is there a way to identify the organizations Harken referred to and then follow their money to see if it leads to ALEC, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation or even Eli Broad?
We already know that all of these fountains of money fund and launch covert groups with all kinds of fancy and misleading names designed to fool people, and then they use those foundations to pump out press release to manufacture false, cherry-picked evidence to support their agenda.
LikeLike
Years of research, experience, laws and progress made in the field of educating children with disabilities has been erased by Billionaires & legislators in the last two Presidential administrations.
Millions of children, when served properly by trained teachers, IEPs developed by full inclusive Placement/Review teams and served in the least restrictive environment – not always in general education depending on needs, children have thrived and made progress.
USDoE should not mandate IEPs, services, testing, curriculum…but, they do!
It used to be considered due process violations for predetermined IEPs, services & testing and systems were taken to court for exactly that.
Now, anything Arne / Obama & Co. dictate…goes, but it’s the LAW. So? They say…
I witnessed a parent once tell a person on a high horse, high & mighty, self-righteous, pompous, errogant, inhumane & basically a lousy human being…that the only difference between her child and this lousy human’s child, could be an accident on the way home. Sent chills down my spine when I heard it. It is so true!
We have lost our humanity in two administrations and have sent us back as a society, possibly permanently. Kickstarting civility is almost impossible.
LikeLike
Here is the latest legislative update from Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) They don’t take a firm stand on anything in particular but they will take feedback. I’ll be happy to share your thoughts with them about this. Notice ‘highly qualified” is gone. Doesn’t it appear that this committee thinks any person who can breath can teach?
Washington Update 4.7.15
Dear TED Board:
As anticipated, the Senate HELP Committee has released a bi-partisan draft of their ESEA reauthorization bill – the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015. You can see the press release, the bill summary and the entire bill here:
http://www.help.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=4cea5b0a-0acb-448c-bad9-d3fa00de0e66&groups=Chair Committee staff are interested in feedback from education stakeholders.
At a packed briefing this morning in the Senate Committee hearing room, staff for Chairman Alexander (R-TN) and Ranking Member Murray (D-WA) reviewed the key provisions of the bill and took questions. They announced that the markup for the bill has been scheduled for next Tuesday, April 14 at 10 am.http://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=ca9f813d-5056-a032-524a-3c725c42209a They further noted that the markup may take as long as four days given pending Senate business on the floor and the multitude of amendments that are likely to be offered. If you tune in to the website you will likely be able to watch the markup.
In addition, Chairman Alexander’s staff noted that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was actively pursuing finding time to bring the bill to the Senate floor for full consideration in the not too distant future. There is no word on when/whether the House ESEA reauthorization bill will reappear on the House floor for final passage. (You will recall that that bill was pulled midway through consideration on the floor due to conservative opposition.)
In a related matter, the Committee is scheduled to vote on April 14 on the nominations of Michael Yudin to be Assistant Secretary for OSERS and Erica Miller to be the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
The bill is truly a compromise, meaning no one is thrilled with it, but most agree that it is a reasonable compromise to move the process forward. A few key highlights of the compromise:
· Annual state testing for students remains as it is in current law with the addition of the authority for states to innovate and pilot new assessments;
· States would determine their own goals for their statewide accountability systems, but they must include student growth and graduation rates as two of the metrics; states could add additional metrics and determine how to weight the components;
· Rigorous academic standards must be adopted, however the federal government may not mandate or encourage any particular set of standards;
· States may intervene with low-performing schools; however there is no percentage of schools required to be targeted, nor can the federal government proscribe turn around strategies;
· No portability provision; Maintenance of Effort retained;
· “Highly qualified” is eliminated;
· Teacher and principal evaluation systems are an optional use of Title II funds;
· Teacher leadership and support for a continuum of professional practice may be supported by Title II funds;
· Expansion of early childhood activities is authorized throughout the bill, but there is no new Title solely dedicated to early childhood;
· Residency programs and use of teacher performance assessments are authorized in Title II;
· The bill puts a cap on the percentage of students with disabilities who may be assessed using an alternate assessment tied to alternate standards to 1%; the former “2%” assessment provision is not included in the bill;
· “Such sums” is the spending level authorized for each program/Title.
The White House has called the bill an important “next step.” Education, civil rights and business groups are combing through the bill and will be providing feedback in the next few days. The conservative groups which blocked the House bill will likely be looking askance at the bill, just as they did in the House. Committee members will be putting together the amendments they want to offer, which must be filed with the Committee by next Monday. Presidential hopeful Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) sits on the HELP Committee, so it will be interesting to see what role he might play at the markup.
Stay tuned and let me know if you have questions,
LikeLike
Will they retain the Scientifically Based Research provision?
Will federal funding be tied to test scores?
Why did they eliminate HQT?
Thanks.
LikeLike
I am also a special needs mom. One thing I have heard over and over again is that in days before our kids were included with everyone else in the taking “the tests,” they were not taught anything, they were ignored, they were allowed/forced to watch TV all day. “The tests” forced the schools to finally start educating our children.
I’ve always doubted these stories, never thought they made a good argument for high-stakes testing, but these stories are out there, at least here in Ohio.
I’ll add that after fifteen years in this business of having a child on the autism spectrum, I’ve never quite understood who exactly this “disability community” is. Whenever there is a major political or policy issue that clearly has huge implications for my kid’s future — for example, the attacks on Social Security and Medicaid — the membership organizations that are supposed to be representing my family are beyond silent.
It’s true that the disability community is very, very diverse; what may be desirable for one segment may not for another. But it took us until the late 1970s to get our children’s right to a public education recognized, and I wonder who the fools who are complicit in the effort to dismantle public education think is going to welcome and educate our kids if the day comes when there are no more public schools. At best we’d be back to segregated facilities.
LikeLike
Barbara, your comments are spot on, especially -“Whenever there is a major political or policy issue that clearly has huge implications for my kid’s future — for example, the attacks on Social Security and Medicaid — the membership organizations that are supposed to be representing my family are beyond silent.” Where are these “disability” lobbying groups when vital support to families raising highly dependent kids is threatened?
And this, “and I wonder who the fools who are complicit in the effort to dismantle public education think is going to welcome and educate our kids if the day comes when there are no more public schools. At best we’d be back to segregated facilities.” BINGO!
The bottom line is that these outcome based, cookie-cutter paced standards and the testing attached to them are harmful to all children in narrowing curricula and standardizing creativity and joy right out of our classrooms. The “individual” has been removed from standardized IEPs, and appropriate no longer applies. The right to “equal” access to this destructive system is a distortion of civil rights. What is needed is equity for all children, not sameness. Like a flat tax, sameness does not result in equity for diverse needs. Some learners have greater challenges to overcome and require more not equal resources to pursue their dreams.
LikeLike
While this correspondence is a little dated (January 2015), it provides some insight into who the “disability community” is, and details their concerns. http://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Files/Policy/ESEA/CCD%20Ed%20TF%20Ltr%20PreHearing%2012015.pdf
LikeLike
Lorri, that letter is interesting. It is signed by some disability organizations I generally, in exception to the rule, hold in esteem, such as the Autism Self-Advocacy Network.
Their concern is that if there wasn’t a limit on how many special needs students could be given alternate assessments, schools would stop putting money and effort into special needs students since they could be easily removed from “counting” against the school. It is a concern very similar to the old stories I said I heard about schools consigning special needs kids to watching TV all day pre-NCLB.
I don’t doubt for a second that sadly, some schools would just as soon be done with educating the most challenging (and let’s be honest, expensive) of their charges.
I THINK WE NEED TO BE CREATIVE AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING BESIDES THESE *@#$%! HIGH-STAKES TESTS AS A MECHANISM TO ADDRESS THESE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS.
After all, what the signers of the letter want, all of us here also want:
“make sure to better understand the potential of students with
disabilities. Progress for students with disabilities over the past decade has included increased knowledge about how they fare academically compared to their grade-level peers, improved access
to the general education curriculum, reduced drop out rates, and increased inclusion in general education classrooms throughout the country.”
Of course we want to see this progress continue but we also understand that in the end, relying on high-stakes testing to ensure IEP students get the education they are entitled to is going to backfire in a very big way.
As I said before, weakening and dismantling the only institution — the public school — that MUST fulfill our children’s right to an education, is going to leave our children without much of a chance to be educated at all. This is up there with cutting one’s nose off, killing the gold-egg laying goose, throwing the baby out, etc.
LikeLike
https://vimeo.com/124482344
This is how our teachers feel and our children are truly experiencing these policies. Politicians, these are our children!
LikeLike
Having a arbitrary percentage of alternative test slots for Learning Disabled students is a big problem. Some schools may have more than 10% of LD kids whose challenges warrant the need for an alternative test. But the bigger issue is denying ANY LD child a diploma because of these tests (regular or alternative). State laws differ on this issue, leading to the demand for the cap. Some states deny a diploma to those taking an alternative test and that is wrong. Some states do not punish kids who take an alternative assessment when needed. But some states deny a diploma to those LD kids who are not allowed to take an alternative when they fail the regular test. This cap will worsen that problem. That is also wrong. State laws differ so drastically that many disabled kids may be hurt by this cap if they need an alternative. If Congress is going to micro manage these tests as they relate to learning disabled kids, they need to also mandate that NO student with a diagnosed learning disability is denied a regular or advanced diploma in any state due to performance on these tests. Otherwise, some kids will arbitrarily be denied a diploma by this cap.
LikeLike
Who are the “disability groups” GUESS WHAT folks, 90% of kids with disabilities DO NOT HAVE intellectual impairments. YES 90%, it would be those PARENTS, groups and organizations that WANT their students included, counted and EXPECTED to be taught to the same standards as others. CLEARLY from comments, people still associate disability with “severe” or with kids that just are not going to cut it and frame EVERYTHING as if all SWD fall into this area. So these are the ones that Harkin and others are hearing from, WHY because of people that use the image of the 10% of kids that just can’t be expected to perform and forget that 90% CAN. Until this mind set changes you all will just keep scratching your heads dumbfounded as to why anyone, any parent or group would care about the 90% that are never considered or acknowledged in forums like this one!
LikeLike
Kidsintow,
Not all children are exactly the same. The standardized tests help no one but testing industry
LikeLike
Which Senators/Representatives do we contact on this? Just the ones from our own state, or certain ones on a committee?? If you can give me all the names I need to contact, I will, and will do my best to get some others to do the same. Thank you.
LikeLike
Contact your own senators and House members, then reach out to members of the Education committees in both houses. I will get a list and post it.
LikeLike