In an earlier post, a teacher in Tennessee wrote critically about the PARCC assessments of the Common Core. The teacher said that the assessments did not permit accommodations for students with disabilities.
Chad Colby of Achieve, one of the organizations responsible for developing the Common Core, says that these claims are wrong.
He writes:
“The information presented in this post is factually incorrect.
“Students with disabilities will have access to accommodations on the PARCC assessment. A draft accommodations manual is currently out for public comment: http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-releases-draft-accommodations-manual-public-comment and we encourage parents and educators to review and give feedback.
“Also, IEP teams will still determine what accommodations students with disabilities should receive. It’s the law.
“From the Individuals with Disabilities Act Regulations:
http://idea.ed.gov/download/finalregulations.html
“In §300.320(a)(6), it states that the IEP must contain:
(6)(i) A statement of any individual appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional performance of the child on State and districtwide assessments consistent with §612(a)(16) of the Act”
Chad Colby – Achieve
(202) 419-1570
(202) 297-9437 cell
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Just one more reason to have rolled out the Common Core w/o vetting from the people that have to suffer with it. Thank you President Obama, Arne Duncan, and every other idiot (Andrew Cuomo and John King in NY) who thought shoving this down our throats this year would be a good idea.
LikeLike
He does not address this statement by the teacher:
“The worst crime of state assessments is that they they fail to recognize the individuality of learning. Students have brains that mature at different rates, learn at different rates, learn in different ways, and benefit from testing in different ways.”
Is this part factually wrong?
LikeLike
Well, the people who make the test have to say they’ll follow the law…but in practice, children are NOT receiving accomodations that are legally mandated by their IEP’s. Two years ago, I was forced to administer a reading test to a 5-year-old child who had recently lost her vision and had not yet learned Braille. A reading test. To a blind child. Yes, really. Sooooo…can’t trust test people…
LikeLike
Just imagine a learner wheel chair bound or unable to talk due to severe cerebral palsy having to take an annual achievement test with the accommodation of extended time…… until he finished every part of the test. Bless his big heart! He took the test, each day taking an entire school day adding up to three full days to complete each and every section of the test. He would communicate using his computer just like Hawkings. since the state would provide a computer based copy of the assessment on his computer (security reasons,you know) he had to have each question read to him, he would respond on his computer and the answers were recorded on his answer sheet for him. (Talk about an opportunity for a grave security breach!)
We can model civility and strong citizenship, we can not legislate civility. The moment an idea becomes a law an amazing phenomenon occurs…. we negotiate the meaning of the law and ignore the noble intent it was designed for. So it is with for our special corps of learners.
LikeLike
Mr. Colby’s response is essentially correct in addressing overall accommodations for students with disabilities, 504 plan and ELL students. However, there is a glaring gap in the PARCC testing process for these important students. PARCC warrants that all students will be tested at grade level, including students who require accommodations.
The most devastating culprit with PARCC’s position is the presumption that students behind in grade level due to a learning disability or language deficiency will miraculously achieve at grade level because these students have been exposed to grade level standards with the support of special education teachers and other language teachers. Proper accommodations will not increase test scores for our special corps of students, especially if the syntax of the questions posed far exceed the experience of the test taker. After some serious examination of the proposed policy manual for accommodations, it is evident that the PARCC process is merely an accommodation in itself that disguises the inequality created by assuming every student can and will perform at PARCC’s grade level.
LikeLike
I actually think the grade level requirements for a diploma at times are of no help for many special ed. students. They could be taking coursework that would be far more helpful in their lives for future employment. The idea that somehow scores will rise due to exposure is just plain bull.
LikeLike
Keep up the good work Diane, obviously ‘they’ are reading EVERYTHING you post. And I wouldn’t doubt that it is literally ALL of THEM! I bet you never thought your professional life would take this turn…I know I never thought teaching would go this way when I picked it as a SAFE second career. Never a dull moment, now days. Thanks again for all the hard work!
LikeLike
The common core is a babylon system. Less robotic testing, More Bob Marley, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCFjAGtyhKI
LikeLike
Duncan was asked about the online testing failure in Indiana. I thought his response was revealing.
No mention at all of the fact that millions of kids prepped for a test for three months and then spent 3 school days dealing with the system crashing- they were unable to complete the test, so I assume they’ll be retaking next week.
Nothing about the teachers and other staff dealing with what is now Week Two of the testing debacle.
Instead, he delivered a boilerplate lecture on
how competitive the testing industry is. In
other words, free markets will fix this!
If Duncan wants to work in the private sector as a CEO, why in the he’ll doesn’t he just go DO that instead of playing “CEO” on our dime?
LikeLike
Well, Chiara, that’s just what he’s going to do when his time is up.
Perhaps he’ll get an executive postition at Pear$on!
LikeLike
This is our education CEO speaking on the fact that kids in Indiana are on Week Two of a frustrating, time-wasting adventure in standardized testing:
“We should have competition. We should be transparent — I don’t know who that company is, I don’t want to pre-judge — but if that company can’t deliver, there’s an opportuntiy for someone else to come in and do something very, very different… We should not have one problem and then say we should go all the way back to pencil and paper, that doesn’t make sense to me.
This is a business. Folks are making money to buy these service. If those folks are doing a good job to provide that service, they should get more business. If they’re doing a bad job providing that service, they should go out of business…
We’ll get better and better. I do think, directionally, this is the right way to go. We have multiple players playing in these space… Let’s see who’s for real. But again, directionally, having computer-adaptive tests, having the ability to evaluate way more than just fill-in-the-bubble stuff — the critical thinking skills — directionally, it’s the right way to go.”
I am so, so tired of this CEO-speak. I really need Arne Duncan to tell me testing companies are “a business”? Kids are taking these tests. They aren’t his employees.
It’s also dishonest. It’s a rhetorical tactic. No one was suggesting that we “go back to paper and pencil”. His response to every question on this testing regime is to portray his critics as Luddites who don’t understand the “21st century.” It’s a way to shut down critics and it isn’t a response offered in good faith.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/indiana/2013/05/02/duncan-we-should-keep-testing-online-but-we-should-learn-from-istep-failures/
LikeLike
I get regular emails from Achieve giving quotes of praise for Common Core. Also, today’s included a request for news clips praising it.
They doth protest too much?
Fascinating to watch. All of this. “the good, the bad, the hurt. . .all of this goes too; and I wish, how I wish, someone would care.” (Etta James)
LikeLike
Has extended time for ELLs ever been researched as a valid accomodation for those students? My experience is that the extra time only serves to frustrate students and teachers. The accomodation document is extremely vague on what exactly the accomodations are for students. Do these make anyone feel better?
Embedded Supports: Tools embedded in the computer-delivered system available to all students to use (e.g. font magnification, highlighting tool, bolding, underlining)
• Accessibility Features: Tools embedded in the computer-delivered system open to all students to use, but must be made available at the discretion of school-based educators (e.g. background/font color, answer masking)
• Accommodations: Supports for SWDs and ELs that increase access while maintaining a valid and reliable score (e.g. braille form, extended time, small group testing, word-to-word native language dictionary)
LikeLike
“My experience is that the extra time only serves to frustrate students and teachers”
Then why is there a need to torture the students???
LikeLike
I don’t know, it’s been an ELL accomodation for as long as I have taught ELL, 10+ years.
LikeLike
We were able to have test accommodations such as separate location and extended time. Someone explain how a student reading 3 grade levels below taking a test 2 grade levels above is going to benefit the child? Anyone?
LikeLike
Educators and those pretending to understand education assessment, I received this alert today (May 10) from the The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) about the poorly conceived accommodations on PARCC for children with disabilities. Many children with disabilities WILL have their rights violated if the current proposal is accepted.I URGE ALL EDUCATORS AND PARENTS to respond to the survey according to CEC’s recommendations. Below is the full text of the alert with recommendations for responses:
Action Alert May 10, 2013
CEC strongly disagrees with claims that children with disabilities will have fair and non-discriminatory assessment accommodations on PARCC assessments.
The Situation
The Federal government is investing over $500 million dollars in new tests to support states implementing the Common Core standards. Each state has the flexibility to decide which tests they will use for reading and math starting in 2014-2015. One entity funded is the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC). Twenty-two states have joined with PARCC and are participating in discussions about test design and testing accommodations. The decisions made by PARCC will determine both how students access computer based-tests as well as which accommodations will be provided to students with disabilities in these (22) states.
PARCC is asking the public to comment on their draft accommodations manual. This manual is critically important because it contains all of the policies for testing accommodations for our kids.
Regrettably, PARCC’s proposed manual restricts which students can use testing accommodations. How? The proposed manual:
• Creates new categories of accommodations that violate student’s rights and restrict access.
• Limits testing accommodations before the test is fully developed.
They are violating the civil rights of kids with disabilities.
What You Need to Do
PARCC is seeking public comment on their draft accommodations manual. Now is the time to speak up. To be heard, you need to submit comments to PARCC by Monday, May 13. Just follow the directions below.
Directions
1. Take a look at the copy below of the PARCC survey. We know it’s long, but it is important to complete the entire survey. That’s why we’ve provided suggested responses for you.
2. Open this link to the PARCC survey:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1N_tc-FIErFFrZ4ncmq4njCbB8IP_RNuREuwIsBQ7juQ/viewform?sid=1e09e5781fc46542&token=aL8OHT4BAAA.a-4Sf7rSC48rn0bg4EjSfg.4BUF8030UBq9pjGXFsc1Xg&pli=1
3. Use the suggested responses below to fill out the PARCC survey. Make sure to press submit.
Want more detailed information? Get the full text of the proposed manual.
Copy of the PARCC Survey Questions
(4) Are you submitting this feedback as an individual or on behalf of a group?
Response: Individual
Section 1: PARCC Accommodations Policies and Assessment Design Overview
This section describes the general guidelines for participation and accommodations for students with disabilities and English learners on PARCC assessments. In addition, this section summarizes the various PARCC assessments and provides the approaches used for universal design and embedded supports.
(7) The PARCC Accommodations Policies and Assessment Design Overview section contains an appropriate level of background information.
Response: Disagree.
(8) The section of the PARCC Accommodations Manual on Universal Design is clear, easy to understand, and effectively describes PARCC’s commitment to accessibility.
Response: Strongly disagree. PARCC has used a definition for Universal Design (UD) that isn’t recognized by UD experts.
Section 2: Universally Designed Embedded Supports and Accessibility Features for All Students
This section provides an overview and defines the embedded supports and accessibility features that will be offered to all students (not limited to English learners or students with disabilities) taking the PARCC assessments.
(9) It is clear what the embedded supports are, and which embedded supports will be made available to all students on the PARCC End-of-Year, Performance-Based, and Mid-Year Assessments.
Response: Strongly Disagree.
(10) I agree with the list of PARCC universally designed embedded supports and the decision to make them available to all participating students.
Response: Strongly Disgree.
(10a) Please provide your rationale and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the policy.
Response: PARCC should eliminate the new term and new category. Embedded Supports as a term of art is unnecessary. Since all options are “available by default” and require no documentation, there is no logical reason to establish this category. In fact, designing assessments with maximum accessibility is a requirement of the PARCC grant.
(11) It is clear what the PARCC accessibility features are, and which accessibility features will be made available to all students (as determined by a school-based educator) on the PARCC End-of-Year, Performance-Based, and Mid-Year Assessments.
Response: Strongly disagree.
(12) I agree with the list of PARCC accessibility features and the decision to make them available to all participating students (as determined by a school-based educator).
Response: Strongly Disagree.
(12a) Please provide your rationale and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the policy.
Response: All accessibility features should be available to all participating students. This new category is a burden to schools, will confuse parents and potentially harm students. Federal law requires that the IEP/504 team make such decisions.
(13) I agree with text-to-speech for the PARCC mathematics assessments as an accessibility feature made available to all students, but determined by a school-based educator.
Response: Strongly Disagree.
(13a) Please provide your rationale and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the policy.
Response: Text to speech should be offered to all students. Federal law requires that the IEP/504 team make such decisions.
Students with Disabilities
Section 3: Five-Step Process for Accommodations for Students with Disabilities
(14) Steps 1-5 of the PARCC Accommodations Manual for students with disabilities provide adequate guidance to educators for the decision-making process when selecting, administering, and evaluating the use of accommodations, noting that states have flexibility in the way they choose to implement the decision-making process.
Response: Strongly disagree.
(14a) Please provide your rationale and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the proposed
Response: The policy violates IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
Section 4: Accommodations for Students with Disabilities taking Computer-Delivered Assessments
(15) I agree with the list of presentation accommodations for students with disabilities taking PARCC’s computer-delivered assessments.
Response: Agree.
(15a) Please provide your rationale and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the policy.
Response: N/A.
(16) A policy regarding text-to-speech for the items and response options (not passages) for the ELA/literacy assessments as an accommodation is NOT INCLUDED in this Manual. Through public comment, PARCC states would like to get additional information from the field on this potential accommodation. Please indicate your level of agreement for text-to-speech for the items and response options being allowed as an accommodation on the ELA/Literacy assessment.
Response: Strongly Agree.
(16a) Please provide your rationale.
Response: N/A.
(17) I agree with the list of response accommodations for students with disabilities taking PARCC’s computer-delivered assessments.
Response: Agree.
(17a) Please provide your rationale and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the policy.
Response: N/A.
(18) I agree with the list of timing and scheduling accommodations for students with disabilities taking PARCC’s computer-delivered assessments.
Response: Strongly Agree.
(18a) Please provide your rationale and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the policy.
Response: N/A.
(19) I agree with the list of setting accommodations for students with disabilities taking PARCC’s computer-delivered assessments.
Response: Strongly Agree.
(19a) Please provide your rationale and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the policy.
Response: N/A.
(20) It is clear from the PARCC Accommodations Manual that local IEP or 504 teams select accommodations for students with disabilities taking the PARCC assessments.
Response: Strongly Agree.
(21) It is clear that the PARCC Accommodations Manual indicates which accommodations will result in valid scores for students with disabilities taking the PARCC assessments
Response: Strongly Disagree.
Special Access Accommodations
(22) I agree with the use of a calculation device as a special access accommodation for students with disabilities that severely limit or prevent the student from calculating, even after varied and repeated attempts to do so.
Response: Strongly Disagree.
(22a) Please provide your rationale, and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the policy.
Response: The policy violates IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
(23) I agree with the proposed decision-making guidance for IEP or 504 teams for the PARCC calculator special access accommodation.
Response: Strongly Disagree.
(23a) Please provide your rationale, and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the guidance.
Response: The policy violates IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
(24) I agree with text-to-speech (read aloud) for the ELA/Literacy assessments, including items, response options, and passages as a special access accommodation for students who are blind or visually impaired and have not learned braille.
Response: Strongly agree.
(24a) Please provide your rationale and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the policy.
Response: N/A.
(25) I agree with text-to-speech (read aloud) for the ELA/Literacy assessments, including items, response options, and passages as a special access accommodation for students who have disabilities that limit or prevent them from accessing printed text or reading braille even after varied and repeated attempts to teach the student to do so.
Response: Strongly Disagree.
(25a) Please provide your rationale and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the policy.
Response: The policy violates IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
(26) I agree with the proposed decision-making guidance for IEP or 504 teams for the PARCC reading special access accommodation.
Response: Strongly Disagree.
(26a) Please provide your rationale, and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the guidance.
Response: The policy violates IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
(27) I agree with speech-to-text or scribe for the ELA/Literacy assessments as special access accommodation for students with physical disabilities that severely limit or prevent the student’s motor process of writing through keyboarding.
Response: Strongly Disagree.
(27a) Please provide your rationale, and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the policy.
Response: The limits placed on who is eligible violates IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
(28) I agree with speech-to-text or scribe for the ELA/Literacy assessments as special access accommodation for students with disabilities that severely limit or prevent the student from expressing in writing, even after varied and repeated attempts to teach the student to do so.
Response: Strongly Disagree.
(28a) Please provide your rationale, and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the policy.
Response: The limits placed on who is eligible violates IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
(29) I agree with the proposed decision-making guidance for IEP or 504 teams for the PARCC writing special access accommodation.
Response: Strongly Disagree.
(29a) Please provide your rationale, and, if necessary, include edits for strengthening the guidance.
Response: The policy violates IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
Additional Comments
(30) Please use this space to leave any comments on the draft Manual not addressed by previous questions.
Response: PARCC has created overly restrictive policies that violate IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
Remember: Comments are due by this Monday, May 13, 2013.
LikeLike
We received the same from the Learning Disabilities Association.
BUT–WATCH yourself on Question #28!!! Where it is supposed to say “Strongly Disagree”(next to the bottom oval) it says, again, “Strongly agree” (they obviously erred & left off the DIS part). So–BE CAREFUL!–perhaps write something about that in the 28a
Comment Box.
LikeLike