Law has no room for disabled students
By Admin, Section From The Wires
Special-education students take the same state assessment tests as all other students.
Cory de Vera, News-Leader Every area school that failed to make adequate yearly progress this year in math did so because special-education students didn't meet state goals. The vast majority of children in special education, no matter the disability, are taking the same state exams as their non-disabled peers. Under the No Child Left Behind law, the expectation is that schools should be able to propel students with academic disabilities to the same level as those without disabilities. Yet, 15 area schools also failed to make AYP in communication arts because too few special-education students proved proficient. The task of trying to prepare disabled students for the state Missouri Assessment Program exams frustrates some parents. "I'm so anti-MAP testing for kids in special education," said Debbie Bushong, a mother of a special-needs child who also used to work with special-needs children in Willard. "The MAP won't tell me a thing, and it stressed the kids out. I'm aware he's delayed." In light of the upcoming reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind law, the scores raise the question: Is there a better way to hold schools accountable for the achievement of special- education students than expecting all of them to meet the same standards as everyone else?
Same expectations
Many educators have called the expectations placed on special-education students under No Child Left Behind ridiculous. "By design, in order for kids to qualify for special education, they have to have a disability that has an adverse impact on their school achievement," said Matt White, director of special services in Republic. But once they start doing well in school and can perform as well as peers, students are moved out of special education. "Common sense tells you that when we do a good job and get them performing up to speed -- and then they are out of special education --we end up getting punished for doing a good job." In many cases, when a school fails to meet AYP standards for any reason, the main consequence is damage to a school's reputation. But consecutive failures at Title I schools can trigger punitive consequences, including firings. As if to acknowledge that it wasn't really fair to punish schools when special- education students score low, the state has tried to soften the impact of special-education students on AYP scores. Originally, schools were held separately accountable for scores of special-education students if they tested at least 30 children from that group. After the first year, the state increased that threshold to 50. The state also allows up to 1 percent of the tested population in each district to achieve proficient scores on something called the MAP Alternate, an individualized test for those with the most severe cognitive disabilities. This year, for the first time, scores on the MAP Alternate were factored into AYP judgments, and in most cases it helped scores, speculated Michael Muencks, the state director of assessment. New federal guidelines implemented this year will also allow districts to shift some successful MAP Alternate test scores into AYP calculations for other buildings within their districts, Muencks said. About 15 schools around the state may be able to benefit from the new rule. "What this is allowing is for those districts to get the most advantage out of those scores," he said. Re-examining NCLB But critics of No Child Left Behind say the accommodations made for the special- education group aren't enough, particularly when failing AYP leads to punishing schools. Next year, Congress is scheduled to re-authorize the No Child Left Behind law, so now is the time to start lobbying lawmakers with ideas for changing the law, said Springfield Board of Education member Bruce Renner. Renner said he is not opposed to requiring schools to break out the scores of special-education students, because districts do need to know how they are doing. "But if they do insist on doing that, I'd like to see it not have an effect on the AYP of a school or a district," he said. Renner said he'd also like to see the government allow expanded use of the MAP Alternate. White, the director of special services in Republic, said there are legitimate ways to predict how much progress students with certain disabilities should make. Clearly, some students in special education, such as those who receive help with speech impediments, should be taking the same MAP test as other students. But it isn't appropriate for all students. "I think we should be able to look at a kid at the beginning of the year, and ask: How far should that kid be able to go?' That should be our criteria." The federal government has already approved the concept of allowing up to two percent more children in a school district be counted as proficient by taking and scoring well on another kind of exam, Muencks said. The problem is there haven't been enough guidelines issued that would help a state develop such a test, or determine who qualifies. "It will be good to test students in a way that fits with their disability," Muencks said. "I just wish they'd give us the criteria so we could get the tests out there." Evaluation questions In the meantime, how are parents with children in special education supposed to judge if their child's school is doing the best for them? White said he will be pleased if special-education students in his district beat state averages for special- education students statewide, and if the groups continue to show improvement. Bushong, whose son has been in Willard and Nixa schools, said evaluation of schools is the million-dollar question. "If every parent were involved, doing their job, educated about their child's disability, they'd monitor (the school)," she said. When she was picking schools for her son, Bushong said she wanted to know if the school was well-staffed, because even though students in special education receive individual education plans, an understaffed school may not really have time to give children the individual attention they need. "Both the districts I've had him in had a lot of support," she said. "They worked hard to put him in a mainstream setting, making sure it was for his betterment --not just a place to put him." Source
|
|
American |
|
||
|
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ? 2005-2006 the 137th. |
|||
|
The purpose of this site is to serve the public interest: As related to Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, all materials on this site are made available without profit. Reprints are published for permanent archival of public information for the purpose of news reporting, criticism, comment, education and research. Site User/Editors strive to ensure that every user submission includes, at the beginning and end of all re-published material, the original author's name and a direct link to the original source of any and all copyright protected material. |
|||
