Correction - special ed kids and no child left behind

OK, I think I now got the correct URL.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/12....ap/index.html

"John Stone" wrote in message
om...
OK, I think I now got the correct URL.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/12....ap/index.html

What is your reason for posting this? I agree that children with
disabilities need to be evaluated in a different way to determine if
progress is being made from year to year (AYP=adequate yearly progress) but
in our area, there have been schools that have moved marginally intelligent
children into special education because previously those children's test
scores were excluded from the testing that evaluated a school's performance,
thereby raising the school's score by excluding them.

Leigh in raLeigh
mother to a child with Down syndrome

"Leigh Menconi" wrote in message
ink.net...
"John Stone" wrote in message
om...
OK, I think I now got the correct URL.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/12....ap/index.html

What is your reason for posting this? I agree that children with
disabilities need to be evaluated in a different way to determine if
progress is being made from year to year (AYP=adequate yearly progress)
but
in our area, there have been schools that have moved marginally
intelligent
children into special education because previously those children's test
scores were excluded from the testing that evaluated a school's
performance,
thereby raising the school's score by excluding them.

Leigh in raLeigh
mother to a child with Down syndrome


Our problem with this here is that AYP for special ed kids is defined
exactly the same way as AYP for regular ed kids, unless the child has an IQ
below 65. This leaves a lot of children who are in special education
precisely because they have difficulty with regular grade level classes, who
do not qualify for alternative assessment, and therefore are pretty much
assured of failing the test. Since even one subgroup failing means the
school fails, this means that the exact opposite is happening. Better to
have children who are on the borderline in the mainstream subgroup, where
their scores will be diluted, then to have them in the special ed subgroup,
where they have more chance of making the school fail. In my state, the cut
off is 45 students for a subgroup, so there is a real benefit to NOT
identifying that 46th child.

In addition, the modifications list permitted is very short. I believe that
I would probably fail the grade 6 TCAP test under the conditions the
children are expected to take it under, because some of the modifications
which I have been given for tests like the GRE and ExCET are not allowed.
While I could take the GRE in three sections, each with a much longer time
limit, without penalty, a child really has to take all three hours of the
TCAP in a day, and all 12 hours of the test in a week due to security
concerns. This is a real problem for children who have fatigue issues (as I
do-in my case, due to cerebral palsy) or attention issues. It is very hard
to get a child permission to type on the test, especially for children with
borderline conditions (who might only require extra time to handwrite class
assignments), but who cannot complete the writing section in the time
allowed legibly. While having the test read aloud (except for the reading
sections) is permitted if the child has a reading disability, the test
questions cannot be repeated, and the reader cannot see the questions in
advance-which means if the reader stutters or misses a word, the child is
going to miss the question. There are similar concerns for ESL students.

It doesn't surprise me that 85% of the schools in my district are
failing-many due to one subgroup (usually special ed or ESL). And actually,
two of the ones which are passing serve ONLY special needs students, who
have low enough functioning levels to allow alternative assessment. The % of
schools passing in a state seems to have much more to do with the test given
in the state and the standards set for AYP than the actual instruction.