The NCLB also reflects the values of equity and excellence. The goal is to ensure that all students, especially students with disabilites achieve academic success. The NCLB places greater accountability on schools to show annual progress.
However, special education teachers are becoming increasingly frustrated about requiring students with special needs to take the same state assessments as their general education peers. It is my opinion that these assessments should be modified to reflect and meet the needs of these students with disabilities. How could you ask a student with Emotional and Behavior Disorders to sit for the same period of time when we know that these students' are subject to severe bouts of depression and inappropriate behaviors? It is difficult task to get any student diagnosed with severe emotional and behavior disorders to sit for hours or to take tests over a five day period which include several questions. What about the child with ADHD?
If we are modify their instruction, length of assignment, and sometimes even length of their school day, why are we requiring them to take "un-modified" versions of the assessments? If they were capable of doing that then they would not be in need of special education and related services. These students must receive special instruction with the aim of gradually and eventually reintroducing them in the general education classroom. However, until they attain that competence, they should not be required to take the un-modified versions of state assessments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I completely agree that asking a special education student to take the same assessment as the regular population is wrong. Of course, my position applys to those individuals with a learning disability that impales them from ever meeting the testing requirements in the given time frame. With regards to students with ADHD, reducing the length of the test may be helpful, but I do not know what would be the true benefit. Julia
I totally agree that Special Education students meeting the same testing procedural standards as general education students is not sensible. The Special Ed. students are not being taught in the same manner, at the same pace, and with the same standards as the general education students. Note that the NCLB committee did not have a single teacher on the panel. They had "educators," such as administrators and college professors. College professors and administrators do not work as closesly with students as the teachers. Their voices could have also been drowned out by the politicians on the committee. NCLB is political act in the best interest of politics and politicians, not in the best interest of education.
Darren, Good point that we need to make sure legislators are informed on Special Education and the children who are served. NCLB is great in theory, but we know all children are not on grade level nor will be 100% of the time especially children identified as special ed.
Mendi
Darren, I too share your concerns with students having to sit through a test in which they have little or no clue about. I have been in the education field for 18 years and I remember administering a test to a special education student in the 6th grade---she took a 2nd grade level math test and still bombed! It is so sad that a special ed child in the same position today has to take their grade level test. It hurts me to see the frustration on their faces and it hurts even more when they try so hard and ask for help and you cannot help them with the testing--they look at you as if you refused them a drink of water when they are thirsty. Hopefully, changes in the future will be for the better.
Dedra Baskin
Darren,
I really liked your article about the effects of No Child Left Behind on special education
students. After doing a bit of research myself, I discovered that NCLB seems to be
completely contrary to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which states
that special education students CANNOT perform at the same level as their peers. Why
then would we give them a standardized test requiring them to do so? And why would
we have that determine whether a school is making adequate progress? I can only pray
that NCLB ends the day that Bush leaves office.
-Meggin
I agree that something needs to be done, but the question is: What should be done? It seems that special education departments and students are not advocated for in the same way that mainstream students are advocated for by politicians and administrators. Before state testing changes, state politicians, local politicians, and local administrators will have to more highly value special education and the students in the department. Many are probably aware of the injustice in having a student with a 3rd grade reading level take a high school state assessment, but how many people will do anything about it? More importantly, how can people become more caring toward all students (including Special Ed. & ELL), and not just the mainstream students?
-Chris
Darren,
I do agree with you. NCLB ensures that studets perform to their full potential. This reform also ensures that all teachers are fully qualified to teach in the public schools. Yes, I do agree that this reform ensures that schools are more accountable. The annual yearly performance (AYP) plays a major role in determining the type of leadership needed for your school. Attendance and assessment is a very important component.
Post a Comment