Re: IEPs, IDEA, and NCLB

[donna gastin <velikathevamp2@yahoo.com>]

Peter Campbell <campbellp@mail.montclair.edu> wrote:    I'm not an expert in the realm of IEPs and IDEA and how they connect to NCLB, so I would greatly appreciate someone who is an expert to look at this message carefully and tell me if I understand this correctly.
  

  I just read a disturbing document from the Federal Dept of Ed. It can be found at http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/toolkit/faqs.doc
  
  

  What I found most relevant was the following: (1) the Feds figure that app. 10% of all students with disabilities can be categorized as having "severe cognitive disabilities" and (2) the Feds also figure that app. 20% of the learning disabled population "are not likely to achieve grade-level proficiency within the school year covered by the students? IEPs."
  

  The documents I read all say that this 30% figure is based on research, yet I did see a single reference to any study or finding that shows this to be the case. So who knows where these numbers come from . . . Does anyone know?
  

  The students with "severe cognitive disabilities" are to be given alternative assessments. Their proficient and advanced scores can be used to report AYP. But only 1% of these scores for the entire student population of the state or the district can be counted. According to the above document, "If more than 1.0 percent of proficient scores come from such assessments, then the state must establish procedures to count those scores as non-proficient for the purposes of school accountability." Translation? These kids above the 1% threshold are reported as "not proficient," i.e., as failing the test.
  

  The students who "are not likely to achieve grade-level proficiency within the school year covered by the students? IEPs" are to be given "modified assessments." According to the document, states are to "(1) develop modified achievement standards, that is, standards that are aligned with the state?s academic content standards for the grade in which a student is enrolled, but may reflect reduced breadth or depth of grade-level content, and (2) develop assessments to measure the achievement of students based on such modified achievement standards ." The proficient and advanced scores of these students can be used to report AYP. But only 2% of these scores for the entire student population of the state or the district can be counted. If more than 2% of proficient scores come from such assessments, then the state must establish procedures to count those scores as non-proficient for the purposes of school accountability." Translation? These kids above the 2% threshold are
 reported as "not proficient," i.e., as failing the test.
  

  According to the Feds, therefore, app. 30% of all students with learning disabilities who are given some kind of modification in their assessment can be counted towards AYP. However, the remaining 70% of the population of all students with learning disabilities CANNOT be counted towards AYP if any modifications are made in their assessments. So 7 out of 10 kids with learning disabilities have to score proficient or advanced on the state test without any modifications in order to make AYP. If only 6 out of 10 score at the proficient or advanced level, the IEP subgroup fails to make AYP. And here come the sanctions . . .
  

  Since this is the first year that all children in grades 3 - 8 will be taking their states' reading and math tests, there will be a greater number of students with learning disabilities taking the tests. The odds that 70% of them will score at the proficient or advanced level seems remote.
  

  "Soft bigotry of low expectations" or "The Emperor has no clothes"?
  

  Peter Campbell
  


  itisn't just "bigotry and the stigma of lower Iq and having disabilities that involve the brain and it's functions. For example epilepsy and otherseizure disordrers  are in this catagory, besides mental illnesses and the treatments that are givien to help with these type of disbilities. Not to mention mental retardation . Itis as though that NCLB was weeding out the weaker of the species leaving the strong to thrive in the world. How I came up with that was Bush's Freedom's commision on Mental health,which is supposed to screeen every American for mental illness. A form of Eugenic screening.  Sounds almost like Nazi Germany, don't it? It should if you combine both NCLB and Cthe mental health initiatives together  with teenscreening in middle and high schools and preK and Kindergarten screening you bet. Any Exam that deals with either one or both should be scrutinized and exmined with a "fine toothed comb.  
   
  This is my own opinion, I know it sounds like  iam not even in the solar system. But some one ought to really look at both programs  and see how they actually work. Segregation , tests  that are too tough  for non English speaking persons,those with physical or soem sort of mental disability. the notion ofall human beings are "unique individuals' are  now in the past. and anyone that needs individualized attention is subjected to be screened and to be forced to fail.
   
  Thank you for reading my opinions
    



Donna
			
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.