[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
IEPs, IDEA, and NCLB
- To: ARN State <ARN-state@yahoogroups.com>, ARN Main List <arn-l@interversity.org>, arn2-strategy <arn2-strategy@yahoogroups.com>
- Subject: IEPs, IDEA, and NCLB
- From: Peter Campbell <campbellp@mail.montclair.edu>
- Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 14:04:43 -0500
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
Post a Message to arn-l: