Re: special education students and grade level

[aburke5054@aol.com]

Tauna ... The name "Tauna" at the bottom of your note, right after 
"gals," was a clue to your identity that I did not in fact miss.

Since it is generally not the case that 90%-95% of students receiving 
special education are achieving at grade level, in addition to "proof," 
there is a touch of the crystal ball behind the "gals' " assertion.

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: Tauna Rogers <taunar@plateautel.net>
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 3:57 pm
Subject: Re: [arn-l] special education students and grade level

Art,

I am the one who posted this message to which you responded, not Manny.

I am well aware that the criterion for NCLB accountability is 
'proficiency',
not grade level. However, the theme of our training was getting all (or
nearly all) sped students on grade level using scientifically-based
instruction.

Gals? Well, those are the three diagnosticians I questioned. I've known 
two
of them for years and am on a first name basis with all three. No, I 
was not
exaggerating about getting lectured when I dared to question the 90-95
percent claim. They seemed quite confident about their pronouncments.

In addition, the presenters at the meeting (not the diagnosticians) and 
our
sped director herself continually asserted throughout the meeting that 
the
90-95% of sped students on grade level is reasonable and should be our
target. They even claimed that research proves it.

Tauna Rogers


Original Message -----
From: <aburke5054@aol.com>
To: <arn-l@interversity.org>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: [arn-l] special education students and grade level


> "Gals?"
>
> First of all, the criterion for NCLB accountability is "proficiency," 
not
> "grade level."  There is confusion about this for many reasons, not 
the
> least of which is that President Bush and Secretary Spellings have 
each
> referred to "grade level" in the context of NCLB goals.
> Second, the measure of "grade level" could indeed float if it is 
defined
> as the median level of achievement of kids at a particular grade and 
kids'
> achievement improves so much that the median changes.  (Think median
> income in a situation where everybody makes more money over time).  
Third,
> Erin Dillon provides important context about who is identified for 
special
> ed in her report at Ed Sector:
>
> "Nearly half of the students served under IDEA are classified as 
having
> "specific learning disabilities." This classification, often referred 
to
> as "learning disabled," or LD, is vaguely defined under IDEA as "an
> imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to 
do
> mathematical calculations," and it is often described as a 
discrepancy
> between a student's intelligence level and his or her performance in 
the
> classroom.2
>
> The LD diagnosis is intended to provide students with the supports 
they
> need to reach grade-level standards. Similarly, students with 
disabilities
> that fall into the categories of "emotional disturbance," "speech or
> language impairments," and "other health impairments" (which includes
> attention deficit disorder or ADD) can be expected to overcome or
> compensate for the disability with appropriate services.3 Over 80 
percent
> of students enrolled in special education fall into these four
> categories."
>
> I hope that you were exaggerating when you said you "got a lecture 
for
> daring tp question" the assertion that 90-95 percent of special ed
> students can reasonably be expected to achieve at grade level (or
> proficiency).  Asking for evidence is reasonable and providing it is
> responsible and professional.  Check their credentials, Manny.
>
> Art
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tauna Rogers <taunar@plateautel.net>
> To: arn-l@interversity.org
> Sent: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 1:42 am
> Subject: [arn-l] special education students and grade level
>
>
> A couple of days ago at a special education training meeting, among 
our
> packet
> of materials we were each greeted with printouts of a bright, 
colorful
> target
> containing the theme of the meeting. In the bullseye were the BOLD 
words
> GRADE
> LEVEL, our target, the ultimate aim.
>
> It was stated repeatedly that research irrefutably demonstrates that
> 90-95% of
> all special education students can read at grade level if we teach 
right
> with
> scientifically-based instructional practices. It seemed to me that 
while
> this
> may be a worthy aim, if it were accomplished on a large scale, then 
we
> would
> have to consider 'grade level' a moving target, forever moving upward 
as
> more
> and more students reach it but that nationally, by definition, about 
half
> of all
> students would always remain below grade level since it is an average.
>
> There were three diagnosticians sitting at the table directly behind 
me,
> all of
> whom I've had a good working relationship with over the years. During 
a
> short
> break in the presentation I turned around to them and stated that 
such was
> my
> understanding and could they help me out? I made the case that while 
I
> felt
> there would certainly be pockets here and there where 90-95% of 
students
> reached
> grade level, it was perhaps unrealistic to expect widescale 
accompIishment
> of
> the aim. I thought I presented my case almost sheepishly in an effort 
not
> to
> offend.
>
> I got an earful and it seemed to me, a lecture for daring to question 
the
> 90-95%
> idea. One of the things they pointed out to me was the range within 
each
> grade
> level, for example in 4th grade, the range of 4.0 to 4.9. It was 
noisy and
> our
> conversation was cut short when the meeting resumed but I think one 
of
> their
> primary arguments was that because of this range, it is indeed 
entirely
> reasonable to expect that 90-95% of our students should be performing 
at
> grade
> level if we are teaching the way we should be with 
scientifically-based
> practices. All of these diagnosticians are former teachers. In order 
for
> them to
> be right, it seemed to me that we would have to change the definition 
or
> conventional meaning of grade level??
>
> Now I'm confused all over again (doesn't take much) about grade 
level. You
> might
> be comforted to know I don't teach math.
>
> Are these gals right?
>
> Tauna Rogers
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe ARN-L:
> http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/subscribe.html
________________________________________________________________________
> More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Subscribe ARN-L:
> http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/subscribe.html


-------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe ARN-L:
http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/subscribe.html



________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - 
http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003