Re: special education students and grade level

[aburke5054@aol.com]

"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