[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
Re: 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
Post a Message to arn-l:
