Re: special education students and grade level

[MONICALUCIDO@comcast.net]

Absolutely. Elaine Garan is a friend of mine and we have presented at symposiums at Fresno State repeatedly and discussed the issues behind the faulty reporting of the subgroups by the NRP. I would challenge and present the evidence to any and all who try to push the "scientifically proven" crap. Read her new book, "Smart Answers to Tough Questions," and you will have all of the evidence you need to challenge their corporate findings.

Joe Lucido
EPATA
 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: PRISCILLA GUTIERREZ <pgutpgut@msn.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with George.  Ask the diags or the folks who set up the training to 
> provide the research studies that irrefutably demonstrate that 90-95% success 
> rate.  Don't be surprised if a) they can't; or b) they are using 1-2 studies to 
> generalize, or as in the NRP the data relates to a specific grade level but is 
> being generalized to the rest of the student population - a big no no.
> 
> Then ask what assessments were used to determine grade level as well as which 
> sped populations fall under the research.  As George mentioned, likely the 
> gifted and talented pulled the scores up, and they included the highest 
> functioning categories of sped.  While grade level ranges from a .0 - .9, 
> depending on the month of the school year, the majority of state tests take 
> place mid-winter and include items that have not been taught yet, but are 
> considered grade level skills.  So is grade level a .0, a .5, or a .9?
> 
> Then of course there's the million dollar question - "what defines 
> scientifically-based instructional practices?" especially in light of the 
> Reading First debacle, and Elaine Garan's work highlighting the conflict between 
> what the NRP actually stated and what got disseminated to school districts.  The 
> NRP specifically cautioned against the use of commercial reading programs 
> precisely because they could not meet individual needs; and cautioned against 
> the overuse of phonics.  Rather their actual report encouraged the use of a 
> balanced program that teaches skills in context.  Garan's analysis of the 
> studies the NRP were permitted to look at also demonstrated that the benefits 
> and gains only occurred in the sped or at risk population for K-1.  Any gains 
> were lost after that and systematic phonics instruction appeared to inhibit 
> rather than encourage comprehension beyond first grade.
> 
> Again, do not allow folks to speak in generalities.  Ask for specifics to back 
> up claims.  That's the hallmark of robust research - the ability to provide data 
> to back up your claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Priscilla Gutierrez
> Outreach Specialist
> New Mexico School for the Deaf
> 
> ...change is inevitable, growth is optional...
> 
> 
> > From: taunar@plateautel.net
> > To: arn-l@interversity.org
> > Subject: [arn-l] special education students and grade level
> > Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 02:42:30 -0700
> >
> > 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