Administration Proposals For NCLB Would Leave Many More Children Behind

The U.S. Department of Education has proposed revisions to NCLB which would permit as many as 30% of all children with special needs to meet standards at a substandard level.  In effect this proposal permanently leaves behind many students with special needs especially those with learning disabilities. {This news story came to my attention from a reader, Karen Purcell]

It is not as if students with learning disabilities are going to be judged and measured by some lesser standard when they get into the workforce and life.  This system of two-tier testing will exempt schools from pushing to find the tools and means to reach for a more normative standard of achievement for many more students with disabilities.

In effect, this proposed revision endorses the notion that large segments of students with disabilities are not remediable to a large extent.  Schools in my experience give up on so many students from a very young age any way, and now the Federal government is giving them a green light that this resignation is legal. I see far too many students who are supposedly receiving "specialized reading instruction" who do little if any reading. are not being exposed to rig0rous curriculum, and are not be taught with scientifically based methodologies taught by trained staff.  The problem is not the children, it is with the system which under this proposal will be taking a giant step backwards.

Comments

[Sandy Alperstein]

Thank you, Charlie, for raising this important topic! There appears to be much momentum developing in favor of reducing accountability under NCLB for students with disabilities. This is a very disturbing trend and does not bode well for the upcoming (2007 or 2008) reauthorization of NCLB.

[Mekei]

For a child with an IEP, what would this do to FAPE under IDEA 2004? I'm often confused over which Act supercedes the other, if at all.

[Sandy Alperstein]

Theoretically, neither act supersedes the other. NCLB applies to entire schools/districts, while IDEA (IEP) applies to individual students. However, in reality, what's measured tends to be what gets paid attention to, so the fewer students with disabilities who are appropriately tested under NCLB, the more students in danger of losing FAPE. At least, that's how I see it.

[Peggy Sorensen]

I was also deeply discouraged when I saw this. This year I have not even been able to ascertain that my son's teachers--in the special room that is supposed to be providing him with the extra help he needs--are teaching the content included in the "general curriculum." What I do know is that his "biology" class is taught by a teacher certified in special education and there is no lab work (no lab facilities). I also know that even though he is cooperative, completes assignments and has a "C" in the class, according to the quarterly tests he is only proficient in one tested area.

His teachers have just been "waiting for this to blow over," rather than fighting to get the special ed kids exposed to content (and non-special kids). Looks like they won this round.

[John Simmons]

Dear Friends,

The administrative proposals for NCLB take into consideration developmental issues. If one has a background in this, one would realize that it isn't as easy as saying that it is the teacher's fault and they just need to teach better. In my classroom I have students with autism, William's Syndrome, FAS, Turner's Syndrome, Fragile X Syndrome... just to name a few. I have two kids that have missed years of school due to genetic defect. One (having NF)will not see two more birthdays... very sad.

My goal is for the children to receive a relevant education that will give them a chance to love and be loved.

Just as I do not think every man is cut out to be an old paratrooper special operations capable fella like myself, not all kids can perform well on the CAHSEE. Or else all of us would be paratroopers. We are all just put together a little different it seems.

Guys, it is a developmental problem with these kids. Not necessarily a teacher teaching problem (although I often have thought that Ivy League paper of mine was a waste of good money).

Need to do some more studying perhaps. If you do not know the disorders mentioned or and causal factors, please spend some time in research. We can help these kids by giving them a relevant education. Without understanding the problem and generalizing the No Child Left Behind bill becomes the No Child's Behing Left... moral of this story... understand the problem.

Thank you.

Response: John: I am afraid your comment misses the boat and pity does not substitute for high standards for all children.

Charlie Fox

[John Simmons]

Has nothing to do with pitty charlie, it has to do with understanding and revelance. You will find very few, if any, doctors or professionals like myself with years of education and experience making comments as you've made.

Work with special needs students for awhile. My guess is, and it is not my intention to make this personal, that you haven't. I apologize if I'm incorrect.

We can have high revelant standards that give these kids a chance to get a job and have a life where than can find love and acceptance. NCLB requires all kids to meet a-g requirements. Just as some are not cut-out to play college contact sports such as football, not all kids can make the a through g team.

What these kids can have is a revelant education that will provide them the means of a good life filled with satisfying work and a livlihood.

Again, study.

John

[Joan Easterling]

If all children are treated the same and receive the same services then where lies the need for special education.

[Latricia Wilson]

Tuesday, Aug. 7, 2007 Print This | Email This

Tenn. Public Schools' Special Diploma Unfair, Student Suit Says
By TRICIA GORMAN, Andrews Publications Staff Writer

The Tennessee Department of Education discriminates against special needs and poor students by giving different diplomas to students who fail a standard assessment exam, according to a federal court lawsuit.
All public school students in Tennessee must take the "Gateway Examination" before graduating from high school. Any student who does not pass all three parts of the test does not receive a diploma.

Students with learning disabilities who pass their classes but not the assessment exam receive a "special diploma," rather than the standard certificate.
Two former students in the state's public school system are suing over the certificate in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
They say it is discriminatory for the schools to give some students a different nonequivalent diploma that is not accepted by some colleges and employers.
The students, Latricia Wilson and Corey Robinson, seek to represent a class of thousands of current and former students.
Wilson has a mild learning disability and needs some accommodations to help her in her coursework and tests, the complaint says.
But she says no accommodations were made when she took the Gateway Exam, and she failed the math portion of the test.
Although she passed all her classes, she received a special diploma upon graduating.
Wilson says in the complaint that she has been turned down by every college she has applied to because she does not have a regular diploma.
Robinson also passed all his classes but failed the Gateway Exam and received a special diploma. Colleges and employers have rejected him also, according to the complaint.
A special diploma is not the equivalent of a standard high school diploma, the suit says, and carries with it social and economic stigmas.
No major college or employer will accept it as proof of the ability to perform at the high school level, the plaintiffs say.
Some students with special diplomas have gone on to get GEDs even though they have completed high school courses just to have some proof to offer prospective employers, the suit says.
The plaintiffs say many of the students who have passed the coursework but failed some part of the final exam have learning disabilities that could be overcome with reasonable accommodations for the exam.
The suit alleges that the Tennessee Department of Education violates the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by not providing mandatory accommodations, such as an alternative assessment test.
The defendant's failure to inform students that the special diploma is not equivalent to a standard diploma and provide the students some opportunity to object to the certificate violates the constitutional due-process guarantees of the Fifth and 14th Amendments, the suit says.
Since more affluent students are able to circumvent the assessment exam by attending private or parochial schools, they can graduate with standard diplomas.
Poorer students do not have that opportunity, in violation of the equal-protection clause of the Constitution, the plaintiffs say.
The suit seeks to stop the state from using the Gateway Exam to assess students until a less oppressive means can be found and asks the court to monitor the progress toward a new assessment.
The plaintiffs further request $60 million in damages.
To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@Thomson.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wilson et al. v. Tennessee Department of Education, No. 2:07 CV 2490, amended complaint filed (W.D. Tenn. July 26, 2007).
Class Action Litigation Reporter
Volume 14, Issue 07
08/07/2007

[Zoe]

No child left behind is actually doing more harm than good!
Check out a similar article I saw at Dailycents.com, the
direct link to the article is http://blogs.dailycents.com/?p=819

[robert kordon]

Thank you John for articulating my thoughts so very well. I'm a Special Education teacher and have been so completely frustrated by NCLB.Charlie, I think your analysis of the new proposals is a off. I teach Emotionally Disturbed and Learning Disabled students at the review and resource level in high school.These kids are expected to pass the same state assessments that the Gifted/Talented and honors students are taking. Is this FAPE?
I don't think the new proposals,"endorses the notion that large segments of students with disabilities are not remediable to a large extent." These students are being asked to learn too much too fast. We need to begin teaching at there present level of performance. We create goals in their I.E.P that should increase their current levels at an appropriate pace. If a student is reading on a 3rd grade level in 9th grade, it is unrealistic to think that they will read on grade level in 10th grade when they take the state assessment. You should see the anxiety these students have when they realize they cannot meet the standards required for a diploma.I don't think they will be judged by a lesser standard, but rather a more appropriate, attainable standard.

[Skarlett]

Dear Mr. Fox,
Are you aware that as it stands now NCLB requires me to administer a test to 9-13 year-old children that may have the skills and mentality of my 5 year-old son? Do you really believe that even the best teachers in the world are going to advance the skills of these students by 10 to 13 years in the next 5 or so? I don't believe John was talking about pity, just the realities of what we work with every day. What district do you teach in where the special needs children are so much higher functioning than what we deal with?

[Skarlett]

My apologies if this comes through to you more than once. Every time I try to post my connection fails me.
First, I need to apologize as I made my last comment before exploring your sight further and reading your background and scanning numerous of what I believe I learned are your wife's posts. That said, even though I know more about you I am still left wondering what you are thinking. It sounds as if your son has many needs that were not met to your satisfaction at times. Have you in the past and will you in high school hold him to the same "high standards" you claim "all children" should be held to or are his issues not such that his mental capabilities are a factor? I am a special education teacher and the mother of what some call a special needs child (ADHD with ODD tendencies diagnosed at age 3)so I mean no disrespect to your son and feel no guilt about questioning where you are coming from.

Ed. I take no offense to your comments. My concern is that in the guise of greater flexibility is just another way of saying lower the bar so that we can feel better about our schools without insuring that all students are in fact making real substantive progress. Maybe the difference between us that you have more trust in the institution of schools to do the right thing and I too often see that that trust is not deserved, of course there are notable exceptions of truly worthy administrators, teachers and staff. However, there are numerous examples of teachers and schools trying to pass off non-achievement as real accomplishments (e.g progress in reading where that claim is illusory). I am open to revisions just not creating a large loophole that essentially exempts a large majority of sped students from real accountability relative to norms.