No Child Left Behind May Protect Rights of Students with Disabilities

On October 11, 2005, the Washington Post ran an article suggesting that the federal No Child Left Behind Law (NCLB) has helped to institutionalize a process of protections for students with disabilities, whether or not their parents or guardians were in a position to advocate for them through IDEA.

Ricki Sabia, Associate Director for the National Down Syndrome Society Public Policy Center, shared her perspective on the law:

"At national conferences I have seen that some teachers and administrators are beginning to see that segregating students with disabilities in classes without access to the general curriculum or highly qualified--content trained--teachers is partly to blame for the achievement gap," she said.  Unfortunately other teachers and administrators are spending more time fighting NCLB than they are spending on narrowing this gap."

"The biggest impact of NCLB may be a revolution in the way we talk about education for students with disabilities," she said.  "The standard has always been an appropriate education which provides some minimal benefit or progress on IEP goals.  We only heard 'world class' or 'state of the art' applied to general education.  With NCLB, school systems will have to start applying those terms to students with disabilities if they are not to be left behind."

With regard to the testing requirements of NCLB, Diane Smith of the National Association of Protection & Advocacy Systems attempts to dissect "myths" about the federal law.  She drafted a fact sheet that suggests that "most children with disabilities are able to keep up with their peers academically and take standardized tests successfully, some with and without accommodations."  She points out that there are exceptions that exclude students with disabilities from the accountability system, and tests for students with disabilities come in many formats with many types of accommodations. 

In response to criticisms about the stress of forcing standardized tests on students with special needs, Smith replied that "the assessments aren't nearly as stressful for the students as it will be to graduate without the skills they need to go on to employment or post-secondary education.  Students with disabilities face a lot of well-meaning paternalism, but they are being protected from the wrong things."

Click here to read the full text of the Washington Post article.  You may have to register to read the article, but registration is free, quick, and easy.

Comments

[Mary Burger]

[email protected]
Mary from Michigan wrote:
I do believe in our constructional rights.

. (This WAS why I didn't believe in hiring an Attorney).

(The curse of women born in the fifties)

I was determined to save my children. I am honest to a fault, believed our struggles were for a cause. I thought in the end, many children will know: they too, CAN, with the needed method and support 20% more children will have an oppurtunity to an education and Pursuit of Happiness. I taught my children to embrace dyslexia and seek the gift of Dyslexia. (They did find the gift and I continue to believe difficulty is a gift and one must find it.

This is all good BUT the fact remains, I am not qualified. I lost time and focus. I lost years for a cause that I wasn't qualified to defend.

I wasn't defending myself. I lost, so my children lost. They believed in me and I failed them. I am not stating this for pity. It just is so. The failure to protect them did affect our family. No one is to blame. It is cause and effect. A human responce to a situation.

We do find humor in our deficiency! “What was I thinking,” I’m dyslexic myself.

My husband said “Yeper!” The blind leading the blind. He’s a smart one; he waited until I had the discernment to state his stance. I wouldn’t have found humor in his remark at the time.

I had all my ducks in a row, complete file with proof abound. We hired tutors, supported our children had documentation of diagnosis. Who could dispute Diagnosis at The xxxxxxxxx Clinic? Thee Clinic in Ohio was the fore runners in research at the time.

We had testing at the Clinic in xxxx (diagnosis dyslexia) We were told if we follow through and do A B C and D our children have the potential to become Doctors. The Doctor stated our son has the gift of dexterity. His dexterity was proficient as needed for a Brain Surgeon. His I.Q. was very superior; He desired to be a doctor. He will be given accommodation and remediation. in school and at University. We thought.!

(In Ohio There are many dyslexic doctors. The CEO of the xxxxxxxxx Clinic is dyslexic. I stated this at the hearing. The court reporter must not have understood me. She wrote the incorrect statement on transcript.) (The statements on the attorneys and the Hearing Officers report were false in many areas)

I could go on for hours defending the position to defend my rights, but in the end I didn't see. I look back and I should have known.

"A Doctor does not treat his Wife."

A friend of mine's husband is a Doctor, Why didn't I see it. Well I see now.

Many are able to present their case for their children. It does not benefit the child. There is too much at stake. The effect on the family is huge. Not to mention if I had hired you and your husband, I am confident Justice would be. You were highly recommended years ago. I had the direction. I have learned. Yes it is my constructional right, but I wasn't applying it to myself.

Bottom line. I did not have the right to defend some one else. I truly believe this, NOW: If the subject didn't apply to my situation and I was given the question: Should a parent represent their child. ?

I would have thought it over for one week. Knowing myself. I would have been object able my final opinion would be the same. Although the Judgment would have been in our favor.

I could only think subject ably, though my intentions were honorable, my logic was distorted. I couldn’t apply what I knew and know was true. I believe my children are eligible for Special Education and section 504 and 508. The law is in place.

Unless there are other factors: I agree with the Judge.

, If this law were in place when we had our hearing, on xxxxxxxxx xx and xx of xxxx Justice would be served. I don't think it's possible for one to work harder than I did to advocate for their children. Stand by their civil and federal rights. One of the reasons I didn't want an Attorney for my children’s Due Process Hearing, My status at the time, unfortunately was: “Our Country gives the citizens the right to speak for ourselves." My citizens right...

The stakes are too high

I lost because I was not qualified. They lost because I was not qualified.

The Hearing Officer didn't have a choice. The Attorney won the game.

DeleteReplyForwardSpamMove...

[ilnevrgivup]

I Mary Burger approve comments from readers. I appriciate comments infact Thank-You Mary Burger Michigan

[Judy Karl]

I believe we need to fight for our children, because if we don't know one else will. I fought through the school system, trying to stay on top of it. The problem was the fact that, my child had only two teachers who understood the dyslexia that she had. Most teachers don't understand it and therefore don't know how to teach them. My child is in college, it is very hard for her but she is determine to get that college education. The thing is, those who are dyslexic are rather smart. Our learning is different and is therefore harder to learn the conventional way.