Group Three Discussion on State Policies

page 1 of 212next »

State Policies

drsarah 23 May 2007 21:04

The paper presented here discusses the policies about accommodiation for assessments that different states have in place for students with exceptionalities. The ways in which students are able to receive supports during standardized tests continues to be a major point of discussion for many in the educational policy realm and for parents and teachers of students who claim the right to these supports. Check out the paper, and share you thought on what you think the implications of the accommodiations and the policies means for education and understanding student learning through assessments like the ones discussed in the text.
electronic version of article
The article is also attached below as a PDF

Last edited on 25 May 2007 18:45 by drsarah Show more

Re: State Policies

mason 11 Jul 2007 03:01

The testing issue with special populations - special education and ESL students is such a hot issue, especially at my school because we did not make AYP last year in testing because of our special education test scores. It just seems like such a self-defeating waste of time to test all types of students in this manner. It does not measure learning…..it only beats down schools that are already struggling. During the DCCAS our school went through the whole process of dismissing students to their special sites and providing them with the accommodations that they were entitled. However, after many discussions with the special education teachers, all of the accommodations were unable to be met. In our school, and so I have heard from others, the special education teachers are stretched so thin and it really hurts all involved. Many students are not given the time and support that is needed because the student to teacher ratio is to high. I know that several of the special education teachers were very frustrated because they had an increase of pressure to have our special education population pass the test, but were strapped because there were not enough people to administer the test and provide accommodations.

Re: Group Three Discussion on State Policies

Liz Mickduff 05 Jul 2007 22:27

At one point students with disabilities were excluded from state wide testing. However due to the “age of accountability” and especially with NCLB in place, policy makers became concerned that special education programs would not reap the “benefits” that result from educational reform. IDEA then decided that students with disabilities should be made to take the standardized tests with reasonable accommodations. After reading the Participation Policies, Decision Making Criteria and Accommodations, I feel just as frustrated with the implications of standardized tests as I did the last time I administered the DC CAS.
My understanding of assessment is to monitor the growth of the student and also the quality of instruction given by the teacher. When a test is absurdly difficult for a student and beyond their range of comprehensible input, it supplies no validity to the quality of instruction or how much a student has grown in the course of a year. Why? Because it forces the students to guess their way through, all the time the teacher s hoping the students are guessing correctly because of the reports maintained on the teachers by the accountability personnel.
If the intention of policy like IDEA is to reap benefits for students or peoples with disabilities, why do schools with poor test scores get punished by NCLB? We know the tests aren’t showing anything but that Jonnie isn’t on grade level and deemed deficient by the public school system, therefore it makes no sense to force students to take such tests and really makes no sense to punish these students by depriving their schools of educational resources. I am not a fan of standardized tests for a number of reasons (are any of us?) but do agree that there is a need for high quality alternative assessment.
My final thought is that until policy makers listen to teaching professionals and actually learn themselves about educational pedagogy, the problem is not going to alleviate itself. Policy makes come up with catchy names, pass blame on why are schools are weaker than they should be and then sell the catchy names to ignorant voters who want to make things better but don’t know how. If it is truly important that we all are accountable, policy makers should be held accountable for the fact that there are such inequalities in our schools.

Re: Group Three Discussion on State Policies

EWhitworth 05 Jul 2007 23:46

Just a quick thought regarding mandated standardized testing:

Liz, I totally agree with you that our schools need alternative assessments or alternative assessment options when it comes to state mandated testing! Do our kids really learn anything from taking the DC-CAS? I don’t believe so – and there are so many other ways to assess our kids to ensure their retention rate! I was recently given the “Average Retention Rate After 24 Hours” in my last class & it really resonated with me. Kids retain 90% of what they learn after 24 hours if they are asked to teach others or apply what they have learned, hands on, right away. The link below contains the breakdown. Also, once policy makers start listening to educators – perhaps we can do something about the form of these mandated standardized tests.

http://www.marietta.edu/~bauerm/Average%20Retention%20Rate%20After%2024%20hours_files/frame.htm

Re: Group Three Discussion on State Policies

terrakathleen 13 Jul 2007 14:37

I share some of the general anti-testing sentiments expressed above. However, I do think that there is a place for standardized testing in our education system. We all know that standardized testing does not fully measure what happens in a classroom, but I do think we need some basic data about where students, as a whole, are. Is it fair to then use this data as a basis for sanctions and funding cuts? Definitely not. But accountability - when appropriately supported and implemented - can be a good thing for schools, parents, and students.

Teachers absolutely should be held accountable for their students' achievement, especially students who are particularly vulnerable (Special Education and ELL students). However, it's a matter of how we go about assessing these students. Using a grade-level normed standardized test to assess special education students who have been designed by a legal document (IEP) as needing a different curriculum simply doesn't make any sense. This is where more holistic assessment tools, like portfolios and mastery checklists, can play an important role. These allow us to use the student's IEP to determine growth throughout the year, rather than measuring the student's proficiency against the norm of other students in the same grade level.

I do, however, feel torn about this issue. I think that taking special education students out of standardized testing and AYP measurements completely sends a dangerous message that we've already decided that these kids can't measure up and lets teachers and schools be unaccountable for their students' progress. Does anyone know of any states that have done a good job of creating an assessment system in which multiple methods of assessment to determine growth are used?

Re: Group Three Discussion on State Policies

jesstabak 15 Jul 2007 17:58

First, some thoughts on standardized testing in general: While I don't think that standardized test results should be the only factor in assessing whether or not a school is making AYP, I do think that they are a valid, useful tool in monitoring progress and, more importantly, in redirecting instruction to better serve our students. This 2004 study by John Diamond and James Spillane gives some excellent examples of ways that schools can use standardized testing results to improve their students' learning experiences.

I can give you a great example from my experiences last year: Our reading teacher used our students' aggregate and individual reading scores to determine what major areas the kids were having the most trouble with. Then, we met as a grade level team and determined ways to work together to tackle each skill. For example, the skill breakdowns indicated that the kids were doing consistently worse on questions based on non-fiction passages. To improve their skills in this area, our reading teacher focused on teaching passage-attack skills that easily transferred to non-fiction, and our science and writing teachers both incorporated more non-fiction passages into their lessons and directly reinforced the passage-attack skills that our reading teacher was teaching in her classroom. As a result, our kids got better at reading and understanding non-fiction passages, a literacy skill that has "real world" significance regardless of whether or not it is going to appear on a test.

Now, in regards to aggregating special education test scores, I agree with Terra that, while there are valid arguments about how these test scores should be evaluated, not including them in school-wide accountability numbers sends a very dangerous message, particularly with more and more schools using the inclusion model. Based on this model, classroom teachers are absolutely accountable for the learning and progress of the special education students they are teaching; if a special education student completely bombs a standardized test given with appropriate accommodations, that tells us that the inclusion model isn't presently working for that student, and that something needs to change: the classroom teacher could modify their practices to better reach that child and work more closely with the special education department when planning for that child, or the child could be recommended to receive more SpEd hours at their next IEP review, or perhaps both. The goal should always be to get the kids off of their IEPs, and not including SpEd scores in class and grade level averages sends the opposite message.

Re: Group Three Discussion on State Policies

jesstabak 15 Jul 2007 18:03

The link in my post is, for some reason, not working.
If you'd like to access it, try it from here instead: http://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/docs/urbschldraccDIASPI.pdf

Re: Group Three Discussion on State Policies

EmilyEYoung 29 Jul 2007 03:36

Well said, Terra and Jess. I definitely think teachers should be held accountable for their special education students - these students have the same right to education as the rest of the population and need to have it fulfilled to the best of the school's ability, via accountable teachers.

There are many, many problems with standardized testing, as exemplified in part by the article. Cultural bias, non-inclusion of special education students sending a dangerous message, time demands, the effect of teachers and schools teaching to the test… and the list goes on. I am a proponent for frequent interim assessments within the classroom, though, because they hold the purpose of showing growth and progress of a student and can be important information for teachers and students to make educational goals from towards improvements. This goal is aligned significantly with the idea of IEPs wanting to measure consistent progress and have the general education teacher be consistent in measuring, reflecting, and helping the student make his/her IEP goals. BUT, standardized testing is NOT currently used for these purposes - the only purpose they serve is information for the district or state on how the school is doing, and the data is not broken down sufficiently nor is it reported back in a timely manner in order to be of help to the teachers. Overall, with the four standardized tests my students took in the last two months of school (DCBAS, DCCAS, DCCAS Biology, and the DC Biology Pilot End of the Year Test), I really just felt they were not purposeful and were actually hindering my students ability to meet their academic goals by taking up so much time.

Re: Group Three Discussion on State Policies

jnsarak 17 Jul 2007 02:19

I found the paper interesting because it displayed very clearly the huge variation in response that states have to testing students with special needs. This smorgasbord of approaches is best seen in Table 3 on page 6 of the paper. Here, you can see that there is absolutely no consensus on what types of accommodations are appropriate to use among the state policies. Many of the possible accommodations are not even discussed in all of the policy papers.

I think that, above all, this points to a dramatic lack in understanding of these assessment systems, and especially how these tools should be applied to students with special needs. Since nobody actually knows the extent of the effects of certain accommodations are for certain students, there is no clear trend in their implementation. The authors mention this problem briefly in their "Discussion," where they state that "States … have continued to alter their accommodations policies despite the lack of a solid research base on the effects of individual accommodations" (Thurlow 7). Sadly, the education policy community seems once again to be guessing when it comes to "improving" policies.

There is clearly much debate regarding the standardized assessment of students with special needs, and students in general. Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, this particular study highlights the lack of a knowledge foundation on which these arguments rest. How can we expect to improve the quality of assessment methods when we don't rigorously assess the quality of them in the first place?

Re: Group Three Discussion on State Policies

Mike Lederman 18 Jul 2007 19:36

This article shows how much confusion and inconsistency there is across the country regarding who gets tested, whose scores should count, and what accommodations should be made for students with disabilities. I think the only way to settle the confusion and produce genuine, accurate, meaningful data is to (short of delivering directions) test everyone in the country the same way. If someone is blind, let them listen to the test or read it in brail. If someone is deaf, get them someone to read them the directions in sign language. But after these kinds of accommodations, let’s give the federal government what they want. Lets show them EXACTLY how many of our students can read and solve math problems on grade level according to a multiple choice test. If you want to go to college and get a job beyond the service industry, these days you’re going to have to take the SAT/ACT anyway! Life is one test after another!

Teachers need to explain to students that these “government” tests don’t mean anything for them as individuals! There is no pressure! These tests will not impact your grade or your ability to get into college! Just do your best and we’ll have a pizza party afterwards! It is just a measurement to see how well your school is doing with the resources it has.

At the same time, schools and teachers need to stop looking at the consequences of not meeting AYP as punishment. People always talk about schools being “punished” for not making “adequate yearly progress” as defined by No Child Left Behind… but I don’t see it that way. If you look at the law, the “sanctions” are things like offering supplemental educational services (i.e. tutoring), offering families school choice, implementing new curriculums, giving control of the organization of a school over to an outside provider (Why not? They have some good ideas like setting up smaller academies within large schools), and firing teachers who aren’t pulling their weight. (FINALLY, a way to fire teachers who DON’T DO THEIR JOBS and have been COLLECTING PAY CHECKS fore the past 20 YEARS because they are protected by contract). I worked at a school where two years ago, half the teachers were reading newspapers and showing movies to their students during class. Now, most of them are gone. I see school restructuring as a blessing.

Sure, some of these consequences will cost states some extra money, but if it gets to be too much money, you can bet that governors and state legislators will start petitioning the federal government for more money… and this is exactly what should be happening already.

Maybe instead of altering accommodation policies at the state level or changing whose test scores get counted in schools’ averages, we should let NCLB run its course, show the federal government just how a huge percentage of schools in the country are not meeting AYP, and hopefully the results will put more pressure on the Federal Government to provide more money for education as opposed to war.

Re: Group Three Discussion on State Policies

Susan Oliver 28 Jul 2007 00:34

Are you running for office, Mike? Because I think that was a pretty good speech. As much as I have feared saying this outloud in classes at American or in my own school, I somewhat agree with nationwide standardized tests. Just like Terra said as well, teachers and schools should be held accountable for their students’ achievement, and standardizing testing across the nation is the way to do it. However, I think the penalties for not making AYP are fitting and are designed to help the school. The mandatory supplemental resources and possible school restructuring is often just what the schools need. It’s hard to come out and say that many veteran teachers do not belong in the classroom; however, unless they are trained in new teaching methods regularly or held accountable for their actions (showing movies everyday), they do not belong in the classroom. When it comes to federal funding and federal laws, I, just like Mike, think there should be more uniformity in assessments across the nation. According to the article, each state seems to be quite inconsistent with the next. Additionally, when it comes to accommodations for special needs students, the article says there is no consensus about which accommodation should be used. (p.238) Personally, I would like to see more power return to the state level in terms of education so that adjustments to policies can be made quicker. However, if federal funding comes from the same place and measures states against the same scores, then shouldn’t these tests be the same? Shouldn’t special needs students in all states have the same accommodations available to them at the time of testing? I appreciated seeing the complete list of possible accommodations in the text. I think we should be a lot more lenient with allowing students to use various resources at the time of testing. People in the world have most of these resources readily available, so why are we so restrictive with students who really need the accommodations?

Re: Group Three Discussion on State Policies

ghughesstrange 30 Jul 2007 15:04

All of the statements said above are good ones, and I feel like mostly I will just be following up with additional comments to what they say….

Accountability is a great idea for all students especially those with greater learning needs. The challenge is for special education students, are the teachers to blame for the results or is the special education department? Some teachers may be working hard to fill all the accommodation's when other slack off or do not know what is expected, or the failure could be with the SPED teachers who provide the services.

I do believe that all students scores should be included in AYP results. It is up to the school to provide services for all of their students and standardized test scores are a valid way of measuring there ability to do this. Not necessarily compared to the grade level scores (as a high school teacher how can I be accountable for the level that the students enter?), but maybe from assessments given at the beginning and end of the school year. My school is very focused on test scores and any way to remove individuals that could lower the scores would probably be taken advantage of. This is unfair to these students and pushes them to the side of the teaching when they should be part of the major focus.

Finally, nationwide assessments should exist so that there is accountability on a state by state level. I always hear that Massachusetts has a very good testing system and a good education system, but how do I know how my students compare to Massachusetts students or Washington state students. Are all school systems failing or just specific states? These questions should be answered and right now without a standardized test it is difficult to tell at what level students are performing. The problem is this begins to conflict with states and federal rights and makes things a little dicey.

Re: Group Three Discussion on State Policies

jkirmes 27 Jul 2007 14:29

As much as I was struck by the huge variation among states when it comes to assessment participation and accommodations, I keep thinking back to what actually happens at the school-level when standardized tests are being administered and how much that can change from year-to-year. In my first year at my current school, the whole special education program was kind of a mess, the director was pretty much incompetent, and it was our first year administering the DC-CAS instead of the SAT-9. As a result of all these problems and changes we offered almost nothing in the way of accommodations - it was pretty much just extended time. We also had students taking the test in huge groups because lots of teachers didn't show up to school since the didn't have to actually teach their classes due to testing.

This year, we have a new special education director who is very competent and acts as a fantastic advocate for the special needs population at our school. She made sure that every single 10th grader had the accommodations they were legally entitled to, even when this meant securing funding to buy mp3 players, spell checkers and to provide test facilitators with stipends to make them come to school. One student was even eligible to take the test in a one-on-one environment, so she administered the test herself in her office and hung encouraging, hand-made posters that said things like, "Go George!" and "Great Job!"

The difference between the first and second year was so remarkable that I don't even think I'm doing it justice here, but my point is that while state policies are interesting and important, it is what goes on at the school-level that really matters and while I'm not sure whether DC's accommodation policies changed from 2006-2007 I know that the level at which my school provide accommodations changed drastically.

Re: Group Three Discussion on State Policies

Susan Oliver 27 Jul 2007 20:51

Wow, Jenn! Can we get your coordinator to set up a professional development for all SPED coordinators? I think all of those accommodations sound wonderful. It goes to show that if we all followed through with tracking down the necessary resources allowed by individual student’s IEPs, then overall standardized testing for special needs students might be a lot more successful. I just wonder if financially it’s possible for all schools to have a coordinator acquire all the necessary testing resources. Then again, SPED students earn the most money for schools. We just need the right people in charge of the school’s budget to see that these students receive the services and testing accommodations that they need.

Re: Group Three Discussion on State Policies

EWhitworth 29 Jul 2007 01:37

I also agree that as controversial as standardized mandated testing is: it needs to be done. There needs to be data, and frankly, these tests seem to be the logical way to get that information. However, I do have a problem with the playing fields in which students are being compared on. It is very hard for poor school districts, who may have really good teachers, organization, structure, and resources, to compare with the richer ones. Whose fault is that? And how does that affect students and educators?

Re: Group Three Discussion on State Policies

minnie 31 Jul 2007 01:23

The political reality is such that we'll never get national testing. Look at states like Mississippi which claims that some huge number (more than 50%) of its fourth graders read on grade level based on its test. I'd like to see what test they're using. But the feds simply ignore such blatant absurdities and say as long as states are satisfied with how they assess students then that's OK under NCLB. States have been able to keep such policies under local control by bullying politicians who want to get re-elected. So if the general population of students is given softballs in places like Mississippi, imagine what they're doing with the special ed kids. And there are large numbers of special ed kids in Mississippi due to its high poverty rate, poor access to pre-natal care and other health care. We had a teacher at our school from Mississippi last year who was shocked to hear that we would test spec ed students, too. Also, in many poor, rural states there's little money for such accommodations as magnifying equipment, laptops, amplification equipment, etc. Unfortunately, this article was not specific when reporting about states and their policies, i.e. "five states now have assessment policies that indicate that accommodations may be used by any student". It doesn't mention if those are states in the northeast; I'm betting they are.

Re: Group Three Discussion on State Policies

LuisTorres 31 Jul 2007 17:57

I was born and raised in Texas. I lived through a series of standardized tests throughout my entire schooling and not once do I remember feeling like I had accomplished or learning something incredible as a result of the testing. I am not a big fan of using statewide assessments to measure intelligence, Rodney Stark, the author of my college sociology book, mentions that the highest correlated variable between a child's performance on a test is a teacher's score on a literacy test and a mother's educational attainment level. In that case, why don't we just test the parent and the teacher and use that data as a basis for our tracking for particular students? Sounds absurd, doesn't it? Well, it is. Testing is a tool in education only in so far as it serves as one of many other indicators of progress. There must be multiple educational assessments in order to get a full picture of a child's growth of the course of the year. There are multiple forms of intelligence and these need to be assessed and children need to be allowed an opportunity to come through in various areas.

page 1 of 212next »