The End of Special Education - Part I

This is a post I've put off writing this because the topic is incredibly depressing. Now I've procrastinated to the point where there are several topics to touch upon and will probably split this mess up into a few posts. 

I feel like I'm standing still and the world of education, especially special education and ELLs, is being swept away in whirlwind of incredibly poor policy decisions. (Yes, I know, it's been happening for a long time. I've only been really clued in for the last 5 years or so. Bare with me.) Those decisions have nothing to do with teachers. Nothing to do with students.  

Let's start with the US SecEd Arne Duncan and the changes to regulations that became effective on 21 September 2015. "In order to make conforming changes to ensure coordinated administration of programs under title I of the ESEA and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Secretary is also amending the regulations for Part B of the IDEA."  I wrote tiny bit about it here. 

What he really meant by that was a fundamental change in how special education will be approached: "[ESEA to] no longer authorize a State to define modified academic achievement standards and develop alternate assessments based on those modified academic achievement standards for eligible students with disabilities." In other words, unless the student is severely disabled, students will be able to perform the same as their neurotypical peers with  "High standards and high expectations for all students and an accountability system that provides teachers, parents, students, and the public with information about students' academic progress are essential to ensure that students graduate from high school prepared for college and careers in the 21st century." Add in some unicorn glitter and a miracle, and voila! Instant student with a disability success! Gee, wish I had thought of that. <insert biggest teenager-inspired eyeroll you can muster>

As galling as the basic premise of these changes are, perhaps the worst is the alleged research cited in support of this garbage that is passing for education policy. Fortunately, someone has already taken a very close look at the cited research and published a paper annihilating those citations, Primum Non Nocere: First, Do No Harm. Read it. It is is nothing less than jawdropping in its findings. Remember, the SecEd just removed states' ability to modify standards and testing for students with disabilities. His justification? A meta-analysis done in 2010, based on 70 studies done between 1984-2006. You can read the abstract here. 

The gist of this is that meta-analysis included students in grades 6-12. No K-5 students were included. The students were receiving interventions in science, social studies, or English. The studies looked at seven types of interventions in both an inclusion setting and in a separate classroom. However, "The authors note that only a small number of the studies took place in inclusive classrooms and that previous studies of coteaching in inclusive classrooms have found that the effective strategies investigated in this study are rarely implemented in inclusive settings."  

In other words, the SecEd just changed the basics of special education based on a meta-analysis which the authors specifically say they did not look at special education interventions in a separate classroom and very few were done in an inclusion setting. It does NOT support abandoning alternative standards or assessment. It didn't look at interventions for K-5. Nor at interventions for math. Remember this as Duncan will surely go down in history as the worst SecEd ever. 

P.S. I have to include this gem from the meta-analysis abstract. Understand that meta-analysis is only as good as the research it's based on. So, in 2010, when this analysis was published, this seems wildly inappropriate: "Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI). The seven studies on CAI programs found computer-based instruction to be moderately effective. However, most studies on CAI were conducted during the 1980s and 1990s; it is not known whether the same results would be found with current CAI programs."  Is it just me? Why the heck would you include seven studies done at least 10 YEARS before, on technology that is changing annually? What is the point of this? Mark Weber? Any thoughts on this? 

P.P.S. The rest of the citations either didn't exist, were paid for by USED, weren't peer reviewed, or the conclusions of the research were limited in scope (even though SecEd cited in support of broader scope).

Standardized Tests and Students With Disabilities

This is a touchy subject. Civil rights and disability rights groups would have us all believe that by not having our kids tested, their rights would be violated. I understand the history. I get it. As a parent, I’m telling you it’s wrong. That thinking, as well meaning as it may have been at the beginning of No Child Left Behind (I'm being generous), is simply wrong.

For many with IEPs, who are not educationally at/near grade level, standardized tests are completely inappropriate. The scores do not reflect what a student has learned, nor do they demonstrate actual growth and achievement during any given year. And, really, when you get right down to it, the Federal cap of 1% being allowed to be eligible for alternate assessment completely contradicts the purpose of an Individual Education Plan. Here's why...

Standardized tests do not provide meaningful feedback. A designation of "not proficient at grade level" tells the parents and teachers nothing about the student they don't already know. Maybe more basic than this, why would you give a test on something the student hasn't learned?

Since no one gets to see the questions or answers on these standardized tests, how can anyone (not just special ed) determine any specific strengths or weaknesses? The answer, of course, is they can’t.

Accommodations tend to be more time, separate testing environment from general ed classmates, and frequent breaks – none are actually helpful if the student is not working at grade level.

Accommodations, like reading passages to the student, may be moderately helpful, BUT, then it may mask reading level issues – we experienced this problem with 7th grade NJASK. Oh, look! Her ELA score is so much higher than last year! (Nevermind, it still wasn’t “proficient.”) Funny thing about that -- it wasn’t that she couldn’t comprehend, it’s that she couldn’t really read.

We know these scores, regardless of arguable validity, are used to withhold services. A student does moderately well, but maybe not quite "proficient," or has an unexplained jump in scores from one year to next (see above) and that not-quite-proficient score is used as an excuse to deny evaluation for classification, or to directly deny a requested service (like reading – Orton Gillingham, Wilson, etc.), because that score was "good enough."

For the parent who is looking for an evaluation, the story goes like this. They ask for a meeting. The child study team brings out the test score and tells the parents, "Look how close he is to proficient! Johnny doesn't need an evaluation. He's doing so well, he's so happy, and gosh, he just has the nicest smile. We'll give him Basic Skills Instruction (BSI)." The parents, completely not savvy, think "Oh, ok. Johnny will be getting help. Thank goodness they want to help."

What's so insidious about that scenario is the student doesn't get a proper evaluation. The standardized test score doesn't actually tell anyone anything useful. And, BSI is a general education placement, not special education. We know that teaching to the test in that smaller environment does work to raise test scores. My sparkly district has been spending at twice the rate of our neighbors doing exactly that for years. The student does not get what they actually need and somewhere down the line, the parents figure it out, are mad as hell, and they finally (hopefully) get the evaluation they should have gotten to begin with.

How do we fix this? Because, I can't stress enough that assessment in general is not the issue. Of course, we need to know how our kids are doing. Standardized tests, like PARCC and SBAC, aren’t going to inform us of what we need to know. Personally, I prefer the use of portfolios. I would much rather have my daughter’s progress monitored by her teachers throughout the school year – using both the teachers’ own assessments and projects. I would rather she demonstrate what she CAN DO, rather than just failing a test that is inappropriate for her to begin with. Why is this such a difficult concept?

This isn’t rocket science. Really.