Kate Riley’s 10-year-old son received a letter of congratulations signed by Washington’s governor and state superintendent.
“Congratulations!” it started. “… We are very proud of you, and you should be very proud of yourself.”
Apparently, my son “achieved the state reading, writing and mathematics learning standards.”
But her autistic son, who spends most of his time in a special-education classroom, is years behind. He “can read some words, can add a little and can barely draw a straight line.”
An editorial writer, Riley has backed high standards since she tutored a 30-year-old high school graduate with a third-grade reading level. But she agreed that students with special needs should have alternative ways to show mastery of the standards, such as providing a portfolio of work.
Which is how my son took the test — by portfolio in the Washington Alternate Assessment System. It was a meticulously kept body of work, representing honest, hard effort and, indeed, progress. But it did not — repeat, did not — meet any common-sense interpretation of fourth-grade standards.
That’s because states can set their own standards for special-education students under No Child Left Behind. In Washington state, special-ed students are counted as successful if they meet the goals in their Individual Education Plans. They aren’t measured by the standards set for other students.
“You don’t want him to count against the school, do you?” was a question I heard more than once as I asked questions. Well, no, but I don’t want him to artificially inflate the school’s success rate, either. I especially don’t want to let schools off the hook if they are failing younger versions of my adult student years ago, who, when given a chance, advanced quickly to ninth-grade reading level.
Her son can’t meet real standards no matter how hard he tries, Riley writes, but most special-education students can if they’re taught well and work hard. Using “alternative assessments” to water down the standards makes it easy to declare success and set young people up for long-term failure.
Update: A Brandeis student who spent six years in special education argues that students with mild to moderate learning disabilities should do the same work as their classmates.
They sequestered me in a classroom and lessened my coursework. The program incentivized me to cheat and not try as hard as I could. Also, in the difficult world of today, special education programs should not provide a hammock. Students with moderate learning disabilities should learn how to cope with their problems and adapt to the real world.
He does recommend his “sped” study skills course for all students.
Isn’t it nice to know that the state government is so flush with cash that they can do things like this?
When I graduated from high school, one nauseating thing (I suppose because I knew that I was destined for things like college so therefore I saw my HS Diploma as having as much value as my Kindergarten Diploma) was that virtually everyone around me was behaving as if I had just won the Nobel Prize. I got a certificate of congratulations from a state Senator in the mail (trashed immediately though I know lots of people who framed theirs) and a letter encouraging me to become a registered voter (never mind I had become one before I got my driver’s license). At a graduation practice another state Senator had a bunch of such certificates issed there…I tossed mine in the trash as I walked off the stage, not getting it, and not understanding then, as now, what the big deal was.
And then the state of TX whines that it doesn’t have enough money for the roads OR education.
Just a lousy letter of congratulation? Why not something more substantive that’ll help the child later in life like a PhD?
It’s sad that the school pretended that this kid met the academic standards, when he didn’t. For his mother, it’s a hurtful mockery.
But this ridiculous chicanery does show one stupid aspect of NCLB, the requirement that eventually 100% of students meet academic standards. That will never happen and it’s absurd for the law to require it.
the requirement that eventually 100% of students meet academic standards.
NCLB does not eventually require that 100% of students meet academic standards. 3% of the student population may be assessed by alternative methods (such as a portfolio of work, rather than sitting a test, but they are required to demonstrate the same skills as the kid who sits a test), and 1% by alternative standards (such as an easier test).
The caps do not apply to small schools or to schools specialising in teaching the cognitively-disabled.
The 1% figure is based on that 10% of students are significantly disabled, and of those 10%, 1% are cognitively disabled.
The requirement, as Tracy describes it, is that 96% of the students must met the predetermined standards using the normal, predetermined test; 3% must demonstrate that they met the predetermined standards, but they may be assessed by alternate methods; and 1% must meet some easier standards.
So, 1% are students like Riley’s son, who could never meet the standards under any condition. The remainder of the students, all of them, must meet the standards, even students who could meet the standards only with tremendous amounts of tutoring and a lot of hard work, which they might not do.
Look at the students at Downtown College Prep. They took a bunch of average and below-average students and brought them up to high school graduation level– with a huge amount of extra work, and after something like half of them dropped out to a different, easier school. With NCLB, every single one of those students (including the dropouts) would have to meet the standards.
The only way to make sure all the students, even the lazy ones and the dumb ones, achieve the standards is to make ridiculously low standards.
The one benefit that I see from NCLB is the reality that now schools must demonstrate AYP for all groups including those with special needs. As the Brandeis student pointed out, the curriculum for kids with LDs was “watered down” and these students are just as capable if not more so as many score quite high on cognitive testing.
NCLB makes districts accountable for educating ALL their students, including students with disabilities.
For someone who calls herself an education reporter to have written this article is a tragedy.
Her son clearly passed the WAAS, the state alternative to the WASL, which is based against his IEP goals. If kids meet the standard on the WAAS they’re counted as if they made standard on the WASL, which is as it should be–if not, highly involved sped kids would be a drag on the system. If she feels like it makes a mockery of the system that’s her perogative, but it has to be remembered that as the parent she has a voice, perhaps the most important voice, in helping to develop his IEP goals. Feel like the goals are too low? That’s your fault, mom.
Sorry – giving diplomas to severely disabled students does NOTHING to improve the self esteem of anyone – except the one issuing the diploma.
Some children just can’t “make it”.
But what about the student who is just “slow” – we all know who these students are.
Like minorities and immigrants of the past, who started out with a disadvantage, many can “make it” with hard work by themselves and teachers. We all know stories of such people who have succeeded.
No one needs an “above average” IQ to have a strong work ethic – THESE are the students I believe should get a diploma for “making it” – even in a modified sense – when they have some REAL disadvantage (not a phony diagnosis of ADD or Autism).