In a diary I wrote that was intended to speak about ways we could mitigate the effects of vilifying educators, a side conversation occurred in which my own teaching ability/credentials were questioned, along with how students with severe disabilities are both educated and tested in schools. In my school district, the Special Education category given to such students in education for the severely disabled is called ISP: Intensive Support Program. This is different than students with Emotionally Disturbed diagnoses (abbreviated ED, which causes a chuckle in the male medical community), Behaviorally Disturbed (BD), Autisim, and Cross-Categorical, which covers a variety of learning and behavioral disabilities, and which used to be treated at separate levels (A-D based on severity, but as a cost cutting measure have been lumped together since the onset of NCLB).
During this conversation, the question was raised, why are students who are non-verbal and in supportive wheelchairs even allowed in schools? As naive as this question may sound, it is one that is posed more frequently among politicians, school districts, advocates and communities in general--especially in the current system of the increasing volume and content of high-stakes testing.
As a regular education teacher, I see all kinds of students, from all walks of life, and a variety of abilities in my classroom. I had the wonderful blessing to work with the ISP program a couple of years ago when I was approached by the Special Education principal regarding a student, Cordy. She is in a supportive wheelchair and is non-verbal. She can move her head to the right for yes; to the left for no. She has very little control over her body, and when she becomes over-excited or agitated, her muscles can tense up to the point of causing severe spasms. Her mother was convinced that in a New Mexico History class, Cordy had gained a great deal of interest in Billy the Kid and the railroad, and was adamant that her child get more education in other realms of history. So, I was approached regarding ways that we could incorporate Cordy into my classroom.
My questions were: Specifically what requirements would I need to make? Will she have an EA or ISP teacher with her? How should I best modify my lessons for her, and what specific goals did the ISP see as realistic in my classroom? What benefit did they see in having her in my class?
Ultimately, the major benefit was seen in the socialization component; however there were ways to tell if Cordy could understand specific core curriculum content. I made vocabulary cards that coupled terms with images, and she was given a whole new set of vocabulary words at the beginning of each lesson. An ISP teacher was with her in every class; however, making it to class because of health concerns or on-site therapy was sometimes difficult. For that reason, after long conversations with the Special Education department, we determined that it was not necessary for Cordy to be on my attendance roster. That also saved her from having to be assessed to the same measure as other students in the classroom, which would have placed her in a failing capacity. If the evidence of mastery is not present, she would not have earned a passing grade. Keeping her off of my roster allowed the Special Education teachers to assess her progress in my classroom based on their parameters and not mine.
Could Cordy keep up with the pace and rigor of my other students in a full regular education capacity? No; if she could, then there would be no need for her ISP diagnostic. Did she still have the right to be in a regular education classroom? Yes! In fact, it is state and federal law to include students in the regular education classroom with proper modifications. Those modifications also look at the "pie in the sky" goals, as well as goals based entirely in the reality of her physical situation. How much Cordy could really understand, only she knew fully. Did she have more of an awareness than she was able to actually express? After working with her, I could definitely say Yes! How do I bridge a gap between her expressed understanding and a perceived understanding? That was the question and major conundrum.
She sat with her ISP teacher in the back of the classroom each class period, was welcomed wholeheartedly by my students (who still sit with her at lunch sometimes) and me, and so her journey in a regular education classroom began.
The vital importance of education cannot be overestimated for any individual. Education is certainly critical for those individuals with severe disabilities, who often were excluded from the educational process, from a presumed inability to learn.
Individuals with severe disabilities of all ages typically need more time and more opportunities to acquire and practice skills. Unfortunately, low expectations for progress, especially in regard to academic skills, have reduced the amount of exposure to typical and valued educational experiences.
The Fallacy of Perceived Incompetence:
Individuals with severe disabilities were once thought incapable of learning, labeled as custodial, and placed in programs designed to provide only basic care and safety. In environments where no teaching occurred, limited learning resulted. As a result of considerable parent dissatisfaction and activism, legislation emerged that reflected increased rights of individuals with severe disabilities. Since then research studies have confirmed the learning ability of individuals, given the opportunity to learn and quality instruction. Not only do individuals with severe disabilities learn as a result of direct instruction, but they also learn through observation of fellow learners without disabilities (hence Cordy being in my classroom; it was indeed a learning opportunity that could not be afforded in another environment).
While past perceptions questioned the ability of those with severe disabilities to learn, current perspectives support the notion that all individuals can and do learn. How they learn can vary somewhat from others who do not have disabilities, but the acquisition of skills in a variety of venues is well documented. Clearly, individuals with severe disabilities learn both academic and nonacademic skills when they are expected to learn and given quality instruction and support.
The Need for Highly Trained Teachers:
To ensure that students with severe disabilities reach their full potential and receive the instruction they deserve, highly qualified teachers are needed. This is mandated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004). Teachers require training in a number of practices proven to have a positive impact on the educational attainment of students with severe disabilities.
Such recommended practices include receiving an education in general education classrooms with clear access to the core curriculum, communication skills development, systematic instruction, meaningful and age-appropriate programming, active family involvement, and collaborative teaming.
The Implication of High-Stakes Testing:
A high-stakes test is any test used to make important decisions about students, educators, schools, or districts most commonly for the purpose of accountability--i.e., the attempt by federal, state, or local government agencies and school administrators to ensure that the students are enrolled in effective schools and being taught by effective teachers. In general, "high stakes' means that test scores are used to determine whether sanctions, penalties, funding reductions, and negative publicity are in order for any given school or district (like the A-F grading system for schools in the state of New Mexico); they are also subsequently used to determine accolades in the forms of awards, public celebration, positive publicity, advancement (grade promotion or graduation for students), or compensation (salary increases or bonuses for administrators and teachers).
These are in comparison to low-stakes tests, which identify learning problems or inform instructional adjustments, but are not used to determine an important outcome. Low-stakes tests generally carry no significant public consequences--the results typically matter only for an individual teacher or student than to anyone else.
Although accommodations are indeed required by the PARCC, and even more so than "experiments" to modifications made during the era of the Standards Based Assessments, there are still challenges. If the "accommodation" actually accommodates the child's lack of knowledge, the child's score on high-stakes tests cannot be counted. This would have the same effect as if the child did not take the test at all. An alternate test or out-of-level test that does not test grade level knowledge will also have the same result, for accountability purposes, as if the child did not take the test.
The child can certainly have the accommodation called for in his IEP or 504 Plan; however, if the accommodations result in him taking a test that does not test grade level knowledge, his score will not be counted for the disability subgroup or the school as a whole.
When Congress reauthorized IDEA, they added new language about accommodations, guidelines, and alternate assessments. According to IDEA, "A statement of individual appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional performance of the child on State and district-wide assessments...If the IEP determines that the child shall take an alternate assessment on a particular State or district-wide assessment of student achievement, a statement of why--(AA) the child cannot participate in the regular assessment; and (BB) the particular alternate assessment is appropriate for the child."
Although IDEA makes no specific reference as to how the States include children with disabilities in the State accountability system, the IDEA requires States to establish performance goals and indicators for children with disabilities--consistent to the maximum extent appropriate with other goals and standards for all children established by the State--and to report progress toward meeting those goals.
Such language leaves accommodation open to interpretation by each state and how high-stakes testing meets minimum IDEA requirements for students with severe disabilities. In cases like Cordy's, however, reasonable accommodations would include having the test questions read aloud to her but content accommodations could not necessarily be made because of grade level content. In the end, her score would not necessarily count against her graduation, but would be counted in the overall school grade, as well as the evaluation of her individual ISP teachers. This would be because the grade level content would be counted as a 0, or as though she did not take the test at all.
The teachers who work tirelessly to provide the best academic and nonacademic environments for students like Cordy (short for Corelia, for those who were wondering why anyone would name their child Cordy), are still at the mercy of how their students perform on high-stakes tests that may not match the students' learning environments, or even the exact content of the lessons they study. Although Cordy did indeed receive information from my class, and I did everything I could to include her in the rigor and content of my area, the reality is I will never know the extent of her learning in my class--I just know that learning occurred. How do I know? Because her teachers saw a change in her mood as she anticipated when my class would be (as they and her parents reported to me); Because I could ask her yes and no questions based on information we had covered and get a small gist of what she understood and didn't. Can any of these learning moments be fully reflected in a standardized high-stakes test? More than likely, the response to that question would be no.
Measurement of Standardized Tests and School/Teacher Evaluations
I do not know how the tests are measured nationwide; I can only speak for my state. What is standard in all of the tests is the fact that there are several categories evaluated. In my state, a school is evaluated based on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in a number of different groups and subgroups. If the school did not meet AYP in even one of those subgroups, the school received a failing grade for meeting AYP.
I know that if I graded material like that in my classroom, I would be in a courtroom hearing defending why I should be allowed to keep my job. Furthermore, if I graded another student based on the performance of his/her classmates, I would find myself in a similar situation. How we even thought that this was an appropriate way to determine whether a school fails or passes, or whether a teacher is retained or let go, is beyond me...But that seems to be a discussion point for another diary.
Why I Do Not Teach Special Education
I have been asked why I do not teach Special Education, particularly when it is clear that I recognize the need for modifications and accommodations, and can generally develop creative means for students to be involved in the educational process (a tactile-kinesthetic learner given a Rubik's Cube over which to place his vocabulary terms and use, for instance).
I am a highly qualified teacher and I feel that the best use of my educational skills would be as a support to Special Education students--from ISP to Cross-Categorical and everything in between, but not in a Special Education environment. I do not feel as though I could ever work alongside those children and make them feel wholly responsible for determining my continued involvement as a teacher in their classroom. Frankly, it's hard enough in regular education.
It is necessary to look at exactly how we as a nation want to use high-stakes tests, and how to best serve those who are still the most under-served in the educational environment. It is true that every student can learn, but the high-stakes tests only measure a handful of specific academic abilities. They should be used to measure the success and achievement of the individual students, and not be tied to teacher evaluations; principal observations and assessments of curriculum instruction would be much more meaningful measures; however, they lead to much more subjectivity on a nationwide status.
Final Analytical Reflections
If we are so concerned about national statistics, it would seem to be more prudent to maintain the Federal Secretary of Education to mandate policies of higher education and leave Pre K-through 12 instruction and subsequent evaluations up to individual states. In that way, we could best determine individual cases and state laws on such measures as meeting IDEA requirements, and we would ultimately have more effective learning and teaching environments. Perhaps this is too progressive; perhaps such statistics would be more difficult to determine on a national level; perhaps education should not matter so much on a national level, as it seems to be used as a political pawn to influence voters either toward or away from any given candidate.
It is true that I am naive in many areas of education; I am primarily focused on the goals, standards, benchmarks, and assessments of my students within subject areas I teach. I refuse to feel as though I have to be an expert on every individualized case throughout the entire nation (although there are some brilliant case instances of students in ISP programs in Florida, Virginia, and Kentucky). But I am not naive in what works best for evaluating both students' and teachers' success.
I do know that what we are doing in the world of education does not strengthen us as a nation, but rather will generate data that will still make us look as though we are failing our students and communities. It will be used to further support the privatization of education and diminish the educational and career opportunities of the most vulnerable within our states. When we recognize better ways to evaluate and utilize statistics, as well as determine the most appropriate ways to include ISP students and teachers into whatever evaluative measures we use, perhaps the data will more clearly reflect what happens in our classrooms each and every day...Personally, I just don't see that happening any time soon.