Welcome to Week 8 now 9's posting on students with lower incidence disabilities. Sorry for the interruption in postings ---we will pick up with week 8 adjusting the syllabus as one week later, with Chapters 5 and 4 combined for next week's posting.
=================================================================
Thank you for your condolences in the passing of my oldest brother, Earl --- a favorite of mine === known to us and his close friends as THE DUKE of Earl. He was 6'1" tall, handsome and we used to tease him that he looked like the 'black' version of the Marlboro man if you are old enough to remember that billboard ad. He was 72 years old, but never looked nor acted so --- he was a skater, a golfer, a lover of movement and action until six ago when he was diagnosed with the emphysema. He had emphysema for some time but was handling it very well -- had stopped smoking several years ago. Week before last, he got a seasonal flu shot and suffered from the symptoms of that --- he thought he could overcome those without going to the see a doctor, but was not able to. I am so angry about that, as he did not really need to get that shot --- but his doctor told him so and he follows doctor's orders to a fault. He will be sorely missed, as I loved him dearly --- calling him every time I had to make a conference trip or field experience trip and wanted someone to talk to until I arrived-- he was a true big brother--- he was extremely intelligent and well versed/could dialogue on current world and government trivia, stuff I never take the time to listen/tune in or watch much --- Life is so short --- do take the time to love the ones you love --- 
Earl will be cremated as he left instructions to do --- my family and friends of Earl have decided to have a private memoriam the day after Thanksgiving in Ocala, Florida -- sincerely, Jennifer
Earl will be cremated as he left instructions to do --- my family and friends of Earl have decided to have a private memoriam the day after Thanksgiving in Ocala, Florida -- sincerely, Jennifer================================================================
An audio of the chapter has been provided. For the chapter audio, ignore references in the audio to week numbers, dates, chapter numbers, page numbers, assignments, the discussion board,names...thank you. The core of the audio speaks to the current chapter topic in your edition of the text book. https://edocs.uis.edu/jherr3/www/TEP224F2010/TEP224Ch8.mp3 .
====================================================
How are visual and hearing impairments defined, both legally and functionally? How are physical disabilities and health impairments defined? How can you modify instruction and the classroom environment to accommodate the needs of students with visual, hearing, physical, or health impairments or students with traumatic brain injury? What are the roles of the orientation and mobility specialist, the interpreter, the physical or occupational therapist, and the adaptive physical education teacher?
=======================================================
Definition of "visual and hearing impairments" As listed on in the textbook, the definition of visual and hearing impairments is as follows:
Definition of "visual and hearing impairments" As listed on in the textbook, the definition of visual and hearing impairments is as follows:
Visual: "legal blindness - visual acuity (sharpness of sight) of 20/200 with best correction in the best eye or a visual field loss resulting in a visual of 20 degrees or less...total blindness - unable to see anything...partial sight - visual acuity in the range of 20/70 to 20/200 - no longer used...low vision - visual impairment corrected with glasses along with compensatory and environmental modifications...functional vision - the way an individual functions with the amount of vision he or she has."
Hearing: "Hearing loss can occur in one ear (unilateral) or both ears (bilateral). It can be conductive (affecting outer and middle ears) or sensorineural (damage to the cochlea [or inner ear] or to the auditory nerve)." Hearing loss is measured as falling outside the range of 0-15 dB (decibels): 16 - 25 dB = minimum loss...25 - 40 dB = mild hearing loss...40 - 65 dB = moderate hearing loss...65 - 90 dB = severe hearing loss...greater than 90 dB = profound hearing loss.
Definition of "physical disabilities and health impairments"
As in the textbook, the definition of physical disabilities and other health impairments is as follows:
"Students with significant physical disabilities, health impairments, and traumatic brain injury generally qualify for special education services under three IDEA categories: orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, and traumatic brain injury."
orthopedic impairment: a severe orthopedic impairment that adversely affects a child's educational performance. The term includes impairments caused by congenital anomaly (e.g. clubfoot, absence of some member, etc.), impairments caused by disease (e.g. poliomyelitis, bone tuberculosis, etc.), and impairments from other causes (e.g. cerebral palsy, amputations, and fractures or burns that cause contractures)...[as copied from Vaugh, Bos, et al, 2007, p 198.] These impairments also include beyond mobile and coordination inabilities, physical disabilities that affect communication, learning and social activities. A person who functions with medication in home, school and work activities is not considered physically disabled under this definition [p. 198].
neurological impairment: "an abnormal performance caused by a dysfunction of the brain, spinal cord, and nerves, thereby creating transmission of improper instructions, uncontrolled bursts of instructions from the brain, or incorrect interpretation of feedback to the brain...such as seizures (epilepsy), cerebral palsy, and spina bifida neuromuscular impairment: "invoves both the muscles and nerves such as muscular distrophy, polio, and multiple sclerosis."
other health impairment: "having limited strength, vitality, or alertness, due to chronic or acute health problems such as heart condition, tuberculosis, rheumatic fever, nephritis, asthma, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, epilepsy, lead poisoning, leukemia, or diabetes, that adversely affects a chield's educational performance...new addiitions to this definition are the medically fragile (students with progressive cancer or AIDS)"
traumatic brain injury: "an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force, resulting in total or partial functional disability or psychosocial impairment, or both, that adversely affects a child's education performance. The term applies to open or closed head injuries resulting in impairments in one or more areas, such as cognition; language; memory; attention; reasoning; abstract thinking; judgment; problem-solving; sensory; perceptual; and motor abilities; psychosocial behavior; physical functions; information processing; and speech. The term does not apply to brain injuries that are congenital or degenerative, or brain injuries induced by birth trauma."
How can you modify instruction and the classroom environment to accommodate the needs of students with visual, hearing, physical, or health impairments or students with traumatic brain injury?:
Hearing Loss:
see http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/factshe/fs3txt.htm .
see http://www.lessontutor.com/ASLgenhome.html.
Vision Impairment:
see http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/factshe/fs13txt.htm .
see http://www.as.wvu.edu/~scidis/vision.html .
Physical Impairments:
see http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Technology/wtcomp.html .
Other Health Impairments:
see http://www.rushservices.com/Inclusion/homepage.htm .
see http://www.school-for-champions.com/education/student_cancer.htm .
Traumatic Brain Injury:
see http://www.worksupport.com/topics/downloads/tbi_classroom.pdf
Hearing Loss:
see http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/factshe/fs3txt.htm .
see http://www.lessontutor.com/ASLgenhome.html.
Vision Impairment:
see http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/factshe/fs13txt.htm .
see http://www.as.wvu.edu/~scidis/vision.html .
Physical Impairments:
see http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Technology/wtcomp.html .
Other Health Impairments:
see http://www.rushservices.com/Inclusion/homepage.htm .
see http://www.school-for-champions.com/education/student_cancer.htm .
Traumatic Brain Injury:
see http://www.worksupport.com/topics/downloads/tbi_classroom.pdf
What are the roles of the orientation and mobility specialist, the interpreter, the physical or occupational therapist, and the adaptive physical education teacher?:
Orientation and mobility specialist:
see http://www.wayfinding.net/services.htm#eight
Interpreter:
see http://www.accd.edu/pac/pass/Interprethome/edterprole.htm
Pragmatically Speaking - How to use this information in the classroom:
- When working with student with physical disabilities, health impairments and traumatic brain injury, you will want to collaborate with specialists such as physical and occupational therapists, speech and language pathologists, assistive technology specialists, and school nurses and other medical professionals [Vaughn et al]
- The orientation and mobility specialist, a teacher who specializes in visual impairment, provides valuable support to you in working with students with visual impairments. [Vaughn et al]
- Arranging the classroom to reduce background noise and to have the speaker's face visible is important for students with hearing loss. [Vaughn et al]
- The use of braille, optical aids, modified print, books on tape, and assistive technology can play a key role in integrating students with visual impairments[Vaughn et al]
- ASL or American Sign Language is a visual and gestural language used by many individuals in North America who are deaf. [Vaughn et al]
- Although most children with significant hearing loss are identified before beginning school, it is important to watch for signs of mild hearing loss. [Vaughn et al]
- If you are not part of the student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) team, ask for a copy of his or her IEP. The student's educational goals will be listed there, as well as the services and classroom accommodations he or she is to receive.
- Talk to specialists in your school (e.g., special educators), as necessary. They can help you identify effective methods of teaching this student, ways to adapt the curriculum, and how to address the student's IEP goals in your classroom.
- (Take Ishihara's test for colorblindness)
- (view Heather Whitestone's website)
==================================
Read the following article "The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequately Yearly Progress and Students with Disabilities." Post your comments to the following: Does it seem like IDEA 2004 and NCLB send conflicting messages? Why or why not? If extended time is one of the accommodations, at what point is the test no longer actually testing whether a blind/deaf child is on par with a non-disabled child?
==================================
23 comments:
My first inclination is to say that there are conflicting messages, simply with the notion that IDEA is individualized and NCLB is based more on a group's proficiency. However, when I think more about it, I see that even though NCLB may be measuring the proficiency of all students, it requires each student to achieve certain results. These individual results are combined to see if the school meets the AYP. IDEA, then, seems to be focused on how to get those individuals with disabilities to that level of proficiency.
Blind/Deaf children are generally not going to be able to achieve the same level of proficiency without some accommodations as non-disabled students. That alone is what makes me wonder how we could ever see 100% AYP. Extending the time on the test will probably help the students answer the same amount of questions on a test as a non-disabled student. So can the blind/deaf student ever be on par with a non-disabled student? In my experience with tests in school, some students take longer than others for many different reasons. They cannot comprehend a question without reading it multiple times, they like to meticulously double check their work, or they don't understand the material. To answer the main question, I think it depends on each student. One hour to complete a test for one blind/deaf student may be much more time than needed, whereas another student may need one hour and fifteen minutes. If a one-legged man races a fully mobile and healthy two-legged man, it is a foregone conclusion that the one-legged man is not on par with the two-legged man. But given certain prosthetics, he could possibly outrun the two-legged man. This is an easier way to measure what is "on-par" or not. In the classroom, all we have are test scores, and in certain subjects, such as math, you either understand it or you don't. So, at what point is the test no longer actually testing the blind/deaf students being on par with non-disabled students? I say that giving any extra time would mean they are not on the same level, but you have to accommodate students to allow them to improve. Hopefully after a series of accommodations you will see the students become more and more "on-par."
It does seem to me that IDEA 2004 and NCLB send conflicting messages. The article provides a comparison table that shows; accountability focus in NCLB is group-school centered (AYP), where IDEA is individual-person-centered (IEP), goal focus in NCLB is absolute and uniform, where IDEA is relative and modified. I understand the reasons for the differences in standards and assessment between disabled students and non-disabled students but, in answer to the question, it does seem conflicting. The other part of the article that I found to be conflicting is that even though alternative testing or accommodations can be provided for students with disabilities, in some states those students do not graduate with a regular diploma. If the goal of both the NCLB and IDEA is yearly progress and measuring proficiency for all students and those goals are met, why the difference in the diploma?
Allowing extra time to complete a test for a blind/deaf student is exactly what our text suggests that we do within a general education classroom. At what point does that time limit throw off comparison to a non-disabled student? If any extra time is needed by a student to finish a test, then by definition he/she would not be considered on par with the rest of the students. I find it very hard to compare any student with another so this question is really difficult for me. For me, the time needed is not as important as the results of a test.
IDEA 2004 and NCLB do seem to be sending conflicting messages. NCLB sets standards that are focused and specific. On the other hand IDEA is a more open system. It allows for a more freeform approach. The article lays out the differences in the categories of instructional priority, the focus of the assessment system, the accountability focus, the valued metric, goal focus, the priority of accommodation strategy, and universal design principles. In each category you can see that the NCLB system is very clear in its requirements while the IDEA system offers more leniency and even more abstract rules in order to determine progress. Just one example is in the category of “Goal focus”. For NCLB the goals are absolute and uniform, they do not change and everyone must meet them to succeed. For IDEA, in this category the goals are more relative and modified, meaning, they change based on the individual. I know that the results are looked at as whole and each of students must then meet AYP. However, the two systems that are in place rate the students’ abilities in vastly different ways. How would an uninhibited student perform if measured under IDEA instead of NCLB? How would a disabled student perform under NCLB instead of IDEA? The systems are not interchangeable, in fact the differences in the performances would be staggering. It is because of these differences that I see the conflicting messages.
An accommodation is like a handicap in golf. It basically affords one person a slight advantage in order to even out their abilities for an event or competition of some sort. I understand the reasoning behind it and do see it necessary for disabled students to have more time since their disability is usually what it holding them back. But I do not see it as a way of making sure that blind/deaf children are necessarily on par with other students. More time is something everyone can benefit from. I can recall countless exams where if only I had 5 more minutes, I would have done a little better. Instead of trying to make everyone the same, why can we not accept that some people are unique and have their own inherent qualities? So in order to find the specific point where more time changes from being a way to make things fair to an unfair advantage is probably impossible. This is a moving target that depends on the student. Plus some students eventually understand how the game is played and may even begin taking advantage of the accommodations they are given. In that event, how do you measure and determine when that occurs? Would you even know it was occurring?
I don’t believe NCLB and IDEA goals necessarily conflict, as they are two pieces to a whole. NCLB measures a student in a group, whereas IDEA measures a student individually. We need both measurements. To focus on one without the other could lead to a lopsided picture of a student’s progress. One of the important components for each of these pieces of legislation is teacher accountability. Special education teachers should be experts in their field of study, as should all teachers. The recommendations for teachers of special education from the article include: conduct relevant assessments that lead to meaningful programming, use instructional procedures grounded in scientifically based research, collect meaningful data on student progress and make instructional changes when necessary, and increase attention on how students with disabilities will participate in the assessment system. These recommendations stress what all teachers should be doing. Looking at some of the school report cards from the Springfield area, the special education students subgroup in many schools is not meeting their AYP. I’m not sure if this is a nationwide problem or not, but it seems to be one here. This one subgroup is causing schools not to meet their AYP, and that is going to be cause for investigation because of the NCLB legislation. It will be interesting to see what unfolds locally relating to this timely topic. Personally, I think the expectation of 100% proficiency is unobtainable by 2014 unless states decide to lower the bar. I’m not suggesting that special education students should not be included in measurements, but I’m not sure that the same measurement assessments are giving us the correct picture of what these students are accomplishing.
In response to the question regarding deaf/blind students who require more time for test-taking, I think it depends on what you mean by on-par. They will never be seeing or hearing, but that does not mean they should not be held to a high standard with rigorous curriculum. They should be given what they need to complete the assessment. Accommodations should be administered as the student needs. In some ways, we all need accommodations. When we learn that a child has lost a parent, we make accommodations. To me, this is responsive teaching. I will say that we do need to know our students. Some students with disabilities will procrastinate and act lazy just like students without disabilities. We need to put accommodations in place on an individual basis and then progress monitor these students, changing or removing unnecessary accommodations. I don’t know a pat answer for your question. To me, it must be answered one child at a time.
I do think both regulations are made to work side by side. There are some ideas that conflict only because NCLB is focused on the accomplishments of the students as a whole school, while IDEA is focusing on the progress of the students individually. The truth is, both are needed to have all children be successful. Having that individualism when it comes to the progress of every student is important, but teachers and staff can not lose sight of the ultimate goal, which is to push the students into becoming functional adults in society. NCLB is rooting for the child to succeed fast, while IDEA is rooting for the child to develop their own skills successfully however long it would take. A healthy balance of both would make a school great for majority of students, and students with disabilities.
Extended time seems appropriate for a blind/deaf student, but it should not be too long. If the IQ is on target with the rest of the class and the student's age, then experts should be brought in to effectively give the standardized test to the child. It's not fair for the student to be given special treatment because the standardized testing is a way to know the progress made. The test should be the same, but made differently so students with disabilities are able to take them. I would think that if the child who is blind or deaf takes a test in school, and receives an extra 20 min to finish up, that should be added on to the tests that the state gives them. Some students may not need the extra time, which is why research has to be done. Giving the test to a class that is all blind first with the standard time frame, then to another class with an extended time frame can show if the students are able to finish in the time frame, or if they truly need the extra time because Braille may take longer to read for example. This is how the other students are gauged, is by the time frame. The test becomes a useless tool if blind/deaf students receive an extra hour. How is that gauging their progress?
As I read the article, the IDEA 2004 and the NCLB are similar in so much as they have the same goal, providing a fair and appropriate education for all students. NCLB takes a general overview of student performance without taking a closer look at the causes for the test scores whether they are positive of negative. This skimming the surface has the narrow focus of looking only at the test scores and making sweeping judgments and administering severe consequences. I compare it to punishing the entire class because it would take too much work to seek out those who need their behavior correction. It’s just easier to punish the whole. NCLB does the same to teachers. Just because the school has a failing grade, doesn’t mean that all, or even any, of the educators in the building are underperforming. NCLB has a narrow view of educating children with disabilities. The article states that the guidelines only allow for modified tests for “1% of the total school population at each grade level.” (p.35) The article tries to clarify this statement by saying that there is not a cap on the number of students taking modified tests, but only 1% can be counted in the AYP test results. Taking a closer look at testing students with disabilities, of course the test should be modified to fit their disability. That’s why special education programs exist. That’s why the IDEA 2004 exists. Why would we forget about the accommodations we have made to teach these children when it’s time to assess what they have learned? Did these children suddenly develop the ability to learn and retain information as general education students do? The IDEA takes a closer look as students. It puts the focus more on improving the educational experience for individual children and also includes a social aspect. These are children not robots, the social component of life has a direct effect on their ability to learn and retain information. IDEA treats the whole person.
If extended time is only one of the accommodations, at what point is the test no longer actually testing whether a blind/deaf child is on par with a non-disabled child? I’ve asked several special education teachers about where the line is between accommodating for the disability and altering the true assessment quality. They have said that you have to accommodate for the disability or you will not get a true representative assessment of learning. I don’t know at what point you’re no longer testing whether a blind/deaf child is on par with a non-disabled child. In my opinion, it’s an apples to oranges comparison, both fruit but completely different. The input of information is not the same, so how can you accurately assess with the same test?
While reading the assigned article by Yell, Katsiyannas, and Shiner, I couldn’t help but notice the inclusion of three words: intent, opportunity, and goal. I think the developers of NCLB and IDEA had nothing but good intentions, as they believed they had the opportunity to achieve the goal of a good education for every child. However, the two laws send conflicting messages on how to reach academic achievement, as NCLB focuses on overall school performance and IDEA focuses on individual school performance (Yell,Katsiyhannas & Shiner, p.36) Education officials thought at the time that aligning IDEA with NCLB would allow students with disabilities to receive a proper education; but they did not take into account that the priorities and goals for students with disabilities may differ from the priorities and goals of their peers (Yell et al. p.37). This is not to say students with disabilities cannot reach the same developmental milestones as other students; they may simply be delayed in achieving those goals (Vaughn, Bos & Schumm p.275).
To be honest, I think the whole idea of comparing students with one another is a bit silly. What is the point of determining if a child with disabilities is “on par with a non-disabled child”? What should concern educators is that particular child’s academic achievements. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, students with disabilities can learn. But an assessment of their performance should be conducted without comparison to their peers.
I think it’s also worth noting a statement from the article that intrigued me: “There is a huge gap between what we know works from scientifically based research and what is actually taught in many classrooms (Yell et al. p.37). Just something to ponder…
The thing that seems most confusing to me is this idea that we can include and exclude students at the same time. How can you compare students equally to each other if they are held at the same level of accountability, but yet also counted as a distinct subgroup. Should we not just have a level at which the IEP must decide whether they meet the standards of testing or not, and if not, have a second form of testing specially designed for students who need assisted testing? It seems we could still hold schools accountable for both groups, they could both be fairly tested, and schools would still be able to report the progress of both the average students and the learning disadvantaged students. It is impossible to hold students to the same level if some students are being tested differently. It is like having a control group and an experimental group in a scientific experiment. You can’t get the same results if you act on one group differently than the other. The average students are the control group, and the students with disabilities are like the experimental group where variables have been changed to see if it alters the results. So, it is clear to see that unless you give every student the same test with the same standards, you cannot hold them to different levels of performance. But, that would be unfair to students with disabilities, so we come to the crux of the problem. You must test them on their own levels, average or with assistance, because you can’t compare them if they are not equal. It just seems lazy to me that we have to lump everyone together to make sure that the students with disabilities are not left out. If they need to be accounted for it can be done, simple as that. If the classroom teachers are held accountable for the average students, why couldn’t the special needs teachers be held accountable for their own students? This would allow them to be tested under the proper conditions, and have tests specially designed to chart the yearly progress of students with dyslexia, or ADHD, or blindness.
I think that the NCLB and the IDEA are trying to help special needs students to achieve in school. I think that the NCLB is trying to work that the special needs students score higher on test as a whole and not too worried about the individual. The IDEA I believe is more concerned how the individual learning using his own skills and develop their own skills. I think that theses two groups try to work with one another but I don't know if they are trying to achieve the same thing.
I think it is important to give blind/deaf students more time on test. With these students you are going to have to change up the test a bit or have someone read to them. But too much time could make some students take advantage of this extra time. Some of the blind or deaf students might not want extra time on the test because it will make them stand out. When we have students like this in our class we need to make sure they are getting the help they need and help them to their best to succeed.
It is easy to see at first glance why someone would think that IDEA and NCLB send conflicting messages but I don’t really think that they do. While the chart in the article shows that IDEA is centered on the individual and NCLB is group centered, the individuals are still put within a group for reporting purposes. NCLB is also shown to be more strict and inflexible while IDEA is considered flexible. Both IDEA and NCLB are there to protect and help students with disabilities so in that essence they cannot be that conflicting when they have the same basic goal at hand. They just have slightly differing ways of getting to that goal.
Anytime you change the requirements for a test to suit the needs of a disabled child it already makes that student not on par with non-disabled students. I do think though that not all students take tests in the same time frame. If you think back to when you were in school on test day there were students that could finish a test in minutes while some students struggled to get done during the whole class period. This does not mean that they did not equally understand the material; it just means that they may take longer to go through questions and figure out answers. I don’t believe that time should matter on a test, but the result is what is important. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think a student should be given days to take a test but a student should be able to take more time if they need it because they can still show they have mastered the same material.
IDEA and No Child Left Behind are most definitely conflicting. IDEA requires that disabled students have a plan formatted for each individual student, while No Child Left Behind counts disabled students under a blanket and judges their scores as a whole to determine whether or not the school reaches the standards that were set. So while IDEA protects students individually and their unique situations and needs, No Child Left Behind in a way makes gross generalizations by grouping them all in together and judging disabled students as a whole. The way the two pieces are structured puts them in direct conflict with each other. The chart (I know everyone else has referenced it but it is hard not to) in the article outlines vaguely the two sides. It seems as if IDEA is a piece of legislation with more of the students in mind rather than setting incentive laden goals for the schools to meet. IDEA is garnered towards the individual and the progress they make as mentioned in the chart whereas No Child Left Behind seems to blindly measure the group just so the school can be labeled as passing or failing in a way. IDEA's goals are "relative and modified" while NCLB's goals are "absolute". Goals that are absolute may prove to be unattainable because circumstances are ever changing.
As a whole the two, in my opinion, directly confront each other. IDEA, to me, is a plan that is more likely to succeed.
If extended time is one of the accommodations, at what point is the test no longer actually testing whether a blind/deaf child is on par with a non-disabled child?
I believe this is strictly relative to the child being tested. There are varying levels of disability and to put an exact science on the comparison of disabled children to non-disabled children would be impossible and most likely inaccurate. I understand why such comparisons need to be made though. I believe disabled kids should take the same test but to ask them to take it in the same amount of time would be preposterous. I believe one way of solving the problem would be to start with a base allotment of extra time and after the test is over analyze whether or not the students moved at a healthy pace. The following test you could adjust your allotted time amount based off of your results with the previous test. Move on until you reach a time that you feel comfortable with and in which you see fair. I realize this is a very unscientific way of solving the problem but I believe placing strict guidelines on such a thing would allow for even more problems than my solution would.
I think the article was very well written and delivers a clear message about how testing is assessed. The chart shows NCLB as Group school centered, and IDEA as Individual –person centered. The purpose of NCLB is absolute and uniform, and IDEA is relative and modified. I think the IDEA approach has to be more flexible and accommodating for those with disabilities. I have no idea how anyone can expect a 100% student proficiency goal obtainable, and the bar will have to be lowered in the future. I think it is hard to hold educator’s totally accountable for all learning to be achieved. The problem with setting standards such as AYP is how they will be achieved, and will everything be done in a fair matter. The one point I found somewhat disturbing is the Accountability Measures being used. I think one has to take in account of location or economic standing. I know on the State report card all categories such as; race, poverty level, and disabilities are included, but how can you make a kid learn, when he has no motivation to do so. The dismissal of a teacher who teaches mainly lower functioning students seems a little excessive. I have seen students who could pass the test with ease draw pictures in the bubbles given for answers. I think both methods are great ideas, but there is so little funding to accommodate these plans. I think one could find the methods conflicting, but both are serving a purpose, to better ones education. There is no possible way to test students with disabilities on a playing field set, for a student that should be on pace with his current grade level.
If extended time is one of the accommodations, at what point is the test no longer actually testing whether a blind/deaf child is on par with a non-disabled child. I think there is no problem at all with extended test time for a blind/deaf student. I think accommodations are made in everyday life, and many for more simple processes than school. I think a fine line has to be drawn with what is classified a test, and what is not. I believe if the accommodations are so drastic in testing, and the whole process seems skewed, than testing is not on par. I believe if content material on a test given is the same, and then time doesn’t matter, all knowledge is still being achieved.
While NCLB and IDEA may not send the exact same message, I don’t necessarily think they are conflicting. They were both created to do the same thing, create efficiency in our education system. Measurements, focuses, and instructional priorities differ between the two, as pointed out in Table 2, but really the intention is the same. It makes me think of the old phrase, “There’s more than one way to skin a cat”.
The purpose of NCLB and IDEA is to be sure that we have the right staff and curriculum in place to best prepare our students for success. While I won’t get into my opinions on the idea of measuring students with standardized tests, I do understand that the intentions behind the acts were positive.
I can understand a need for accommodations for a student who is blind/deaf. It’s much the same way I understand the need for ramps leading to buildings (to make them accessible to all) instead of just stairs. Extra time may be needed on a standardized test for those who are disabled. I’m not sure exactly where to draw the line though as far as what is too much. Those taking their tests at the DMV are allowed to bring their own translator in order to obtain a Driver’s License. Sometimes, I think that may be necessary, but it could also be abused. We need to be sure safeguards are in place to determine what is acceptable for accommodations in a given circumstance.
I do not believe that IDEA 2004 and NCLB have conflicting messages. In fact I believe that they combat the same problem from opposite ends of the spectrum. The end results of NCLB and IDEA 2004 is to have a public school system that serves the students of the United States of America and allows them to compete with other countries on the world stage. No Child Left Behind approaches the issues through the schools to make sure schools and teachers are living up to their obligations of providing students with the best education possible. IDEA 2004 seems to approach the issue in a more student centered way. It is the yin to the NCLB’s yang. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 looks at the individual students and their performances and makes sure they don’t fall through the cracks. What good is looking at the school as a whole and judging it’s performance if it discounts individual students who may be falling through the cracks? IDEA 2004’s valued metric for assessment is progress with the goals being relative and modified. You can’t expect a student with learning disabilities to do as well as one of the brightest students in the class. You can however rationally expect that they continue to improve in small increments.
I disagree with the notion that students with learning disabilities can or will be on par with students who don’t have such challenges. I think that setting that up as a requirement for AYP is unrealistic and harmful to the confidence of children with disabilities. I feel that the accommodations are necessary and make up for the inherit problems with having students with learning disabilities count towards the whole schools AYP minus the 1 percent that are allowed alternative assessment. I see much more value in the testing of LD students and being able to track in the progress of them as a subgroup to make sure that they are improving steadily as a group. Without such scores the fear that LD departments will be ignored because they aren’t connected to federal dollars is a very real possibility. I simply believe that they should be tested and those scores kept but the school’s shouldn’t be punished when those grades lower the schools scores overall as they almost by definition will.
It’s a fact of life that students that are blind or deaf simply won’t have the same type of life as someone who has all five of their senses. It’s a different world for those who don’t and I feel blessed everyday for the fact that I have all five of mine. Allowing for time accommodations allows teachers and the federal government to see if these students know the information without punishing them for what they can’t control.
When I first looked at this question, my immediate answer was to think that it seems like IDEA 2004 and NCLB send conflicting messages. I think this might be what most people think when they first look at this question. However, after reading the article I have come to the belief that IDEA 2004 and NCLB are working together for a common goal. The differences lies in the idea that according to the article IDEA 2004 is for the individual and helping to improve them as a person and academically, whereas the article states that NCLB is working for the entire school or groups of students. It also seems to me that NCLB is more worried about numbers, and they are looking at students and their academic performances, whereas IDEA 2004 is more concerned about if the individual students are improving in all areas of their lives and it is not a quantitative measure. Both of these are focusing on how to better those students with disabilities, which is a very good thing. Even though they may seem conflicting I think they go hand in hand, helping each other with students and improving performances. However, even though I believe they are not sending conflicting messages I do not understand though with NCLB as to why they can only count 1% of the students with alternative tests. It does not make sense to me if they are said to be including all students with disabilities then why can they not include all of those students who have taken the adapted tests.
First off, I believe that all students with disabilities such as blindness/deafness should be looked at as individual students, as all students should be. Therefore, I do not think there is necessarily a certain time where a test is no longer testing if a student with blindness/deafness is on par with a non-disabled child. I also do not believe that time has much to do with whether a student is on par with another student because I believe the results or answers that students write down are what really can measure whether or not if a disabled student is on par with a non-disabled student.
I think just like many other classmates, I feel that they both are meant to work together. However,the NCLB sees to have more strict guidelines, in hopes that a student with different abilities can yield the same results. The IDEA is more geard toward individualized student achievment. The NCLB is a high focus on how a student meeting goals effects the school, where IDEA is focusing on individualized success. I do disagree with NCLB that only minus once percent of specialized tests should be counted towards the schools AYP. It is unfair an unrealistic for somestudents with special needs to be expected to attain the same workload of students the are non-disabled.
As some have mentioned before, it is hard to decide what accomidations are appropriate,and what are not, especially when handeling time allotted. Even student without LD may need extra time of they have physical differences. Having a child with muscular dystrophy had brought this idea to my mind many times. She can be alotted more time because it takes her longer to write and record. However, her mental faculties are not hindered by her disability at all. So the question comes up, is she given an unfair advantage over students with no disabilities? The NCLB guidelines lay out specifics for this typre of scenario, but it is hard to place all students in 1 box, leaving room for situation like this.
After reading the article, it does seem like IDEA 2004 and NCLB send conflicting messages. NCLB is focused on group data through AYP where the goal of academics (math and science) is absolute and uniform; IDEA is individualized data through IEP where the goal of academics AND social/behavioral, transition-related is relative and modified. IDEA focuses on students with disabilities to help them "progress" where NCLB groups all students (disabled and non-disabled) together striving for (and eventually demanding) "proficiency".
In a black and white answer, if any extended time is given the test is no longer actually testing whether a blind/deaf child is on par with a non-disabled child because you have changed a variable. In order for a test to be accurate and reliable, everything must be the same for both groups. Now, do I think that is fair and right in terms of testing blind/deaf children and non-disabled children? No. Just because it may take a blind/deaf child longer to take a test doesn't make them less knowledgeable than the non-disabled student at the end of it. Blind/deaf children are at a disadvantage as soon as the test timer starts since they have an obstacle to overcome that the non-disabled student doesn't. As long as there is no outside help (accommodation) and it's just a matter of time, I think the end result should be the deciding factor on whether or not the students are on par, not the time it took them to get there.
IDEA is more of a plan used for each child, individually, whereas NCLB is based on a large group of students. The messages almost have to be conflicting simply because you are dealing with students in two different ways. Extended time being an accomodation is almost like saying that a deaf/blind child is NOT up to par with a non-disabled child. It is not fair to make any child feel like they cannot accomplish as much as their peers, yet it is also unfair to say that they cannot have any "special treatment" because of their disability. Kids should all be made to feel like they are apart of their classroom and giving extra time might possibly make them feel less equal and make them stand out more in the class, which would not be a positive thing for them. If you want a child to feel accepted, maybe the IDEA and the NCLB acts should work together and put their ideas into one big scheme instead of having separate plans for both the large groups and the individual child. Teachers should be able to pay equal attention to each student in order to adequately give them the help and support they need.
(Sorry this is late, I honestly just forgot about it, so any point deduction you give me I will understand, again, I am very sorry about your brother. Thank you for sharing about him to the class, he certainly sounds like a man of dignity and whom you will miss very much.)
Sorry mind was late as well. I hate to be late, but the only computer I can find that allows the visual verification to come through is not on campus or mine so I wasn't able to get here quickly. My bad everyone.
I'm not sure why it's not showing my first comment in here. Last week when I entered it the comment was appearing. If this will effect my grade please let me know, because this is twice I've noticed that my comments haven't shown up. The first time I received a zero and was going to let it go thinking I made an error, but I pay extra attention to make sure that it confirms my comment and that it appears before I log off the computer and this week it seems there is another problem.
At first I thought that the NCLB and IDEA 2004 did send conflicting messages after reading the article and looking at the table comparing the two's concepts and standards. The NCLB provides uniform and absolute goals, measures the proficiency level of the students, and holds the whole group or school's scores accountable. This is compared to IDEA 2004 where the goals are very relative and modified for each student, progress is measured rather than proficiency, and the individual student is taken into account rather than the whole school. After further thought and consideration, I can see how the two groups work together. Students with an IEP who take the assessments with accommodations are compared to different standards and their progress is what is included in the school's yearly progress report. This ensures that the school does not forget about their special needs students in the effort to meet AYP standards, which to me is an excellent effort of collaboration between the two groups. This leads me to the second question of when accommodations are too much and mean that the students are not on par with their non-disabled counterparts. I have to agree with other previously mentioned comments that it is the end result that we should be concerned with rather than how much time the students were given. I was one of those students who read and reread questions to make sure that I was answering correctly and subsequently I always seemed to run out of time with five to ten questions left to answer. It wasn't a matter of me not understanding the material, simply that I was too much of a perfectionist and wanted to answer all of the questions correctly. I don't feel that allowing students to have more time puts them off par with their classmates.
Part 1 of 2
Question 1.
I absolutely feel that IDEA 2004 and NCLB send conflicting messages. Although the text states that IDEA 2004 as designed to align with NCLB, I feel that it was as if IDEA 2004 was in fact created as an admission that students with disabilities were being unfairly represented and subjected to irrelevant testing by NCLB. As evidence, Assistant Secretary for Special Educations and Rehabilitation Services, Robert Pasternak is quoted in the article as politely saying, in my opinion, that NCLB created impossible requirements that failed to properly address that nature of students with disabilities, but that he agrees with the aim for accountability and high student performance. (Yell, et at., 36) Because of this, I feel that IDEA 2004 could have been implemented (and should be implemented) to usurp the role of NCLB in regards to students with disabilities education assessment.
But then, how exactly are they different? As the text describes, “there are important differences in the intent and development of the two laws.” (Yell, et at., 36) As table 2 in the article describes, NCLB and IDEA are different, and therefore conflicting, in the following ways:
* The instructional priority of NCLB is in Academics, while for IDEA they are academics, social/behavioral, and transition-related.
* The Foci of assessment for NCLB are endpoint, single, primary measures, and sanctions. For IDEA it is the entry point: Present levels of academic and functional performance multiple measures and services.
* The accountability focus for NCLB is group-school centered, while for IDEA it is individual-person-centered (IEP)
* The valued metric for NCLB is the proficiency level, whereas for IDEA it is progress.
* The goal focus for NCLB is absolute and uniform, while for IDEA it is relative and modified.
* The priority of accommodation strategy for NCLB: Preserved measurement constructs. For IDEA: increased inclusion in assessment.
* The universal design principles for NCLB consider the content, format, and language demands, and for IDEA it considers content, format, language, and social/behavioral demands.
(Yell, et at., 36)
The most important thing to gain from this information is that NCLB focuses primarily on group data, therefore it is very poor at considering students with disabilities—or any subgroup for that matter— in a meaningful way. In contrast, IDEA focuses on the individual student and is therefore able to consider the particular, specialized needs of each student and to measure progress on this personalized level.
It is unfortunate, however, that NCLB and IDEA can’t “get along.” In fact, it is almost as if NCLB sort of bullies IDEA around. For instance, NCLB mandates that all children must be tested, not if they can be tested. If an IEP deems a group of children not fit for testing, they may have an alternative test, but NCLB will only count a certain percentage. Once again, NCLB imposes its arbitrary calculations on how many students with disabilities a district “should” have and only that 1% is allowed to be counted under the alternative testing limit. Schools must appeal to have their percentage altered. This is, in my opinion, outlandish. As evidence, the school district that I attended K-12 is the largest town in the county and also the county seat. Because of this, we have a very good special education program with many students in it. I was looking at my school’s report card recently for another class and couldn’t figure out why we were failing so miserably at NCLB until I considered these special education provisions. My school could have easily have surpassed the 1% cap ten-fold.
In sum, the two policies send very conflicting messages, and it is very clear that students with disabilities would benefit more from falling under the umbrella of IDEA so that they can be evaluated according to progress and not data. As the article stated in its closing, we need to embrace “a system that embraces research and accountability.” (Yell, et at., 39)
Part 2 of 2
question 2
If extended time is one of the accommodations, at what point is the test no longer actually testing whether a blind/deaf child is on par with a non-disabled child?
This question is rather tricky in that, in essence, the children are inherently different. The blind/deaf child is not disabled necessarily, but he is certainly differently-abled. In this sense, I don’t think that it is a fair practice to try to lump this student in with the general population for NCLB. I couldn’t pretend to adequately propose how to effectively modify the way that NCLB is set up, but sufficient to say, I think that child is capable of being assessed with the necessary accommodations, but the school should not be penalized for these accommodations. Some blanket suggestions for solutions may be (though I don’t necessarily agree with them) that time requirements are eliminated altogether—let every student finish her test; have IEPs give recommendations on time requirements; or use assistive technology that measures only the time the students spends thinking about the question and not delivering the question.
In short, I don’t think that the tests can whether or not the two students are on par with another, but then I don’t think that students who learn differently should be required to be on par with another, they only need to demonstrate progress.
Post a Comment