OSERS‘ Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) appreciates the comments and suggestions posted in response to the RDA questions one, two, and three. OSEP will accept comments on question 4 until October 19, 2012.
RDA Question #4:
OSEP is committed to developing a results-driven accountability (RDA) system that leads to increased state and local capacity to improve academic results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities. As part of this effort, OSEP asked the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) to work with a small group of stakeholders and assessment experts to provide input on measures that could be used to review states’ performance results of their students with disabilities who receive special education services. The group’s recommendations are contained in a report, Using Assessment Data as Part of a Results-Driven Accountability System: Input from the NCEO Core Team (Word | PDF). In addition, OSEP asked NCEO to develop sample approaches for how measures included in the report could be used by OSEP, which are included in the companion report: Sample Approaches for Using Assessment Data as Part of a Results-Driven Accountability System (Word | PDF). What is your feedback on these reports? What other data sources may be useful as we move forward in the development of a RDA system?
Facebook
YouTube
Twitter
I agree with the general concepts in the reports. I am concerned however that there is no consideration to subgroups other than special ed. as a general category. It doesn’t address underserved populations which face problems like disproportionality and overrepresentation. This occurs even prior to identification in that I&RS may not provide services for the same time frame or services aren’t given to some children at the same level of intensity and they end up in special ed. Conversely, RTI is being inappropriately used to delay classification of students into special ed. and research shows that earlier intervention produces the best outcomes. ELL is another area of concern and needs to be addressed. And all of this means nothing w/o accountability.
A few concerns have come up with using assessment data. First off, states are beginning to transition to new assessments in 2014-15 that probably will not be comparable to the current assessments. Seems premature to develop a system that will have to be re-designed in a few years. Data will not be comparable year to year as states move to PARC or SMARTER Balance. Additionally, there are significant concerns being raised regarding the accessibility of the new assessments. New assessments are largely online while classroom instruction still, for the most part is not. Additionally, of more significant concern is the accessbility of these assessments for students with sensory impairments/disabilities and the students who rely on Assistive Technology. These questions must be answered before developing a system that relies on assessment data.
Thank goodness that the department of education is considering how compliance demands take away planning and instructional time from those who need it most! We live in a litigious society, and I understand the importance of compliance. When I was a K-12 Special Education teacher I often had to choose between being efficient with my compliance duties and my students’ needs. My students always came first which meant I had to come in early and stay late.
The IEP document has evolved into a document to avoid litigation. In a 7 plus page IEP, only about 4 pages are truly related to the students academic and or behavior needs. I have taught in 2 different states, and the redundancy of a number of items can be quite time consuming. Please do a national survey of special education teachers. Too many times policies are made without conversing with those in the field. Once again, I am delighted this issue is being studied.
planning for educational outcomes is only one small part of the planning necessary for all children-not only those with disabilities.
person centered planning, as I’ve suggested before, is the most comprehensive approach to a successful outcome-for life. Parents identify what they want for their children, but the child, as she/he grows older, contributes their wants and hopes and dreams to the mix. the support and structure to support the in and out of school life is a defining factor in determining a successful, attainable and sustainable outcome. if the outcome is not sustainable, the plan is doomed to failure and the individual to despair.
When my preschool child was first identified with autism, one of my biggest fears was that he would be denied a good education because of his disability. I doubted that he would ever be challenged with rigorous academic instruction and that expectations for his achievement would be low. I feared seeing his potential unrealized and any chance for a future lost. Providing “special services” seemed to take precedence over academic progress. There are strong tendencies in the system toward compliance with process and procedures followed to the letter, and I understand the legalities, but these can never be allowed to substitute for student achievement. I’m happy to say our son graduated with a 3.7 GPA in the regular ed curriculum and completed his Associate’s degree. However, it requires a strong effort and support from the entire team, the student’s persistence, and unwavering parental commitment to ensure this kind of outcome.
Congratulations to your son for his accomplishments. From experience I am sure that it was your insistance that he receive academic instruction that helped him achieve his goals. Until this happens for all children who have disabilities, we will continue to have many of them who do not realize academic success.
The results that I want as a parent are these:
1. I wanted my child to stay in school and graduate – she did. (System & Personal Outcomes)
2. I wanted my child to have opportunities to be in groups with other children without disabilities in the classroom regardless of her disabilities AND to have meaningful instruction on how to relate as a member of the learning community – the older she became the more rare the opportunities became. (Personal outcomes).
3. I wanted my child to be able to take a short car ride and during the trip across town to be able to talk about a variety of topics instead of the same one, for the entire trip, every day, for years at a time – results (well we got her head up and she will put away things she stims with if you say something highly motivating but not all of the time.
4. I wanted my child to be able to select things to do at home during her free time besides watching TV, watching DVDs or listening to audio books – never got there – not something the school knew how to work on, no ABA at home available
5. I wanted my child to learn to read and to read beyond a third grade level. – results she got to the 3rd grade level. She got to a sixth grade level (fluency only) on her own after formal reading instruction stopped. She reads functionally every day and has her job because of her ability to read (System and personal outcome).
5. I wanted my child to learn to recognize amounts up to five without having to count them out, to remember the most basic math facts and to give the correct change using the dollar more amount. – Results – after 12 years of Math instruction she can do none of those things. (System and personal outcomes).
6. I wanted my child to be able to live as independently as possible in a supervised apartment setting. She has the skills but not the behavior to do so. I begged for a FBA for years but apparently those were only for children who are ripping toilets out of the wall. Things are better now in that schools are more readily doing FBA now.
7. I wanted my child to have speech therapy (language) in middle and high school – the results being that she would have better social conversation skills. – We were told that was only for non-verbal students.
I am OK with results or process as long as students get what they need. I suspect that no matter what the focus we will continue to find ways to do only what we know how to do and not what we need to do until we learn how to do this differently and create a world where doing what is neccessary is funded, highlighted, supported and understood.
I understand the need for accountability. But whenever I read things like your reports, I am struck by what is not said. “Children with disabilities” is a group that obviously cannot be categorized under one label. Their reasons for learning problems are as varied as they are. One child diagnosed with a learning disability in the areas of reading or math may have entirely different abilities and needs than another with same area of disability. That’s why they have an IEP. Expecting those children to show proficiency on a state reading or math exam is ridiculous. A child diagnosed with a reading disability in third grade, for instance, is identified in part, because they aren’t learning at the same rate as their peers. Expecting that because they receive individualized instruction they will suddenly start reading at grade level ignores reality. Measuring that student’s progress by whether or not they are proficient on their grade level exam is unfair—to them and the school teaching them. Where I work, I have seen children in 6th grade who are reading at a third grade level after 3 years of specialized instruction with 3-4 different teachers and 1:1 tutoring using evidence based programs. That’s how long it’s taken them to achieve that level. Considering they were reading below grade level when first identified, that’s progress. Yet those kids are expected to take the state proficiencies. They’ve made progress in reading but still can’t pass a grade level reading test–but are expected to? They will continue to make progress. Some will eventually reach grade level. And some won’t.
No two children with a disability are the same. That’s why they have IEPs. It’s unfair to them to measure progress by comparing them to peers in their area of disability.
As an SLP who has worked in schools since 1978, I have seen it all when it comes to federal and state regulations. I have watched my workload increase tremendously in terms of paperwork requirements to satisfy those regulations. I have had hours—weeks, by now– of continuing ed to understand the rules and regulations so that I am compliant with it all and it takes an increasingly longer part of my day. I also make sure I am current in my field through continuing ed and continually change what I do if something isn’t working. The only thing that has stayed the same through the years is the diversity of my kids—-and the certainty that well-meaning, earnest folks with big titles somewhere in bureacracy will meet and decide what needs to be done in schools they have never been to, with professionals and students they will never meet.
First I think teachers need to be educated on the many different disabilities before we can measure any growth improvement. There are many disabilities that share characteristics of another, such as deafness and Auditory processing as well as ADHD.
I have found a lot of educators have not heard of APD some special ed teachers may have but for example a student has high scores on standarized test, put them in a reg. class where a teacher is unfamiliar with this and he doesn’t work to his potential because he misses oral directions, is distracted and can’t concentrate. Most likely this student will not succeed instead he is deemed lazy with behavior problems. Disabilities are not always about the level of intelligence or physical appearance, so how can you measure what some call hidden disabilities. We have to include these types of students as well because they are the ones that fall through the cracks of the education system and have a high drop out rate, primarily because they become overwhelmed and frustrated.
The danger in making “functional outcomes” subject to accountability is when it is used as justification for trying to change a student’s core values and personality traits. One of our rights in a free country is that everyone, including students, is free to be who they are, even if those traits aren’t valued by others. For example, many autistic and students are pressured into doing things that come harder for them (social engagement mainly) because teachers believe that in order to function in society, they will need those skills. Even if the trait in question is considered a disability or disorder, and even if those target skills are actually useful, it isn’t the role of the school to try to extinguish unwanted traits, if the student is not harming others. And the presence of a disability should not mean that students are denied an academic or elective subject, because they have to use the time in a special class to supposedly extinguish their core “deficits”. So when the demand for measurable “functional” outcomes is too high, it can lower the acceptance of all kinds of people, and can infringe on basic civil rights.
While I completely understand the intention of an RDA system, there appears to be a misunderstanding about how vast the special education spectrum really is. The attempt to measure growth of many of these students is simply a political ploy, and will not result in any more real academic growth for these students.
Do yourself and these students a favor, allow the professionals at the schools to challenge them at their own level without concern for governmental growth measures.