The Writings of
R . B r i a n
C l a r d y
Conservative Politics and Common
Sense... Imagine the Possibilities!
Educating Special Education, Part SixThe National Education Association (NEA) targeted the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in an article entitled “The Law: What It Is, and Isn’t” to help its membership understand the intricacies of a federal law which, in instituted properly could radically alter the educational scene. Unfortunately, as the NEA ably illustrates, the law is not being instituted through a “nickel-and-diming” method using test scores and student funding that directly contradicts the overall spirit of the legislation.A BrianClardy.Com continuing series discussing the education of special needs children. In today’s political climate, it is unfortunate but true that special needs children are used as political pawns on both the right and the left to accomplish whatever budgetary needs they may have. What is necessary, but infrequently occurs, is common sense applied to this particular dilemma even while frequent studies are performed and innumerable millions of dollars wasted in pointless research that accomplishes little except to confirm the common sense methodology which should be used to confront and deal with these problems.
No single area of education is more politicized than that of the instruction of special education children. Under the heading of “Special Education Setup,” the NEA reports, “The law says: Special education students must be tested on grade level so they can be compared with their peers.” The NEA suggests that this is a bad thing, but isn’t this the overall goal of education? To prepare students so that their graduation from twelfth grade is meaningful? If this isn’t the case, then why bother having any accountability in education at all? There must be some standard that is equal to everyone, and since the grades are the most clearly delineated breakup of students, then standards by grade level seems most appropriate and pragmatic.
The NEA sees a glitch in this thought process, however. So far as they are concerned, “Many special education students with learning disabilities find it difficult to read and understand tests developed for their grade levels. And when students do take these tests, some states prohibit the use of special accommodations, such as keyboards or electronic devices, that assist them during their classroom work.” The first is a valid point: if students are lacking in their ability to read or understand the tests, then there must be some accommodation made. Those administrators and bureaucrats that prohibit students from using accommodations that help with their understand should be, simply, fired. But, the accommodations given to these students cannot interfere with the testing of the student knowledge and ability to rationalize at their grade level. NCLB’s adequate yearly progress (AYP) provisions are designed to catch those students who fall behind in many areas, not those who fall behind in just one or two. If a student makes AYP, meaning they understand the material that is appropriate for their grade, then the assumption should be that they understand the grade appropriate material, whether they use accommodations or not. On the other hand, if the accommodations give them an advantage over their peers allowing them to, effectively, “fake” their way into the next grade, then this is both a disservice to the student and their peers. It is a difficult line to walk, but it is all too important in today’s educational era.
In the NEA’s view, the results of this glitch will mean “[f]rustration among these students is high, and testing on grade level is likely to be useless. Because these students are set up to fail, their test results become a predictable hindrance to a school’s ability to meet progress targets.” Sure, students are frustrated. But, their frustration is a direct product of their inability to achieve the reasonable expectations set forth by the test because the expectations held of them have been lowered so that they are no longer expected to perform at the grade level they purport to be in. This remains a separate issue from accommodations. If these students are unable to succeed at the third or sixth or ninth grade levels, with or without the appropriate accommodations for reading or comprehension, then they should be retained until they meet the expectations. Anything less perpetuates this disservice and only causes problems for the child.
Unfortunately, the NEA’s proposed solution is horrific and only continues to downward spiral of those in special education. They suggest allowing “these students to be tested at the grade level teachers know they are at and use those results as a benchmark for charting progress. Also, allow them the full spectrum of accommodations they normally use while doing classroom work.” This isn’t the solution. It only furthers the social promotion problems which later grades are inheriting, with students who are ill-prepared for the workload expected of them because they have been promoted so as to not hurt their feelings and promote their self-esteem – ignoring the simple fact that their failure to succeed in high school, when they can no longer succeed merely on effort, is often detrimental to their self-esteem and can lead to drug, alcohol, and sexual abuses.
Students are unable to achieve at higher levels because they are being sent to the higher levels without being fully prepared, and this is true for too many students, but most of all special education students. They must be allowed the full spectrum of accommodations, but to simply “dumb down” the test for these students is not going to help them succeed, but rather it will only perpetuate their failure.
The article referenced in this commentary was originally published in NEA Today, May, 2003, Vol. 21, Issue 8.
All written material on this
website not attributed to another author is © 2001-2004 by Brian Clardy.
No part of this website may
be reproduced in any way without the explicit consent of Brian Clardy.
All rights reserved.