Welcome to Week 8's Teaching Students with Lower Incidence Disabilities
==========================================================
==========================================================
 |
| Heather Whitestone - the first hearing impaired Miss America |
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:
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"
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
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)
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)
==================================
Required Posting Blog 4: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?
==================================
Post 1 of 2:
ReplyDeleteBefore comparing the messages and philosophies behind the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorized in 1990 and subsequent Individual with Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004 with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, it is important to understand the major roles that each piece of legislation plays. The most important aspects of IDEA are that children with disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate education, an individualized education plan (IEP), and are placed in the least restrictive environment (LRE). The most important aspects of NCLB are increased accountability in respect to standards placed on statewide assessments of students, as well as measuring adequate yearly progress (AYP), which measures how schools are performing in regard to meeting the standards (Vaughn, Bos, and Schumm, 2011). NCLB mandates that schools must report achievement data for all students within the school, as well as the achievement data for students with disabilities, among other subgroups (Yell, Katsiyannas, and Shiner, 2006).
The re-authorization of IDEIA in 2004 was intended to align with NCLB (Yell, et al, 2006). However, even before this re-authorization, one sole message was similarly shared between NCLB and IDEA in that all students, whether or not they have a disability, were to be accounted for. I believe this is important, because regardless of whether the student is an exceptional learner or not, accountability should not be discretionary. Yell, et al, reiterate this viewpoint, cautioning that if students with disabilities are not included in NCLB, they will likely be ignored (2006).
However, in regard to the implementation, in my opinion, the two policies could not be more contradictory. NCLB analyzes students on a group basis, while IDEA looks at students on an individualized basis, most evident considering the existence of IEP’s. The waters are further muddied when considering that some students are tested per grade level achievement standard and some students are tested per alternate achievement standards. While this can be seen as an attempt to individualize assessment, it is foolish to think that alternative assessments can truly provide a uniform assessment for students with special needs. This is especially evident when considering that not all adaptations are approved and not all alternative assessments are counted when they exceed the state percentage caps (Yell, et al, 2006).
In addition, NCLB and IDEA differ in that the goal of the former is meeting an absolute standard and the goal of the latter is relative progress in meeting objectives appropriate to each student (Yell, et al, 2006). For instance, take a student with a learning disability that cannot read that is entering the fourth grade. In my opinion, if the student progresses to the point where they can read on a first grade level, they have made significant progress, however in the eyes of NCLB, they still fall short of standards. I also believe this to be a major oversight with NCLB.
Similarly, whether a student is included or not in the assessments is determined by policy and not by the child's IEP team (Yell, et al, 2006). This is critical, because the child's IEP team is most knowledgeable in regard to what level of access that student has to the general curriculum and the tested standards, the adaptation and modification needs of that individual child, and level of participation in regard to such standards. If a student is proficient in accordance with the standards of their grade level, but must have the exam read to him due to a visual impairment. In accordance with NCLB, if the adaptation is not approved, they have not met the state goals. Thus, we can see that NCLB can directly conflict with IDEA.
(See next post for remainder of answer and works cited)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePost 2 of 2:
ReplyDeleteIf a blind child is taking state assessment exams and is only provided extended time as an accepted adaptation, it may not be sufficient to meet the needs of the student depending on the level of vision impairment of the individual student. Obviously, the extended time adaptation would need to be accompanied with a Braille form of the exam or an auditory form of the exam, in concert with extended time, if the student is legally blind. Students with other visual impairments would perhaps require large print or another visual adaptation, on top of the extended time. According to the Tips for Teachers in the textbook, if the test is in Braille, students generally require twice as much time as a student without visual impairment. Similarly, a student requiring large print or other visual accommodations generally needs approximately time and half to complete the same exam (Vaughn, et al, 2011). However, I believe that all students are different, and that such time modifications depend on the student.
Similarly, the level of hearing impairment is also crucial to determining whether or not an extended time adaptation alone is appropriate for a hearing impaired or deaf student. In my opinion, hearing impaired students may not need any additional time on the exam because the test is written or visual, but could require additional assistance in understanding the exam rules and directions prior to starting the exam. This may require the use of a sign language interpreter. In addition, the deaf child may require additional personalized help in regard to stating how much time is left for testing and when the testing period has concluded. Obviously, such adaptations are not aligned with merely providing addition exam time.
Thus, in both cases, the main point is that it is impossible at any level to determine if deaf or blind students on par with students that do not have disabilities. Students with disabilities have differing needs that can only be understood on the individual level. More importantly, if extended time is the only permitted adaptation, it may make absolutely no difference, depending on the student's unique needs. Thus, though some guidelines may exist such as those provided in the Teaching Tips in the textbook, in reality no blanket policy statement could ever reflect the appropriate amount of time extensions are require to make a student with vision or auditory disabilities equivalent to a classmate without such disabilities. The only fair way to treat all students is to recognize that each learner, exceptionality or not, has distinct and diverse learning needs.
Works cited:
Vaughn, S. R., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2011). Teaching students who are exceptional, diverse, and at risk in the general education classroom (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannas, A., & Shiner, J. G. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students With Disabilities. Teaching exceptional children, 38(4), 32-39.
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?
ReplyDeleteThe NCLB and IDEA do send conflicting messages when it comes to assessing child progress. IDEA specifically deals with students who do have disabilities and ways to help the student learn are modified directly to the student, example and IEP. Within NCLB, it requires schools and school districts to be held accountable for all students, even the 1% of students who are counted in the yearly AYP. Although students with disabilities have a harder time understanding and retrieving knowledge, the NCLB still is in requirement to meet the 100% AYP by 2014. The similarities also cause conflicting information, because under an IEP, the teachers have the opportunity of presenting the student with material learning that may not be conducive with the NCLB policy within the school for assessing the AYP, so where do you draw the line. As for a student with a hearing or visual impairment should they not get the rights to be assessed in a manner that is conducive to their impairment, or should they be assessed through policy standards of the NCLB. This is the point at which the test does not determine whether students are up to "par" with other students because they aren't offered the same opportunity as regular classroom students. If we were all deaf, would NCLB be testing students who aren't deaf as we treat students who are? No, because either way students will be reading. Therefore students with extended time should be allowed and still counted within school AYP as any other student would be. Thus contradicting the conflicting messages set forth by the NCLB and the IDEA.
Works Cited
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannas, A., & Shiner, J. G. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students With Disabilities. Teaching exceptional children, 38(4), 32-39.
While I agree it appears IDEA 2004 and NCLB send conflicting messages, I believe they both seek to ensure that there is accountability in education. While NCLB seeks to ensure that 100% of all students, including those with disabilities, are proficient in the areas of reading and math by the end of the 2013-2014 school year, IDEA 2004 recognizes progress in learning for students with disabilities as accountability in education (according to the value metric in Table 2, p. 37).
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it is important to understand that NCLB allows individual states the authority to determine the standards which are used to measure AYP. Although the performance of the total student population, including the defined subgroups, must be reported each year, NCLB provides states the flexibility to measure the progress of students with disabilities using an alternate form of assessment. While there is a 1% cap for students taking alternate assessments (relative to the grade level population taking the assessment), these alternate assessments measure against standards appropriate for the student’s intellectual development. Under both NCLB and IDEA 2004, the student’s IEP team is given the responsibility for deciding how a student will participate. Therefore, it is important for teachers to monitor the educational progress of students with disabilities to determine how they will be assessed.
Furthermore, NCLB, although controversial, does not require regular education and special education students to be equal in knowledge. Rather, NCLB seeks to ensure that students with disabilities are part of the accountability system, being proficient according to the standards of alternate assessments. NCLB also requires school districts to provide students with disabilities appropriate accommodations for assessment, and advocates that all students display increased achievement through effective programs using scientifically based educational practices. IDEA 2004 serves to protect individual students with disabilities, providing modified assessments relative to alternate achievement standards.
Applying this information to students with hearing or visual impairments, I understand that an accommodation permitting extra time on an assessment is crucial given an individual’s ability to process information. While the disabled student’s Individual Education Program team will ultimately determine the appropriate time estimated to be necessary for the student to perform to his/her best ability, I think it is unfair to refer to a deaf or blind child ever as being “on par” with a non-disabled child. In this case, I feel that the meaning of “an accommodation of extra time” is being misconceived as “an advantage.”
On a personal note, I recently administered the ISAT exam to a 5th grade male, according to the necessary accommodation of his IEP. While this particular student did not have a vision or hearing impairment, he needed considerable extra time, as he suffers from dyslexia. I could see that the exam was strenuous for him, even more so since he struggled with the ability to encode and process information. Nonetheless, although he was given extra time, he was still disadvantaged compared to non-disabled students due to the anxiety that plagued him for the duration of the reading portion. I must say, though, I admired his determination and dedication for trying his very best; and I made sure to recognize his effort.
Ken Pease
ReplyDelete1 of 2
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) 2004 and The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) 2001 include comprehensive laws that have changed the education landscape forever. While the implementation and assessment of IDEIA and NCLB often send conflicting messages, the unifying goal of this legislation is to improve the education of all students at all schools. Attempting to address the needs of individual learners while assessing learning and improvement of their schools, as a whole is a difficult task.
The article, ‘The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students With Disabilities’ describes NCLB as ‘the most significant piece of federal education legislation in history (Yell, Katsiyannas, and Shiner, 2006). The goal of NCLB is to set a standard for achievement and make schools accountable for reaching that goal. Schools must show adequate yearly progress towards reaching their goal, or be held accountable. Teachers must be highly qualified to teach in their discipline, and to administer testing, evaluate data collected from testing, and to make sure their instruction helps students become proficient in the skills targeted in their state’s Annual Yearly Progress goal. The NCLB legislation mandates meeting goals in reading, math, and science. Many schools use the model established for NCLB into other academic areas. All students are required to test, and data is collected and assessed as a group. Demanding that all students at all schools learn to read and get a quality education is necessary. Students in poor and rural areas deserve the same educational opportunities and quality that students in affluent neighborhoods have been getting for years. Under NCLB, failing schools are required to make sweeping changes to improve or if improvements are not made over a five-year period, face total restructuring.
In 2004 the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) was passed to improve the education of students with disabilities. The goal of IDEIA was to work in conjunction with NCLB, using similar assessment tools and accountability for teaching special needs students and students without disabilities (Vaughn, S.R., BOS, C.S., & Schumm, J.S. 2011). Again, the goal of providing free, effective, and meaningful education to students no matter their ability is noble. The IDEIA makes sure that schools do not focus all of their attention on making sure students with ‘higher abilities’ reach NCLB goals. By requiring the data collected from all students (including those with disabilities) be included in a school’s AYP, the laws really do aim to provide a quality education for all students.
The difficulty in implementing both of these laws into a school successfully is providing educational opportunities for a population of individuals that include a variety of disabilities, learning styles, socio-economic backgrounds, and trying to assess their educational abilities as a group. The educational goals and abilities of a non-disabled student from a professional family are quite different from that of a student with autism, blindness, or developmental disabilities. Adaptive technologies can be used to enhance learning and alternative assessments can be used in testing, but it is not a level playing field.
Ken Pease
ReplyDelete2 of 2
I observed several classes of students with severe autism recently. Most of the learning that took place in the classrooms was done with the assistance of a professional aid who often worked hand over hand with a student to achieve a goal. This is a very extreme case, and most students with this level of impairment would not be included in a regular classroom. It does however, show how very different learning experiences, and progress for a student can be. Allowing more time for deaf students, giving verbal tests to blind students, or simplifying tests allow every student to take the test, but can we really compare their results to that of a non-disabled student? All along the learning spectrum, there are so many differences in the students. Teachers are trying to give the best educational opportunities to all of the students in their classroom. As hard as teachers may try to cater to individual learners, output is going to vary greatly from student to student. We need rigorous standards and accountability, but we also need to show some creativity and flexibility in how we determine proficiency in different subject matters.
Briefly, another issue that NCLB has produced is under valuing subjects that are not tested by NCLB like art, music, and humanities. Because so much emphasis is placed on reaching AYP goals, many other subjects are ignored or cut. There is no doubt that reading, math, and science are vital parts of an education for disabled and non-disabled students. According to the Wisconsin Education Association Council, since music and the arts are not tested like subjects covered by NCLB, they are often the first cuts school districts make when faced with budget reductions (Hurley, 2004).
Works Cited:
Vaughn, S.R., BOS, C.S., & Schumm, J.S. (2011). Teaching Students Who Are Exceptional, Diverse, and at Risk in the General Education Classroom (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
Yell, Mitchell L., Katsiyannas, Antonis, Shiner, James G., The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students With Disabilities, 2006.
Hurley, Ryan. , Cuts in Arts Programs Leave Sour Note in Schools, 2004.
Wisconsin Education Association Council.
Does IDEA and NCLB conflict with each other? Though not intentionally, I definitely think they do. With IDEA it states that students with disabilities need modified curriculums based on their specific needs; an example of this is an IEP. The NCLB Act on the hand is about holding the schools, and their districts, accountable for every student. Every student includes those with disabilities and the NCLB is requiring that 100% AYP be acquired by 2014. Now in the article posted above it states that “if students with disabilities were excluded from schools’ accountability systems, they would be ignored and not receive the academic attention that they deserved” (NCLB pg. 34); this to me sends mixed messages. I understand that we are pushing for 100% by 2014 but at the same time I don’t think that is giving the students with disabilities ample time or opportunity to grow. Teachers and districts are going to be too worried about meeting this “quota” that the students may feel too pressured and turn themselves off from learning. This is something that needs to be looked at a little better and keep these students in mind.
ReplyDeleteI think it is wrong to test a blind/deaf student just to see if they are on “par” with those who do not have these disabilities. They are given accommodations to assist in their learning needs and shouldn’t be compared to those who are not like them. The extra time can be seen as a “head start” which can be twisted and looked at negatively. Students with these disabilities are assessed and their IEP instructors determine extra time that may be needed. If a student requires this in order to succeed then I definitely find it necessary. The NCLB is such a tricky thing that it is difficult to get around, even in cases like this. To me it is all about the child and their needs and goals, that will get them much farther than a test that compares them to fellow classmates.
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannas, A., & Shiner, J. G. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students With Disabilities. Teaching exceptional children, 38(4), 34.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Yell, et. al., one of the primary purposes of IDEA 2004 was “to improve educational results for children with disabilities by providing a performance driven framework for accountability to ensure that children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education” (2006, p. 36). Likewise, the NCLB Act attempts to “hold states, school districts, and schools accountable for producing measurable gains in students’ achievement in reading and mathematics…[by] requir[ing] states and schools to use numerical data to provide evidence of improved student outcomes” (2006, p. 33). So, as a general matter, both sets of regulations, on their face appear to send the message that schools were not sufficiently results-focused (both for students with and without disabilities) and those students must be increasingly accountable through the use of performance measurements. In the drafting of IDEA 2004, Secretary of Education Pasternak noted that that “we must build on the accountability provisions enacted in NCLB to ensure that States and local school districts are accountable for results and that students with disabilities are included in rigorous assessments on student performance” (2006, p. 36). I think we can all probably see the risk in promoting NCLB initiatives without regard to students with special needs--schools at the risk of losing their certification and independence would neglect students with special needs in favor of focusing on students that they believe could help them achieve the legally mandated results.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, while the spirit of accountability in both pieces of legislation are the same, in drafting the two sets of legislation, there are definite conflicting messages. As Yell et. al.’s article points out, NCLB focuses on the performance of large groups of students with an emphasis on accuracy of measurement, end results and measurable progress. While not completely inconsistent, IDEA is more focused on individual students which means observation of student behavior on a regular basis, looking for ongoing progress and development in a wide range of frequently subjectively evaluated areas (instead of only objective end-point analysis) and recognizes the importance of accommodation and modification to suit particular students. As a result, while the two sets of regulations are not entirely inconsistent, they result in conflicting motivations for administrators, teachers, students and parents. From parents and students’ perspectives, they will likely want school’s to take an IDEA focus and focus on present levels of academic and functional performance measures on an ongoing basis in their assessment. However, where teachers and administrators allow accommodation for more than 1% of their students, they make it almost impossible to ultimately hit their NCLB benchmarks as these students beyond 1% will not be counted towards their success rate. If these ultimate assessments will guide teaching style and content, teachers and administrators may be forced to focus on the NCLB benchmarks and work towards test proficiency for students with special needs (without resorting to alternative assessment methods) despite this possibly not being in students’ best interest.
Continued from previous post
ReplyDeleteUltimately, this takes one back to what I consider to be the fundamental question when looking at NCLB and IDEA: What is the ultimate goal? If the ultimate goal is to ensure that as many of our students as possible can demonstrate academic proficiency (through tests like the ACT, SAT, international testing, NCLB testing, etc.), then the NCLB benchmarks seem to properly be geared towards that goal. However, if the goal of educating our students is to ensure the maximum academic, social and behavorial progress of each student, then not all students (particularly not students with special needs) will be best served towards a more IDEA-centered approach. While I do think that there are conflicting messages coming out of the two sets of regulations, I do think that there is some room at the intersection for teachers but it certainly increases the difficulty factor in planning and instruction. By continuing to collect information about each students and developing instructional accommodations for students with disabilities, I do think it is possible to continue to focus on progress and social development while still working towards the goals under NCLB.
Where we talk about “100% proficiency”, it is a relevant question to ask “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?” Certainly, if this accommodation is in place, one would not be able to say that “Student A (with the accommodation) and Student B (without the accommodation) performed at the same scoring level in the same amount of time.” However, I think we again have to ask ourselves what the goal of the test is. If the goal is measuring proficiency over the subject matter, then these accommodations don’t create an advantage for the student with the accommodation but rather level the playing field. Because the tests are generally designed for students without disabilities, delivering the test to a student with special needs may result in less time for that student to actually demonstrate the proficiency over the subject (e.g. a blind student who is given the test orally will not be able to have the test questions given to them as quickly audibly as a student who is able to read them since saying a paragraph tends to take longer than reading a paragraph). Responsible teachers will try to make the accommodation as reasonable as possible and will not give the student an “unfair advantage” but rather make accommodations such that the student has the same chance to demonstrate their proficiency over the subject.
Yes it does seem that IDEA 2004 and NCLB send conflicting messages. From a distance both IDEA and NCLB aim to ensure that all children receive a quality education but how they do that are very different. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that was revised in 2004 states that all children with disabilities must receive an education through special education or other services. The program states that no child with disabilities can be turned away, each will have their own Individualized Education Program (IEP), the students will be in the least restrictive environment conducive to learning, the student will be evaluated Non-discriminatingly. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was a set of guidelines that were set up as a “framework” to improve the quality of education that students received. This was to be accomplished through improving schools,, teacher quality, supporting instruction for ELLs, and keeping schools safe for students. NCLB holds schools accountable for the performance of their students and uses state wide assessment tests to identify areas of trouble and improve those in the AYP. The problem with this is that all students’ even students with disabilities are included in this assessment. Most disabled students will have an IEP and that may differ from the curriculum that is being taught in the school but they will still be tested on the information that the rest of the students are tested on instead of testing them on their IEP. The IDEA assesses individuals on and individual basis whereas NCLB assesses students on a school and district level.
ReplyDeleteSome students with disabilities may receive special accommodations during the assessment such as extended time, at what point do these accommodations make the testing un-equal to that of a non-disabled child? I believe that a child with disabilities is being tested, as a non-disabled student is then these tests should make accommodations such as this. The test is already unequal because the student is not being tested on their IEP so I believe that, as many accommodations should be made to assist with the assessment process.
Just as there are differences between how to best educate students with and without disabilities, the relationship between IDEA 2004 and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law is somewhat complex. Perhaps the biggest difference in how IDEA 2004 and NCLB function is that under IDEA 2004 the focus is on the individual progress of the disabled student whereas NCLB focuses on the progress of an entire school or sub-group population. Because of this difference efforts to align NCLB and IDEA 2004 can be quite complicated. The question is: what type of education policy can address the specific and unique needs of educating disabled students (IDEA 2004) while at the same time including those students as part of the overall school population for accountability purposes (NCLB)?
ReplyDeleteAlthough this question is a very difficult one, I do not feel as if IDEA 2004 and NCLB send conflicting messages. I do acknowledge that there are serious challenges to aligning the two laws but I think the overall theme is the same: educate all students proficiently so that they are making adequate progress. I think that it would have been very easy for lawmakers to exclude disabled students from NCLB due to the more complex nature of educating, testing, and assessing disabled students, but I agree with the logic of including disabled students in NCLB. Lawmakers “believed that if students with disabilities were excluded from schools’ accountability systems, they would be ignored and not receive the academic attention that they deserved” (Yell, Katsiyannas, and Shiner, 2006). There are provisions in NCLB which allow for a certain amount of disabled students to be assessed using alternative methods. These students are to be those with the most significant cognitive disabilities. I understand that the fixed allotment of alternative assessment students may not be sufficient for all schools or districts but this number can be adjusted over time and there is already a mechanism in place for states to request an adjustment to the amount of students who may be measured by alternative assessments.
This concept of alternatively assessing the most disabled of the student population means that NCLB is not trying to assess whether every single student is on par with one another regardless of their disabled/non-disabled status, and this is why I believe that IDEA 2004 and NCLB do not send conflicting messages. Just as the handicapping system in golf allows all golfers to compete against one another evenly based on their ability, alternative assessments and accommodations allow for a more definitive valuation of a disabled students knowledge and academic progress. So overall, in my view, NCLB was not enacted in order to test whether all children are on-par with one another, but instead NCLB seeks to measure the progress of all students. Therefore the alignment and individual provisions of IDEA 2004 and NCLB do not send conflicting messages.
Works cited:
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannas, A., & Shiner, J. G. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students With Disabilities. Teaching exceptional children, 38(4), 32-39.
Do IDEA 2004 and NCLB send conflicting messages? They do but they are also working towards different goals. The NCLB is trying to increase accountability of all students. It focuses on the outcome of a child’s education, that they meet the standards and the AYP. It tests for proficiency in reading and mathematics and bases scores on the whole school’s performance. While this has its advantages, it also has several disadvantages. The main one being that some subjects get pushed aside so schools can try to meet their AYP. This is unfair to students, as schools are cutting classes, such as shop and art, that students, who may not like traditional classes, may be able to find a place where they like to learn.
ReplyDeleteIDEA 2004, however, focuses only on children with disabilities, with the goal of making sure “children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education. Where NCLB focuses on group data, IDEA is all about the individual. They also focus on other skills learned in school aside from academics; they are concerned with social and behavioral skills. They focus on the student’s progress as they learn, how much an individual student has improved.
I think that certain students are going to need accommodations in test taking situations. Obviously, they will need some individualized help that other non-disabled students may not require, such as a translator for a deaf child. However, there still needs to be structure to their testing. Their educators should determine what kinds of accommodations a student needs, since they are the ones who work with the child. Also, each child may have different levels of disability, and different learning needs. It is impossible to standardize test taking for students without making it difficult for some students to be able to perform with in time limits.
I am having trouble posting my response. Is anyone else having this same problem still?
ReplyDeleteDoes 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?
ReplyDeleteIDEA 2004 and NCLB do send conflicting messages. However, both are looking to hold teachers and schools accountable for giving free fair education for all students.
The fundamental ideals behind NCLB is to hold schools accountable based on the state wide standards. Schools must demonstrate AYP (adequate yearly progress) based on the meeting of those state standards. AYP is calculated based on all the students in the school, including the students with disabilities and multiple other subgroups.
IDEA 2004 is designed for children with disabilities and entitles them to a free appropriate education through an IEP and placing them in a least restrictive environment (LRE). IDEA 2004 intended for students to be assessed based on the skills set forth on their IEP.
In my personal experience, I agree that teachers and schools should be held accountable for student learning. I have personally experienced teachers that have wrote off (not met their learning needs) students. I believe that this is fundamentally wrong and school should be held accountable for such situations.
However, I do think that NCLB and IDEA are in conflict of each other. NCLB requires students meet the state standard regardless of their IEP and the goals set forth on that document. In my experience with students with IEPs they are required to meet the measureable goal on their IEP. The emphasis lies in the measureable part. So, if a student improves their responses to reading comprehension questions by 25% and their IEP goal is to improve by 25%, then they meet their goal (or they make adequate progress). However, AYP through the NCLB is only met if all students at the school are meeting the state, grade level standard.
I work at an exceptional school in the city of Chicago. Most of our students come to school unprepared and ill-equipped to meet the high standards we hold, even in kindergarden. However, our teachers use best practices to teach literacy and math. Our students and school did not meet AYP last year. Our students are critical thinkers and engage in higher order thinking skills on many occasions each day. In our school wide created curriculum, students engage in much higher level thinking than normal schools or curriculum. These standardized tests don't assess this type of higher order thinking. Not to mention, accommodate students with disabilities.
I believe that students should be assessed based on individual needs (IEP). Teachers should be assessed based on the progress made by individual students. Therefore, if a 6th grade blind student learns a new skill or improves a skill, that meets his IEP goals, then that teacher has done their job. Also, that student has made adequate progress.
I believe the problem in our legislation lies in the fact that people make the laws are not teachers themselves. It is common conversation in teachers lounges across the country that the "government doesn't get teaching". I think as a profession we need to rise up and take some responsibility for our profession and the demands of teachers and students. I think as teachers we need to make an effort to take part in legislation through calling our congressman and participating in projects and forums that let teachers voices be heard.
Part 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that the article " The No Child Left behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students with Disabilities” has more thoroughly explained these issues than any other piece of literature on the topic that I've read in the past. More specifically, the issue of reaching 100% proficiency was explained in better detail than what I've studied in past classes. I've always been confused by that requirement of 100% proficiency mandated by the NCLB act. It has always seemed completely unreasonable and I've always question it because of how unfair it is to a school or district when all children are to be assessed, even those who are cognitively unable. What I was not aware of, which this article clarified for me, was that there are provisions allowed for the assessment of children who are completely incapable of meeting the standards that have been put in place for determining whether someone is proficient or not. It only seemed logical that there be some form of alternative assessment, so I'm relieved to finally get clarification through this piece of literature. Furthermore, I feel that the system they have in place seems to be reasonable. The 1% cap that has been established, with the right to request an exception based upon proof, appears to be a fair way to evaluate a school's performance. As a brief side note, I think Montana's request to be completely exempt due to it's rural nature is ignorant. Then again, maybe I'm the one who is ignorant, but I can't help but feel that places like Alaska are more rural than Montana is and they haven't asked for complete exemption.
That being said, I do not necessarily think that the IDEA 2004 is in conflict with the NCLB, but rather it is an extension. NCLB does a great job of putting in place a system of accountability, one that systematically measures the progress of children towards meeting a specific goal. Included in that system are requirements to be met for children who do not fall into the norm due to a disability. These requirements are in place so that those children do not slip through the cracks as a result of a lack in priorities. The way I see this, the federal government looked at the effects of NCLB and realized they could take a step further and effectively evolve the public school system even more and in doing so they created IDEA 2004. With a focus on those with disabilities, I think they had time to see what works, and what doesn't, and they were able establish better requirements for those students and thus ensure that they are receiving an "appropriate” education. I don't think the two are conflicting because NCLB looks at things as a whole, where as IDEA looks at the approach used with a subgroup of the student population.
Part 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the time extension during assessment of a blind/deaf student, I think this is a difficult question to answer. As a person who is disabled and does receive additional time on tests, I'm in favor of such an allotment. I can think of a number of tests where my limited hand function has slowed me down when the exam was writing, or typing, intensive. In most cases, while I did need a little additional time, I never needed a large amount of additional time. The reason for that is that I don't want to abuse the time that has been afforded to me and because the longer I take to do something, the more pronounced my disability is. So, I always strive to complete something within a reasonable amount of time. For that reason, I think that too much time given to somebody is not beneficial to them. The reality of it is, you have to be able to complete things in a timely fashion in the real world otherwise there is no benefit to the company who is employing you. If the amount of time given to the student is too much, it is not testing if the student is on par. Instead, it is creating an unrealistic environment for them to perform in. I will add that if the amount of time being taken for such assessment is too long, then maybe those involved need to find a different for of assessment for that student. On that will limit things to a reasonable amount of time and still covers the material in question.
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?
ReplyDeleteOf course the IDEA 2004 and NCLB send conflicting messages. How does the Federal Education Department expect that a normal learning student and a student with any disability big or small be able to achieve the on the same learning level. Because of us are not the same students with disabilities have, at least in the state of Illinois, and IEP which designs a plan for the student in order for the student to achieve most success in school as possible. And usually within those IEP would be an extended time because maybe the student needs larger print or a verbal style test, this would require more time.
Now with the NCLB Act it is great because it is designed that students have to be performing at a certain level or the school will lose funding (not great by the way, awful because those student more than likely need the most help of all). The NCLB is trying to make sure that student are held to a standard, a standard of learning that we should all want for students because no one wants a student to fail and ultimately stop going to school.
I know that these two Acts were put in place for the better of the children in school and to make sure that they become educated, but does the standard really fit in all cases. I do believe that there was a great deal of effort put in to these two Acts, but there has to be an exception because not every student will be able to get to a standard of, say, a third grader. But with a child that falls in the IDEA reaching an education reading level of a second grader maybe a lifelong challenge. Where does the separation happen between the IDEA and NCLB.
It does appear as though IDEA 2004 and NCLB do send conflicting messages. They both appear to have the intent of giving the highest quality of education to all students. While NCLB seems to focus on the student population as a whole, IDEA 2004 focuses on individual student achievement. Why should students with disabilities be held to the same standards as students without disabilities? While the test they may take are the same, the accommodations allowed for students with disabilities, in essence, make the test being taken unequal. I am not saying that students with disabilities should not get accommodations for tests. I believe that test being taken by students without disabilities should be held to different standards than tests being taken by students with disabilities.
ReplyDeleteTo the question regarding testing of blind/deaf students taking the tests, it plays to the point I made earlier. If students are given too much extra time to complete a test, it becomes less of test. It almost makes the test a different test if hours of extra time are given. Students with and without disabilities should not be compared with one another because the extra accommodations almost make the two tests different. I would bet that is students without disabilities took the test with extra accommodations, then their scores would increase.
(Still having issues posting this week. I'll try to post in segments to see if that makes a difference.)
ReplyDeletePart 1 of 2
I believe that NCLB and IDEA 2004 do send conflicting messages. They may both begin with the same goal of promoting better educational experiences for students with disabilities, but they diverge widely in how to go about achieving this and evaluating progress. As summarized by Yell, Katsiyannas, & Shiner, NCLB treats exceptional students in virtually the same manner as any other subgroup of students: the focus is the same core educational subjects and the outcome is measured in absolute terms (i.e. "proficient" or not) (2006). In contrast, IDEA 2004 is much more individually-oriented. Students are evaluated based on progress relative to their personal starting point rather than their endpoint relative to all other students at their grade level. Social and behavioral development may be evaluated in addition to academics under IDEA 2004. Since a student's IEP outlines the specific instructional goals for that child to achieve, an evaluation scheme based upon the IEP is much more appropriate to accurately measure progress. Since disabled students frequently have modified goals in the form of IEPs, they should not be expected to meet the goals set for the entire group; furthermore, when they do not meet the "regular" standards, this should not be viewed as a failure.
Part 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteThe question of whether extended time should be an accomodation or not is difficult for me since I do not personally believe in time constraints as a part of testing. While I have seen in my experience that running out of time can be an indication of how well (or not) the student is familiar with the material being tested, I still believe that no amount of extra time will help a student come up with the correct answer if they do not know it. In regards to students with hearing or vision impairments, I think they should be given the same resources that they would use during instruction for that activity (reading for most paper tests). Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm suggest that additional time can be helpful for students with learning disabilities (2011, p. 157-158). I'm not sure if giving additional time would be necessary or helpful in terms of hearing or vision disabilities. I don't think it's fair to expect disabled children to be "on par" with non-disabled children. Even if a blind child can read and understand a math problem, for example, they may not have the ability to visualize with diagrams like non-disabled children could.
References
ReplyDeleteVaughn, S. R., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2011). Teaching students who are exceptional, diverse, and at risk in the general education classroom (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannas, A., & Shiner, J. G. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, adequate yearly progress, and students With disabilities. Teaching exceptional children, 38(4), 32-39.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePart 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteIt seems that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Individuals With Disabilities Act (IDEA) of 2004 do send conflicting messages. NCLB was created to hold schools accountable for all students’ academic progress. NCLB measures a schools adequate yearly progress (AYP) each year with the goal being 100% proficiency in Math and Reading by the year 2014. A school must have 95% of the student body make AYP to meet the standards. Students with disabilities must also take the yearly test and an alternate assessment may be allowed. However, there is a cap of 1% of the school population for each grade level that is tested that may take an alternate assessment. Where NCLB measures a school’s academic progress as a whole, IDEA 2004 focuses on the special education services for children with disabilities; such as, the individualized education program (IEP’s). IDEA provides services assisting students with disabilities and modifying their learning. Student with special needs should be allowed accommodations yet NCLB restrict the alternate assessment to 1% for each grade level.
Part 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteI feel it is important to ensure students with disabilities are not left behind but I do not feel they should be tested against students without disabilities. I believe the NCLB should allow the students with disability to be tested with their accommodation and counted only in a subgroup or excluded from the testing. Once again I feel that student with disabilities should be tested and monitored but they need to be allowed their accommodations and they should not be measured equally against a child with no accommodation. For instance, if extended time is the accommodation, how do you measure that to a student that was given a timed test? Special education teachers are trained and know what is best for students with special needs or disabilities and they need to be allowed to do their job and not worry testing and comparing to students with non-disabilities. Another example is a blind child or a deaf child who should not be compared to a child without a disability. In real life they have different accommodations and life styles so why wouldn’t we acknowledge that during education.
I am currently completing clinical hours in a kindergarten class with 24 students. Five students are special needs and have some type of accommodation. Even at the kindergarten level when these students take a test special accommodations are made for these students and it would not be fair to compare them to the other students. This is not to say the special needs students are not bright and successful, but it is not fair to any of the students to try to compare the two groups. This validates how I feel about the NCLB. It is not fair to compare the student with disabilities to students with non-disabilities.
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannas, A., & Shiner, J. G. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students With Disabilities. Teaching exceptional children, 38(4), 34.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
ReplyDeleteChapter 11/Blog Posting 4
In some respects IDEA 2004 and NCLB are talking at cross purposes; in fact almost asking the impossible. I agree that testing can, in some cases, be a useful measure of student's knowledge. However the variables from the amount of accommodations necessary for the blind/deaf student must be put into play for the testing results to mean anything. Otherwise the only comparisons should be made between "like" testing situations. It would be nearly impossible to "correctly" compare the test scores if the accomodations were overly generous. I personally am not a fan of test scores determining how well a student is doing and while a perfect world would find a way in which to compare all students regardless of disability, I feel that in most cases any type of hard data inferred from these type of test results would be biased. I thnk that each student's needs and accomplishments be evaluated by their personal "standard" of goals. I think that any other sort of comparison would be similar to comparing apples and oranges; each is fruit but each also has its own flavor, benefit and uses.
Part II
ReplyDeleteSometimes it seems that NCLE is asking the impossible. Instead of demanding that we all be the same I believe that education must acknowledge that the student body is different and not only are we different, we also learn differently. There is no cookie cutter recipe for teaching or learning. In many cases the best possible educational scenario, especially in areas of discussion, a non-homogeneous grouping would be the most beneficial for learning. However in areas which require specific task or precise actions, non-inclusive classroom might be more beneficial for students. Teachers should still have to be creative in their lesson plans but would have the advantage of presenting course material at a particular "skill" level.
At first glance, it seems like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) do send conflicting messages. IDEA 2004’s accountability focus is on the individual student by means of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). NCLB’s accountability focus, on the other hand, is group-school centered by means of adequate yearly progress (AYP). There are other differences between IDEA 2004 and NCLB. IDEA 2004’s focus of assessment system is based on the entry point, whereas NCLB’s is on the endpoint. The goal focus of IDEA 2004 is relative and modified, but NCLB’s is absolute and uniform. Clearly, these two acts do send conflicting messages. I do, though, believe both IDEA 2004 and NCLB have overall goals of ensuring accountability in education. But, it seems like the two acts work against each other in many respects.
ReplyDeleteI think it is unfair to ever compare a student with a disability to a student without one. If a student has a particular disability that mandates extended time be given to complete an assessment, I think the time should be given and the disabled student should be assessed after he finishes the assessment. To me, it is unfair and discriminatory to compare a student with a disability to one that does not have a disability. Students with disabilities, depending on their disability, will probably need more time to complete an assessment than students without a disability. The most important thing is to assess whether or not every student is learning. Some students learn faster and are able to respond more quickly than other students. Measuring time to complete assessments is irrelevant compared to measuring the actual results of the assessment. Students with disabilities should have extended time to complete an assessment if they need it. Many disabled students are already beginning with a glaring disadvantage compared to their non-disabled peers. Extended time must be granted and no emphasized in assessing disabled students.