Special-needs students should be taught at their own level, even if it’s not going to be on the grade-level test, writes Linda Perlstein, author of Tested, in a Washington Post op-ed. She backs adding a “growth model” to No Child Left Behind, so schools’ progress would be judged “not by calculating how many fourth-graders passed a test compared with the previous year but by measuring the progress made by each child.”
But a large problem remains: Under the versions of the law under discussion, Whitney (a mildly retarded girl) will still be given the fifth-grade test in fifth grade, the sixth-grade test in sixth grade and so on. She will probably fail these tests — no surprise to her teachers — and whatever progress she makes, unless it is so miraculous as to wipe away her deficiencies altogether, will go uncredited. Worse, her time and her teachers’ time will be badly misused.
NCLB doesn’t require the bad teaching practices that Perlstein describes, counters Kevin Carey on The Quick and the Ed.
A growth model “executed properly” would absolutely give Whitney’s school credit for the progress she makes, even if she fails the test. That’s the definition of a growth model.. . . Even under the current, no-growth-model law, schools teaching students like Whitney have two choices: inappropriately teach at grade level, in which case Whitney fails the test this year and every year after that, or teach at the right level, in which case Whitney fails the test this year but catches up and passes tests in the future.
Erin Dillon, also on Quick and the Ed, points out that 30 percent of special-education students don’t take regular tests under NCLB, while 80 percent of special-education students have learning disabilities that don’t preclude grade-level performance.
Perlstein wants special education students to be taught “what they need to learn in order to make their own adequate yearly progress,†Dillon writes.
While that goal may sound nice, in practice it would undermine the increased individual attention special education students receive because of NCLB — increased attention that even Perlstein acknowledges “is easily the best outcome of the law so far.†Critical to this increased individual attention is the fact that NCLB expects most (and perhaps not enough) special education students to reach grade-level standards, spurring schools and districts to give these students the resources they need to achieve at grade level.
Many parents of special-education students want their children tested.
How do you teach students working at very different grade levels in the same classroom? I’ll let teachers answer that. I continue to wonder whether the benefits of mainstreaming nearly all disabled students are worth the costs in teachers’ time and energy.
Joanne,
Teachers used to teach to different grade levels in the one room schoolhouses of the past. The book “Understood Betsy” has a good description. One of the necessary requirements appear to be student self-discipline which is lacking today.
Another idea is to group students by ability rather than age. Has this/is this being done anywhere?
If a sped eighth grade child’s IEP (Individualized Education Plan) says that he will master skills that are at a fifth grade level, then it really doesn’t help to test him at an eighth grade level. It doesn’t show whether the school achieved its goals.
My sped kid is mostly given the grade level test from what I’ve been told. They do make tons of modifications (They read it to him. He has no time limit, etc.), and then I get the depressing results with “ACADEMIC WARNING” stamped all over it and a reminder that, yes, he is in the bottom 3%. Thanks, I didn’t know.
What I’d like to know is if any of the objectives were met on the IEP. I never know that. It’s all very murky because he is always “progressing” towards these things that no one really tests him on. Then, it sort of rolls over to the next year as we just keep on “progressing.”
Erin Dillon, also on Quick and the Ed, points out that 30 percent of special-education students don’t take regular tests under NCLB, while 80 percent of special-education students have learning disabilities that don’t preclude grade-level performance.
Uh, if a student exhibits grade level performance, s/he does not have a learning disability. And, no, if one exhibits a discrepancy between his/her IQ and academic achievement, s/he does not have a learning disability. The discrepancy definition model of classifying students as LD was falsified 20 years ago. Furthermore, there is no such entity as so-called “gifted LD” kids who have IQs of 130 and exhibit average academic achievement. These students are no different from their grade or age level peers in achievement. They are using scarce space in LD programs that should go to students with below average achievement who need the services.
The primary problem with the LD concept is that it does not have an empirically valid definition or diagnostic criteria. Thus, anyone can be classified as LD. In a recent article, Stanovich called the LD concept “pseudoscience.” The concept should be abandoned and students should be provided services if they exhibit below average achievement, not a discrepancy between IQ and achievement, which allows a student with average (grade level) achievement to (wrongly) be classified as LD.
Boy, I’d sure like to see those LD students that anon refers to above.
Additionally, yeah, you *can* have a kid with above average performance in reading/writing and below average in math–and a high IQ. Or vice-versa.
But I sure don’t have that type of kid, much less the type of kid anon talks about on my caseload. What I do have are lots of kids who fit the discrepancy model pretty much bang on.
The issues anon refers to are artifacts of high-socioeconomic schools where the families have money to pull it off. Those of us in the trenches of low income schools sure don’t see it–and find it wildly ironic that theorists like anon postulate such to be the norm.
By the way, anon, what’s the cite for your article, and which Stanovich are you referring to?
Most of my students take grade-level assessments with lots of accommodations. It’s not at all ideal for them, but our state has forbidden challenging down to the appropriate testing level, unless they are so low they can’t even pass a third grade level test in middle school, in which case they qualify for alternative assessments.
Many of my kids don’t meet the standard. They did when they could challenge down. Now state testing is just another way for them to fail. Many of them don’t have parents who value learning, necessarily, or who model reading and literacy for them. Those that do are my high-flyers who end up succeeding, because they do have the support at home. We do our best for them–with what we can.
Anon,
My daughter is a high IQ dyslexic. She was identified early and had excellent reading instruction. As a result, she is a very good, although slow, reader. Her difficulties are mainly in written expression, which was never addressed.
She routinely scores 99th percentile in math, science, social studies, maps, reading comprehension and vocabulary on ITBS. She scores way below grade level on the spelling, grammar and usage portions.
I took her out to home school her in 4th grade because the scores in her weak areas kept going down, and the teachers were convinced she was lazy. She had even started having trouble with math, because the blasted curriculum was so heavily verbal (write about your favorite number!). With very directed, explicit instruction, she has made great progress in her written expression, although I imagine she will always struggle with it to some degree.
I don’t think you have a good understanding of what constitutes a learning disability.
“The concept should be abandoned and students should be provided services if they exhibit below average achievement, not a discrepancy between IQ and achievement, which allows a student with average (grade level) achievement to (wrongly) be classified as LD.”
I would go further and say that special ed services should be limited to those with a lower than X (say, 80) IQ.
I realize that this would result in many kids in wealthy school districts not qualifying for free services that would make their education optimal. Oh, well. I realize it’s a drag, but parents with those kids will just have to pay more.
Actually, I’d say that all special ed programs, regardless, should be funded by the feds, leaving states and local districts to fund “normal” education. Then parents can duke it out with the feds as to whether or not their expenses are tax deductible.
I’d say some of you have never had any real experience teaching a kid with an IQ in the 80’s or 90’s with a pervasive developmental delay or severe ADHD.
I’d also venture to say that some of you have never taught any kid with an average IQ and a serious LD.
I believe the key words are “appropriate education.” You can label it “free services” all you want, but if you actually walked the walk, I doubt you would label it so.
Gifted LD kids are often neglected in schools, and yet their parents pay taxes, too. These kids suffer tremendously as they are kicked out of accelerated or gifted classes where they belong because they can’t write or read. IQ tests usually flush out the deficit, but it does no good if schools can’t see what is going on. Stuffing a gifted kid in a class much lower than his ability is torturous.
Again, as far as NCLB and sped kids not taking the tests, my impression after years as a parent in the system is that the teachers do their best to administer the test as is, unless it is simply impossible. Then, the modifications come in, but only if they have taken a good shot at it. Sometimes, they just make the modification after years of knowing that little Johnny is not going to be doing pre-algebra when he can’t understand the number line. But again, it’s been my experience that they always try.
Their parents pay taxes, but that doesn’t entitle them to *more* services, just the same. And a kid who can’t write or read does not belong in accelerated or gifted classes.
This doesn’t mean they don’t deserve an education, or that they can’t be taught. However, they should be well outside the mandate of public schools.
Rather than respond to each person individually, I’ll just refer you to some articles in the research literature and leave it at that. The literature is quite clear on the issue of discrepancy. Look at the references sections in each of the articles. There are numerous (dozens) studies that you can read and to which you can refer.
* Stanovich, K. (2005). The future of a mistake: Will discrepancy measurement continue to make the learning disabilities a pseudoscience? Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 103-106.
*Aaron, P.G. (1997) The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461-502.
*Stuebing, K., Fletcher, J., et al. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classification of reading difficulties: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469-518.
*Stanovich, K. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 7-29.
* Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D., & Lyon, G.R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223-238.
Sorry, but I can’t resist making one final point. If a student is a “good reader” and scores in the 99th percentile on the Vocabulary and Comprehension sections of the ITBS, she is not dyslexic. This is an example of the type of nonsense spawned by the LD and the discrepancy concepts.
Cal,
It entitles them to appropriate services, whatever that may be. If it’s more, it’s more. If it’s less, then it’s less.
And seriously, you don’t have a clue about gifted kids when you make a comment like that.
I’ll make one final point, however. You pay on this end or you will pay on the other. Take your choice.
Anon, you are wrong.
Dyslexia= difficulty with language. Could be reading, could be written expression, could be lots of other things. Many dyslexics learn to read well, with appropriate instruction.
You do not understand learning disabilities. They are not the same as intelligence.
http://www.readingrockets.org/article/16282
“It entitles them to appropriate services, whatever that may be. If it’s more, it’s more. If it’s less, then it’s less.”
Says someone whose kid is costing the state much, much more. Of course you’re in favor of it.
However, if states are constantly responsible for putting out endless reams of money for any student whose parent has his or her hand out with a never ending list of possible “disabiliies”, public school will cease to be workable. As it is, most parents don’t have a clue how much individual kids are costing the system–if they did, support would dry up rapidly.
It just doesn’t scale.
“You pay on this end or you will pay on the other. ”
Unlikely. A huge number of kids qualifying for “special ed” have wealthy parents who will pay for services if they aren’t funded.
However, I thought my post made it obvious that I expected to pay. I just think the payment should be funded and argued for at the federal level, as just one more special interest. It should not be conflated with public education.
A good article about gifted/LD here http://www.ldonline.org/article/6074
I don’t see that anyone is disagreeing with you that the IQ-Achievement discrepancy isn’t an appropriate way to diagnose LD’s.
Cal,
What are you talking about? Where did you get this wealthy parent thing?
The vast majority of sped kids in my district are barely middle class. The nearest Sped/LD private school has a tuition of $20,000+, something only parents from a few towns over can afford. The parents I know are stuck with the public schools. Private schools won’t take kids with severe LDs or low IQs. These parents have no choice but to work within the system.
But, sorry if that offends you.
And actually, my kid is not costing the state “much, much more.” I’d go into detail, but you sound pretty determined to be right even when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
And yes, you will pay on the other end if these kids cannot function in society. If you knew anything about it you would see that high schools often have several levels of sped that involves job training from the 9th grade on to try to ensure that these kids can make it on their own.
And just for the record, sped kids aren’t usually on the school’s sports teams and chess clubs. They aren’t competing in science fairs and math contests. They won’t be editors of the school newspaper or yearbook. They probably won’t travel with the chorus/band/drama club and compete at region and state.
That would be money the school would spend on YOUR kid.
if students’ IEPs are to master skills at the 5th grade level … are they in fact in 5th grade, even if not physically? Issue gets intensified when students change schools and districts.
do/should IEP metrics trump grade level requirements?
more complex when in the 5th grade in some fields and in the 8th grade in others, of course.
anon,
I checked out this article by Frank Vellutino, whom you cited above. As you say, his research shows that IQ/performance discrepancy is not an adequate way to diagnose a learning disability in reading. I didn’t see anyone on this thread disagreeing, but maybe I missed a post.
In his study of first graders, he found that among the 9% or so of students who had reading difficulties, the majority could be remediated readily, with some one-to-one tutoring for a year or less. But some of the students with reading problems couldn’t be remediated easily– they seemingly had a biological problem with phonologically based skills. This latter group is the true dyslexics; they were some 1-2% of the student population Vellutino studied.
Dyslexics will have trouble learning to read, he discovered. They’ll need more explicit tutoring, over a longer period. However, I saw no evidence that dyslexics who get that training will not eventually become good, if slow, readers, if they work hard enough.
If a bright student is dyslexic, and that student gets focused tutoring, learns to read, and then becomes an omnivorous reader, he’ll develop superior vocabulary and comprehension skills. That’s what happened to Howitzer’s daughter, and, pretty much, what happened to my son (though I doubt he’s in the 99th percentile). Rather than pretend that these students aren’t really dyslexic, we should appreciate how hard they worked to overcome their disability. We also have to realize that because of their disability, some things will always be hard for them: learning a foreign language, for example.
Who is getting a good education in the public schools? I’m beginning to think it’s those with an IQ of 95-105, a two parent family, no learning or behavioural problems and the ability to sit quietly for hours on end in boring classes without needing to use the bathroom. What proportion of the student population is that?
Sister said, “Anon, you are wrong. Dyslexia= difficulty with language. Could be reading, could be written expression, could be lots of other things. Many dyslexics learn to read well, with appropriate instruction. You do not understand learning disabilities. They are not the same as intelligence. I don’t see that anyone is disagreeing with you that the IQ-Achievement discrepancy isn’t an appropriate way to diagnose LD’s.”
Oh, gosh. Dyslexia means no such thing, Sister. Dyslexia is a severe reading (and spelling) disability. This defintion is accepted by all serious researchers in the reading field. If a student does not have reading problems, s/he is not dyslexic. In addition, dyslexics don’t learn to read well–that’s why they are dyslexic. If a student is classified as dyslexic and learns to read well, s/he was not dyslexic in the first place.
Of course LD and intelligence are not the same thing. Dyslexia (reading disability) is defined as having a severe phonological processing deficit; that is, the student has problems with decoding words and cannot learn letter-sound relationships and the phonetic generalizations for decoding words. In addition, s/he may have problems with phonemic awareness. This is the standard defintion that is accepted by all serious reading researchers that publish in the field. Moreover, this is not a new finding. By 1980, it was clear that reading problems are due to phonological processing problems. For example, Frank Vellutino described this research in his 1979 book, Dyslexia, which he later capsulized in a 1987 article in Scientific American. Since that time, the research evidence has only supported the findings that reading disability (dyslexia) is a phonolgical processing deficit.
Please read the articles that I referenced in an earlier post. If the LD field continues to promulgate the nonsense that it does, then the field will become increasingly irrelevant. Stanovich and others have warned the LD field that the more the field expands the parameters of the LD concept, the more the concept is undermined. At this point, no one can trust that a diagnosis of LD is correct because after 40 years, the field has yet to produce an empirically valid definition or diagnostic criteria.
From the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke:
As I understand it, people with mild to moderate dyslexia can learn to read and write well enough to be successful in school and in life. Billionaire Charles Schwab is dyslexic. He says he still is a slow reader of unfamiliar material and relies heavily on books on tape.
Cal said:
“I just think the payment should be funded and argued for at the federal level, as just one more special interest. It should not be conflated with public education.”
Why?
Mrs. Davis said:
“Who is getting a good education in the public schools?…”
Bravo!
anon,
Yes, yes, dyslexia is a biological impairment in phonological processing. Dyslexics will have trouble learning to read. But that doesn’t mean that a dyslexic student can’t learn to read– if that were true, it would be pointless to offer remediation.
Instead, it means that dyslexics will have difficulty learning to read, and will need extra help, often quite a lot of it for a long time. But with the extra help, a bright dyslexic can become an omnivorous, if slower, reader. I know– I have just such a kid. Fang Jr. didn’t learn to read until he was nine, and he still has issues with spelling. But it’s virtually impossible to pry his nose out of a book. He’ll always be dyslexic, but he’s no longer a poor reader. His vocabulary and his reading comprehension are excellent.
Anon,
I’ve read plenty of Stanovich. And Lyon and Torgeson and Wolf and all the other reading disability researchers. I don’t know why you’re so focused on this IQ-achievement issue. We agree that it’s not a valid way to diagnose LD’s.
The fact is, gifted kids can have dyslexia. Not all dyslexia is severe, and some kids are more easily remediated than others. In my daughter’s case, she had many of the classic signs as a preschooler (late talker, difficulty learning letters and sounds, difficulty with rhymes and jingles, etc.). She had a very difficult time learning to read in K-1, but the school was using a whole language approach and once we started an explicit phonics program she made rapid progress. Similar to Cardinal Fang’s son, she is a voracious, but slow reader with excellent comprehension and terrible spelling. Her vocabulary is excellent, yet she would stumble on a simple 4 letter nonsense word. I am quite sure if she had not had private intervention (the school was not involved) she would not be reading at grade level.
You’re thinking is too simplistic. Many dyslexics have impaired phonological processing, but there is another group that has rapid automatic naming deficits. The most severely affected have both (double deficit hypothesis- look it up). Severity of impairment varies, and remediation is not predicted by IQ. My daughter simply has a mild case.
What infuriates me is that if the schools would use more appropriate reading instruction in the first place, other kids like my daughter would not end up in sped at all. There would still be a group of severe dyslexics who would need much more intensive intervention, but the mild and moderate cases WOULD learn to read.
The discussion here about LD and dyslexia confirms why researchers such as Stanovich* have recommended that the terms LD and dyslexia are not necessary and should be abandoned. Because the terms do not have empirically valid definitions and diagnostic criteria, they create so much confusion that people in the same field cannot talk about them. When they do, they are generally talking about totally different concepts. More confirmation that education (and special education) does not have a knowledge base that is shared within and across teachers, school districts, states, education professors, and education schools. Of course, this is the primary reason why education cannot be a profession. (Sigh)
*Stanovich, K. (1994). Annotation: Does dyslexia exist? J. of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 579-595.
*Stanovich, K. (1999). The sociopsychometrics of learning disabilities, 32, 350-361.
Hi!
I have to agree with Sister Howitzer on the curriculum — my son sounds a lot like her daughter — able to compensate well on reading but still struggles on spelling, grammar and written output. Unlike her daughter he did have a strong reading curriculum (Open Court) and therefore was able to learn to read and actually do so above grade level. However as his Mom I always felt there was a disconnect between his ease (or lack thereof) in reading and his ability but since he seemed to be doing well, I just wrote it off to “mother’s anxiety”. However by 4th grade it was evident that he couldn’t spell. Even after a week of writing words 5X’s each, etc and then studying for 60 to 120 minutes he could barely pass the weekly spelling quiz. He never even had to study for any other subject. His written output was also well below the norm of the rest of his class. So he was evaluated and sure enough the issues for output were clearly there and oh, yes — by the way — so were reading issues. It’s just that the combination of a strong curriculum, intelligence and hard work had allowed him to compensate and read successfully.
However I have also seen the damage that the whole language curriculum can do — I have an older step-daughter who was taught via whole language and I even remember her sped teacher telling us not to use phonics because “she can’t learn phonics”. Although successful overall, she still has to work extra hard on reading and writing tasks today as a young adult.
anon,
If we abandon the term dyslexia, how do we describe Fang Jr., Sister Howitzer’s daughter and Charter Mom’s son? All have phonological problems leading to difficulty in learning to read and continuing problems with spelling and written output. Don’t we need a term to describe children like that? Isn’t dyslexia that term?
Some kids are wrongly identified as dyslexic, when in fact they just need some short-term tutoring and they’ll come right up to grade level, as long as that tutoring is given soon enough. These problem readers are the majority of problem readers in younger grades– at least, the Vellutino study I read said that. I assume you agree.
OK. Fine. I don’t see anyone here disagreeing. Nevertheless, after that quick remediation sorts out the kids who can be helped by it, there are some problem readers left. What do you want to call them? Don’t we need a name?
anon,
As you are so fixated on semantics, I cannot help but wonder why you are posting anonymously. Could it be that you lack the courage of your convictions? No one is arguing the fact that learning disabilities cannot be quantified. Given the plethora of resources you’ve cited, I’m surprised you haven’t referenced IDEA 2004:
“A State must adopt, consistent with 34 CFR 300.309, criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteria adopted by the State:
* Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10);
* Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; and
* May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10).”
http://idea.ed.gov
The response to intervention model necessitates the input of all instructional personnel who work with a student, both general and special educators. In many cases, the special educator will be training the general educator in the implementation of the intervention. Of course, it will be a stretch for us non-professionals, but we’ll give it the old college try.
Speaking of college, I’d like to address a few comments to Cal. I have a child with a disability (diagnosed medically). Over the years, I have paid thousands of dollars out of pocket for various therapies and treatments not covered by my insurance. Often, I’ve had to use our home equity loan to do so. As a highly qualified special education teacher (yes, I’m required to have multiple endorsements on my license), I don’t make much money. The cost of my grad school classes (so that I can finish my masters in education) comes out of my pocket. Perhaps you can tell me where the wealthy parents of special ed kids live so that I can join their club as my membership application seems to have been lost in the mail.
You think my child is a financial burden on the schools? I would argue that he contributes something priceless. Students like him teach others that everyone is not like them, that there are multiple ways of expressing intelligence, and that the world is much bigger than their tidy little suburban existence. In short, they present their peers with the opportunity to develop character. I’m sorry you did not have that opportunity when you were in school.
Joanne, forgive me for hijacking your blog.