Yesterday, I was particularly interested in reading an article regarding major revisions of No Child Left Behind's testing standards for special education students.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-nclb0404,0,1157759.story?coll=bal-education-top
In the article, Nancy Zuckerbrod explores the changing nature of standardized exams to accomodate a broader range of struggling learners. Whereas the first accomodation only addressed students with severe learning disabilities, supporting ten percent of the population, now students who work with disabilities, such as dyslexia, are now also accomodated. Thirty percent of the special education population is now supported within standardized testing with on-going discussion about how to make the exams even more accesible for students with learning disabilities.
Looking at NCLBs expectations for students, I support the push for accountability and high standards for all student. I also feel that these changes in testing are necessary for the wide range of diverse learners in the education system. While I fully support accomodations, I do not believe that standards need to be lowered for students with learning disabilities, only adjusted. All students should work at their own level of rigor.
This topic is an on-going discussion (debate might be a more appropriate word) within my school regarding the High School Assessment (HSA). Specifically, the discussion/debate centers around the rigor of our English classes for special education students. One special education teacher insists that the test is changing to accommodate all our lower-level learners and, therefore, we can't expect to teach the same material as we would to our regular education students. In other words, we don't need to worry about this year's test because our students will have an easier exam to take next year. Of course, the response to this teacher's position is adamant that few changes will be made to accommodate this population of students and, therefore, we need to infuse our instruction with greater rigor in order to ensure that students have all the tools necessary to meet the expectations outlined for this school year. I'm confident that I am not alone in similar team dichotomies.
As hard as I try to build a callus against lowered expecations, working within a system that allows teachers to excuse educational practices because changed testing standards justifies lowered standards is disheartening. Already, the curriculum and resources are "too advanced" and "inaccessible" for students in some of these classes. Note: This information is shared as I'm watching these same students, who cannot access the text, reading from the teacher's curriculum bookshelf. While I support the move to accomodate all learners, I'm disheartened by the potential for abuse. Will students be excused from rigorous work because teachers believe the testing level will drop to a "more manageable," elementary level standard? What is a system to do with teachers whose expectations are six grade levels behind their standard?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment