On March 8, 2010, Liz Bowie of the Baltimore Sun reported that “a federal judge ended 26 years of oversight of the school system and paved the way for a final settlement in two years.” The lawsuit was G. Vaughan vs. the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore et al., filed in 1984 by the Maryland Disabilities Law Center on behalf of students with disabilities who had not received appropriate services.
In a press release issued the same day under the auspices of Dr. Andreas A. Alonso, Baltimore City Schools C.E.O., Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, and Neil E. Duke, Esquire, Chairman of the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners, Dr. Alonso was quoted as saying,“As a city, we should be proud. The progress exemplified by this Settlement Agreement is yet another signal that our schools are emerging as a model for urban schools across the nation.” The press release included MSA results that indicated that special education students had outpaced gains by general education students in Math and Reading.
Certainly, percentile improvements in M.S.A. results for Special Education students are a positive change. In examining the scores themselves, however, we find a broad disparity in scores between the M.S.A. snapshot scores, which include MSA and Mod-MSA scores this year, scores for Special Education students, and scores for the Mod-MSA itself. In sixth grade Reading, for example, snapshot scores were 68.4%, Mod-Reading scores were 35.0%, and Reading Special Education scores were 41.5%. For eighth grade Reading, snapshot scores were 61.6, Mod-MSA scores were 35.8, and Special Education Scores were 32.2%.
Seque to Math. In 2009, snapshot Math scores for sixth grade were 58.1% versus 32.2% for Mod-MSA, and 34.9% for Special Education. Eighth grade snapshot Math scores were 39.2%, versus 23.6% for mod-MSA and 20.6% for Special Education. Furthermore an examination of scores from sixth, seventh, and eighth grade indicates that scores were consistently lower in all but two areas in higher level grades.
Are these disparities acceptable in a school system that acknowledges that 15% of its students require Special Education services? Perhaps it is time that Marylanders and Baltimoreans take a closer look at COMAR 13A.05.01 Provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education, specifically B.09A(1)(i): Meeting the student’s needs that results from the student’s disability to enable the student to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum. Does being “involved in and progress in the general curriculum” mean that we are mandated to help the child reach his potential as a self-supporting, active citizen?
In the State of Connecticut, Special Education laws are written so that school systems are legally required to meet the potential of the child. There is a huge difference. We high school teachers see it daily: inaccurate diagnosis and inadequate remediation; “cured” LD students mainstreamed to the regular classroom who are not ready for prime time; one-size-fits-all IEP accommodations that cross disability; upward grade mobility due to the pressure to pass; poor to no intervention services; Special Education teachers administering more than teaching; and General Educators left to figure it all out.
Perhaps the settlement of this lawsuit will bring good things to Baltimore City: freeing up our Special Educators so they can do what they do best: teach children with handicapping conditions. Or perhaps the loosened compliance restrictions will make us lackadaisical once again. Whatever the result, they are our children and our future, and they deserve better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As a teacher in the public school system, I can certainly recognize that at least in my school, despite the amount of time that teachers and special educators dedicate to the realm of special education, we are still very far from meeting the needs of our students with IEPs.
The high school I work at is a full inclusion school, so students with IEPs spend most, if not all of their time in the general ed. classroom. However, in the 9th grade we are overwhelmed with the number of students with IEPs. Currently, 30% of our 9th grade students have IEPs, and as a result, some of our classes have as many as 10 students who need modifications and accommodations on a daily basis. In order to make sure that we are meeting the needs of these students, we have been assigned a co-teacher/special educator who is required to work in the classroom and plan with the teachers. However, this is yet to happen. Despite the fact that the special educator has a schedule that says he will be in my classroom Tuesday through Friday, and we will plan on Monday, there is always some reason why he can’t do that part of his job. In lieu of us meeting to plan, he often asks me to e-mail lessons so that he can make suggestions and help with accommodations and modifications. Once again, this has never happened.
Although I make modifications and accommodations in my classroom to assist my students, I am a new teacher who still knows very little about special education. My guess is that the special educator isn't a horrible person, but someone who, like the rest of the staff, is overwhelmed with paperwork, documentation, and the sheer amount of work he is responsible that always seems to take precedent over actually helping the students. And while we all spend so much time in special ed. meetings, filling out progress reports, and completing documentation, looking at the grades and the levels of achievement, it is clear that the students with special needs in my school are not excelling, and to me, this is not a step in the right direction.
Post a Comment