The complaint of being forced to “teach to the test” has always made me cringe. All of us should be teaching and/or reinforcing basic reading and writing skills in our classrooms. A review of certain test-taking skills should be the only other thing that’s required. If, that is, our students are motivated to learn. I know there are secondary (and maybe even elementary) teachers who are so in love with the literary content of the language arts that they don’t want to deal with the skills involved. Unfortunately, that is a luxury for teachers who work in a school system where social promotion doesn’t occur, where everyone speaks perfect English, and where everyone entering their classroom is already reading and writing at grade level. Is there a school like that out there?

One of the stimuli for NCLB and our WASL was the complaint from businesses and universities that our public schools were graduating students who were incapable of constructing a well thought out, well organized piece of writing or of reading critically. I have said before (and I will stand by it) that the tenth grade reading and writing WASL (which should be the only summative level at the end of a series of formative assessments) is a valid test that measures basic competency. The big problem is that it is ridiculous to assume that 100% of our special ed students and English language learners should be held accountable or that it should be a single criterion that can make or break a student’s ability to graduate.

I think a question I would like to hear the answer to is this: Have the basic reading and writing skills of our “average” kids improved because of the WASL? I do hope that policy makers will take the answer into account when they are redefining and refining Washington assessments.

Follow Stories from School: Practice meets Policy on Twitter.

Comments

Bob, I do think that this discussion will be one more relevant to my next post, which will be on the 15th. Mark, I think that any discussion that gets policy makers to think about how the legislation they write impacts the classroom or gets teachers to think about how their practice in that classroom impacts their students is a good conversation - tangents or not.

This thread is a great example of the dangers of e-communication. I think I'm reading people's comments through the wrong lens.

Thanks, Kim, for explaining further what you meant by it is ridiculous to assume... Your explanation appears consistent with what most teachers say.

You offered a good post. I don't want to take it on a tangent. Let me know if you want me to respond to Meredith, et al., to offer another post about the assumption and teacher instructional choices and school disabilities, or if you want me to drop it.

Bob...are you saying that ALL kids with disabilites can meet state standards? I want to make sure I understand that you really don't expect my little girl with a less than average IQ to meet or exceed the science test given to 8th graders in Oregon?

I would absolutely LOVE to have the time to tutor, in class, every student who struggles with the curriculum. Unfortunately, in the 54 minutes a day that I get to see my kids, it just doesn't work out. Plus, I have never been trained to tutor a kid with dyslexia or other disability. I welcome every student into my classroom before or after school, and I have often given up my lunch to help kids who didn't get the needed skills in class. There is a HUGE difference between kids who just need a little extra tutoring and kids who have disabilities. I can help them by doing oral rather than written assessments or by given them truncated or alternate assignments. However, when I have thirty kids in every class it is physically impossible to find the time to work with the multiple SpEd kids I have in every class to overcome their disability. This doesn't even begin to address the topic of whether they would like to be singled out like that (which will be the topic of my next blog entry). How in the world could I "create" a disability such as dyslexia with instructional choices in my high school English class?

Yes, Mark, I asked what Kim means when she said "it is ridiculous ..." I asked, because we all know ways for students assigned to sped classes to meet state standards. Sped programs and classes exist, because teachers in "regular" classes, for various reasons, don't use those methods. We all also know that many informed people have argued for decades that educators make these school disabilities by our instructional decisions. For example, I know a woman with stigmata you described with a doctorate in education, another learning to read when her classroom teacher in WA tutors her, for extra pay from the parents, out of class, but doesn't in class. So, why then is it ridiculous to assume ... ? Isn't that a reasonable reasonable question?

My twelve cents: When I first read it, I bristled at Bob's post about 100% accountability for Special Education students. Several times, I filled the comment box with rants and raves, then proceeded to not post because once upon a time a learned some hard lessons about emails sent in moments of emotion.

So I suppose I need some clarification, Bob, about your question: are you asking why it is ridiculous for 100% of special education students to be held accountable to mainstream standards? Or are you asking why it is ridiculous for 100% of special education students to meet or be held accountable to A standard?

To me, if the question is the former, that's the response I can't articulate in appropriate language. If the question is the latter, ABSOLUTELY special education students should be held accountable to A standard (as opposed to THE standard), but as IDEA and similar rules/laws suggest, it is entirely reasonable to modify that standard to what is appropriate for that student and that's student's capacity. I believe all students, regardless of capacity, benefit from relevant, appropriate, and challenging standards that push them to grow and develop as is reasonable for their situation. Such standards, therefore, cannot be universal, but must be individual. Think of all the malpractice suits if every doctor were to set all broken bones the same way (a brace and cast on the leg) regardless of where the break was, or what bone was broken. Part of life is acceptance that the nature of the world is grey, not black and white, and that often the best course of action is not the exact same course that the masses have already taken.

The whole premise of 100% has always rubbed me the wrong way. The natural diversity of humans, of learners, means that there will always be some who do not meet the standard. That is fine if we can accept that some students, despite our and their efforts, will simply not meet standard; just as we must accept that in life, some people will simply not work as hard as others, no matter how many times they are fired from their jobs... to assume we can save everyone is naive and futile. Unfortunately, if schools are expected to achieve 100% meeting standard, the easiest way to accomplish this is to lower the standard until all 100% can clear the bar...which is set just high enough to only challenge the lowest .5%.

I think it is entirely acceptable, in fact necessary, to establish standards and learning goals toward which that exceptional student must reach and ultimately achieve. To assume that a legally blind child with Down's who functions as a positive part of the school community should be held to the same standard as a mainstream student is unfair--but he certainly should be held to whatever standards are appropriate for his learning and development and receive due credit when those standards are met.

Yes, Travis, we agree. I too try to use a broad set of instructional methods. I also assume that other teachers obtain the results they want with the methods they use or they'd use other methods.

Further, we all know that certified teachers know how to make sure that students labeled disabled by schools meet state expectations. If we all did so, then the main justification (not learning sufficient content in regular classes) for sped would not exist.

That's the reason I asked for clarification about why it's ridiculous to assume that 100% of sped students should be held accountable.

Yes?

Bob Heiny made a comment, which I hope I am not taking out of the context of its intent, ". . . to alert teachers to use other than normal methods with students in their classes . . . ."

Other than normal methods? I teach. I do not have a set of normal methods. I use whatever method works best for that student in that situation, or for that concept in that class setting. I am not implying that Bob does not already think this way, but are there teachers that would unconsciously think "I wish I had a way to help this student, but the only way that I could would be to use a method or strategy typically used by SPED teachers"?

A strong teacher will draw on whatever skills he possesses, and if he is even stronger, he will draw on the skills of his colleague in the classroom next to him who has success with students.

Thanks, Kim, for addressing my question. I asked, because SpEd is an administrative category intended to alert teachers to use other than normal methods with students in their classes assigned to that category. Perhaps another time we can review how teachers use ways for students labeled disabled in regular classes to pass standardized tests. I appreciate your clear writing style!