| Author |
Message |
    
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 2510
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:11 pm: | 
|
I am on an e-list for announcements from the NJ Dept of Education. And while I know that the federal NCLB law is arbitrary in many ways, it is still the reality with which we as a district must grapple. Today I was very dismayed to find that Columbia H.S. was noted in the final "Adequate Yearly Progress" report in the following manner:
"Only one school – Columbia Senior High School in the South Orange-Maplewood school district – went to a higher level of sanctions, from year two "hold status" (preliminary calculations indicated that the students had made AYP in 2005 after not making it for three years in a row) to year three sanctions."
Here is the source:
http://www.state.nj.us/njded/news/2006/0331ayp.htm
I had to wonder if our Superintendant's resignation is coincidental or not.
But, more importantly, BOE members: this happened on Renee Pollock's watch. I work in an inner city school district that has handled these problems better. (See the info on Jersey City schools on the same site.) |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5265
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:29 pm: |
|
There is more detailed information available, regarding the "Adequate Yearly Progress" ("AYP") reports -
http://www.nj.gov/njded/title1/accountability/profiles/05/final/
"AYP" is measured via 41 different indicators. Schools have to show "AYP" in every indicator, for every sub-group of students. The sub-groups include White students, African-American Students, and other racial and ethnic groups. The sub-groups also include "Students with Disabilities", "Economically Disadvantaged", and "Limited English Proficient".
Columbia High School made "AYP" in 40 of those categories.
The one we missed - Students With Disabilities. This is the page from the NJ DOE report on Columbia High School -
I believe that the parents of special education students have been trying to warn us about our deficiencies in that area for some time. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4616
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Why should students with disabilities be counted at all. This group changes from year to year with different issues each year. It is ridiculous that NCLB measures this group. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11116
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Since the level of need among Special Education students can vary so much year to year, it is very hard to figure how a year to year comparison can be made. I think there is some mechanism for trying to smooth this out, but how good is it?
Among general education students the abilities in a reasonably stable district aren't going to vary that much from year to year. In other words this years juniors are probably in the same general ball park with this years seniors as far as educational level is concerned. |
breal
Citizen
Username: Breal
Post Number: 802
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:55 pm: |
|
C Bataille: I am glad Jersey City is doing better. But what is the classroom spending per student in Jersey City? I almost don't want to hear about Jersey City's effective practices, because we probably couldn't afford them. Really. It's almost better not to know.
|
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 2511
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 1:05 pm: |
|
If this is the only indicator on which we have problems then LOTS of resources should be directed to resolving problems on this one indicator. This is serious business, folks. We can lose lots of Federal dollars (ironic, given the hideously low level of funding the feds provide along with the Special Ed mandates.)
Here's another irony. In my work district, the special ed students made the greatest gains of any group last year. How? Inclusion classrooms for all but the most severely disabled students. Everybody back to their home schools and regular classrooms. Money spent on bussing went to pay salaries for inclusion teachers working in classrooms alongside regular ed teachers. Mind you, Jersey City is big enough that we have had our own special ed schools, never mind classes. And now that they are back in the regular classrooms, with some pull-out, MOST of the kids are doing pretty well. And mostly they are glad to be there. I counsel a lot of these kids (another support built into their academic programs.)
In my building of 1,000 K-8 students we have two "transition" classes. One for grades 3-5 and one for 6-8. These classes have one certified special ed teacher and two assistants. Each has about 12 kids with a wide variety of disabilities, including behavioral. The goal is to transition each student back into a regular classroom as soon as possible. The upper level kids often have a couple of regular classes (whatever their academic strength is, like math or social studies in addition to their specials) with the general ed population to try it out and maintain peer connections. Then, if they are successful they will return to regular ed (with the use of resource room "pull out" or inclusion teaching) next year.
It takes will and determination. But there's no reason to write off special ed kids or blame district difficulties on them. And there are many serious legal and monetary reasons to give them the resources they need to succeed. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11117
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Cathy, interesting. A couple of weeks ago in our now on hiatus Education Section some parents of special ed kids were complaining about bringing them back to the district and using the pullout approach from regular classes. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5266
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Whatever the cause of the lack of adequate progress for the students with disabilities - I don't think Ms. Pollock can be blamed for this. This is more of a district administration issue. |
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 2513
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 2:57 pm: |
|
You may be right, Nohero, but as the senior administrator in that building (and note that the serious AYP problems are not district-wide but confined to one building) it is her job to make sure that everything possible is being done for her SpEd students and to demand from the Superintendant and the Board whatever is needed for them to succeed. What I would give her some slack on, if closer analysis bears it out, is whether the kids NOT making AYP are those kids who are in out-of-district placements. If such is the case we need to stop using those schools and either find other placements or bring the kids back into district with lots of support, possibly developing a parallel program at Montrose.
If Columbia goes down because of this one issue, it will be a grave problem for ALL of us, not just for Ms. Pollock or the SpEd students, or the BOE or the Superintendant. It is an entirely
preventable catastrophe waiting to happen in the very near future. |
finnegan
Supporter
Username: Finnegan
Post Number: 312
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 2:57 pm: |
|
ffof - It is not ridiculous to measure the progress of special education students, indeed when they are completely removed from groups whose scores matter, then there is no incentive to educate them at all. That leads to warehousing the sped kids in classrooms where no learning happens nor is any expected, a not uncommon problem, nationally more than in NJ, before NCLB. One of the few good things about NCLB is that it forces school districts to be accountable for the education of their classified students. Afterall, even the most profoundly disabled students are capable of learning, to suggest otherwise is tantamount to calling their humanity into question. (And there is an alternative assessment procedure available for the most seriously disabled students, but it's open to a very small percentage of sped students.)
However, NCLB goes awry (IMHO) when it disallows any adjustment in the expectations for student performance based on special ed. classification or current educational performance. So, you could have a 4th grader who begins the year reading at a kindergarten level, and through good special education services makes tremendous progress - maybe he even ends the year reading at a third grade level. For such a student it would be a great school year of wonderful progress. But NCLB is not set up to take account of the PROGRESS he has personally made, indeed he will be measured based on the generic standards of any other fourth grader, and will thus officially "fail" because he is not reading on a fourth grade level. Can you imagine how incredibly discouraging this is to the student? (not to mention to his teacher?)
Testing to measure the student's progress and expecting school districts to be accountable for the education of their special ed. students is completely reasonable, especially given the financial resources devoted to special ed. The rigid standards imposed by NCLB, however, largly undercut it's promise to the special education community.
And, thanks Nohero, it's true that the Sped parents have been advocating inclusion for the past several years. Maria Eppolite, our former Director, was a passionate advocate of inclusion. And thanks also to C. Bataille for explaining how an inclusion model works in her district. More inclusionary practices, more professional development opportunities for general ed. teachers, more use of a "push-in" as oppossed to the "pull-out" model, more support for inclusion from building principals, all these things need to occur.
|
J. Crohn
Supporter
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2473
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 3:05 pm: |
|
One advantage to inclusion, where possible, is that Sped students sometimes have aides who, when they are not actively needed by the Sped students themselves, can help manage the rest of the class. In general, it's useful having additional adult supervision. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4617
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 4:15 pm: |
|
Oh my G*d,, I re-read my post and I am terribly sorry to have gotten my meaning garbled. I did not mean that they should not be counted at all. Of course we, as a district, should monitor the progress of our sped students.
I meant that I think it ridiculous for a school to be held accountable to NCLB based on the Sped students. The make-up of spec ed, I would imagine, varies greatly from year to year. So while one year many kids are brought up from , for instance, a K level to a 4th grade level in reading, the next year that might not be the case because the Sped cases are different. To say a school is failing because of that is nuts. |
bklyntonj
Citizen
Username: Bklyntonj
Post Number: 629
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Wow ffof, I actually agree with you. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1599
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 4:30 pm: |
|
If you don't count special ed kids many schools would put underperforming kids in special ed so their poor grades don't count against the schools' overall scores.
This conundrum is one of the many problems with NCLB. |
finnegan
Supporter
Username: Finnegan
Post Number: 313
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Well, I'm afraid to say that I don't agree with ffof. Special education is not meant to be remediation for a kid who has fallen behind. It's not the case that kids are classified, get some extra help, and then get unclassified - or at least not usually. THe whole point of special eduation classifications is to acknowledge that some children have certain specific learning disabilities (the educational classification "non-specific learning disability" notwithstanding.  )
I'd have to check with Dr. Barker to be sure, but I think most kids who become classified as eligible for special education services, remain classified for at least several years if not their whole school careers. I do know that some number of kids with mild issues who are classified in elementary, become unclassified at the secondary level, in no small part because kids are very reluctant to be identified as "special ed" once they hit middle school.
Now if you want to argue that it's unfair for a school to be labeled "failing" when it doesn't meet any single indicator out of the whole 41 indicators, I would agree. But if you're saying that a school shouldn't be judged by their special education services, when they are being judged by their attendance rates and their drop out rates, and any number of other single factors - I would disagree with that. |
Debby
Citizen
Username: Debby
Post Number: 2254
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Just an FYI for people who I'm certain mean no offense..."sped" is pretty offensive.
I realize posters here are using it as a nickname/acronym for special ed, but for decades it has been a derogatory term for kids with very obvious disabilities. It is akin to calling someone "retard". |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13353
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 4:59 pm: |
|
One can only speculate what the reasons for Horoschak's resignation are. He may not feel free to answer questions about that frankly, even if he, himself, asks.
|
Jeff Markel
Citizen
Username: Jeffmarkel
Post Number: 142
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Here's the story, as I got it from the district:
The original set of 2005 test data showed CHS making “adequate yearly progress.” The state revised the numbers and CHS failed because of 15 special education students who failed the language arts portion of the test. Several of the 15 are out-of-district placements whose scores nonetheless count for CHS as the sending district.
416 students took the 11th-grade HSPA. 35 of them were in special education, which is the exact minimum number required for the special ed. scores to count. If one less special education student had taken the test, the scores would not have counted and CHS would have made AYP.
The sanctions for this third year are exactly the same as for the second year: referrals for supplemental services. Because the referrals have already happened, as a practical matter there is no new impact.
====
If I get more I'll pass it on. |
finnegan
Supporter
Username: Finnegan
Post Number: 314
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Debby - I am deeply surprised to hear that you believe "sped" is akin to "retard." I am active in the Special Education Parent Teacher Organization, but that's awfully long to write out, and we often refer to ourselves as the "sped-pto." I was unaware that anyone thought the term "sped" derogatory. I'm open to correction, but could you please share any citations you have regarding the terms offensiveness?
Btw, if you type "sped" into Google, you get a lot of special education sites including:
http://www.spedonline.com/
http://www.halcyon.com/marcs/sped.html
http://www.ncss.org.sg/sped/
http://yesican.sped.org/
That last one's from the Council for Exceptional Children, hardly the sort of people to call disabled kids names.
But please share any info you have. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4618
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 5:21 pm: |
|
finnegan- I don't think NCLB measures the success or failure of our special ed services. Period. And thank you for the lecture, but I know the difference between remediation and someone classified with a learning disability. |
finnegan
Supporter
Username: Finnegan
Post Number: 315
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 5:25 pm: |
|
Well, ffof, I guess I misunderstood your statement:
"The make-up of spec ed, I would imagine, varies greatly from year to year."
My mistake - thanks for your kind correction.
|
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 1884
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 7:05 pm: |
|
I have posted about it many times. Inclusion may work for some children, but in my experience, for my children, it is wrong. (BTW -- I will ask any poster, or BOE member or candidate -- how many special schools have you visited? I have been to almost 20 -- looking for schools for my children. No case worker in the district, and I doubt any special services manager/ administrator has seen as many schools. To think that can be replicated in district is absurd)
That said, the testing of classified kids by and large makes no sense, and apparently NCLB is part of the reason why it happens.
My child, in 4th grade, cannot read, cannot write a sentence, but takes the same tests as all the other kids. Nonsense, and every time it further reinforces his sense of inadequacy.
In other districts I hear it is common for classified kids to be "sick" on testing days...
Pete
|
Debby
Citizen
Username: Debby
Post Number: 2257
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 7:39 pm: |
|
Finnegan - I don't really have any citations (and, I have to say, I find that an odd request). I went to college with people who joked "What are you a sped"? and about the sped bus. Maybe it's a regional thing. |
finnegan
Supporter
Username: Finnegan
Post Number: 316
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 8:25 pm: |
|
Thanks for your reply, Debby.
As I posted earlier, we parents of special education children who live in South Orange and Maplewood, use the phrase often. And, my cursory Google search turned up many other advocates for the rights of children with disabilities who use the phrase "sped."
For that reason, I was unsure why you thought the phrase akin to using the word, "retard," which I believe is broadly deemed unacceptable. Sorry that you thought the question "odd."
It is interesting that "sped" was used as a slur where you went to college. Thanks for telling me that, I appreciate knowing it.
Why do you think it's regional? - did you go to college somewhere other than the North east/Mid-Atlantic states (however you wish to classify NJ and it's surrounding states?)
Oh, and Pete - I appreciate your posting from the special education trenches! |
J. Crohn
Supporter
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2475
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 9:24 pm: |
|
"Oh, and Pete - I appreciate your posting from the special education trenches!"
Same here. |
Debby
Citizen
Username: Debby
Post Number: 2258
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 9:26 pm: |
|
Hi Finnegan - -
I'm wondering if it's a regional thing because I grew up in NY and never heard the reference there, but went to college in Pennsylvania where it was a common slur, indeed, and people were surprised when I asked what it meant.
I hope my intention hasn't been misunderstood here...I was trying to point out that people might be saying something offensive without realizing it, not to accuse anyone of ill-will.
I am surprised, though, to see that so many advocacy groups use the acronym. I guess it really is just a Pennsylvania thing!
Keep up the good work. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3387
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 9:38 pm: |
|
peteglider:
If that's true about your child, he/she could be eligible for the Alternate Proficiency Assessment, an assessment program for children who are exempt from testing.
Have you looked into it? |
Debby
Citizen
Username: Debby
Post Number: 2259
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 10:04 pm: |
|
On the topic of inclusion - I think it has some wonderful benefits and some real limitations/potential for misuse.
In principle, and when done right, inclusion can provide the least restrictive environment. It also can facilitate skill generalization in a way that pull-out cannot. This is more of an issue for children with social/behavioral/communication issues than those with more specific processing disorders. On the other hand, some children with specific learning disabilities need more of a focused , drill-like approach that is more easily delivered in a smaller, quieter setting.
Unfortunately, I have sometimes seen full-inclusion used as an excuse/cover-up for inadequate resource allocation. I wonder if this is part of the difficulty Pete has experienced. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11119
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 10:22 pm: |
|
I still come back to how adequate yearly progress is defined for exceptional children. The group of kids classified can vary greatly from year to year.
We have friends whose son is classified because of language processing difficulties who live several towns west of here. He and my son, who was never classified, met in speech therapy when they were three or four. I have no idea how this young man did on the HSPA. but because of his difficulties he was one of those kids who scored 750 on the math SAT, but was under 500 on the verbal portion. He was, except for foreign languages, a straight A and B student in mainstreamed classes, played varsity sports and is doing very well in an aeronautical engineering program at a top 20 university. Our daughter was friendly with a young lady with similar issues at Columbia, who also had excellent grades and SAT score. The kids who replaced these students, for lack of a better term, in the special education "pool" may have much more severe difficulties. How is this taken into account in deteriming AYP?
I agree with those posters who feel that NCLB has put a focus on Special Ed students, but since the group can vary from year to year is it fair to penalize a district because of a lack of AYP for these kids? |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page