10. Flexible Leaders and Staff that Work Effectively in a Dynamic Environment
11. Effective Leadership is Essential to Success
E. WHAT DO DATA ON PERSISTENTLY LOW PERFORMING STUDENTS TELL US ABOUT OUR STATE, DISTRICTS, AND SCHOOLS?
In 2005, staff from NCIEA analyzed data from five states’ assessments. Their analyses also included a closer look at the student performance of two states by categories of disability. They found that on a grade 4 math test, special education students showed performance across the full range of scale scores; a significant number of general education students scored among the lowest three percent of students; the percent of special education students scoring proficient varied significantly across disability categories; and even within disability categories, the percent of students found to be proficient varied dramatically across states.
In summary, the lowest performing students are not all students with disabilities, and students with disabilities perform at all levels of achievement, with performance by category of disability varying dramatically from state to state.
In the fall of 2005, the Colorado Department of Education looked at results from two years of the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) tests in reading and math. The legislatively-mandated study (HB 05-1246) showed that not all of the lowest performers on the state assessment were students with IEPs, and that many were students without disabilities. Looking at growth over time for the lowest performing students, those with IEPs showed considerable increases in scores, at least for those they were able to match scores for across years. They followed up with site visits to schools where student with IEPs were achieving well versus those where they were not.
They found that schools with high achievement of students with disabilities were systematically supporting intensive, targeted, research-based instruction through training, resources, and other supports for teachers and students.
Ask these kinds of questions in your states. Do your state, districts, and schools know who, by student characteristics, are consistently low performing students, within and across districts? How do these data correlate with the opportunities students have to learn the challenging grade-level content? What training, resources, and other supports are there in these schools for teachers and students? Understanding the answers to these questions is essential for you to know whether your state, your district, your school is doing what it can to achieve the goal of high standards reached by all.
VI. One parent’s conclusion.
Should states, districts, and schools be held accountable for the learning of all students, including students with disabilities? YES!!! Lowering standards for some students cannot be the solution to the challenges educators face in helping them reach proficiency. We have ample research to show that educators do not have the ability to predict which students could learn if taught well. Our only option is to teach them all assuming they can succeed, and finding out whether they all do succeed after we have done all we can do. Pushing children out of the accountability system, or watering it down, is to leave them behind. The questions that I listed are a start for sorting out who really means all when they say all.
If state, district, or school leaders say that they cannot report assessment results for some group because of low numbers, or that they need additional flexibility, I would welcome a full and public report of precisely what opportunities they are providing to ensure that those learners are supported. Is their learning provided on scaffolds to lift them to the content, so that they are all appropriately instructed in their enrolled grade-level curriculum? I would expect to see detailed public reporting of precisely which children they are struggling to teach, by subgroup, and how that changes over time. Is it the same children year after year? Do we see movement in and out of these low-performing groups? How does that relate to their documented interventions and research based teaching? Remember, states like Colorado have analyzed what they call "persistently low-performing" students, and have found many of those students do not have disabilities. Who are these students, and why are they struggling? How would all of these children be affected by any proposed “flexibility?” How will they monitor the effects of this flexibility on these children’s opportunity to learn over time?
Do you recall a president who told us we must “trust but verify” during an important stage of delicate policy negotiations? This is yet another situation where that applies. Have schools in your state implemented systematic prevention and intervention strategies? Have they established progress monitoring procedures K-12 to ensure that not only the basic skills but the full range of the expected content is being taught well in ways all students can demonstrate proficiency? Have they used their IDEA and Title I funding wisely to support the specialized instruction, services, and supports so that the children are successful, or did they use IDEA categories to justify shunting children into a separate curriculum?
How do you know?
Public and transparent reporting of these complex issues, with independent verification, is an essential part of discussions about accountability systems. We are five short years into a robust implementation of a high expectation system for all children. At best, many students with disabilities have had just a few years to overcome many, many years of low expectations and separate curricular targets. Federal IDEA requirements focus on provision of specialized instruction, services, and supports so that students with disabilities achieve at high levels in the same challenging content as their same-grade peers. Students with disabilities may need varied methods in HOW they learn; WHAT they learn must be the same. NCLB requirements have ensured that schools are accountable for that learning, and it is essential for students with disabilities that the requirements of NCLB continue. Together, NCLB and IDEA can help ensure that all of our children succeed.
Oral Testimony provided to committee on July 12, 2006
Webcast of the committee hearing, July 12, 2006