No Child Left Behind
leaves out pupils
with special needs
By NANCY ZUCKERBROD,
AP from thnt.com Online, February 12, 2007
| |
 |
| |
The Associated Press
When Tori
Boyle, 9, right, takes a test, an adult often reads the question to
her because she has learning disabilities, making reading difficult
for her. Such accommodations are not allowed for the reading test
public school students take under the No Child Left Behind law. |
WASHINGTON, Feb.11 -- When
Tori Boyles, of Columbia, Mo., takes a test at school, an adult often reads the
questions to her because the 9-year-old has learning disabilities that make
reading difficult.
That kind of accommodation generally is not allowed for the reading test that
public school students take under the federal No Child Left Behind law.
Also, skipping the exam is not permitted for Tori, who has spina bifida, a
condition often accompanied by learning problems.
"Why isn't there an option to opt out of that?" asks her mother, Becky Boyles.
"She just has to stare at this piece of paper. She'll tell you she feels
stupid. She feels absolutely stupid."
Boyles and other parents are not the only ones frustrated when children such as
Tori take federally mandated tests and do poorly. School administrators
feel trapped by the system as well and lagging children risk being blamed for an
entire school's failure.
The dilemma is how to fix the problem without abandoning kids with special
needs.
Under the federal law, which seeks to get all students reading and doing math on
grade level by 2014, schools have to analyze the scores of groups of children.
This includes special-education students and foreign-language speakers who are
just learning English.
If certain groups of students fail to meet specific goals, entire schools can be
labeled as needing improvement. They then might face steps such as having
to replace teachers and principals. Critics say that can place enormous
pressure on the lagging groups.
"In some instances, it's made them into scapegoats. You hear, "Well if it
wasn't for these children, then we would be OK.' It's criminal to treat
them this way," said Carol Kula, who teaches high school students in Muscatine,
Iowa who are learning English as a second language.
The five-year-old federal law is scheduled to be rewritten this year, and the
lawmakers in charge say they will try to change the rules for special-education
students and recent immigrants. The aim is to inject more common sense
into the law while sticking with its promise to leave no child behind.
"I think for both of these groups of students, the law was not well designed.
It does not acknowledge (that) by definition these kids are not going to meet
the same standards at the same pace as other students," said Michael Petrilli,
who wrote a book about the law and helped oversee the first years of the program
at the Education Department.
Parents, teachers and state policymakers are among those pushing for more
flexibility in the testing of special-education students and immigrants.
Advocates for both groups caution against loosening the rules too much.
"What we're hoping is that students with disabilities continue to be part of the
accountability system. If they're not, schools are going to make decisions
that don't include them," said Katy Neas, a lobbyist for Easter Seals, which
helps people with disabilities and special needs.
Delia Pompa, vice president for education at the National Council of La Raza, a
Latino advocacy group, said excusing immigrants from tests could slow their
learning. She says public schools have a long history of providing less
than rigorous course work for students who are learning English.
The No Child Left Behind law requires annual testing in reading and math in
third grade through eighth grade and once in high school.
Roughly 10 percent of special-education students — those with the most severe
disabilities — take alternative tests under the law. These are easier than
the regular exams. But critics say the tests still are too hard for some
children and do not reflect lessons typically taught to severely disabled
students.
In addition to the 10 percent who get the special test, the Education Department
is considering allowing about one-fifth of the rest of the special-education
students to take alternative tests. These tests are expected to be harder
than the ones given to the first group but easier than the typical tests.
There is a debate about whether that overall total — about 30 percent of
special-education students — is the right proportion of students to single out
and whether states should be able to set such policies on their own.
Similarly, there is disagreement over how to test students who are learning
English as a second language.
The government exempts students enrolled in U.S. schools for less than a year
from taking reading tests. After that time, these students have to be
tested.
The law says students can take the test in their native language for up to three
years. States, however, have been slow to develop tests in other
languages.
Critics say children cannot be expected to be proficient in reading until they
have mastered English, which generally takes several years.
Students learning English and those with disabilities were an afterthought when
the No Child Left Behind law was being written, according to those involved.
"We said if you're going to have an accountability system, it needs to include
everybody, and then the drafters said, "Oh yeah you're right,"' said Neas, the
Easter Seals lobbyist. She said she has heard complaints from teachers,
who say the law is too rigid, and from parents, who want to know why their
disabled children have to take the tests.
Peggy Walker, who teaches sixth-graders with disabilities in Stoughton, Wis.,
says the law has brought extra attention to the education of special-needs
students.
"Everybody at our school is very focused on reducing the number of kids that
aren't proficient," Walker said.
Walker said she worries the law further stigmatizes children with disabilities
by placing schools on watch lists when those students fail.
Many educators say entire schools should not be labeled as failing in those
circumstances and should only have to provide extra attention to lagging
students.
|
