The NYT sets out today to demonstrate how a school can be "good," yet still fail "on paper." Let's see how convincing this argument is:
At Ms. Wellons's school [Micro-Pine Level Elementary School in NC], special education classrooms are bright and inviting, their walls full of posters and learning tips. Though it is costly, she keeps classes small. Elizabeth Lawhon, a teacher, and Kim Hicks, an aide, have just six children in their class. All six were thoroughly assessed; they do not have learning disabilities, they are slow learners, six borderline retarded fourth and fifth graders with I.Q.'s in the 60 to 70 range.
Each day they get several hours of reading and math help...
Because these five, plus a few more like them, could not pass a standardized test on their grade levels, Micro-Pine Level has been labeled a failing school under the federal No Child Left Behind law. For many who know special education, the law is surreal.
Ah, the special education loophole/pit of despair. I agree entirely with the teachers of these kids that a child with an IQ below 70 cannot be expected to do grade-level work. This is the one aspect of the NCLB Act that I (and many of my readers disagree with).
I've always said that I understood why the act is phrased the way it is, and why this requirement stands. Although this particular schools seems to be using special education classes only for children who truly deserve it, one of the nasty secrets of overburdened and underperforming K-12 schools is their willingness to shove kids into special education who are simply undermotivated or problematic, without actually being developmentally disabled. The demand of NCLB that these kids be tested, and that these kids be expected to develop skills in school, is to prevent schools from fudging test scores by placing all the underperformers in special ed.
Unfortunately, it leads to the ridiculously hellish situation we have now, in which schools with only a few special education students, one who desperately need segregated attention, are affecting the rating of the entire school:
Lou Fabrizio, North Carolina's testing director, and Dane Linn, the education director of the National Governors Association, say the special education standards of the 2002 federal law, more than any other provision, have caused good schools to be labeled failing...
By most measures, Micro-Pine Level is a fine school...Under the federal system, Micro-Pine Level made adequate progress as a school, with 86 percent of all students proficient in reading and math. But the 2002 federal law says that if just one school subgroup fails to make adequate progress — poor students, blacks, Spanish speakers — the school gets a failing rating. Micro-Pine made adequate progress in 15 categories, but missed in special education, and that is all it takes.
And that's a shame. I hope the publicity being received by these "failing" schools will lead to some sort of modification of NCLB. I don't know what the modification should be, though, because the abuse of the special education label is still a possibility. This article, about the fuss over Trenton's failing schools, notes that, of the 145 NJ schools that were put on an early warning list, 60% of those failed only one of their subgroups - and I'm betting most of those were special education subgroups. Perhaps the law should simply be modified to say that a school must fail more than one subgroup to actually be considered a failing school, or to recieve a warning.
Posted by kswygert at October 8, 2003 11:17 AM