Pushing Back Against High Stakes For Students With Disabilities

NCLB reduces effective instruction as well as student learning by causing states to lower achievement goals and teacher motivation. Assertively, I support my argument that students who are disadvantaged or disabled do not reach the same proficiency as other students due to the simple fact that everyone learns differently, has different areas of strengths and weaknesses, and are essentially learning curriculum for a mandated state test that solely measures how well subgroups of children test on generic material based on each

In recent years, legislative mandates, like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), have required students to participate in the same assessments that general education students are taking. Although these new, controversial mandates resonated with a lot of people, critics argue that they cause more harm than good. According to Inclusion: The Pros and Cons—A Critical Review, Carl Savich states that the federal legislation on inclusion took the attention away from the general and advanced students with “a concomitant lowering of standards” (Savich 1). However, supporters of these new mandates state that the pros vastly outweigh the cons. According to Assessment and Accommodations, Stephen Luke states that inclusion

To many students standardized testing has become another part of schooling that is dreaded. Standardized testing has been a part of school since the nineteen-thirties; in those days it was used as a way to measure students that had special needs. Since the time that standardized test have been in American schools there has been many programs that have placed an importance on the idea of standardized testing such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Evans 1). Over the years the importance of standardized testing has increased tremendously and so has the stakes, not only for teachers but also students. All states in the United States of America have state test in order to measure how much students learn, and help tell how well the

Every state is different, but in Ohio we require students with learning disabilities to take the same test as their other peers that don’t have a learning disabilities. They are allowed to have extra time and accommodations when testing. Stated in the article Implications of High Stake for Students “It is a challenge, however, for the students to pass the courses and particularly the related high stakes tests that may be involved” (Landers). Students that have a learning disability should be taken into more consideration and have a separate test made for them. They aren’t going to be going at the same paste as their other peers so it is wrong to give them the same test. Data shows that students with disabilities fail large-scale tests at higher rates than other students, which cause them to start dropping

This week’s readings discussed consequences for special education students. It was very interesting to see the different court case rulings for each case. Teachers, administrators and parents need to make sure they have everything accurate when taking a case like many of these to court. In this paper I will discuss the five key points in the articles and readings stood out to me the most, how and if my beliefs changed or were altered, and how I might apply the content to the classroom and instruction.

If the schools didn’t make AYP for three years in a row, they had to provide free tutoring and supplemental educational service. Everyone involved felt that the NCLB had unsolved issues. (Randolph & Wilson-Younger, 2012). There are teachers that argue that the testing is not fair with the children that are under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Children with individualized education plans are being forced to take standardized test on their grade level and the teachers argue that the tests might be way above where these children are academically. This also includes the children who have English as their second language because they are struggling when they are taking the standardized tests. Additionally, Choi, (Aug. 2012) describes how many schools struggle to meet the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the Act called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Pressures on the schools to meet the AYP can affect how each school does their testing and teaching policies. While states have been silent, the question has been whether states have a responsibility to intervene.

The author performed two separate interviews face-to-face, selecting two individuals with different backgrounds in order to obtain unique perspectives. The first interviewee, named Jennifer Hodge, works for Allen ISD as a special education teacher for a self-contained DEAR (Developing Early Academics Readiness) class for students in kindergarten through sixth grade. In addition, her experience includes teaching for 22 years, with seven of those years teaching students with disabilities in both self-contained classrooms along with resource and inclusion environments. The meeting to discuss psychoeducational testing occurred in Jennifer’s work place during her conference period over a 45 minute period on Friday, August 28, 2015. The second

High Stakes Testing has been overly integrated in the education systems. High-stakes testing are used to determine grade retention, school curriculum, and whether or not students will receive a high school diploma (Myers, 2015). Since the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, high stakes testing has become the norm and mandating that students must pass a standardized test before moving up in grade. As a special education director, the focus is to ensure the student’s accommodations are being followed. Accommodations help increase students’ academic performance. “Both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) call for students with disabilities to participate in the general education curriculum and in testing programs to the maximum extent possible for each student (Luke and Schwartz, 2010).” Throughout the years, high stakes testing is becoming more common than ever before. The reality is high stakes testing is one indicator in evaluating children with specific needs. This paper will discuss, the violation of the statutory language regarding assessment based on IDEA, the strategies and goals of a remediation, staff training, common Core and PARCC assessment, and funding for the remediation plan under IDEA.

In the first paragraph there is mention of As a someone who worked with DHH students and was required to interpret and or proctor the state mandated tests, I feel the same sentiment you shared in the first paragraph. Especially, since these tests are set up in a way that often sets students with special needs (DHH, LD, ESL) at an extreme disadvantage. In an article about differentiating instruction and Deaf learners, Martin (2010) illustrates how the questions format for standardized testing are difficult for the students to answer and/or understand. Which I believe are applicable to other students with various disabilities.

The question of whether the “No Child Left Behind is a Flawed policy”, is an emotive topic that merits debate for Citizens within the American Society. As such, NCLB strategy should be reauthorized, it is projected that much more improvements in Math and English will be seen among students in Public Schools. The NCLB policy has also paid special consideration to individuals with disabilities, by maintaining that they be included in a general education school environment. The main intention of NCLB is to provide students with an Individualized Education Plan the same grading scheme as other children. The NCLB supporters may also claim that they are making great accomplishments in high needs schools across the country.

The article discusses how teachers are discovering that the No Child Left Behind idea is flawed, developmentally unfitting, lacking funding, and leaving more students, educators, and schools behind before the bill was passed. Later the article presents a short history about educational testing, investigates the argument of teaching to the test, and focuses on subgroups of school populations that are negatively affected by No Child Left Behind bill, distinctively students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, minorities, second-language learners, and students with special needs.

The argument Jessica Lahey produced were words directly from any readers mind while deciding how one would and should prove to any audience that tests are needed in all Colorado School Districts. The removal of tests from any school district is truly devastating to Colorado’s schooling system. The knowledge of summative testing and formative testing will be presented to the audience for a better understanding. Tests are the main reason why we can see student’s true competency levels in certain subject areas. Jessica’s argument was very logical in the eyes of someone who wants growth within our multiple school districts and our world. I will produce an analysis of her critically convincing argument as to why our students need to be tested to show our rankings, and too improve the overall schooling of America’s children. In ‘Students Should Be Tested More, Not Less’ Jessica Lahey provides an extremely convincing argument that supports the increase of testing within all school districts. In this argumentative analysis of Jessica Lahey’s argument I will bring forth key points from her piece that support our extreme need for testing, I will also show readers how we are totally failing our students and their brains true potential.

The 1980s brought a new reform movement in education, accompanied by a new emphasis on testing. The effort to improve education at all levels included the use of standardized tests to provide accountability for what students are learning. Minimum competency tests, achievement tests, and screening instruments were used to ensure that students from preschool through college reached the desired educational goals and achieved the minimum standards of education that were established locally or by the state education agency. As we continue in a new century, these concerns have increased.

Although testing has been around for a long time, I instinctively believe that testing doesn’t give a clear picture of student’s achievement. Thus, I make strong connection to the following quote: “A central question has been whether accountability policies and standardized testing helping or harming those children the polices are most often designed to serve” (Skrla, p.11). For instance, when I analyzed and interpreted the TAPR of Richard J Wilson Elementary school, I found valuable information that all teachers should know at the beginning of every school year. Specifically, when I examined the categories of testing and the students’ performance on individual TEKS. This practice would allow teachers to have a clear picture of what exact skills and content knowledge students are expected to achieve throughout the school year.

In today’s educational environment, all students expect to receive the same level of instruction from schools and all students must meet the same set of standards. Expectations for students with learning disabilities are the same as students without any learning difficulties. It is now unacceptable for schools or teachers to expect less from one segment of students because they have physical disabilities, learning disabilities, discipline problems, or come from poor backgrounds. Standardize testing has resulted in making every student count as much as their peers and the most positive impact has been seen with the lowest ability students. Schools have developed new approaches to reach these previously underserved students while