So I came across this article recently from a blog post and it truly caught me off guard. Most of you know that my background is in special ed, so for me to be taken aback by this is unusual. The reason I was taken aback, though, is because the concept behind this article is that all special ed IEP goals and objectives should be written to the grade level of the student. Which is pretty preposterous considering the actual performance level of many of our special needs babies!
I know that this type of article does not necessarily directly affect most of you; however, I think it should! The more that students with IEPs are integrated into the general education setting, and the more that the performance pay initiatives gain steam in the legislature (i. e. teacher pay affected by student test performance), the more things like this are going to get some spotlight. And I don't anticipate that being a positive spotlight.
I work in a large metro-area district, and we are not practicing what this article says, so I seriously doubt the other districts are either. In fact, we pretty much practice the opposite of what this article says is federal law. The point of an IEP goal/objective is to provide a target for the student to work toward that s/he can attain in one calendar year. So, for example, if a 6th grader is reading on a 1st grade level, why would we write a goal for that student to be reading on 6th-grade-level? It is virtually impossible for a student to progress that many grade levels in reading in one year. But, this article says that's what we should be doing. Instead, we write goals that are actually attainable, and then increase or adjust them the next year, depending on if the student is showing progress. I know that's what most districts are doing.
At the end of the day, it seems to me that this will be one more thing that either gets counties sued or falls by the wayside because it's simply not attainable for most students. After all, if they are in special ed, they are in it for a reason. Not always an academic reason, but for a reason.
Kristin,
ReplyDeleteI have this conversation with my IST a lot. These goals and objectives are supposed to be written to help students and not hurt them. It does not make a bit of sense to write grade level goals when the student is no where close to grade level materials. I think some view special education teachers as miracle workers. Sadly enough, these students that are so far behind have to take grade level standardized test.
If we were as good as what some parents think...we'd be billionaires by now! :-)
DeleteKristin,
ReplyDeleteIn the face od Rigor and Relevance as a growing movement I see this being more prevalent in the coming years. Obviously I work at a credit recovery school and we struggle with regular ed students who are operating at elementary level Lexile scores and math understanding. I feel for my Algebra II teacher who has the most challenging curriculum in my math department as she tries to help these students be successful at a high school level. And again, these are not Special Ed students. They have just be failed by the system for years. This is a discussion that has to be had with all teachers. How do we hold students accountable for grade level standards when they come to us below grade level for whatever reason?! It is frightening!
Same comment as I put above. If we had that magic wand, we'd be super rich! How I wish it was true! :-)
DeleteAs a side note...there is currently some legislation that would lessen the importance of student scores on teacher evaluation. I heard a lobbyist discuss it yesterday. We will see if it actually gets passed!
ReplyDeleteI saw that, too. We get legislative bulletins. It's interesting and is tied to whether or not your district is charter or operating under a flexibility agreement. The lowest % I've seen, though, is 30% of a teacher's evaluation would come from scores. Instead of the current 50%.
Delete