(New York) City Pushes Shift for Special Education

[alp227]

by Jennifer Media
The New York Times

The Bloomberg administration, struggling to address the needs of a growing number of students with learning disabilities, is overhauling special education by asking every principal to take in more of the students and giving them greater flexibility in deciding how to teach them.

This fall, more than 250 schools will be asked to accept more students with disabilities rather than send them to schools that have specific programs for special education, as has been the case for decades. By September 2011, principals at each of the system’s 1,500 schools will be expected to enroll all but the most severely disabled students; those students will continue to be served by schools tailored exclusively to them.

The shift echoes one of the central philosophies of the administration, giving principals more responsibility and control over their schools. It is also an effort to bring New York more in line with the nationwide trend of allowing special education students to benefit from regular classroom settings.

Online now: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/education/29schools.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Or on the front page of tomorrow's NYC edition of the Times if you live there.

[Catshrink]

1. Is he requiring charter schools to accept sped kids?

or is he sending them all to public schools? It's a perfect setup: So with an increased sped population, a school's test scores plummet. Damn those teachers! Fire them all! Close the school and send the kids elsewhere...oh right. Charters don't have to accept sped kids so there's nowhere for them to go. Welcome to Bloomberg-Duncan-ObamaEd: public schools are schools just for sped kids but in the OP Bloomberg wanted to eliminate special schools for sped kids.

[mzteris]

2. charter public schools DO accept SPED kids...

some Charters public schools are designed just for SPED kids.

The fact is, some kids no longer need the SPED designation when they're in a charter public school because they're receiving the individualized attention and specialized instruction they need without a IEP or 504...

[MichiganVote]

8. So its your assumption that kids do not receive individualized attention

or specialized instruction in anything other than a Charter school environment? Where exactly are your "facts" to back up the assumption that a mere move to a Charter school environment results in a child no longer having a disability?

[mzteris]

17. please don't put words in my mouth. . .

I've never said that. I am NOT anti-traditional public schools. I am pro-educational alternatives- such as charter public schools and homeschooling. I am pro-whatever-a-kid-needs-to-succeed in getting the education they need and deserve.

I also tend to have a problem with "misinformation" about things even if I don't agree with that particular side. . . so even if I wasn't "pro-charter", I'd probably still be knocking down the incorrect arguments. Around here it's turned into practically a full-time job. (I wish I got paid!! lol)

And it's not that a child "no longer has a disability" - it's that they are getting the individualized instruction/attention/methodology they need. It's not the fact that it's a "charter", it's that charters are typically smaller with smaller classes and a "focus" that appeals to the student and/or parent. It could be ANY school - whether a traditional or magnet, charter, private, religious. . . I'm talking about the conditions. And, unfortunately, many of the trads have severe overcrowding, and a morass of paperwork and red-tape.

Anytime you move a kid who is "marginalized" through having difficulty in the environment they are in, and put them into one that "works" better for them, then you're probably removing some of the "causes" of the marginalization.

[MichiganVote]

21. So here is what you said,

"some kids no longer need the SPED designation when they're in a charter public school because they're receiving the individualized attention and specialized instruction they need"

And here is my point: Kids in public schools DO receive individualized attention and Do receive specialized instruction according to their documented needs. It is disingenuous to assert a factual statement as though it only applies to a Charter school.

[mzteris]

23. okay -

not ALL "charter public schools" - SOME . . . although, most charters ARE smaller with smaller classes, enabling the teacher to offer more individualized attention. and individualized attention is GOOD, right?

Now it's also true that there are a lot of very good traditional public schools. However, SOME trads have classrooms with 30-35 kids in them. What kind of quality individualized instruction/attention can you get?

Smaller classes is something I've always advocated. Smaller schools, too. The lower the ratio, the better the results.


I most definitely was not trying to assert that "only charters" can - or do - do this. Just trying to point out that some of the reasons it seems that SPED enrollment is lower in some charters is due to the fact that the IEP/504 is not necessary due to the lower ratios and focus of that particular school which may meet the needs that a particular child needs/wants ...

Am I being clearer? I'm not trying to knock the traditional school, just trying to help people understand where some of the statistics they see in charters are coming from

I wish I didn't have to spend so much time qualifying what I say. I wish people would understand and accept that just 'cause I'm pro-charter-public schools, in no way means I am against traditional-public-schools.

I wish we could just spend more time talking about "what works and what doesn't" "fixing the problems" and "teaching/reaching" the kids - and not give a ratsass which "school type" makes it possible. :sigh:

[MichiganVote]

24. I understand your points. I think most people do.

It is easier and nicer to make broad statements and assumptions when it comes to education. In most respects I think that you and I would agree that the whole of education, like health care, like security, like just about everything has become very complex. So its easier. Its nicer.

However, I am going to lay out some experiential facts that you can accept or not.

-Charter schools do not take kids that have severe needs. Those kids are referred back to the locals for service. Charter schools and private schools are permitted under the law to use the services of the public school itinerant staff, social workers, psych's, speech and language etc. Hardly a fully independent enterprise....Kids whose needs are met in a smaller classroom likely did not need an IEP. They needed other educational strategies or time or parents who could or would help them.

-Charter schools also evaluate and certify kids for special education services. Surprised? Smaller classes and all that...you seem to think that's an impossibility.

-Individualized education, an IEP, is for kids with disabilities. Too many people nowadays want that IEP as a way to get individualized tutoring for their kids, to try to get their kids special discipline procedures, to become eligible for SSI and to have schools do what the students/parents need to do--homework, helping their kid stay organized etc. That is enabling--not individualizing a child's education.

-You can blame the public schools but the fact of the matter is that for every dollar that goes to a charter school---there is one less dollar to offer to a public school for employees to do the same thing. We as taxpayers are paying twice to supply a free and appropriate education for kids. SOME of whom don't know enough to care or whose lives are too messed up to care. The for profit charter schools are walking away with the profit. Not you. Not me. Not our society. Not the students.

We all have to examine our thinking in regard to education. The difference for those who are employed in public education and the general public is that your job, your family's welfare, your health insurance is not dependent on the negative and often erroneous assumptions people argue about.

[mzteris]

26. a few points

yes - Charter schools DO accept kids that have "severe needs". Depends on the school and where you are. Same holds true for traditionals btw.

No, I'm not surprised. I didn't say they had NO sped, just lower numbers and that sometimes there's a reason for that.

I think EVERY CHID should have an IEP! No - not the formal red-tape kind, but an individualized approach. Thus the necessity for a - much - smaller class size. Every teacher should know every child - their strengths and their weaknesses and what "lesson plan" is necessary for that child to be sufficiently challenged, yet not frustrated. (And yes, it can be done. I've seen it done.)

I don't blame traditional public schools. I don't blame traditional public schools. (please write 100 times neatly that mzteris does not blame traditional publlic schools for anything!)

I have to go, but I have posted elsewhere about how funding works for charters - you might wantn to read it. There are a WHOLE LOT of misconceptions about funding for charters and where the money comes from. Taxpayers are NOT "paying twice". All 500 of the non-profit charter public schools (10%) which are managed by a for-profit management company, you mean... which numbers are decreasing.... which for-profits management companies originally formed to manage traditional schools and still manage a large number of traditional public schools. I'm not a fan of the for-profits typically.

I don't have a job. I can't get one in this economy at my age after having been a stay-at-home mom for the last forever. My almost ex's cobra is running out (we stayed married so I would HAVE insurance. I can't GET insurance because of the brain tumour I had removed a few years ago. . .

Again, I don't think MY "assumptions" are erroneous. (Yes, I do make mistakes. and I am here to be corrected by logic and facts. Not screaming attacks and insults. Not saying you are, but that's the typical response to anyone daring to question in here...) I believe in my POV in the same way you believe in yours. I do think my experience - while not as a paid employee in the classroom - has been of a much more VARYING degree than most. I've been exposed to a whole damn lot of different schools, school systems, alternative systems, and hundreds and hundreds of parents who are passionate about the education that their children receive - which include a very large population of GT and LD and GT/LD students. Said parents who have experienced much - difficulty - with the way the education system currently works. Parents who may not tell the teacher what they REALLY think, but they'll certainly tell other parents, ya know?

Maybe it's just that my "assumptions" are from a completely different perspective that you, as a formal teacher, can't really see nor appreciate. Maybe instead of my "assumptions" being wrong, my experience and my knowledge has helped shape my opinion. And quite frankly, sometimes I do believe that some teachers (god love 'em) are on one side of the glass and can no longer really see through to the other.

Again. I support educating children - a free and appropriate education. However we have to do that - well, that's what has to be done.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Huge problem here

A school that has more than 30 sped kids has a subgroup under NCLB. The school will not make AYP unless all of the subgroups achieve a certain (rising) test score criteria.

In 2014, that criteria is 100%. Every single child in every single subgroup must score at a proficient level on the state test used for NCLB standards. If they don't, the school doesn't make AYP.

Anyone who believes that 100% of kids with cognitive disabilities can become proficient will be given a great deal on ocean front property in Oklahoma.

Hence, the REAL reason principals don't want kids with disabilities in their buildings.

[tortoise1956]

4. I agree completely

My wife is a volunteer with Special Olympics, and I have helped with them myself. In my experience, there are some who simply can't make the grade when it comes to passing the tests used to determine competency in a subject. That's not meant to be demeaning, it's a simple fact.

Which brings me to the main problem with NCLB. You will NEVER have 100% competency, for a whole host of reasons. I am unfamiliar with NCLB, so I'll have to do some research, but aren't there any exceptions to the 100% rule? I mean, if you have a high-functioning special education child who has the mental capability of a 13 year old, would it be acceptable to show that they have achieved an educational level compatible with their mental acuity?

[mzteris]

5. there are modified tests

available for at-risk populations.

And with the new rule changes, it will get even better. You measure the individuals PROGRESS, not "mastery", etc. to ensure that the kid IS getting an education - of whatever type they need.

I can't find the article right now - it's probably Wright's Law or LDonline or some other Learning Difference (Disability) website - where the argument is made that sped kids MUST receive "testing" to ensure they're not being shuffled through with little attention and falling through the cracks. To "exempt" them from any standards (of progress) is to validate a "second-class citizen" mindset and relegate them to a life of mediocrity.

I am NOT for tests which measure "all people must know XYZ by this age and in this exact way." What an idiotic way to test anybody about anything...

[MichiganVote]

7. There are no modified tests for at risk kids. Special ed. kids may be given

a specified test depending on their academic scores. At risk kids in education do not generally refer to kids who receive special education services. At risk kids are usually identified as kids with somewhat below grade level reading scores or by free/reduced lunch count.

As regards your other comments, I think you are referring to a process called, progress monitoring. Progress monitoring is not the same as the NCLB mandated state testing to make Adequate Yearly Progress. Progress monitoring refers to the spot testing of acquired skills as a part of the teaching process or when a student receives Title I reading services. SPed teachers also use a variant of progress monitoring as a way to measure the student's progress over time to adjust teaching methods.

Testing in schools nowadays consists of:

Curriculum tests and quizzes
Progress monitoring options such as Dibles/Curriculum based measures
District testing/NWEA,Iowa test of achievement
State testing/in Michigan its called the MEAP

[mzteris]

9. I'm sorry - I did mix those terms up.

While sped kids are at risk, not all at risk kids are sped... :blush:

Progress monitoring - that's one phrase I've heard used.

I HATE the AYP thing as it currently exists. Most people do; isn't that why it's being changed?

I remember being "tested" every year - twice a year? every other year? Well, I remember we used to get tested a LOT! Everyone pretty much took the "California Achievement Test" or the "Iowa" or something... what happened to those?

(FWIW - I was one of the few kids who LIKED those damn tests. . . Only I always thought they were a "race" to see who finished first. lol)

now every state has it's own "test" designed to make their students LOOK like they're educated instead of insuring that they ARE educated.

[MichiganVote]

12. The CAT, Iowa, Stanford Binet...all of these tests have been used to

provide student academic data. The problem is they provide such global data and are standardized so broadly as to be pretty much meaningless in comparing district to district or school to school. Yhey are also not tethered to any form of curriculum instruction. Moreover the test makers do not update their tests or processes as often as schools now need them done.

The Federal government began demanding more intensive and more strategic testing even before NCLB. Its really another Reagun idea that is now on steroids.

Having said that, it is helpful to have the more targeted testing in schools especially in the consideration of how to change instruction to maximize outcomes or in the identification of kids with disabilities.

[mzteris]

18. I guess what I was trying to say is,

there has always been "testing", why is it such a "big deal" now?

(Except for the things that are wrong with it that need to be fixed, of course, but you'd think Duncan invented testing or something...)

[MichiganVote]

20. Because the Federal gov't ties test results to funding provided to states.

[mzteris]

22. one of the things "wrong" with it now.

I dunno - like I said - I LIKED taking those tests. I thought they were a fun challenge. I'm such a nerd.

My kid could only take "assessments" - when we were homeschooling - which I told him -were designed to see if I was teaching him properly.

(oh wow. I probably shouldn't say that here, should i? )

Just to emphasize: I do NOT believe in "testing" to "test the teacher" as a rule. However, his perfectionism - which helped drive that test phobia - would ratchet down because HE wasn't being "tested", I was... oh well, whatever worked..

(Fyi - he's fine now & in highschool. It just took some doing. There were other strategies I used as well with him if anyone is ever interested...)

[MichiganVote]

25. I'm sure you did your best and sounds like he did also.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. No exceptions

2% of kids can take an alternative test. But all are tested. And 100% must be proficient.

[mzteris]

11. actually there ARE exceptions -

districts can apply for exceptions to the 2% if so warranted..

and 100% of who must be proficient? Are you still talking about the alternatively tested kids? Or all kids.

And what's wrong with ensuring that ALL kids are receiving an appropriate education.

yeah, the testing statutes need to be changed - and they are being changed, but there needs to be some way to gauge what's going on. You may be doing a great job of teaching, but what about those that are NOT?


did you get a chance to read that opinion piece from the National Disabiity Rights people? I thought some of the comments were pretty interesting. What do you think?

[MichiganVote]

13. Assumes facts not in evidence...as in, some kids test very well who happend to have

less constructive teaching. There IS more to education than teachers wouldn't you agree?

[mzteris]

14. oh most definitely agree.

I'm not talking about "testing teachers" ...

and yeah - some people are ace test takers and dumb as a freakin stump!! lol

My own son had a severe test phobia for quite some time so I'm most definitely "anti-testing".

I like the portfolio model myself.



editing cause I realize my first sentence doesn't seem to jibe with my previous post about "teachers not teaching"...

I'm not sure what the answer it to tell you the truth. I mean, everyone KNOWS who the "good teachers are" and the "bad teachers are" - every teacher, every admin, every student - over time - you just "know" who they are and which is which . . . How can we quantify that in such a way as to either get rid of the "really bad" ones - or help them to improve so that they ARE good ones? ?

[MichiganVote]

15. Teachers and parents like the portfolio method also. Politicians and taxpayers

without kids in school want tests to prove any money is worth the legal provision of a "free and appropriate education".

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. Tests are cheaper than portfolios

[mzteris]

19. but a much poorer substitute.

You get what you pay for. . .

More money on education. Less money on war.

[mzteris]

10. ah - I found the "opinion piece"

when I stopped looking for it! :D

A different POV about testing kids with disabilities. I should see if there is anything current about testing on this website. At any rate, an interesting opinion, don't you think?

I wonder what the Sped teachers here think about it??? Do you think they'll read it?


National Disability Rights Network (NDRN)

Children with Disabilities Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Myths and Realities
March 24, 2004 (updated May 2005)

http://www.napas.org/issues/edu/NCLB_M&R_Final.htm