Comments on: Expecting more of students with disabilities

By: Special Ed Parent

Special Ed Parent — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 05:06:48 +0000

If not CST and CMA’s, then what? How does OUSD measure and assess student success and program/classroom quality? Graduation rates are a clear indicator. Reading proficiency based on developmental reading assessments such as Dibels, DRA’s, and other types are also crucial. Parent surveys about their children’s progress and the success of accommodations and modifications would yield important data. If we can’t collectively name what accounts for success, how can we aim for it? Finally, basic expectations for professional capacity, classroom resources/supports, among other programmatic criteria would help as well. We need of “full inclusion” (no pun intended) of Special Education within school quality review processes currently happening in OUSD. Clear indicators for programmatic quality must be named in those processes.

The most crucial statement within this valuable article by Ms. Smith is the following one: “The pockets of special education success throughout the district are a reminder that this isn’t rocket science. Success takes the combination of a belief that students can achieve with an administrative commitment to put the right resources in place to make that happen.” The recommendations that follow name the work that remains to be done.

Given the passionate and committed organizing of parents, staff, and community partners in the past few months, the moment is now for expecting that OUSD truly “expect success” for students with Special Needs by first knowing what success would look like.

By: Stacey Smith

Stacey Smith — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 19:36:10 +0000

Thanks, Teacher, for pointing out my missing citation! It somehow didn’t make the final edit. The quote is taken from the CDE webpage: “CMA Participation Criteria and Definition of Terms” http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/participcriteria.asp, last reviewed by CDE in March 2012. The criteria do seem to require that a student not be able to meet “grade-level proficiency” before being eligible to take the CMA.

What’s striking is the way CDE differentiates between the two tests, saying in the definitions at the bottom of the page that the “modified academic achievement standards” used to measure student achievement on the CMA are “less difficult than the grade-level academic achievement standards.” Elsewhere it notes parents are supposed to be informed of the different standards and emphasizes the CMA is “less rigorous.” That surprised me, because I was originally under the same impression – that the tests were in different formats but basically measured the same standards.

The SF Chronicle article made me wonder about a possible link to low OUSD special education student proficiency and graduation rates overall, which are what really concern me. If the feds say 80% of special education students should be able to meet “grade level proficiency”, and the state seems to define that in part by the ability to score proficient on the CSTs, what’s up with OUSD? Why do more than 20% of OUSD’s special education students seem to be taking the alternate test? The feds say that indicates special education students are not being held to the same high standards as their peers. Are there students right now in OUSD who shouldn’t be taking the CMA? Could they be taking the CSTs with more special education or other supports? If students are taking a less rigorous test, what impact does that have on the pathway to college and career – two major tenets of OUSD’s strategic plan?

What do you all think?

By: Turanga_Teach

Turanga_Teach — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:25:46 +0000

One of the main things that differs between CST and CMA, besides the absolute truckloads of wording and space which overwhelms students who have processing disorders in an absolute sea of similar information, is that the CMA does not typically have the answer choice which is deliberately designed to trick kids into selecting an error. Given that my students with IEPs who are taking the CMA explicitly struggle with reading comprehension and will need years of targeted intervention to fully be able to parse out the wheat from the chaff, I’ll “lower expectations” all over the place if it allows students I serve to be meaningfully–not maliciously–assessed.

By: teacher

teacher — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 02:58:23 +0000

I am a special ed teacher and have never, ever heard that statement “Then the student’s IEP team must determine that it is “reasonably certain that the student will not achieve grade-level proficiency within the year covered by the student’s IEP plan.” That quote sounds very much like it was taken out of context, and does not even say that NOT achieving grade level proficiency is the criteria for taking or not taking the CMA.

That is not part of the decision making that I know of being used to determine whether to use the CMA. Those of us who have seen the CMA and CST side by side can attest that the CMA is grade level standards. There are 3 answer choices instead of 4, the print size is larger, and in some cases the story is shorter. But it measures the same things.

Of all of the issues to focus on in special ed, I am not sure that this one is the one that will most benefit students.