I am so angry at my school district over the issue of test accommodations, I am seeing red. I have a child who is LD, but this isn’t for my son. This is in the district that I work in as a social worker Ffor some ridiculous reason, part of my job is to coordinate test accommodations for LD students—and to be one of the “teachers” providing accommodations.
When we come back from Spring break, our 3rd, 4th and 5th graders will be taking the State accountability tests. LD students who have accommodations for testing will receive them. This year, in addition, our 2nd and 4th graders will be taking standardized tests in Reading, Math and Written Language as an in house district assessment of our curriculum.
Our director or special ed announced that we would not be providing test accommodations for the district assessments. I objected, and pointed out that IDEA 97 specifically includes district assessments. The intent of the law was to assess the education being provided to all students and not just LD students. I have been arguing with my principals about this—because I think it isn’t right. The director or special education finally said that if a child was taken out of the room and had the test read to them EVERY time, then we would take them out. There are 2 children who the LD teachers don’t take out. Today I asked the classroom teachers what they do during tests. Both said that they read the test to the child in the room. Our Sped dirctor says no accommodations for these students.
Because I have been a thorn in my principals’ side, I got my punishment today. I was invited to show up to the district LD teachers’ meeting—in the middle of the meeting. Both of my administrators also showed up. (None of the principals from the other buildings were there). There, 12 LD teachers sat and listened to me argue with the Special Ed director. She did everything that she could to embarrass me—asking me what right I had to talk to classroom teachers about accommodations, and similar questions. She is smooth and articulate, —but the best that she could do in the end was to say that she and I disagree about what the law means.
Personnally, I found the experience nauseating. My principals sat back with their arms crossed and didn’t say a word. Neither did any of the LD teachers. Oh they did agree that even though an IEP may say that a child should take the test untimed in a resource room, that we are meeting the accommodation if the test is taken in the classroom, and we give the child extra time at another time if they ask for it.
Am I crazy? I can’t get past looking at the impact of failing to accommodate students has on how they experience testing. When kids are self concious about being viewed as “dumb” they will rush through testing to look like other kids. And for the students who can’t read, we are creating a test situation in which they have hours of tests that they can’t really do. And we are completely ignoring the accommodations written into 504s.
Since I can’t go out and ask the parents in my district what they think, I would appreciate your feedback. If I am out of line, I will shut up. Thanks. Leah
ps—I forgot this part. She also said that if the curriculum is being modified for LD students then they shouldn’t take the tests at all since they aren’t participating in the same curriculum as the other students. I don’t understand how you can evaluate how a curriculum is meeting the needs of all students if you 1) design a curriculum that doesn’t meet the needs of many LD students and then 2) don’t include them in the evaluation because the curriculum is being modified because it doesn’t meet their needs in the first place. And using this logic, no special ed student who receives modifications would take district assessments. That is the exact opposite of my understanding of the changes to IDEA 97. Am I missing something?
Re: Test Accommodations--what do you think? (long)
How about the memo from the U. S. Dept of Education on the front page of the web site? It says that state and local assessments MUST contain the accommodations or modifications for the student that they usually receive. Print it up and sent it!
Re: Test Accommodations--what do you think? (long)
Certainly you’re right and it’s a shame that others don’t agree with you. That’s the bad news. The good news is these standardized tests impact upon the school but not upon the child so that even if these children don’t fare well, it will not come back to them.
In the absense, though, of a person sympathetic to their needs, they might be better off not taking the test. The harsh reality is that even if this test would show that the current curriculum does not meet their needs, it isn’t likely that this district will do much for these kids especially reevalutate their curriculum.
When I can’t get what I think what the kids need at the school level, I go underground and try to do what I can through less obvious channels. I admire your bravery and your honesty.
Re: Test Accommodations--what do you think? (long)
I can only mirror from the others on my feelings for you. As Andy , I would of walked through fire for you. Is there not one parent you could talk to? Any parent that could magicly appear requesting or inquiring about their child’s test accomodations? Someone you could trust,not even needing to be from the school,this is a district wide situation correct? Also,this is a violation of the student civil rights ,anyone can file an anonymous complaint,on behalf of a population of students,and you did mention that you are a special education mother as well? Come into it from another way. As you mentioned this doesn’t effect your child directly,what about indirectly? Again,thank you. I can not even imagine your situation. I would get quiet,and some how give it to the parents that can do something with it. It’s better for you and these kids, if you stick in the job longer.I would of given eye teeth for a social worker like you. Frankly,pushing bamboo shoots under my fingernails wouldn’t of been enough,for me to say what district person called me,and gave me this peice of information. Not enough,geez,what am I saying? NOT ANYONE,ever told me,anything.
Re: Test Accommodations--what do you think? (long)
Accomodations are given in College for taking tests, it doesn’t change the grade they receive it just evens the playing field. I understand what you are going through as I have faced similar challenges in fighting for the rights of other children I have tutored. It is indeed frustrating to see how rigid administrators are the fear of doing anything outside of the box that will help a child is out of the question… it as if they have gone over to the dark side. Those of us who are the Don Quixote’s of the world are still out there fighting for the rights of children, we may not comply with the way the *system* operates but at least we can live with ourselves in realizing that we are doing everything within our power to provide for other children and people with disabilities.
Perhaps there is a way to educate this administration by making a phone call to a parent like Socks suggested who in turn can go over their heads to a state supervisor to make sure that the children receive the accomodations that they are allowed under federal law.
Not only are you not missing something, you sound more like a parent fighting with idiot administrators than anything else! (compliment intended!). You pretty much hit the nail on the head with the failure to accomodate in these types of situations.
Can only tell you how appreciative your student’s parents should be to have someone as brave as you standing up for their kid’s rights and opportunity to have a “FAPE”. We’d of walked through fire and hell for you had you been there for ours. Your administrators sound so similar to our district’s beaurocratic buttheads that it makes me sick.
The classic situation of them ganging up on one who happens to speak out (be it the truth or otherwise) only shows their weakness and fear of your speaking the truth. They act like gang members or prison inmates in trying to intimidate by authority or power, and by trying to embarrass you in front of your peers, they only show their true colors. Good thing it wasn’t actual war, with your superiors there “at your back”, as they would have been useless. Sadly, as you say, most of your peers agree, but fail to have the courage to stand up and put these jerks in thier place. Oh well.
You ask what to do. I suggest you start documenting everything and keep track of dates, times and what was said; kind of like a journal, without any emotions. Just the facts. The meetings, the comments, the retaliatory actions that will start happening to you if they already have not. Also be darn sure of the laws, and that you are on the right side. I hate to tell you to research the Sheila Hopper case (attached below), from the Los Angeles Unified District. She was a teacher (special ed), who ended up fighting with her district over a child’s education. At any rate, I do not include it to scare you off, as you should hold to your integrity and “do the right thing”, I just think you need to be aware… that’s all. God bless you for your courage!
Andy
Sheila’s story (in part):
The Story of Sheila Hopper Retaliation:
The Dark Side of Special Education
How Education Officials Retaliated Against A Student Advocate
When Congress passed the special education mandate in 1975, it had no idea what kind of organizations would evolve to implement it. Over the years some of these organizations have become powerful bureaucracies with needs that are frequently at odds with the people they serve. At their worst, such organizations can become dysfunctional. The story within the story of Sheila Hopper is about one such system.
Perhaps nothing more separates the officials who control the special education apparatus from the consumers they are supposed to serve than the ugly reality of retaliation. Many stories are known. This is one of the more horrific.
This is not a new story, but it has not been widely told, and it does not seem to have an end. It is the story of a highly professional, knowledgeable, and resourceful teacher who knew too much. She knew too much about federal law, she knew too much about her school district. And, she cared too much.
Shelia Hopper, a resource specialist in the Los Angeles Unified School District, could not ignore the fact that a 5th grade child could not read, write, or even spell her name. In 1988, the child was referred to Sheila for testing. It should have been an easy task to provide the student with needed services. But, when a large bureaucracy is involved, with its hierarchy of power and jealously guarded prerogatives, what should be easy is often impossible. In this case, the needs of the bureaucrats took precedence over the needs of the child.
The special educators that Sheila went to for help did not agree with her that the child needed special education services. Without consulting with Sheila or the child’s parents, a school psychologist declared the student ineligible for special education services. Because she believed the child was being denied services illegally, Sheila filed a complaint against the district in May 1989.
This was not just any district, but the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). LAUSD is big and powerful—a $5 billion enterprise, with relatively unlimited resources. When she filed a complaint against them, Sheila gained a powerful and vindictive adversary. Then Sheila realized that the district routinely held IEP meetings without the classroom teacher present. She filed another complaint. The district was found to be “out of compliance.” When by 1992 the district failed to implement needed changes, Sheila filed yet a third complaint.
The retaliation started long before Sheila’s last complaint. Perhaps the most insidious was in the work environment, where according to Sheila, she experienced a myriad of subtle pressures. Her split duty between two schools continued beyond the point where a single assignment was warranted, her caseload was allowed to grow beyond the mandated limit, causing her waiting list of kids to be tested to stretch to 10 months. But the worst was yet to come.
In March of 1990, Sheila was charged with child abuse. The police could find no evidence of such a crime by a teacher with an impeccable record of performance that stretched for over 15 years of honorable duty.
Charges were immediately dropped. However, the district persevered with its own “investigation.”
According to Sheila, over the next two months the school principal called three or four of her students into the office five, six, or seven times to “interview” them about Sheila. The students were given jelly beans to keep these discussions secret. For some it was a terrifying experience. One child started to cry as he asked Sheila if the principal was trying to get her fired. Another started having nightmares.
Finally the district made its move. Based on the charges that had been earlier dropped, Sheila was given a 15 day suspension, a transfer, and an unsatisfactory performance review. In response, Sheila filed a grievance and in June 1990 the case went into arbitration.
Not only did the arbitrator find in Sheila’s favor, in a rare departure from normal practice, he wrote a scathing commentary citing “professional misconduct” on the part of the district.
As a result, Sheila filed charges against the principal with the California Teacher Credentialing Commission. The Commission recommended a 10 day suspension of the principal’s credentials. The district appealed. The case went before an administrative law judge, with the California Attorney General’s office prosecuting against the district.
A nine day hearing ensued, the outcome of which was a finding that the district did not retaliate against Sheila. Interestingly, the judge had been asked and refused to excuse himself from the case because of an unusual circumstance. He knew Sheila’s husband, who is a medical doctor. An unusual request by the judge had been turned down by Dr. Hopper in his capacity as an HMO manager.
Most people would give up at this point. Fortunately for the rest of us, Sheila did not. She finally got an attorney. He succeeded in getting her a trial before a jury.
In November 1994, following a five day trial, a jury deliberated for an hour and a half and decided in favor of Sheila, finding that the school principal had indeed retaliated against her by falsely accusing her of child abuse. She was awarded $50,000 in general damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. But the district, fueled by a limitless supply of taxpayer money, refused to accept the jury’s decision. They appealed. The jury decision was then overturned by a three judge federal panel.
Sheila is now petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to restore the jury conviction and her good name. She will find out in 1997 if the Supreme Court will hear her case. The total spent by LAUSD to prevail over one lone resource room teacher? $565,000, and counting.
Epilogue
What, our readers may wonder, ever became of the child who inspired this incredible story of retaliation? She was of course, placed in a special education program. Sheila was right all along.
[Note: See issue 11 of The Observer for a follow-up story.]
©Special Education Observer