Educating One and All Students with Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform (1997) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 THE POLICY FRAMEWORKS
2 THE POLICY FRAMEWORKS
Pages 20-67
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 20... ...
At its most concrete level, policy determines what level of resources will be provided, how those resources will be allocated, who will have authority to deliver educational services, and how policy makers and educators will be held accountable. At a more abstract level, policy also communicates ideas about what constitutes a good education and how that education can best be achieved.
|
From page 21... ...
Our analysis of the two policy frameworks illustrates the wide variation across states in policy choices, the considerable latitude that local school districts have in interpreting and implementing federal and state policies, and the limits of policy in shaping what happens in individual homes, schools, and classrooms. It also demonstrates that these two policy frameworks represent powerful ideas about how to educate children.
|
From page 22... ...
Goals 2000 Enacted by Congress in 1994 at the behest of the Clinton administration, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act codifies a set of national education goals and seeks to encourage the states to adopt two types of voluntary standards: · Content standards, defined as "broad descriptions of the knowledge and skills students should acquire in a particular subject area" (P.L.
|
From page 23... ...
to provide all students with an opportunity to learn the material in the voluntary national content standards or State content standards" (103-227, sec 3 [71~. The OTL standards were included in the Goals 2000 legislation at the behest of some Democratic members of Congress who did not want disadvantaged students to be harmed by content standards and testing when they had not been provided the curricular resources to do well iIn fiscal 1996, all but eight states received less than $10 million in Goals 2000 funding.
|
From page 24... ...
The first group of states to submit improvement plans defined their approach to OTL standards in a variety of ways, ranging from general student support programs such as preprimary education and after-school tutoring, to more specific curricular initiatives focusing on teacher professional development, classroom technology, and instructional materials. For the most part, states simply classified existing programs that support and enhance student learning as constituting their OTL strategies, rather than promulgating specific resource or instructional standards as benchmarks for gauging whether local communities have provided students with an adequate opportunity to learn.
|
From page 25... ...
IASA contains a major new focus and an explicit set of requirements that states and local districts must meet as a condition for obtaining funds under Title I, the largest federal school aid program, which serves poor, underachieving students. The purpose of the new legislation is "to enable schools to provide opportunities for children served to acquire the knowledge and skills contained in challenging State content standards and to meet the challenging State performance standards developed for all children" (P.L.
|
From page 26... ...
As with Goals 2000, Title I acknowledges students with disabilities and specifies that they are to be included in the teaching and assessment of state content standards. The legislation also indicates that all children are to participate in annual assessments and that reasonable accommodations and adaptations are to be provided students with diverse learning needs.
|
From page 27... ...
Not only are the states at very different stages in that development process,3 but also the resulting standards vary in their specificity and their use. In some states, content standards are no more than broad, rhetorical goals that local districts are urged to follow.
|
From page 28... ...
Despite the innovations in state assessments over the past decade, there is some indication that even these changes do not sufficiently address the expectations in federal policy or the requirement to include students with disabilities in state assessments. A recent survey of state assessment programs conducted by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the North Central Educational Laboratory (Bond et.
|
From page 29... ...
require students with disabilities to take tests without accommodations; 41 states currently allow students with IEPs to be excluded from state assessments; and 39 permit some type of accommodations. The most common adaptations permitted for students with disabilities are large print (34 states)
|
From page 30... ...
These studies show a correlation between the number and level of mathematics courses taken and student achievement, even when background variables such as home and community environment and previous mathematics learning are taken into account (Hoffer et al., 1995; Raizen and Jones, 1985; Jones et al., 1986~. For advocates of content standards, the implication of this research is that a set of curricular standards that applies to all students will increase their opportunity to learn and hence their achievement.
|
From page 31... ...
Its prominence on the national education policy agenda means that it has also involved the two political parties, major education interest groups such as the teacher unions, groups representing professional disciplines such as mathematics teachers, and organizations representing business interests such as the Business Roundtable. For example, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics framed and published voluntary national mathematics standards (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989~.
|
From page 32... ...
Consequently, to talk about the institutional arrangements assumed in the standards-based policy framework is to pose a question about who has authority to define and implement standards and to ask whether consensus is possible among all these different interests. New forms of assessment are also seen as a solution to the shortcomings of past policies.
|
From page 33... ...
Similarly, the initial development and subsequent modifications of new state assessments can also consume several years. Nevertheless, even though we cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of standards policies, the experience of the early implementers does illustrate some of the potential barriers.
|
From page 34... ...
Implementing appropriate support services and creating incentives for including students with disabilities in the mainstream curriculum and assessment will continue to challenge states and local districts. But what seem to be an even
|
From page 35... ...
Goertz and Friedman (1996:18) report: "based on our interviews with state special education directors and state directors of curriculum and instruction, it appears that special education has not played a major role in the development of either state content standards or specific curriculum frameworks in most states.
|
From page 36... ...
The interest groups' lack of specificity about the relationship between special education and standards-based reform further illustrates a central fact about standards policies at this time: systematic efforts to determine whether state content standards are appropriate for all or most students with disabilities and to identify the conditions under which these students might be taught and assessed according to those standards are not yet an integral part of state policy frameworks. Consequently, even with the limited data available, it seems reasonable to conclude that the assumption "all children can learn to high standards" has not yet been adequately defined in policy, much less implemented.
|
From page 37... ...
Promulgating clear and precise content standards depends on the ability of policy makers, educators, subject-matter experts, and the public to reach a consensus on what those standards ought to include. Basically, the relevant community needs to agree on what constitutes the valuable knowledge that students should learn.
|
From page 38... ...
But public opinion data indicate that some of the questions these groups are raising reflect broader public concerns. For example, recent surveys about the teaching of mathematics and writing point to fundamental differences between the curricular values of education reformers and large segments of the public.
|
From page 39... ...
Student Performance Can Be Measured Validly and Reliably 11- students are to be held to a certain performance level on a set of curriculum standards, then they have to be assessed in a way that is cost-efficient and comparable across large numbers of students. Historically, these two criteria have led states and local districts to rely on standardized, multiple-choice tests because they offer a variety of practical and measurement advantages.
|
From page 40... ...
Despite this persistent and enduring pattern of instruction, the standards movement assumes that teachers will accept i5Chapter 5 also analyzes the assumption of the standards policy framework that performance on content standards can be measured reliably and validly, with particular attention to its implications for students with disabilities.
|
From page 41... ...
The researchers noted: "A troubling issue here is that many local educators believed they understood and were pressing for the enactment of ideas about mathematics and science education that were analogous with those advanced by AAAS, NCTM, and others.... The reform rhetoric of local educators, then, masks significant variability across and within school districts.
|
From page 42... ...
in the sample reported that MSPAP has had positive effects on instruction in their schools; about half believe that it has caused some teachers who are resistant to change to alter their instruction. A total of 55 percent of the fifth-grade teachers and 33 percent of the eighth-grade mathematics teachers reported focusing "a great deal" on improving the consistency between their instructional content and the MSPAP.
|
From page 43... ...
For example, the Kentucky teachers included in only a few of their assignments the state learning goals that stress thinking critically, developing solutions to complex problems, and organizing information to understand concepts. Similarly, low-end content standards such as understanding computational procedures and reading comprehension were more likely to be reflected in assignments than complex standards such as understanding space and dimensionality and using reference tools appropriately.
|
From page 44... ...
School districts have been allowed to use up to nine days a year for professional development; in addition, $400 per teacher was allocated for professional development, with 65 percent of that sum under the control of the local school site. Even this substantial resource commitment has been insufficient.
|
From page 45... ...
In 1989, in response to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state's school finance system, the Kentucky supreme court ruled not only that the finance system was unconstitutional, but also that the entire state school system was unconstitutional. The court ordered the legislature to redesign Kentucky' s education system in its entirety.
|
From page 46... ...
is the primary federal law providing funding and policy guidance for the education of students with disabilities; its major policy goals have remained constant since the IDEA's predecessor, Public Law 94-142, was enacted in 1975. The IDEA is basically a grants program that provides funds to states to serve students with disabilities in need of special education on the condition that the states ensure an appropriate education for them.
|
From page 47... ...
As one commentator has suggested, its legislative history shows that Congress clearly intended not to choose between these two goals and purposely left to state and local officials the responsibility for defining an appropriate education and deciding various policy issues, such as the resource trade-offs between groups in meeting excellence and equity goals. Furthermore, Congress purposely left resolution of these matters to evolve over time rather than setting specific national educational priorities (Yudof, 1984~.
|
From page 50... ...
It applies to virtually all public schools, since the overwhelming majority receive some form of federal assistance. In the context of elementary and secondary education, the regulations implementing Section 504 require that local districts provide a free, appropriate public education to each school-age child, regardless of the nature or severity of the person's disability.
|
From page 51... ...
2{ The outcomes articulated in this subset of school finance cases are part of what constitutes an appropriate education in a particular state for the purposes of the IDEA's definition of free, appropriate public education. In Kentucky, for example, the state supreme court held that the Kentucky constitution, which requires that the legislature "provide for an efficient system of common schools throughout the state," means that "every child .
|
From page 52... ...
Rationale Behind the Special Education Policy Framework Current policy frameworks for special education were initiated by an alliance of families and professionals working with individuals with disabilities and advocacy groups dedicated to disability rights. Special education policy in the United States over the past 25 years is a direct response to a history in which students with disabilities were either excluded entirely from educational opportunities or were often segregated in inadequate programs in inadequate facilities (Sarason and Doris, 1979; Minow, 1990~.
|
From page 53... ...
Here we describe the assumptions undergirding special education policy, assess available evidence about their current status, and consider the impact of standards-based reform on these assumptions. All Students Can Learn The most fundamental assumption of state and federal special education policy is that all students with disabilities can learn and that all, no matter the nature or severity of their disability, should be given access to an appropriate public education.
|
From page 54... ...
Students with Disabilities Can Be Accurately Identified for Education Services The provisions of the federal IDEA and Section 504 and the requirements of most state special education laws that require an individualized, appropriate education for students with disabilities rest on two key assumptions about student evaluation and identification. First, students are not eligible for coverage under the laws unless they have either been identified as "disabled" and in need of special education or, under Section 504, are either "disabled" or "regarded as
|
From page 55... ...
Besides a lack of consistent identification practices across schools, educators also face competing incentives in serving students who may have disabilities. For example, financial pressures on school districts and a lack of adequate federal and state support may make local officials reluctant to refer students for special education services even when they appear to meet relevant eligibility criteria.
|
From page 56... ...
Educators' efforts to balance their responsibilities by simultaneously serving all students, interpreting applicable legal requirements for individual children, working within existing fiscal and organizational constraints, and responding to parental concerns may result in some students receiving services in one school and being ineligible for them in another. Students with Disabilities Are Entitled to an Appropriate Education The IDEA rests on an assumption that the best way to achieve an appropriate education for students with disabilities is to design a program of education and related services through the IEP process.
|
From page 57... ...
The Court expressly declined to establish any one test for appropriateness, but since Amy Rowley was receiving substantial special services and was performing above average in a regular classroom, it limited its analysis to that situation and concluded that she was receiving an appropriate education. The Rowley case received considerable attention, but it was in many ways a poor case to guide educators and judges in future disputes since it involved a student who, despite her parent's requests for more special education services, was doing quite well.
|
From page 58... ...
In this approach, the courts consider the student's capability to make educational progress; appropriate education and educational benefits requirements are met whenever one placement is likely to result in higher outcomes for a student than another and the program uses appropriate curricula to meet the student's needs. Only a minority of cases, most of them less recent, reject the balancing of benefits approach (Turnbull, 1993~.
|
From page 59... ...
In a standards-based system, then, a free and appropriate education includes the special education and related services necessary to allow students to attain the outcomes set forth for them, as well as any programming needed to address their supplemental, individualized educational needs (Ordover et al., 19961. Students with Disabilities Should Be Educated in the Least Restrictive Educational Environment In addition to decreasing the number of students with disabilities who are excluded from education, federal laws also sought to ensure that, whenever possible, participation in special education classes would be reduced in favor of placement in the regular classroom (Benveniste, 19861.
|
From page 60... ...
From the perspective of standards-based reform, however, the issue is not where students with disabilities receive their education, but whether they have access to a challenging curriculum and high-quality instruction consistent with state and local standards. Most disability advocates seek the participation of students with disabilities in key reform initiatives, such as high common standards, large-scale assessments, and curricular reforms, regardless of what stance they take on the general inclusion issue.
|
From page 61... ...
In conjunction with the requirement for the least restrictive environment, the IDEA's definition of an appropriate education requires that the goals and content of specially designed instruction and related services be designed with reference to public education, as defined by state law and practice. The IDEA and its implementing regulations require states and local school systems to adopt and implement a goal of providing "full educational opportunity" to all children with disabilities (20 U.S.C.
|
From page 62... ...
As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in the Rowley case, educators' compliance with procedural protections is a crucial element for ensuring that the appropriateness requirements of the IDEA are met.
|
From page 63... ...
Parents invoking these rights will do so within the substantive framework of the child's right to receive a free, appropriate public education as defined by the IDEA, with maximum appropriate integration with nondisabled peers. The use of procedural protections to ensure students with disabilities access to appropriate education has resulted in the "legalization" of special education (Neal and Kirp, 1985; Yudof,1984~.
|
From page 64... ...
CONCLUSIONS The two policy frameworks that define standards-based reform and the education of students with disabilities embody potentially compatible goals. However, before those ideals can be melded into effective classroom practice, two major barriers must be overcome.
|
From page 65... ...
All these challenges are further complicated because they must be addressed within the rights-based framework of special education, which also has professional and technical limitations. For example, substantive decisions about the participation of students with disabilities in content standards must be made within an IEP process that has become increasingly routinized and procedural in its emphasis.
|
From page 66... ...
One lesson that emerges quite clearly from the experience of the states that implemented standards reforms early is that the development of new curriculum standards and assessments cannot be solely a technical process with participation limited to experts. Decisions as significant as what knowledge is most important for students to learn and how they should be tested on their mastery of it require open, public deliberation.
|
From page 67... ...
Just as standards advocates have had to listen to and accommodate the preferences of those with different cultural values, so they must be open to students whose educational needs do not completely conform to their prior assumptions. Deliberation is difficult, but not to talk constructively across interests and communities is to mock the notion of common standards for public schools.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.