CARE Members Debate the DOE on Special Ed and MCAS

Sue Senator, a special ed parent and member of the Brookline School Committee, and Lisa Guisbond, a MassCARE coordinator and special ed parent, recently engaged in an email debate with the Department of Education's Dan Wiener about the MCAS and special education. The italic sections represent Wiener's views on how MCAS helps special needs students, and the boldface sections are Lisa Guisbond and Sue Senator's replies.

Massachusetts schools have previously given diplomas to students who
attended school for 12 years, and who met their local graduation
requirements. Beginning with the class of 2003, however, there is an
expectation that a diploma from a Massachusetts high school will signify
that a student has met a minimum level of academic achievement to ensure
that he or she can succeed in a rapidly-changing, information-based society
and become an informed, independent, productive, and contributing citizen.

Learning to succeed in a "rapidly-changing, information-based society and
becoming an informed, independent, productive, and contributing citizen"
takes much more than "academic achievement." All students need more than a certain level of math and English skills to be successful in life. Students with disabilities, in particular, have other educational needs that the public school system is required to address and honor. But all students need something that an MCAS-driven curriculum is unlikely to foster: the ability to think creatively and flexibly and the ability to respond to change.

A friend was recently in town to celebrate his former colleague's Nobel
prize. He now runs a research lab at Vanderbilt U. He questioned the notion
that high schools can teach specific skills to ensure that students "succeed
in a rapidly changing, information-based society…" It is precisely because
society is changing so rapidly that schools should not focus on testing
students obsessively to see if they have remembered a laundry list of facts
and skills. Instead, they should focus on helping kids develop habits of
mind that will prepare them to be lifelong learners and contributors, that
will help them adapt to all the change they will face in their lifetimes.

The "high-stakes" diploma has undeniably led schools to work harder to
provide all students, particularly those with disabilities, the opportunity
to make progress in the general curriculum, to learn new and challenging
subject matter, and to acquire the skills of problem-solving, reasoning,
reading comprehension, written expression, and basic math skills. The
graduation requirement is not meant to detract from the accomplishments of
students with moderate to profound disabilities who have worked hard and
made progress on their IEPs. Many students with disabilities work
conscientiously on their behavioral goals, social skills, speech, physical
coordination, and other aspects of their "individualized curriculum," and
should be rewarded for their achievements in this regard. Indeed, our staff
has worked diligently to train and assist teachers of those students to
adapt curriculum that is based on the same learning standards addressed by
other students. However, in the end, the diploma (and indeed special
education) is about academic achievement--it is an academic diploma, based
on achievement in the "general curriculum."

This is too simplistic a goal for a public school system. A public school
diploma should not just be about academic achievement. It should encompass a variety of values that we as a society embrace. Being able to go to college or work is not only about academics.

Moreover, you are confusing narrow standards with high standards. If your
goal were truly to ensure that special needs students get access to an
academic curriculum, you would do that without constructing a punitive
system that you know will disproportionately penalize special needs kids.
Among these kids will be some with severe cognitive impairments, who deserve every support and opportunity and whose progress may in fact depend on a nonstandard academic curriculum. There will also be many talented, high-functioning LD kids who you have to realize are perfectly capable of going to college and performing in the workplace, regardless of whether they can get a passing score on the math and English MCAS tests.

Students both with and without disabilities who attend school regularly and
take it seriously, as most do, but who have not yet passed the grade 10 math
and English language arts MCAS tests, will likely become good citizens and
responsible employees, and should be honored for their achievement with a
state-endorsed certificate for having met local requirements.

The implication of this statement is that students who have not passed the
grade 10 tests are by definition not capable of much more than good
citizenship and responsible, low-level employment. This is demonstrably
false. Why should the DOE decide based on a standardized test what an
individual "serious" student can and cannot do? Prior to 2003, the sky was
the limit for students who were unusual, who displayed knowledge in
unconventional ways. A person who perhaps could not do math at a 10th grade level, to pick an arbitrary grade ability, found a place at a college
anyway. Countless successful adults in the world today had just such an
experience, including perhaps many DOE employees. Now this person would not even have a true diploma. Some "serious" students cannot demonstrate their abilities on standardized tests. Many students with disabilities cannot, due to having different learning styles -- or does the DOE no longer believe in this theory of education?

To use a medical analogy, if a doctor diagnosed a serious illness based on a
single test (no matter how many times administered), he would be liable for
malpractice. We believe what you are doing is tantamount to educational
malpractice, and the results of a newly publicized study from the University
of Arizona support the idea that graduation tests have documented harmful
consequences (see "More Schools Rely on Tests, but Study Raises Doubts," New York Times, December 28, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/28/education/28EXAM.html?ex=1042088123&ei=1&e
n=4d668295719b3930). Special needs students are particularly at risk of
false positives, if you will. They are particularly at risk of a
determination based on a standardized test that they are not capable of
success when in fact they are. Tragically, they are also particularly at
risk of being discouraged from pursuing their goals by the experience of
repeatedly failing a standardized test.

The certificate will assist them in applying for employment, and for
post-secondary instruction in a community college or trade school, after
which they may retake the test and earn their diplomas.

You know as well as we do that a certificate will label the bearer as a
substandard person, and entitle a school or employer to reject that person
or pay them less than they would otherwise be entitled to be paid. And why
assume that retaking and retaking a test will get a person to pass? Or do
you make the test easier and easier? And if you do, are you not guilty of
"lowering" your own standards?

Students with disabilities who receive certificates are, in addition,
entitled to free public education until such time as they graduate, turn 22, or voluntarily withdraw from school. We hope they will continue to take advantage of the opportunity to learn the skills and content that will be important to them
in the years to come, and to continue to work toward their diplomas. The
Department believes in the value of an education based on challenging
academic standards, and feels that such an education will better serve
students with disabilities after they exit public instruction.

Have you heard of the book 1984, in which people were told things that they
knew were untrue, but because the powers that be said they were true, no one
could contest it? This last statement reeks of Big Brother. You say "Such an
education will better serve students with disabilities after they exit
public instruction." This is patently false, when you consider that you are
only talking about mastering one particular academic standard -- a test-- as
having the only value here, and not their individual educational goals. You
are merely paying lip service to the IEP, not honoring it, if you focus on
MCAS and MCAS alone, rather than putting resources into high quality IEP
development that would match your standards.