Public school students take two kinds of tests:
Tests that measure an individual student’s progress to provide timely feedback for parents and teachers guiding the student’s education.
Standardized tests that attempt to measure how well schools are performing.
Starting with No Child Left Behind, federal law required states to administer standardized tests to all students, including those with disabilities. Congress reformed federal education law with the Every Student Succeeds Act, intending to give states more flexibility. The law still requires testing all students by grade and mandates the states to improve standardized testing scores every year.
Montana Superintendent of Schools Elsie Arntzen has drawn up a new state ESSA plan that calls for the biggest improvements in scores for special needs students because they were the lowest according to 2016 tests.
People are also reading…
“My job is to ensure proficiency,” Arntzen told the Legislature’s interim education committee last Tuesday. Special education scores “have to grow at a greater rate.”
Individualized progress
Special education students are required by another federal law to have an individual education plan. The IEP involves parents, teachers and other adults involved in the child’s well-being. The IEP is the opposite of standardized.
“In special education, it’s supposed to be individualized progress,” said Rep. Kathy Kelker, of Billings.
Taking standardized tests can be stressful for any child, and more so for special needs students. “Some kids really freak out, it’s not a comfortable situation for them,” Kelker said. “Some kids go with the flow.”
If the child could meet math and reading proficiency standards, he wouldn’t be in special education, said Kelker, who holds a doctoral degree in special education, taught special education at Montana State University Billings, taught in Billings Public Schools, consulted with special education co-ops and retired as executive director of Billings Head Start.
“Having high expectations and helping a child meet those expectations leads to better outcomes,” Kelker said, but she cautioned against “setting yourself up for failure.” “How are we going to accomplish these very lofty goals and are we going to be beating ourselves up because we didn’t have the resources?”
Other states have proposed ESSA plans with special education proficiency gains as high or higher than Arntzen’s plan. But that doesn’t make them a good deal for kids.
We call on Arntzen to submit a plan that makes the most sense for students with IEPs.
The biggest barrier for Montana special ed students isn’t test scores; it’s lack of the intensity and scope of services they need to develop their full potential. Montana doesn’t fund special education according to what students need. Funding is allocated on the assumption that 10 percent of students qualify for special education. (Nationally, 13 percent of students are in special education.) State and federal funding combined don’t cover actual costs of special education, so local school districts are required to spend general fund money, too.
The interim legislative committee is studying Montana’s special education funding.
Critical funding
Special education funding “is a critical issue,” Frank Podobnik, OPI special education administrator, told the committee. “One of the largest co-ops in the state is not sure they can make through this year with funding.”
Podobnik said the proposed ESSA goals won’t be reached when “we’re cutting staff, we’re cutting programs and teachers have 25 students with disabilities.”
House Joint Resolution 1, which Kelker sponsored, called for the study of funding education for children with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency and gifted and talented children. The directive is to:
Consider how Montana could achieve the best match between funding and actual costs.
Prevent tendencies to over-identify special education students or elevate levels of service to receive more funding.
Consider alternative funding mechanisms to enhance the development of the full educational potential for students with special needs.
The results of this research and legislation recommendations will be presented to the 2019 regular session.
Arntzen told the committee that she had just received state results from the Smarter Balance standardized tests Montana students took early last spring. Neither schools nor parents have yet received student and classroom scores. The test measures schools, comparing last year’s class with the class of 2016. It doesn’t measure how much an individual student learned in the year.
Let’s not lose sight of the purpose of K-12 education: to develop the whole child, not to pass standardized tests.
Students need adequate support to succeed. The interim committee should focus on getting the best value for every dollar spent for students with disabilities and other special needs students. Cutting special education may cost more in the long run.
-- The Billings Gazette
