The typing habits of Big Fabes.

The link goes to a very thoughtful article by New York special education teacher Michael Loeb arguing for standardized tests for special education students. He missed out on tenure because his students didn’t show adequate growth in English and mathematics on said tests.

That led to me reflect on the situation in my district and with the tests. For special education students to succeed on these tests, they need access to proper instruction, accommodations and modifications. My district, last year, moved the standardized test primarily responsible for measuring student growth to about one week after the standardized test primarily responsible for school accountability.

The two tests could not be more different. The accountability test is basically un-timed. Special education students have access to a series of accommodations and modifications, ranging from oral administration to supplemental aids (100s charts, multiplication charts), blank graphic organizers, frequent breaks, individual administration… You get the idea.

The growth test is timed, with very short time windows. The test does not allow for any of the accommodations listed above. Sure, the students might be able to take the tests in small groups, but none of the things they were used to in test taking are allowed on the growth test.

How, then, does a special education student, whether they are Autistic, have an emotional disorder or a specific learning disability, react when they get used to one set of supports for test taking only to have those ripped away a week later for a series of quickly timed tests? I have no data to drive my opinion, but, I’d wager that they feel frustrated or confused by the change.

Given the sequence of the two tests and the incredible differences in how the two tests are administered, do the growth tests actually measure accurate student growth given changes? And, if they don’t accurately measure student growth, is it fair to use these tests to evaluate teacher effectiveness?