On 7/28/10, Jo wrote:
>
> The last thing the kids need are lower standards so that those
> that have a chance of succeding automatically get put in the box
> with lower standards. I've seen kids that read years below grade
> level and write even worse ace courses like Chemsitry, Physics,
> etc when the information is delivered in a manner appropriate for
> the student and the student is able to respond using methods that
> work for the student.
>

So have I. I could only see the "special ed standards" idea working
if they are seen as a series of benchmarks - not as setting a new
(lower) bar. For example, a student would start out aiming for grade
level standards but if unable to reach them, we could then work on
the next lower level and be able to see he's meeting that one. Or
vice versa - start with a low one, meet it, move on to the next and
keep going until the student no longer is meeting the standards. And
then that first standard that he hasn't met is the one you keep
working toward.
But it has to remain flexible - access to higher level standards
should never be denied if there is any possibility of the student
meeting them (and that needs to be determined objectively). A change
would require an IEP meeting but that should always be an option and
should be something the team always considers.
More or less that's how the standards I listed in my previous post
are used, but other than the Braille standards they aren't as
formalized as our traditional standards.
Using standards (or benchmarks) like this as a consistent, state-wide
way to measure progress toward specific goals is intriguing and with
our three levels of alternative assessments I think we are heading in
that direction. But using them to set lower expectations would
definitely be a step backward, I agree.

More | Report Post

Next Post >>

Posts on this thread, including this one