Schools say too much test pressure is landing on special ed

To Don Pascoe, the federal "No Child Left Behind" law has been a mixed blessing for special education students in Osseo School District.

The director of research, assessment and accountability for the district says the law mandating testing for all the district's students has forced it to look more carefully at the special education students' academic needs. Teachers have discovered that some kids can do more than the district ever expected.

But for those who are significantly behind their peers, it's demoralizing.

"It would be like me wanting to be in a track meet," said Pascoe. "Then, they stick me in the high jump and when I go up for the first time, it's 6 feet high and all the jumps available to me are way harder than I could do. And I would just get beat up by it."

Statewide, a quarter of the 729 Minnesota schools listed as not making "adequate yearly progress" on last spring's standardized tests were on the list because of the performance of their special education students alone, according to the Minnesota Department of Education.

In the west-metro area, that's the case at several schools, including Orono, Maple Grove and Minnetonka high schools.

School officials across the board say that the tests, a requirement of the federal No Child Left Behind law, have helped raise expectations and achievement for many special education students. But they also question the wisdom of expecting children with proven learning disabilities to pass the same standardized tests as their peers -- and punishing the school if they don't succeed.

"I'm not going to pretend that we haven't had special education kids throw the test across the room and walk out on us," said Kathy McKay, director of special education services in Shakopee. "I don't know where common sense comes into No Child Left Behind, but it's not there yet."

Higher expectations

No Child Left Behind is a 2001 law mandating that states test how different groups of students fare in school. If one student group -- such as special education students -- fails to meet targets on a statewide standardized test, the whole school is labeled as not making "adequate yearly progress" for the year. The law is up for congressional reauthorization this year.

For schools that receive federal Title I money for low-income students, failure means penalties that increase over time, such as having to offer transfers and tutoring or restructuring staff and programs. Most west-metro school districts do not get Title I funds, but they still want to avoid the stigma attached to not making adequate yearly progress.

In Minnesota, No Child Left Behind comes in the form of the MCA-II test, which students in grades 3 through 11 take each spring in reading or math, or both. By 2014, the law says, every student group in the country is supposed to be proficient on the tests.

"I think the concept [of the law] puts the burden on schools to make sure we educate all students," said Scott Douglas, principal of Lakeville South High School, where special education students weren't proficient on the math or reading tests. "I think that's a viable expectation. I think that's what we're here for."

Educators are divided on whether these constant assessments are good for special education students, however.

Mary Kreger, director of special education for the Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan School District, has serious reservations. She said the system verges on blaming students for their disabilities and that teachers now focus less on the social, emotional and work skills students need.

But, she said, she thinks special education has changed for the better.

"Special education has been plagued by having low expectations," she said. "We need to improve our instruction, and we need to make sure that kids leave the educational system with the literacy and math and writing skills they need in our society. My concern is that we don't lose what we're about."

Pascoe, of Osseo, pointed out one fundamental problem: The physical act of sitting down and taking the standardized tests is very difficult for some of the special education students.

"With some students," he said, "we know that they're far below grade level. It's not a surprise that they're not proficient [on the test], but we shouldn't make him sit there and take the test. When I talk to people in the [schools], people perceive it sometimes as being cruel."

Who is tested

Educators say they're still researching why special education students in one school pass the tests while those in other schools in the same district fall behind. Some say that because special education students are usually a small percentage of the student body -- usually about 12 to 15 percent -- test results are more sensitive to the special needs of the group taking the tests.

Another factor, they say, is that in districts such as Osseo, high-needs students with specific disabilities such as autism are grouped in one school to receive services together. Not having a range of student skills within that group, and instead having a concentration of students with high needs, can be a prescription for failure to meet adequate yearly progress goals.

For a small percentage of the most disabled students, there is an alternative to the MCA-II test. For the first time last spring, students with significant cognitive disabilities were allowed to take an alternative test. But only 1 percent of a school's "proficient" test scores can be made up of scores from those tests.

According to Alice Seagren, commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education, the state doesn't have much control over who takes the standardized tests. The federal government says 95 percent of all students -- and 95 percent of the students in each subgroup -- must be tested. Schools also can be put on the list of schools not making "adequate yearly progress" for not having enough students take the tests.

Seagren has an adult son with significant cognitive disabilities, and has carefully watched the progression of special education law over the past 30 years.

"I just think that there needs to be more recognition about the challenges that special needs children have," she said. "The principle behind special education was developing 'individual education plans' for the students. To then go back to one test that tests all of these students -- because of their unique needs, it just seems to be counterintuitive."

Emily Johns • 612-673-7460

Emily Johns • ejohns@startribune.com