Monthly Archives: April, 2010
Portfolio High School Testing – Good or Bad?
Many states with high stakes exit exams, such as Massachusetts with its MCAS test, offer an alternative method of testing for certain special education students. This alternative testing usually involves schools helping students to create a portfolio to be submitted to the state education department. The portfolio method is used to help students who cannot properly show what they have learned via a traditional pencil and paper test. In theory, it sounds like a fair option. The reality may be much different, though.
According to “Disability Scoop,” Virginia has decided to eliminate its alternative portfolio testing. Why? Disability Scoop states that the alternative method was “overused and produces too many positive results… ” (Shawn Heasley, “Concerns Prompt End to ‘Alternative’ Portfolio Test, April 23, 2010, http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2010/04/23/virginia-portfolio-test/7781/).
Massachusetts has just the opposite problem. In Massachusetts, children fail what is referred to as MCAS-Alt at an alarmingly high rate. The following information combines grades 10, 11 and 12. In 2009, there were 909 English Language Arts portfolios submitted, yet only 5 (0.5%) earned Needs Improvement or higher (the minimum eligible for graduation). Similarly, out of 918 Mathematics portfolios, only 6 (0.6%) earned Needs Improvement or higher. Finally, in Science and Technology, out of 951 submissions, only 14 (1.5%) earned Needs Improvement or higher. There are no numbers to indicate how many, if any, “portfolio” students graduated. These and more statistics can be found in a publication of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education called “2009 MCAS Alternate Assessment (MCAS-Alt): State Summary of Participation and Performance.” This report is available at the following URL: http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/alt/09statesum.pdf.
Please visit my web site for more information about the Law Office of James M. Baron: http://www.lawbaron.com.
Minnesota Twins New Ballpark Sets New Standard for Accessibility
As a baseball fan, and as a lawyer representing children with disabilities, I was very interested in a recent article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper (“Target Field rates ‘A’ for accessibility,” April 19, Kevin Duchschere, http://goo.gl/YCPQ). The Minnesota Twins new ballpark, Target Field, appears to have set a very high standard for handicapped accessibility. The article brings up issues which most non-handicapped people never think about. For example, people in wheelchairs often never see home runs land, because the people in front of them usually jump up and block their views. Likewise, counters at concession stands, which are usually a good height for people who can stand, are usually too high for people in wheelchairs. And did you ever notice that the microphone and speakers in the ticket-selling booths are usually blocking the employee’s mouth, so anyone who needs to read lips cannot do so? The article points out many accessibility features designed to address these issues, such as:
“•All concession counters are 8 inches lower than usual, 34 inches high, to help customers in wheelchairs and shorter people. Many include signs in Braille or large print for sight-impaired fans.
•There are two elevators, not one, at Target Field’s rail station. That was done to make sure fans in wheelchairs coming in from the Northstar commuter line, which runs below the ballpark, won’t be stranded if a single elevator breaks down.
•Speaker boxes at ticket windows were placed below the agent’s mouth so fans who are deaf can read their lips. Ticket windows have amplification devices that agents can use to transmit to a buyer’s hearing aid.
•Fans who are hard of hearing can read the ballpark announcer’s messages on captioning boards along the foul lines overlooking left and right field. Assisted listening devices to transmit ballpark audio are available for free.
•Curb cuts that are supposed to be 3 feet wide are double that in places near the ballpark so wheelchair users don’t have to fight with pedestrians to cross the street.”
Please visit my web site for more information about the Law Office of James M. Baron: www.lawbaron.com.
Foxboro Proposes Changes to Comply with State Observation Law – But Do They Comply?
The Foxboro school committee has proposed some changes to its policies on classroom observations. These changes are intended to comply with a new law providing much more liberal access for parents and their representatives to observe special education classrooms. Actually, the law is not so new – it was passed nearly two years ago. The proposed changes, as reported by The Sun Chronicle, include the following:
- A requirement that the observer not interfere with classroom proceedings.
- A requirement that the observer be there to observe the suitability of a program given the child’s needs, and not to be there to evaluate a teacher’s ability.
- A parent must sign a release for a representative to observe.
- A request may be denied for specified reasons.
For the complete article, go to this URL: http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2010/04/20/news/7216730.txt
What I find interesting in this article is its pro-school and anti-parent slant. The actual law is much more parent-friendly. It was passed because of unreasonable observation restrictions that were placed by schools on parents and their representatives. The actual wording of Chapter 363 of the Acts of 2008 is as follows:
“To insure that parents can participate fully and effectively with school personnel in the consideration and development of appropriate educational programs for their child, a school committee shall, upon request by a parent, provide timely access to parents and parent-designated independent evaluators and educational consultants for observations of a child’s current program and of any program proposed for the child, including both academic and non-academic components of any such program. Parents and their designees shall be afforded access of sufficient duration and extent to enable them to evaluate a child’s performance in a current program and the ability of a proposed program to enable such child to make effective progress. School committees shall impose no conditions or restrictions on such observations except those necessary to ensure the safety of children in a program or the integrity of the program while under observation or to protect children in the program from disclosure by an observer of confidential and personally identifiable information in the event such information is obtained in the course of an observation by a parent or a designee.”
Please visit my web site for more information about the Law Office of James M. Baron: http://www.lawbaron.com.
Old Blog Posts
My old blog posts (i.e. anything prior to this post) can be found here: http://www.lawbaron.com/blog.html
Special Education Blog 