Home   |   Directory   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Join Us
COPAA Public Blog
Blog Home All Blogs

Guest Blog: 40 years of Research Shows Positive Correlation Between Time in General Education and Student Performance on Multiple Measures

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, July 12, 2016

In a recent blog for the American Association of School Administrators titled “Reclaiming the LRE Debate from the Courts” Associate Professor Susan C. Bon suggests a number of remedies for what she terms the “increasingly destructive and contentious disagreements over interpretation and implementation of the IDEA in public schools.” We take issue with those proposed remedies and offer our combined 100 plus years of teaching, research, teacher education, systems change, large-scale assessment, policy, and advocacy work as evidence of the experience we bring to bear on this issue.

 

Professor Bon’s remedies – which imply that more students with intellectual and other significant disabilities would be kept out of general education classes – ignore the 40 years of research on students with disabilities that show a positive correlation between time spent in a general education classroom and performance on standardized measures of reading and math, communication skills, social skills, engagement, breadth of social networks, pro-social behavior, fewer suspensions and expulsions, and enhanced adult outcomes in the areas of independent living, employment, and participation in inclusive community activities when compared to students educated in segregated environments (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2005; Cosier, Causton-Theoharis, & Theoharis, 2013; Guralnick, Connor, Hammond, Gottman, & Kinnish, 1996; Helmstetter, Curry, Brennan, & Sampson-Saul, 1998; Hunt, Farron-Davis, Beckstead, Curtis, & Goetz, 1994; White & Weiner, 2004). In fact, these research findings are encoded in the introductory paragraphs in IDEA 2004, where Congress finds “Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in the regular classroom, to the maximum extent possible.”

 

Professor Bon calls for giving precedence to the potential academic benefit of various educational placements when students’ IEPs are being written and to downplay the potential non-academic benefits. We argue that separating academic from non-academic benefits is contrary to the last 100 years of public education in the U.S. It has long been recognized that successful adulthood requires much more than proficiency in “the 3 R’s.” All students need to demonstrate proficiency in communication, collaboration, use of technology, social skills, self-determination, problem-solving and the like. To suggest that educational teams might be able to quantify the educational versus non-educational benefits to students with disabilities ignores our understanding of how children learn and what really matters when it comes to being a successful adult.

 

The example of the student with an IQ of 46 who is “mentally retarded” represents not only outdated and prejudicial terminology, but overestimates the importance of IQ in predicting educational achievement. A rationale for extreme caution in using a number like a student’s IQ score to guide his education program is supported by research on how well IQ scores predict student achievement. McGrew and Evans (2004) concluded:

 

Given the best available, theoretically and psychometrically sound, nationally standardized, individually administered intelligence test batteries, three statements hold true.

 

·         IQ test scores, under optimal test conditions, account for 40% to 50% of current expected achievement.

·         Thus, 50% to 60% of student achievement is related to variables “beyond intelligence.”

·         For any given IQ test score, half of the students will obtain achievement scores at or below their IQ score. Conversely, and frequently not recognized, is that for any given IQ test score, half of the students will obtain achievement scores at or above their IQ score. (p. 6)

 

Micah Fialka-Feldman, a subject of the trailer of a soon to be released documentary called Intelligent Lives by Dan Habib (producer of Including Samuel), was asked how he felt when he learned that he had a 40 IQ. He responded “Well, I didn’t know what it meant so I Googled it. It said that people with 40 IQs could never live alone, go to college, or be employed. And I thought “Well, I am doing all those things!” (Habib, 2016).

 

Another flawed remedy is Professor Bon’s recommendation that students with disabilities who need to have “assignments modified more than 70%” would not be able to obtain educational benefit from a general education class. Even with all of our years of experience we don’t understand what Professor Bon means here. Does she mean that 70% of the general education standards are modified?

 

Perhaps Professor Bon’s reference to modified assignments means that the number of math problems given for homework is reduced for a student with a disability. We all have known students with cerebral palsy, for example, for whom manipulation of a pencil or computer to do 30 problems is prohibitively laborious. Yet this student could demonstrate her knowledge of the concepts of the assignment by only doing five problems. Can that student not benefit from being in general education?

 

Maybe Professor Bon’s standard of 70% modified means that the complexity of an assigned reading is modified to a lower reading level? We know many students with significant reading disabilities whose skills are 70% below grade level, yet they are clearly able to benefit from being in general education when they are provided with supplementary aids and services in the form of assistive technology.   Nor is there typically a debate or inquiry about whether it is appropriate to educate in the general education classroom other struggling learners, e.g., immigrant students whose formal education may have been interrupted, and who may or may not be English learners, or students who are educationally disadvantaged attending Title I schools.  

 

Professor Bon suggests that greater weight be given to the effect that a student with a disability has on a general education classroom. Here we agree with Professor Bon if she is talking about the “value-added” benefits that students with disabilities provide to a general education class. Those added benefits have been shown to occur in the realms of improved academic skills of all students (Choi, Meisenheimer, McCart, & Sailor, 2016; Theoharis & Causton-Theoharis, 2010); improved decision-making skills (Zhang et al., 2016); and improved attitudes towards diversity (Finke, McNaughton, & Drager, 2009).

 

Finally, Professor Bon suggests that the current LRE mandate in IDEA be preserved in future reauthorizations – not based on the plain language of the statute but on a selective review of case law. We join with a growing number of colleagues who believe that the actual mandate – “to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities ….are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in the regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily” [20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A)] – has not been fairly and consistently applied for thousands of students with disabilities who are systematically kept out of general education classes, as evidenced by the huge geographic disparities in the mis-application of the statutory presumption to placement decision-making.

 

According to the 36th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of IDEA (U.S. Department of Education, 2014), the percent of students with intellectual disability educated at least 80 percent of the day in general education classes ranged from lows of 4.4 in Washington, 4.8 in New Jersey, and 5.5 in Nevada, to highs of 64 in Iowa, 48.6 in Puerto Rico, and 45.5 in Alabama.

 

For students taking their respective state alternate assessments, Kleinert et al. (2015) found that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities face even greater segregation.  In a study involving 15 states and nearly 40,000 students, these researchers found that the vast majority (93%) of students with significant cognitive disabilities were served in self-contained classrooms, separate schools, or home settings, while only 7% were served in general education or resource room placements. Most importantly, these authors found a positive correlation between expressive communication, reading, and math skill levels with increasingly inclusive classroom settings.  Being educated in the general education classroom does make a difference!

 

In summary, too many students are “still caught in the continuum” (Sauer & Jorgensen, 2016).  The time is long overdue to implement and enforce the plain language of the statute and for the U.S. Department of Education to eliminate those regulatory provisions that create straw men that serve only to undermine the statutory mandate, weaken the legal presumption, and camouflage continued discrimination on the basis of disability.

 

We agree with Professor Bon that the time and energy spent in litigation between parents and educators might be better spent on teaching students. Our recommendations for making that happen, however, are radically different from hers. We support efforts to scale-up the use of universal design for learning principles to all classrooms. We support efforts to expand access to communication and assistive technology to all students who need it. And we support school improvement and restructuring efforts that align with those funded by the U.S. Department of Education to the University of Kansas SWIFT project, including greater family and community engagement, strong administrative leadership, multi-tiered systems of supports used with fidelity, values- and evidence-based inclusive policy and practice, and integration of all support services for the benefit of all students.

 

These remedies won’t widen the gap between parents and schools but rather unite them in a common purpose founded on a belief that “inclusion is not about disability, nor is it only about schools. Inclusion demands that we ask, what kind of world do we want to create? What kinds of skills and commitment do people need to thrive in diverse society? By embracing inclusion as a model of social justice, we can create a world fit for all of us (Sapon-Shevin, 2003).”

 

Sincerely,

 

Cheryl M. Jorgensen, Ph.D., Inclusive Education Consultant, Author, Researcher

Kathleen B. Boundy, Co-Director, Center for Law and Education

Harold Kleinert, Ed. D., Director Emeritus, Institute for Human Development, University of Kentucky

Ricki Sabia, Senior Education Policy Advisor, National Down Syndrome Congress

Candace Cortiella, Director, The Advocacy Institute

 

References

Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (3rd ed.) Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Choi, J. H., Meisenheimer, J. M., McCart, A. B., & Sailor, W. (2016). Improving learning for all students through equity-based inclusive reform practices: effectiveness of a fully integrated schoolwide model on student reading and math achievement. Remedial and Special Education [online], 1-14. doi: 10.1177/0741932516644054

Cosier, M., Causton-Theoharis, J., & Theoharis, G. (2013). Does access matter? Time in

general education and achievement for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 34(6), 323-332.

Finke, E.H., McNaughton, D.B., & Drager, K.D. (2998). ‘All children can and should have the opportunity to learn”: General education teachers' perspectives on including children with autism spectrum disorder who require AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25(2), 110-122.

Guralnick, M. J., Connor, R., Hammond, M., Gottman, J. M., & Kinnish, K. (1996). Immediate effects of mainstreamed settings on the social interactions and social integration of preschool children. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100, 359-377.

Habib, D. (Producer). (2016). Intelligent lives [Motion Picture Trailer] Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability.

Helmstetter, E., Curry, C. A., Brennan, M., & Sampson-Saul, M. (1998). Comparison of general and special education classrooms of students with severe disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 216-227.

Hunt, P., Farron-Davis, F., Beckstead, S., Curtis, D., & Goetz, L. (1994). Evaluating the effects of placement of students with severe disabilities in general education versus special classes. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 200-214.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, PL108-446, 20 U.S.C. §§1400 et seq. (2004).

Kleinert et al., (2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught: Implications for general curriculum access.  Exceptional Children, 81(3), 312-328.

McGrew, K. S., Evans, J. (2004). Expectations for students with cognitive disabilities: Is the cup half empty or half full? Can the cup overflow? (Synthesis Report 54). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (2003). Inclusion as a matter of social justice. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 25-28.

Theoharis, G., & Causton-Theoharis, J. (2010) Include, belong, learn. Educational Leadership, 68(2). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct10/vol68/num02/Include,-Belong,-Learn.aspx

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Thirty-sixth annual report to Congress on the

implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2013. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2013/parts-b-c/index.html

White, J., & Weiner, J. S. (2004). Influence of least restrictive environment and community based training on integrated employment outcomes for transitioning students with severe disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 21(3), 149-156.

Zhang, X., et al. (2016). Improving children’s competence as decision makers: Contrasting effects of collaborative interaction and direct instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 194-223. doi: 10:3102/0002831215618663

 

 ___________

Disclaimer: The COPAA web site is not engaged in rendering professional advice services. The information provided through COPAA’s web site or any links from COPAA’s site is provided solely as a public service. The inclusion of any resource or link on COPAA’s web site does not imply endorsement or a recommendation.

 

Tags:  Least Restrictive Environment  Students with Disabilities 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

Evidence Bears Out Congressional Intent for Students to be Educated with Peers in Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, July 5, 2016

The AASA, American Association of School Administrators, has again taken aim at students with disabilities in its blog post, Reclaiming the LRE Debate from the Courts.  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires students with disabilities to be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE) which enables students with disabilities to be educated alongside their peers to the maximum extent appropriate.  The AASA proposes that schools more frequently segregate students by limiting a student’s right to LRE and turning back the clock 40 years to the time when students with disabilities were routinely segregated from their peers and educated in separate classrooms, which were often “babysitting” programs that provided minimal to no educational benefit. 

The AASA implies that segregation is to the benefit of the student with disabilities, but abundant quantitative and qualitative research demonstrates that students with disabilities do achieve considerable educational benefit from placement in general education classes with supplementary aids and services.  Further, including students with disabilities in general education benefits students without disabilities.  Research shows that time spent with non-disabled peers not only benefits students socially and connects them with their community but also enhances academic achievement for students with disabilities. 

Two landmark cases, Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972) and Pennsylvania Ass’n for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa. 1971) and 343 F. Supp. 279 (1972) (PARC), set forth the foundational understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment principles on which the IDEA ultimately rests.  These foundational cases were specifically referenced in the legislative history of, and played a significant role in the passage of, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, which is the predecessor of IDEA.  Honig, 484 U.S. at 309, 108 S.Ct. at 596 (citing S. REP. 94-168 (1975), 6, 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1425, 1430).  These principles are so deeply embedded in present case law that many courts often overlook the need to  make specific reference to them in reaching decisions over more recent controversies.  The principles, however, bear restating as they provide the necessary context and foundation on which to view LRE protections.

First, “the right to an education, once given, is a fundamental right; therefore, the defendants must show a compelling state interest in order to lawfully exclude [disabled] children.” PARC, 343 F.Supp. at 283, n.8. Second, “[s]uch an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” Mills, 348 F.Supp. at 874 (quoting Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 691 (1954)).  

When Congress amended the IDEA in 1997, it continued to link its authority and intent to the Fourteenth Amendment noting its desire to “restate that the ‘right to equal educational opportunities’ is inherent in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” and that the IDEA is founded in and secured by the 14th Amendment.” S. Rep. No. 104-275, at 31 (1996). Clearly, the IDEA is a civil rights act, implementing the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and it places an affirmative obligation upon the States to provide children with disabilities a free and appropriate education. 

Congress expressed a strong preference in favor of educating children with disabilities in an inclusive setting and requires States accepting IDEA funds to educate children in the LRE to the maximum extent appropriate.  Appropriate in this context means the least restrictive setting available that will provide the student with FAPE.  Simply put, States that accept IDEA funding do not face the question of whether a student should be educated in the least restrictive environment.  Rather, Congress has required States and school districts to determine how a child can be educated in the LRE. Thus, school districts must, as a preliminary matter in every case, determine whether the child can be provided with an appropriate education in the regular education classroom with supplementary aids and services. See Department of Education v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d 809, 815 (9th Cir. 1983). Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court in Olmstead v. L.C. requires states to eliminate unnecessary segregation of persons with disabilities and to ensure that persons with disabilities receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.  The Court said,  "Unjustified isolation, we hold, is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability. " 527 U.S. 581, 596 (1999). 

Ms. Bon’s reference to an unpublished, non-precedential case J.H. ex rel. A.H. and S.H. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist. 482 F. App'x 915, 919 (5th Cir. 2012) reveals the depths to which she strives to make her assertions appear to have value.  In fact, not only do her assertions lack value, the case referenced by Ms. Bon confirms that a student may derive nonacademic benefit from interacting with [nondisabled] peers in mainstream classes, contrary to her assertion.

The IDEA is not an expiring authorization and therefore Congress does not need to reauthorize the statute.   If Congress decides to amend the IDEA, however, efforts need to focus on strengthening parent and student rights and strategies to ensure states are fulfilling obligations under the law.   Policy dialogue must be based on evidence based strategy proven to improve student outcomes; not on misguided opinions of individuals trying to allow administrators to shirk responsibility for providing meaningful education to all students under their care.   There are ample school administrators whose efforts embody the spirt of the IDEA and we encourage AASA to stop attacking parent and student rights and spend their time and resources towards amplifying successful and positive examples of supporting students with disabilities to succeed and prosper.

Susan Bon’s AASA Blog Post this week is offensive to parents and students and utterly fails to provide clarity on one of the most important procedural and substantive due process right contained in the IDEA since its inception in 1975.  In fact, Ms. Bon’s use of the offensive term “mentally retarded” indicates both her insensitivity to the community served by the IDEA and her failure to provide insightful commentary on LRE.

For over 40 years Congress has consistently made it an overall priority that a student with a disability is to be educated in the regular classroom to the maximum extent possible. 

Tags:  Individualized Education Program  Least Restrictive Environment  Students with Disabilities 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

A Chance to Learn

Posted By Denise Marshall, COPAA, Wednesday, June 19, 2013

by Denise Stile Marshall, M.S.
COPAA Executive Director
 

While Congress sits in Washington engaged in debate about the future of education in this country, millions of children are celebrating summer.  Some will continue to attend school in extended school year placements or summer school. Some will re-enter in the fall. Some have disability labels, some do not. All have one thing in common though; they are the future generation, our greatest hope and most precious responsibility. Our elected officials need to stop the partisan posturing and work together to assure that every student in America has what they need to obtain the life knowledge and tools that come from receiving a quality education.

We expect Congress to stop bickering across the isle and discuss meaningful data and evidence proven to successfully harness the knowledge, wealth, and ingenuity in this country to ensure that every student has an equal opportunity to achieve to their full potential. The Elementary and Secondary School Education Act (ESEA ) was originally enacted to assure, and must continue to provide, accountability for the use of federal funds to improve life opportunities for low income, underperforming and disenfranchised students.

What do those students and their parents want when they enter the school house? The same thing all parents and students, including those with disabilities, expect; that every student:

Is treated with respect and a presumption of competence  to learn.

Has a safe school learning environment that meet challenges with positive, instructional, evidence based approaches.

Has highly qualified teachers that understand and can deliver instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners.

Is challenged to learn the general education curriculum at grade level,

Makes real, measureable progress on relevant goals, and receives the services accomodations and supports to which he or she is entitled under the law.

Counts in robust and systemic accountability that is outcome-based and insists that every school provides equal access to a high quality education for all.

Has the opportunity to graduate, go to college, get a job.

Is meaninfully engaged,

has friends,

has fun,

learns.

Let's stop the rhetoric and work together to provide meaningful opportunities for every child to achieve, to contribute, to graduate career and college ready, to secure a meaningful job, to earn money, and be a productive and contributing member of  his or her community.

Our government must live up to its obligation to educate all students equitably and hold States accountable for assuring that every child has a chance to learn.


COPAA Policy Statements on ESEA

      ESEA Update - Senate Bill Passes, House to Mark Bill (June 18,2013)

      House and Senate Work to Reauthorize ESEA (June 12,   2013)

Recent COPAA ESEA Policy Letters

Tags:  Elementary and Secondary Education Act  ESEA  Students with Disabilities 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

Defining Ourselves: Why Language Matters

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, March 26, 2013

 Written by Mark Martin, Esq. and Jennifer Laviano, Esq.

The original federal special education laws were enacted over 35 years ago, as one of many pieces of federal legislation which sought to enforce the Civil Rights that were being denied to disenfranchised or underrepresented individuals. Yet, somewhere along the way, it seems that people have forgotten that special education is a Civil Rights issue. An educational system marked with low expectations for students with disabilities, combined with a tough economy, have further marginalized students with special needs, as well as those of us who are fighting every day to enforce the Civil Rights of children and adolescents with disabilities. It's time we took back the high ground on this issue. It is time to talk about EDUCATION EQUALITY.

We have learned from many other successful socio-political movements that language matters. To that end, we propose a radical shift in how we, the advocates of the Civil Rights of individuals with disabilities, talk about our stakeholders, and ourselves in order to make clear that the goal is not procedural compliance with a statute. The goal is to support each student, through the spirit and the letter of the law, to be as independent, as self-sufficient, as self-advocating as possible, and to enforce their right to a successful education.

Following are just a few examples.

  • We are not special education lawyers and advocates we are civil rights lawyers and advocates for children;
  • We don't have special education practices, we have civil rights practices;
  • We don't want our children to make progress we want them to master the materials;
  • Students aren't being suspended or expelled they are being excluded from class and from learning;
  • We are not planning for our children to transition to an agency, we are planning for them to live and work independently;
  • Our children are not being removed from class, they are being segregated;
  • Our children don't need special services, they need a meaningful education.

As our colleagues Andy Feinstein and Michele Kule-Korgood shared with us during the recent COPAA Town Hall, there is much talk in this business about whether an education for a student with disabilities should be a Chevy or Cadillac. No more Chevys, no more Cadillacs. We need cars that run, have four tires, and, most importantly, get to their destination. We need to insist that our clients have the rights, respect, and equality to which they are entitled.

Please, feel free to comment with your own suggestions to help us redirect the focus to where it should be: on effective, meaningful special education programming that is designed to produce independent citizens.

Tags:  Civil Rights  Students with Disabilities 

PermalinkComments (1)
 

PARCC Needs to Hear From You Re: Accomodations

Posted By Denise Marshall, COPAA, Thursday, January 31, 2013
Updated: Thursday, January 31, 2013

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU!

COPAA, through our participation in the Collaboration to Promote Self-Determination(CPSD) and Constortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), is submitting comment onPARCC's Draft Policies on Reading Access Accommodations & Calculator Accommodations for Students with Disabilities.

We need as many folks as possible to do so too BY FEBRUARY 4, 2013

BACKGROUND ( provided byCOPAA Member Candace Cortiella at the Advocacy Institute)

  • PARCC states educate 3 million students with disabilities-over half of all students with disabilities in the nation.
  • PARCC states are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico,New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee.
  • PARCC assessments will be implemented beginning in the 2014-2015 school year.
  • PARCC must develop a common set of policies and procedures for states to use in providing accommodations to students with disabilities.
  • PARCC invites public comment on two draft policiesthat will be part of a larger Accommodations Manual to be released later this year. These policies pertain to the reading access accommodation and the calculator use accommodation.Comments must be submitted by February 4, 2013.

Get full text of draft policies and link to survey form for comment submission here.

Here are some suggested talking points to use when submitting comments:

In general:

  • The draft policies are premature since the assessments themselves are still in development.
  • The draft policies don't reflect the possibilities of computer-based, technology-enhanced, universally designed assessments envisioned by the U.S. Dept. of Education and promised by PARCC.
  • The draft policies only apply to summative assessments (tests given at the end of instruction) and not to tests given through the year (sometimes called formative assessments), yet students need consistent access to accommodations on all assessments.
  • The draft policies are overly restrictive and overly prescriptive, imposing narrow definitions of students who would be in need of these accommodations then further restricting access by requiring certain conditions to be met in order to receive the accommodation.
  • The specific "conditions” that students must meet in order to be provided the accommodation would violate the student's rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. A student with a disability who is eligible under IDEA and/or Section 504 cannot have his/her right to participate meaningfully in an assessment provided to all other students conditioned upon actions of the student's IEP Team.

Reading Access Accommodations (commonly known as text to speech or read-aloud):

  • The draft policy demands overly restrictive level of reading in order to access, student must be a "virtual non-reader,”(i.e., at the beginning stages of learning to decode) or blind/visually impaired and unable to read braille.

Calculator Accommodations:

The draft policy demands overly restrictive level of math in order to access, student must be "unable to calculate single-digit numbers (i.e., 0-9) without a calculation device, using the four basic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division

Tags:  Calculator Accomodation  Reading Access Accomodation  Students with Disabilities 

PermalinkComments (0)
 
Membership Management Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal