Holding Your School Accountable

"If something exists, it exists in some amount. If it exists in some amount, then it is capable of being measured."

Rene Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, 1644

Your child’s educational success (or lack of success) can be measured. There are many different ways to measure. This handout is to give you some ideas about how your child’s educational progress can be measured. The law requires objective measurement.

Four Common Ways to Measure Educational Success

Age equivalent - how does my child compare to others his age?

Grade equivalent - how does my child compare to other children in the same grade?

Standard scores - standard deviations - In most cases the mean is 100 and the SD = 15.

In subtests, the mean is usually 10 and the SD = 3.

Percentile ranks - how does my child compare against other children in terms of rank?

Norm Referenced and Criterion Referenced Tests.

Norm - compared to a group of other children who have similar characteristics

Criterion - compared to some preset determined criteria.

Subtest Scores - Most tests use subtests scores with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. A subtest score of 10 is at the 50% level. A subtest score of 7 would be at 16% and a subtest score of 13 would be at 84%.

WECHSLER IQ TEST

VERBAL "IQ"	PERFORMANCE "IQ"
Information -- 10	Picture Completion -- 6
Similarities -- 16	Coding -- 4
Arithmetic -- 11	Picture Arrangement -- 10
Vocabulary -- 13	Block Design -- 12
Comprehension -- 12	Object Assembly -- 7
(Digit Span) -- 8	(Symbol search ) -- 6

VERBAL IQ = 114; PERFORMANCE IQ = 86; FULL SCALE IQ = 101; MEAN = 10

What do the subtests mean?

Information: Factual knowledge, long term memory, recall.

Similarities: Abstract reasoning, verbal categories, concepts.

Arithmetic: Attention and concentration; numerical reasoning.

Vocabulary: Language development, word knowledge, verbal fluency.

Comprehension: Social and practical judgment, common sense.

Digit Span: Short term auditory memory, concentration.

Picture Completion: Alertness to detail, visual discrimination.

Coding: Visual motor coordination, speed, concentration.

Picture Arrangement: Planning, logical thinking, social knowledge.

Block Design: Spatial analysis, abstract visual problem-solving.

Object Assembly: Visual analysis and construction of objects.

Symbol Search: Visual motor quickness, concentration, persistence.

Mazes: Fine motor coordination, planning, following directions.

Why is a history of IQ tests important?

Children who have dyslexia or other specific learning disabilities and who are not remediated will demonstrate a reduced level of "IQ." This is NOT because the child has become less intelligent over the years. It IS because the child has not been remediated and thus cannot compete with "normal" children who have. Some children cannot demonstrate their intelligence on traditional IQ tests and an experienced practitioner will need to examine the child.

Sample IQ of Child Before and After Remediation - Jerry

• Preschool WPPSI: 126 Full Scale IQ. (Age 4)
  
• WISC-R: 66 Full Scale IQ (Age 10)
  
• Stanford-Binet IQ: 85 Full Scale IQ (Age 12)
  

Practitioner’s View: Jerry is of above average intelligence (Age 14)

• WISC-III: 135 Full Scale IQ (Age 18) (Post Remediation)
  

Achievement Testing: Woodcock Johnson, Graduation Testing, Gray Oral, Key Math, etc.

• Compare child’s achievement with child’s intellect.
  
• Compare child’s achievement one year with child’s achievement in following year.
  
  

Sample Woodcock Johnson

• Fall 1998: Basic reading: Grade Equivalent 3.2
  
• Spring 1999: Basic reading: Grade Equivalent 3.4
  
• Fall 1998: Math calculations: 85 SS
  
• Spring 1999: Math calculations: 90 SS
  

Graduation Tests.

What is the percentile rank requirement for graduation (some districts are higher then state requirement)?

How did my child do compared to children of same age, grade?

How did my child do on graduation testing compared to other individualized testing?

LAW SUPPORTS MEASUREMENT

CLARITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Brantley v. ISD 625 (St. Paul), 26 IDELR 839 (D. Ct. MN April 1997): If IEP does not include CLOP, address all needs, identify specifically all services to be provided, and appropriate goals and objectives, or if IEP is "vague", then child is denied FAPE:

Child awarded two years of compensatory education because according to Court:

The Hearing Officer pointed to several deficiencies in 1992 IEP, and in his 1993 and 1994 IEPs. Minnesota Rule 3525.2900, subpart 3, specifies that several items that a school district must address in a student's IEP. Several of the required items were either not addressed or not clearly explained in Byron's IEPs. For example, the 1992 IEP does not include Byron's current level of performance in each area, nor addressed all the needs identified by the IEP Team process. It also only very generally describes his special education needs, the special services to be provided, and the appropriate goals and objectives. Defendant asserts that Byron's 1992 IEP was adequate, was rejected by the HRO. Defendant's argument is not supported by the record. The HRO reviewed Byron's 1992, 1993, and 1994 IEPs and concluded that all three were procedurally deficient and that while the 1994 IEP came closer to meeting procedural requirements, it failed to satisfy substantive requirements. In particular, the HRO observed that the annual goal for reading in the 1994 IEP was only four months ahead of the goal set two years earlier. The HRO also found that the special education needs were vague... the Court finds that Byron was denied a FAPE for the 1992-93 and 1993-94 school years.

Independent School District No. 2310, 29 IDELR 330 (SEA 1998): District’s failure to provide written periodic reviews to keep parent informed of child’s progress on IEP violated FAPE.

Student v. ISD 318, 24 IDELR 1096, (SEA MN 1996 ), Where child with autism was provided a trivial education and did not progress under school’s approach, parent’s methodology/curriculum ordered.

Hoekstra v. ISD 283, 22 IDELR 47 (SEA 1994): District’s failure to write measurable goals and objectives violates child’s right to FAPE. IEP did not contain properly written goals which indicated starting and ending points for targeted skills, nor was there any description of how progress should be made or measured. Lack of objectives precluded measurement of goal.

LAW REQUIRES NOTICE TO SCHOOL IF PARENT PLANNING TO TAKE UNILATERAL ACTION

Under both caselaw and the IDEA ‘97, parents MUST:

Inform a school at an IEP meeting and preferably in writing of any intent to withdraw the child and provide the child unilaterally obtained services if reimbursement of same is going to be sought and MUST request a due process hearing if child is no longer going to be in the school. P.T. v. ISD 113, 29 IDELR 13, (Sept. 1998, D. CT. MN) Give the school district an opportunity to "correct" the program the school is offering to the child before moving the child to a unilateral placement if the parent will be seeking reimbursement.

CASELAW AND ORTON-GILLINGHAM

Under both caselaw and IDEA ‘97, parents SHOULD ask the District in writing what curriculum or program is being used, asked if child is accessing the general curriculum for those subjects, ask to see work samples and books used.

Cases Outside MN:

Carter v. Florence County, 510 U.S. 7 (1993)- awarding reimbursement for private school which provided Orton-Gillingham for dyslexic student.

Gerstmyer v. Howard County, 850 F. Supp. 361, 20 IDELR 1327 (D. MN 1994) - awarding private school reimbursement for dyslexic child.

Evans v. Board of Educ. of Rhinebeck, 930 F. Supp. 83, 24 IDELR 338 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)-

Where IEP did not "adequately set forth strategies for evaluating progress" and had "broad, generic objectives" and "vague, subjective methods for monitoring" child’s progress, FAPE was denied. IEPs recanted "teacher observation" and 80% success." Reimbursement awarded.

Cases In MN:

E.S. v. ISD 196, (8th Cir. 1998) - Dyslexic child who was progressing from grade to grade despite low abilities in reading and writing who was provided Orton-Gillingham over summer by school district not entitled to 1:1 Orton-Gillingham during school year. Case limited to PRE-IDEA 1997.

Student v. ISD -- (MN 1997) - Dyslexic child to be provided 1:1 Orton-Gillingham for reading, and writing at public school.

ACCESS TO GENERAL CURRICULUM

IDEA ‘97 requires children with disabilities to have "access" to general curriculum and holds schools to show forth "results" oriented education.

Query: What does this mean?

Top of Page