See what Spectrum K-12 said about special education in MCPS in April of 2009, in regards to the report on the closure of the Secondary Learning Centers. The follow quote and the link above is to the spectrum k-12 blog.
"The audit also showed that only about 25% of the teachers were actually providing differentiated instruction to the inclusion students. And a mandatory training for teachers that would be working with these inclusion students was only attended by about 50% of the staff. These numbers are more alarming to me."
Do you think maybe this had something to do with why MCPS dropped their Encore product? Or was it just, as MCPS says, the product didn't do what it was supposed to do?
Why would MCPS continue using a product that didn't post just "happy" MCPS press releases?
ReplyDeleteTsk, tsk, Encore hurt the MCPS "brand". Bad Encore.
Another interesting quote from the article:
ReplyDelete"They audited their program and found 100% of the students that had been transitioned from segregated classrooms to inclusion classrooms scored at the lowest level on Maryland’s state math exam, and 81% scored the at the lowest level for the reading exam."
Where do the kids go to get their special education back?
Lyda,
ReplyDeleteWhat were the percentiles BEFORE the transition?
What magnitude of damage took place?
To Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI invite you to read the Office of Shared Accountability report for yourself, here:
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2009/LC%20Transition%20Final%20Report%20Feb%2009%2009.pdf
Among other fun facts in the OSA report:
1. There is an unexplained discrepancy for these students between the course grades that teachers awarded them and their MSA scores (page 24)
2. The transitioned students had lower MSA scores than comparison students (p 24)
3. MCPS's excuses for why they couldn't do more detailed evaluation: page 12
4. Recommendation: re-examine the relationship between the state assessment scores and course grades after the MOD-MSA, a "more appropriate assessment for this population of students with disabilities" is administered in the spring of 2009. (page x) *(and if you have been following this blog, you will see that when the MOD-MSA scores were released, and were not good either, Weast & Company tried to explain that away, too, by claiming that it was only the first time the test had been used. Can't have it both ways!)
5. They didn't have baseline data to measure changes across time in the secondary LCs (p. ix)
6. "Data on the students' academic outcomes should be interpreted with caution." (p viii)
7. "The achievement of transitioned students was weaker than that of students with similar disabilities. Their mean scores were lower than comparison students on the MAP-R reading test and on the MSA tests in mathematics and reading. Also, a higher percentage of transitioned thann comparison students scored at the BASIC level on EACH MSA TEST." Page viii
And here's specifically what MCPS said about the MOD-MSA scores, when they proved to be equally as dismal:
ReplyDeleteA statement from the school system blamed the decline in progress on the implementation of a new “modified” test for special-needs students that was used for the first time in the spring. About 40 percent of students passed the modified reading test, while 23 percent passed the math exam.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Montgomery-County-middle-schools-score-poorly-on-tests-52841742.html#ixzz0jzU5XtB4