Special Education Assessment

Testing Accommodations Despite advances in research on teacher evaluation there has been virtually no attention given to whether teachers are effectively educating exceptionally populations mainly students with (SWDs) and (ELs)… or differentiating their instruction" when in fact "A second measurement challenge is that a large proportion of SWDs and ELs exhibit low performance on state assessments" (Jones, Buzick & Turkan 2013).

Besides the adherence to (IEP) and (504) what other measures and long-term solutions should teachers emphasize in their approach to bridge the gap between differentiating instruction and increasing (SWDs) "student with disabilities" and ELs "English learners" low standardized test scores? Evaluating teachers with high levels of SWDs and ELs in their classrooms is challenging, partially because of the difficulties these student populations face in addition to their academic requirements and partially because current standardized tests are often less reflective of the curriculum of these students, due to the need to individualize special education instruction.

Having lesson objectives which adhere to standardized test guidelines is useful; even if the ways in which instruction is conveyed for students with special needs is different, the ultimate goal should be the same as for the general population of students. In many ways, more differentiation rather than less differentiation can be useful in the long run: for example, teachers may need to make a distinction between students with stronger English language deficiencies who are struggling with content issues vs.

students who are still attempting to gain a grasp of the English language. Teachers may need additional support to supplement student vocabulary and grammar development with the latter group of students. Students with special needs will also likely have a wide variety of deficits which must be specifically flagged since these types of interventions need to be even more specifically tailored to their needs. But even if learning objectives need to be modified or simplified, they should still be connected to the objectives of 'mainstream' students. Q2.

In the article by Rosas, Winterman, Kroeger and Jones (2009) "Under the reorganization of IDEA (2004) the development of a child's IEP is no longer the exclusive responsibility of the special educator and the concentration has shifted to the development of the IEP for the student success and implementation with the regular classroom." How effectively are general educators being appropriately prepared for the development of the IEP mandates and how can training be properly integrated? General educators do not always have specialized knowledge of a wide variety of diagnoses when assisting with the development of IEP mandates.

So much emphasis is placed upon standardization today in terms of preparing for test-taking, mainstream educators do not always comprehend the need for differentiation required by special needs students. However, IEPs still include goals and long and short-term objectives, much like the lessons plan for the rest of the student body. Although general educators may need some 'hand holding' in terms of modifying instruction with a special needs perspective, they can still provide critical input into the design of the IEP.

The general educator knows how the student behaves with his or her peer group and how the pace of the student's learning differs from peers. Social functioning, the specific dynamics of the classroom and other aspects nor formally tested via the IEP process are also areas in which the general educator can provide input.

For example, a student with autism might be relatively high-functioning academically but have difficulty relating to students in the class: this may be an area that the student needs to work on individually with a resource room specialist even though the student has acceptable test scores. A general education teacher may also have the best understanding of how the student's home life affects emotional resiliency in the classroom, given the amount of time the teacher spends with student over the course of the day. Q3.

Regarding the article by Rosas, Winterman, Kroeger and Jones (2009), what components can constructively be argued and brought to attention if the general educator and special education teacher have essentially different viewpoints, strategies, and objectives toward the special education student's academic goals? Although the authors believe greater training is required of general education teachers, they also believe.