Even More on Perlstein

I have a few things to add to Kevin’s criticism (see below) of Linda Perlstein’s op-ed in today’s Washington Post. Just as Perlstein dismisses the potential of growth models and doesn’t address the critical distinction between a poorly designed law and poor execution of a law, she skates over NCLB’s existing provisions for students with disabilities.

According to Perlstein, “Under the law, a small minority of disabled students are allowed to take a test of more basic skills.” The trouble with this statement is that the percentage of special education students allowed to take different tests isn’t really all that small.

One percent of ALL students tested, or approximately 10 percent of special education students, can be tested with alternate assessments and have their scores count for NCLB purposes. This provision is meant for students with the most severe disabilities. Another two percent of all students tested—roughly 20 percent of special education students—can be tested with modified assessments meant for students with less severe disabilities. In sum, thirty percent of special education students do not need to take regular tests for their scores to count under NCLB.

Thirty percent is not a small number. As I showed in this July Charts You Can Trust, over 80 percent of special education students fall into categories that in no way preclude them from reaching grade-level standards. That leaves less than 20 percent of students with a disability such as mental retardation, developmental delay or autism that might require an alternate test.

It’s not clear from Perlstein’s op-ed how exactly she thinks NCLB should be changed to create, as the sub-head promises, “a better way to handle special needs.” What Perlstein does ask for is that special education students be taught “what they need to learn in order to make their own adequate yearly progress.”

While that goal may sound nice, in practice it would undermine the increased individual attention special education students receive because of NCLB—increased attention that even Perlstein acknowledges “is easily the best outcome of the law so far”. Critical to this increased individual attention is the fact that NCLB expects most (and perhaps not enough) special education students to reach grade-level standards, spurring schools and districts to give these students the resources they need to achieve at grade level.