We have made it no secret that we have been less than impressed with the Special, Education services that Mystic Valley offers. While we believe that the Special Education teachers per se are not the problem (although they could take on a more collaborative approach to teaching by working WITH the classroom teachers rather than independently), we do feel that the department is incredibly lacking due to the lack of leadership on the part of Kathy Kinnon. We have seen their IEP's and find them lacking in substance and in addressing each childs individual needs (too many of their IEP's state the same goals and objectives regardless of the child). Since we know that parents are left to the information that is provided to them by Kathy Kinnon (and Chris Finn when they question or challenge their childs progression and need to be reminded that 'they have other options and MVRCS isn't for everyone'), we thought we'd provide some insight from a well-educated, experienced individual with real Special Education knowledge. We hope this helps parents who are in the process of updating their childs IEP and/or those who do not feel that their childs IEP is adequate. Remember, you may request an additional meeting to address IEP's at any time should you have concerns or do not feel as though your child is progressing under their current IEP.

From WrightsLaw: http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/goals.lesson.heitin.htm

Writing IEP Goals

by Ruth Heitin, Ph.D., Educational Consultant

Creating an IEP with a team of people who are all there to design a good educational program for one unique child can be a pleasure. It can also be very productive. When the whole team has the same level of understanding about IEPs, it is even better. Sounds like crazy talk? Just ask those who have seen it happen. The big winner here is the child.

A Lesson in Writing IEP Goals
An IEP is good educational programming. Good IEPs set the standard for good education. Each part of the IEP addresses an important part of educational planning. The IEP team focuses on the unique educational needs of an individual student. The goals reflect the child’s needs. Designing well-formed goals is an important part of writing an IEP.

“How do I find examples of good IEP goals?”

Marie, the mother who asked this question, had attended several IEP meetings for her child. She did not think the goals the IEP team proposed were good. Yet, she didn’t know what good IEP goals look like.

If you are a teacher, you may have the same questions. Good IEPs set the standard for good teaching. Each part of the IEP addresses an important part of educational planning.

IEP goals must be individualized. Rather than relying on sample goals, you need to learn how to write IEP goals that meet the unique needs of a particular child.

Goals
We all set goals for ourselves, whether we are aware of it or not. Our goals can be as simple as getting to work on time. They can be as complex as budgeting our expenses. We know what we need to do, and we set out to do it.

An IEP goal is not unlike a personal goal. With an IEP goal, we create an educational program for a child with special needs. An IEP goal describes what we hope the child will achieve, or the intended outcome of instruction.

The outcome is stated as an action we expect to see. Goals must be measured in an objective way. We have to be able to see the action or count it or score it. When we state goals clearly as actions, measuring progress comes naturally from the goal. A goal must establish a criterion for acceptable mastery.

In short, when we write instructional goals we have to know what the child needs to learn and what action we want to see. We have to measure progress toward the goal. Finally, we set a level of mastery that we expect.

We use standardized tests and informal assessments to measure a child’s progress toward the goals. We can do tallies or checklists or give tests specific to the action we seek. Anyone who looks at the measurement should be able to understand it. And, all those who review the measurement should be able to come to the same conclusion.

Learning how to write individualized IEP goals is an important first step in developing your child’s IEP. IEP goals should also be SMART and based on good educational practice.

SMART IEP goals are:
Specific
Measurable
Use Action words
Realistic
Time-limited

Educational research will help you identify essential skills in the core academic subjects of reading, writing, and math. When you know the sequence of skills for a subject, you will know how skills build on each other. You can identify gaps in skills – skills that your child hasn’t mastered and needs to learn.

Think about how children learn math. A child learns how to add and subtract. Then he is ready to learn how to multiply and divide.

Before you can develop measurable IEP goals, the child’s skills must be measured objectively. Objective data about a child’s skills are the baselines for goals. This data also should show progress, or lack of it, when measured over time.

We tend to use the terms “goal” and “objective” to mean the same thing. In IEPs, there is a distinction between them. We write annual goals. Objectives are the short-term steps to reach goals.

Reading
In 2000, the report of experts on the National Reading Panel explained the research in reading. This included more than 10,000 research studies. All this information helped form a better understanding of reading and what works in teaching (see www.nationalreadingpanel.org/publications/researchread.htm). The findings from the research changed reading instruction forever. In 2001, Congress passed No Child Left Behind (see www.wrightslaw.com/nclb). The results of the research were included there, too.

Reading instruction requires explicit, intensive, and systematic instruction in the five necessary components of reading instruction:

Phonemic Awareness - the ability to hear and sequence sounds in spoken words.
Phonics - the relationship between the letters of written language and the sounds of spoken language.
Fluency - the ability to read text accurately and quickly.
Vocabulary - the words students must know to communicate effectively.
Comprehension - the ability to understand and gain meaning from what has been read.

Learning to read requires a child to learn specific skills in sequence. Children who have difficulty learning to read have deficiencies in phonemic awareness skills. A child with weak phonemic awareness skills will have difficulty learning phonics skills. This child will not be a fluent reader. If the child does not master phonics and fluency, he will not be able to master vocabulary and reading comprehension.

One young teacher made a banner to illustrate the sequence of reading skills. This came from the specialized program she was using. As students learned a skill, she would advance them down the banner. This made it easy for her to write specific reading goals.

Math
After children master math operations skills (adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing), they learn how to use reasoning to solve word problems.

One of my clients, Jane, had this math goal in her IEP:

Jane will use problem solving strategies to solve 2 step word problems with + and – (0 – 999) and x and division (0 – 12) on 3/4 trials.

This is NOT a good IEP goal. Why not?
The intended outcome might have been for Jane to solve two-part word problems. But this goal says she needs to learn to use problem-solving strategies. The goal does not state whether she will be able to solve problems. Worse, this goal includes all math operations (adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing), making the goal overly broad.

Jane’s math goal is not SMART. It is not specific or measurable. It does not use action words, and is not realistic or time-limited.

How can we revise this goal to make it SMART?

According to Jane’s IEP, using objects helps her to solve problems. A better goal for Jane might be:

Using real money, Jane will be able to show how much money she has after she receives two weeks of allowance, and how much money she will have left after she buys one object, with 75 percent accuracy measured twice weekly each quarter.

Now, the goal meets the five criteria for a SMART IEP goal.

Writing
Achievement in written language requires many skills. Mechanics help make thoughts clear. Word usage and sentence structure help make the writing interesting. Good thought expression sends the desired message.

In Jane’s IEP, her writing goal read:

Jane needs to write a paragraph, with a topic sentence and at least 4 detail sentences, on one given topic using her editing checklist measured twice monthly.

So, if Jane writes that paragraph, has she achieved that goal?

By the way it was written, the intended outcome is that Jane only “needs” to write a paragraph to meet the goal.

A better writing goal for Jane is:

Jane will write and edit a five-sentence paragraph that addresses a given subject twice a month. Each paragraph will include a topic sentence, at least four details and a conclusion. She will earn a score of 75 percent or higher on a writing rubric for each writing assignment. There will be at least four writing assignments per quarter.

Tip: Rubrics are useful scoring tools that measure a child’s progress. A writing rubric includes the criteria and standards used to assess a child’s performance on writing assignments.

The revised goal is specific and measurable. It uses action words, is realistic, and time-limited. The revised goal is SMART!

The Much Awaited (Practically Demanded) 10th Grade Analysis

A reader has been posting repeatedly their insistence that our failure to include the 2010 MCAS scores for the 10^th grade is unfair and because it isn’t in alignment with our needs or ‘thesis’.  We didn’t initially provide the data as we felt that since the results were included in the Annual Report and we gave them credit for the student’s performance in English Language Arts and Math that it wasn’t alarming nor did they constitute as a parent concern.  Alternatively, the Science/Technology MCAS scores were less than impressive both independently and in comparison to the other sending districts. In response to their posting, we did do the analysis which we initially provided within the blog posting and in direct response to their posted comment.  Unfortunately the reader continues to feel as though we have slighted the accomplishments of the students and school. As a result of their ranting we have decided to do as they suggest and are providing an analysis not only of the 10^th grade 2010 MCAS results in comparison to the sending districts but to also provide the data for this same classes MCAS scores since 2003.

As you will see, the majority of the students did do well in the English Language Arts (84 of the 88 students) and Math (79 out of 88 students) 2010 MCAS’s. Unfortunately, 4 students did not do so well in English Language Arts (i.e. their scores indicate that their ELA levels ‘Need Improvement’ or that these students are performing below grade level) and 9 students did not do so well in Math (i.e. 8 of the students are performing below grade level and 1 student failed). Yes, lower numbers and percentages than the sending districts but we must make mention that by this time these students have attended school for nearly an entire year more than their counter-parts of sending districts.

The truly unfortunate part of this classes MCAS scores would be the Science and Technology portion. While the ELA and Math scores for MVRCS have fluctuated over the years, MVRCS has pretty consistently scored poorly within this subject matter.  Only 69 % (or 61 out of 88 students) achieved a score of Advanced or Proficient with Melrose (70%), Stoneham (78%), and Wakefield (86%) out-performing MVRCS. These other districts were able to do this with less school time and with more students. The question must then be asked if MVRCS students are excelling within some subject matters at the expense of others.

We then began an analysis of the MCAS scores for the 2010 grade 10 class since 3^rd grade (as our reader had suggested). We are including the data that we accumulated and used for our analysis as we found a number of interesting aspects. We must begin by saying that we obtained all of our information from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s website at (DESE MCAS Results). We must state that although the reader who prompted us to begin this analysis insists that the 2010 10^th grade class has a combined Advance Proficient and Proficient score of 97% (versus the 96% that we found), we were unable to locate the “new link to the State for the 10^th grade they just put up”. What we did find was that for the 2010 year, the 10^th grade class did increase the number of students who scored Advance Proficient and Proficient from 69% to 96% between the time this class took their 3^rd grade MCAS scores (in 2003 when they were in 3^rd grade) and their 10^th grade MCAS scores. What we also found interesting for this group was the total number of students who participated each year. Specifically the fact that in 2003, when the class that was in 10^th grade during the 2009-2010 school year was in 3^rd grade, they had 120 students. Of those students, 83 students (or 69%) scored Proficient in Reading (the DESE did not indicate an Advanced Proficient rating for MVRCS during that year). Interestingly enough the total number of students in that class group declined gradually over the years with only 88 of the original 120 students remaining. It would be our guess that the remaining 32 students of the original 120 were the students that were systematically eliminated or nudged towards the door as they were not performing. The question then remains if MVRCS truly improved their score or simply continued educating those 83 students and allowing the others to fall through the cracks.

Another interesting aspect of this analysis that we feel is worth sharing is that if one looks at the Science scores for this same group of students (the students that made up the 10^th grade class during the 2009-2010 school year), they are consistently deplorable. Yes, a rise in scores and students can be seen but we should expect more students to have better scores after having almost an entire extra year of schooling than their counterparts of sending districts. We're not sure we would consider all of these results as 'staying the course' as one has suggested.

The figures in Red represent the English Language Arts and are the % of students who scored Advanced/Advanced Proficient, the High % for the sending district, and the actual number of students. The format remains the same with math displayed in blue and science in green. The last column is the total number of students within that class during that school year.

 

MCAS Analysis Thoughts

After analyzing and re-analyzing the MCAS scores that we published over the past few days we have some thoughts and feedback.As part of our analysis and review we took a look at the 2009-2010 Annual Report to see how MVRCS felt they compared to sending districts for the prior years MCAS scores (we provided 2010 scores whereas the Annual Report deals specifically with 2009 MCAS scores). Beyond the difference in testing years, it is worth noting that MVRCS does its analysis by districts while we provided scores for individual schools within each sending district. In the 2009-2010 report, MVRCS claims to have met their goals of having test scores 19-32% higher than the test scores for the sending districts (although they come to this conclusion using 'weighted composite averages' rather than just district scores). We found the whole thing unnecessarily complex, confusing and a great smoke screen to make them appear superior to sending districts. One  goal we found particularly interesting was the one that spoke to MVRCS making adequate yearly progress every year....but ONLY in certain subgroups. Our reason for pointing this out is that numbers aside, MVRCS apparently doesn't consider Special Education students to be (statistically) significant as that group did not make AYP. Unlike MVRCS's analysis we didn't take into consideration the number of students that came from a sending district (weighted composite averages) nor did we look at the districts as a whole but rather at individual schools within each district.
Our main feeling towards the MCAS scores that we recently published was pure disappointment as MVRCS didn't do nearly as well as some of the other schools of its sending districts. In a few instances schools within Melrose, Stoneham, or Wakefield score lower than MVRCS but most of those instances the percentages were close. With the exception of Science, MVRCS did do comparatively well in the higher grades but we found the scores for the lower grades to be quite alarming. As for the upper grades, MVRCS students did not perform well on the Science but it should be noted that none of the districts fared any better (the high % was Wakefield and MVRCS with both scoring 45% of their students performing at or above grade level). We were incredibly disappointed and alarmed that only 50% of the 5th graders at MVRCS are reading at or above grade level. Additionally only 48% of these same students are at or above grade level in Math and 35% in Science. That means that more than 50% or more of the current 6th graders were below the state standards for 5th grade last year. In thinking back to the recruitment ad that MVRCS took out in Malden last October, we think they may have been too quick to put Malden down and toot their own horn. The 4th grade class last year did equally as poorly with 46% performing at or above grade level in English and 51% in Math. Again that leaves approximately 50% performing below state standards grade level. The 3rd graders last year did slightly better but were once again below most Stoneham, Wakefield and Melrose schools.
The scores from last year show an improvement over the 2008 and 2009 MCAS scores and in line with 2007 scores. We're not sure what this means besides the schools inability to maintain consistently acceptable MCAS scores.We'll also be interested in seeing how these scores are disguised and discussed within the next MVRCS Annual Report. The different test scores can be found on our website and/or at the DESE website using the links below.

3rd Grade Comparison
4th Grade Comparison
5th Grade Comparison

6th Grade Comparison

7th Grade Compassion

8th Grade Comparison

Sending District Data

DESE 2010 MVRCS MCAS Scores

If You Have Questions about Your Child’s Reading - Ask…

If You Have Questions about Your Child’s Reading - Ask…

If You Have Questions about Your Child’s Reading - Ask…

12/23/10
by Wrightslaw

If you have a child who is  receiving “special education” reading instruction, you need information to participate in writing an appropriate IEP. This information could also help when you work with your child at home.
Find what questions to ask and a user-friendly form to record your answers.

Questions about Overall Reading Progress

• Do you need accurate information about your child’s current reading level and what she is able to do?
• Where does she need to improve?
• Is there a difference between reading and understanding?
• What can you and your child’s teacher do to improve weak areas?

Questions about Word Recognition, Sounds, and Fluency in Reading

• Has your child ever been tested for language and sound awareness?
• Do you know what strategies your child’s teacher is using to help her recognize words and work through difficult sounds?

1. Do you have questions about reading comprehension and what you can do to help your child understand what she reads?
2. Do you know what your child’s other teachers are doing to meet her reading, writing, spelling needs?
You will also find a form to use when you ask questions  about Writing, Spelling, and Testing.

• What impact does my child’s reading ability have on his spelling?
• How is my son’s writing affected by his reading abilities?
• Will my child be able to pass the state’s End-of-Grade test in reading?
(Be sure to ask this as some MVRCS students are reading below grade level and their instruction/texts are below grade level. If they are unable to pass the MCAS for their grade level, often times the Administration will require the student be retained - EVEN if the child has had high grades all year. Be very careful with this!)

Parents, educational consultants, teachers, professors from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Charlotte, and staff from the Exceptional Children’s Assistance Center compiled these questions regarding reading progress.
They also created a simple, easy to use form for Questions Parents Can Ask…About Reading Improvement. We’ve posted these forms on a Parent Resource page on the Fetaweb.com.
Use these questions to help you gather information about your child’s reading skills and progress when you speak to your child’s teacher or education specialist.
If you receive an answer you do not understand, ask to have it explained thoroughly.
Questions to Ask
http://www.fetaweb.com/read.questions.htm
Find more information here: Reading at Wrightslaw
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/read.index.htm