Tis the Season Missing a loved one during the holidays.
My mother loved the holidays. She had decorations for every holiday you can think of. She enjoyed getting the family together, cooking and fellowshipping with family and friends. My mom dies in April of ovarian cancer and I really miss her, not just during the holidays but every day. It is very hard not to be able to just pick up the phone and call her, talk about what’s going on, get her guidance and advice and to just check in with home. Grief and depression are so personal and are a struggle for many people year round, but especially throughout the holidays.
Finding ways to copy with not only the pressures of the holidays, but also with this grief and despair is possible to do. My way of coping is to remember the reason for the holidays. This is not about us but is recognition for the sacrifices that were made so that we may have life and have it more abundantly. Thinking about my Mom, this is the same thing that she wanted for me and all of her kids.
Ways to Cope With Depression
1. Allow yourself the RIGHT to grieve. Give yourself time to mourn but don’t let it last forever. Take the time you need, but tell yourself that time does heal all wounds and the person you are mourning would not want you to stay in a state of mourning forever. Your best honor to them is to be the best that you can be.
2. Get it out in the way that is best for you. Fain a way to express yourself in your most creative way. If you have an artistic side let it assist you with overcoming your grief. For me reading, learning, writing and teaching does the trick. And don’t forget GOD in this equation. Your gifts of talent are a reflection of the love you can give back to HIM for how he has blessed you.
3. Surround yourself with your circle of love and trust. Recognize that no one goes through life alone but also recognize that love and trust are not intertwined. Know who you love and who you trust and that sometimes they are the same and sometimes not. If your circle is large, reevaluate those in your circle. My experience is that this circle should be very small and intimate.
4. And finally, focus on you. Try an exercise to do something in the memory of your loved you that you are missing and make this a tradition. This will keep their memory alive and allow you to honor them by always being a part of your holiday celebrations. Do what makes you happy? If you can’t answer the question of what makes you happy, then it is time to find the answer.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
Ovarian Cancer
Ovarian cancer is cancer that forms in tissues of the ovary (one of a pair of female reproductive glands in which the ova, or eggs, are formed). Most ovarian cancers are either ovarian epithelial carcinomas (cancer that begins in the cells on the surface of the ovary) or malignant germ cell tumors (cancer that begins in egg cells).
Ovarian Cancer affects 1 in every 55 women. Estimated new cases and deaths from ovarian cancer in the United States in 2010:
New cases: 21,880
Deaths: 13,850
Ovarian cancer can invade, shed, or spread to other organs:
• Invade: A malignant ovarian tumor can grow and invade organs next to the ovaries, such as the fallopian tubes and uterus.
• Shed: Cancer cells can shed (break off) from the main ovarian tumor. Shedding into the abdomen may lead to new tumors forming on the surface of nearby organs and tissues. The doctor may call these seeds or implants.
• Spread: Cancer cells can spread through the lymphatic system to lymph nodes in the pelvis, abdomen, and chest. Cancer cells may also spread through the bloodstream to organs such as the liver and lungs.
When cancer spreads from its original place to another part of the body, the new tumor has the same kind of abnormal cells and the same name as the original tumor. For example, if ovarian cancer spreads to the liver, the cancer cells in the liver are actually ovarian cancer cells. The disease is metastatic ovarian cancer, not liver cancer. For that reason, it is treated as ovarian cancer, not liver cancer. Doctors call the new tumor "distant" or metastatic disease.
Early detection is the best answer to survive Ovarian Cancer. See your doctor today and often.
Ovarian Cancer affects 1 in every 55 women. Estimated new cases and deaths from ovarian cancer in the United States in 2010:
New cases: 21,880
Deaths: 13,850
Ovarian cancer can invade, shed, or spread to other organs:
• Invade: A malignant ovarian tumor can grow and invade organs next to the ovaries, such as the fallopian tubes and uterus.
• Shed: Cancer cells can shed (break off) from the main ovarian tumor. Shedding into the abdomen may lead to new tumors forming on the surface of nearby organs and tissues. The doctor may call these seeds or implants.
• Spread: Cancer cells can spread through the lymphatic system to lymph nodes in the pelvis, abdomen, and chest. Cancer cells may also spread through the bloodstream to organs such as the liver and lungs.
When cancer spreads from its original place to another part of the body, the new tumor has the same kind of abnormal cells and the same name as the original tumor. For example, if ovarian cancer spreads to the liver, the cancer cells in the liver are actually ovarian cancer cells. The disease is metastatic ovarian cancer, not liver cancer. For that reason, it is treated as ovarian cancer, not liver cancer. Doctors call the new tumor "distant" or metastatic disease.
Early detection is the best answer to survive Ovarian Cancer. See your doctor today and often.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Five Foundations for Character
There is so much hate goiong on right now and it is discouraging the misinformation, lies and racist views we are subject to everyday through the campaign adds and hate speech spread. I though a reminder of character (which we are not seeing much of) was in order.
Foundation #1: Trustworthiness
Be honest
Be reliable
Do what you say you will do
Have the courage to do the right thing
Build a good reputation
Be loyal
Foundation #2: Respect
Treat others with respect
Respect differences
Be polite
Use appropriate language
Be considerate of the feelings of others
Deal peacefully with conflict and anger
Foundation #3: Responsibility
Do what you are responsible for
Always do your best
Be self-disciplined
Think before you act
Consider the consequences of your actions
Be accountable for your choices
Foundation #4: Fairness
Follow the rules
Be open-minded
Listen to others
Don’t blame carelessly
Foundation #5: Caring:
Be considerate
Show that you care
Express gratitude
Help others
Foundation #1: Trustworthiness
Be honest
Be reliable
Do what you say you will do
Have the courage to do the right thing
Build a good reputation
Be loyal
Foundation #2: Respect
Treat others with respect
Respect differences
Be polite
Use appropriate language
Be considerate of the feelings of others
Deal peacefully with conflict and anger
Foundation #3: Responsibility
Do what you are responsible for
Always do your best
Be self-disciplined
Think before you act
Consider the consequences of your actions
Be accountable for your choices
Foundation #4: Fairness
Follow the rules
Be open-minded
Listen to others
Don’t blame carelessly
Foundation #5: Caring:
Be considerate
Show that you care
Express gratitude
Help others
Sunday, September 5, 2010
The joy of volunteering
Volunteering is a very rewarding endeavor and applies to everyone regardless of your social or economic status. You do not have to be of a particular race or religion to volunteer and the rewards for doing so are so gratifying that the personal benefits are immeasurable. Giving of any talent that you have to others invokes an inner and personal joy that can be difficult to describe. Volunteering may be giving of your talents, time, money, leadership or just presence. Serving the unmet needs of others allows you to gain self worth and inner joy that you may not get from your job, your family or other activities that you engage in. I guarantee that if you give it a try just one, you will be hooked. I have raised my children on the pleasures of giving and volunteering to others. Many years ago, we stopped the commercial madness of Christmas and refocused it on the pleasure of giving to others. Now every year, we make it a family event to single out one somebody or something to give back to knowing that our rewards will come in Heaven. As a result, my children have grown up to be kind and caring and giving individuals who have developed a love for their fellow man and a desire to make a difference. What a BLESSING! Give, you will be rewarded for doing so and experience the inner joy of giving.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Life and Eats. Do both to the fullest
I enjoy cooking. My local supermarket provides their recopies for certain dishes that they demonstrate in the store for customers to taste. As I am testing their presentations, I am immediately thinking how I can make it better. Last week they demonstrated their Sausage Stromboli. It was a pretty straight forward recipe using prepared store brand products. Of course I knew immediately how I could make it better. First I added fresh spinach. I also added a fresh sweet sausage as opposed to their recommended fully cooked frozen sausage. Not to brag but it turned out fabulous. The moral is that you are an individual and nobody knows you better than yourself. Don’t be afraid to experiment and go with what you know to be true. I know that fresh spinach can enhance almost any dish and adding it to this recipe turned out to be the right thing to do. Explore, experiment, enhance and exhibit your individually and then ENJOY!
Monday, August 2, 2010
Your story - Memoir Writing
Every life has a story. A memoir is your story. Some think of a memoir as a written scrapbook of memories. It is a history or record composed from your personal observation and experiences. The memoir allows you to describe and record specific events and highlight significant events in your life that promotes personal self-worth and community appreciation of your life stories and experiences.
If you have always wanted to write your memoir but wondered how to get started, than this short writing course is for you. It offers practical ways to bring the storyteller within you to life. This course will teach you how to record the significant events in your life and turn your personal story into a captivating memoir. Your memoir is your legacy. This course will provide you with the tools you need to preserve the memorable tales of your life in a riveting personal memoir!
How to Participate in this Course
Enroll and start learning today! All course materials will be available when you start the class. You don't have to be online at any set time; study at your leisure from the comfort or your home or office. The course curriculum will include tutorial lessons, suggested readings, and optional homework activities. If you are taking the class for enjoyment or self-enrichment, homework is optional but participation is encouraged.
To get started, just click here http://ksurf.net/vu/catalog/3171.html and enroll.
If you have always wanted to write your memoir but wondered how to get started, than this short writing course is for you. It offers practical ways to bring the storyteller within you to life. This course will teach you how to record the significant events in your life and turn your personal story into a captivating memoir. Your memoir is your legacy. This course will provide you with the tools you need to preserve the memorable tales of your life in a riveting personal memoir!
How to Participate in this Course
Enroll and start learning today! All course materials will be available when you start the class. You don't have to be online at any set time; study at your leisure from the comfort or your home or office. The course curriculum will include tutorial lessons, suggested readings, and optional homework activities. If you are taking the class for enjoyment or self-enrichment, homework is optional but participation is encouraged.
To get started, just click here http://ksurf.net/vu/catalog/3171.html and enroll.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
One to read
I am always looking for great books to read so when there was a book fair at my job, of course I had to go. I was browsing through the books, many I had read before and I found something very interesting. “The Blackbird Papers" by Dr. Ian Smith was my treasure find. I picked it up, read the front and back covers and was amazed that YES it was THE Dr. Ian Smith. You know, the one who wrote that diet book that I have been meaning to buy and read and follow for several years now (just haven’t gotten around to it). I thought HUH!, this should be interesting. While I thought the book started out slow, and was disappointed that the pages were so packed with words in small print (my sight isn't as good as it use to be even with reading glasses), I couldn't put the book down. I read it from cover to cover and it was fabulous. I finished the book which had a startling ending (I won't give anything away in this post). And then I immediately sat down at my computer to research to see if a sequel had been written. Sadly it has not. :-( I highly recommend this book to those of you who love a good mystery and detective story. Common Dr. Smith, I can't wait for the sequel. I love the characters and would even recommend writing the prequel, what preceded the brothers relationship would make a great book. No one says you have to write in sequence go back and give me more of these characters earlier lives and relationships.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Assessing Students with Learning Disabilities
Assessing Students with Learning Disabilities
The reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004) includes provisions that address ways in which specific disabilities are identified. Acknowledging the criticism of the previous Act, the movement toward change was to address the procedures and criteria specific to determining the components of assessing learning disabilities (LD).
Discrepancies between conceptual definitions, which are multi-faceted, and operational definitions, which have reduced traditionally to a single dimension the construct of learning disabilities, were the focus of the criticism of the previous ACT (Reschly & Hosp, 2004). Learning Disabilities, which are intrinsic to the individual, involve learning and cognition disorders that significantly affect a relatively narrow range of academic and performance outcomes (Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002).
Understanding the components of the conceptual definition of LD is important, and the identification of the measures of assessment of this component will be the focus of this review of literature of educational assessments for students with learning disabilities. Educational assessments document the student’s knowledge, skills and abilities, usually in measurable terms.
Butler and McMunn (2006) define assessment as the act of collecting information about individuals or groups of individuals to understand them. Assessment implementation can include many forms, such as day-to-day observation, tests and quizzes, essays, self assessments, and journaling, to name a few. In conducting assessments the following areas should be included; student work at all stages of development, student process, knowledge and skill, programmatic processes, and instructional methods.
Student evaluation or assessments and procedures are an ongoing process that includes both formative and summative evaluations to provide accurate feedback on the teaching methods, type of activities used, student response, and as a result, student performance. This paper will present a brief review of literature regarding the assessment of students with learning disabilities (LD), and identify issues relevant to validity, reliability, ethical, and legal issues.
Learning disabilities and assessments
A learning disability is a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written and is a disorder that affects how individuals receive, analyze, store, and retrieve information (Hammill, Leigh, McNutt & Larsen, 1987). Learning disabilities manifestation themselves through difficulties experienced over time and can present in areas such as organization, time management, and attention (Salzer, Wick & Rogers, 2008). Learning disabilities vary among individuals and present difficult in learning using such skills as reading, writing, speaking, reasoning, and doing math. Students with learning disabilities typically have difficulties with traditional and standardized testing presenting false assessments when required accommodations are not provided.
Nagy (2000), points to three roles or functions that assessments have, gatekeepers in which assessment determines who is granted a privilege such as admission or graduation; ensuring accountability in which assessment is used to decide if schools are working well; and instructional diagnosis in which assessment is used to discover what students do and do not know and what to do about it. Black (1998) points out that there are differences in the desired purpose of the assessment and the selected instrument used and interpretation determined to serve each purpose. Different purposes require vastly different approaches and mixing the purposes is likely to ensure that none of them will be well served. It is not possible to use one assessment process for many purposes that educational institutions want it to fulfill. It is necessary to first determine the purpose and population for the assessment and then design the assessment program to fit that purpose and population (Gipps, 1994).
Assessing and testing students with learning disabilities can be a challenging and complex process. The learning disabled students Individual Education Program (IEP) should be in place within 60 days from the time a student is referred for learning disability testing. Because learning disabilities can vary greatly among students, the assessment process of gathering information in all areas related to a student's suspected learning disability will prove difficult. Following are examples of testing that has proven to be reliable in assessing learning disable students.
Literature Review
Lopes, (2007) conducted a study that investigated the presence of emotional, behavior, and academic problems in seventh grade students. Behavioral data was gathered using a regression analysis covering the beginning and end of the school year, and academic data was collected six times throughout the year.
The study concluded that there was an increase in performance under the pass/fail systems and an increase in emotional and behavioral problems by the end of the school year. The study also measured the academic grades of students who exhibited emotional and behavior problems and concluded that their progress had worsened significantly by the end of the school year as compared to their peers without exhibited emotional and behavior problems. Academic achievement had lowered by the end of the school year, and their emotional and behavioral problems had increased. Regression analysis results indicated that academic achievement better predicts emotional problems than behavior problems, and odds ratio showed that external and internal problems were more likely in students with lower levels of academic achievement.
Assessment instrument validity of this study was determined using regression analysis, which tests for change over time in the population and simultaneously assesses linear and quadratic time effects. Potential bias inherent in this research included the studies failure to consider the changes to the mean as a result of change in the population as a result of the use of the regression analysis. Greater proportions of students with higher ability scores were identified and students with discrepancies were identified when those with average reading scores may have been identify over a lower percentage of the population who have very low reading scores.
A study on Meta Analysis by Burns, & Wagner, (2008), relies on the use of assessment data to describe the learning problem and offer potential solutions. This study is composed of an analysis of 55 students in grades two to six. Of these students, six were identified as learning disability, seven were labeled with behavioral disorders and 12 were identified as mentally retarded whereas the remaining 30 students were not identified with any disability.
Meta-analytic procedures were used to analyze the link between skill proficiency and interventions categorized as addressing acquisition or fluency needs. Results suggest that the skill-by-treatment paradigm may be useful for matching skill levels in reading to successful interventions. The validity of the study was based in the meta-analytical procedures and their presumption that effect sizes based on different measures are directly comparable.
Recent theoretical work has shown that an invariance condition—universe score, or construct, validity invariance—must hold for either observed score or reliability-corrected effect sizes based on different measures to be directly comparable (Nugent, 2008). Results of studies conducted using meta-analytical procedures suggest that considerable variability in effect sizes can exist across measurement procedures that fail to meet universe score validity invariance and that this variability has the potential to affect negatively meta-analytic results.
Fletcher, Francis, O’Malley, Copeland, Mehta, Caldwell, Kalinowski, Young, and Vaughn (2009) conducted a study to assess the effects of bundling in educational assessments. This study investigated the efficacy of a bundle of accommodations for poor readers in Grade 7. Learning disabled students who participated in this study were randomly selected to take a high-stakes reading comprehension test.
The test results reflected that the accommodations helped both poor and average readers. Bias inherent in this study included accommodations that provided as a package so the value-added impact of structured extended time to the read aloud accommodations could not be assessed. Another bias was that the study was limited to student in grade seven making it an unknown if the accommodations would be fair or effective to younger students. These biases were address by making a comparison of the results of this study to a previous study conducted by Fletcher et al. (2006) that was designed to evaluate the bundled accommodations with younger students (elementary school) and determine the value-added effects of extended time accommodations to the read aloud accommodations.
Validity of this study was determined by using students with an identified learning disability with accommodations are designed to address their specific disability. The instrument used, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, has proven construct validity (TAKS, 2007). This assessment instrument is aligned with grade-based standards from the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills and is based on an interactive item development process in which items are field tested and evaluated for reliability, validity, and bias.
Assessment tools measure the skills and abilities and knowledge attainment of the students in all academic areas and the results serve as a baseline to measure effectiveness of educational programs. A major weakness inherent in educational assessments is the issue of bias.
Bias is inherent in many of the assessment tools and measures taken to make assessments reliable and valid, bias may remain an issue to overcome. Another weakness of assessments can be the cost associated with the development and delivery of the assessment. Finally, but certainly not exhaustive of the assessment weaknesses is the issue of the acceptance of the evaluation results in their ability and use to serve as a baseline to measure effectiveness of educational programs.
Assessments should be both valid and reliable. Reliability and consistency are equals when the discussion is about educational assessments (Popham, 2009). Reliability refers to the quality of the evidence and validity refers to inferences made based on the evidence. When creating an assessment which is reliable and valid, a teacher should use assessment instruments that achieve consistent results and that assess the right information.
Validity of assessments method assesses what it claims to assess and thus produces results that can lead to valid inferences usable in decision making. Reliability is the capacity of an assessment method to perform in a consistent and stable manner (Hargreaves, 2007). Content validity offers a practical approach to assessment development. If assessments are designed to include information in the instructional material in proportion to their importance in the course, then the interpretations of test scores are likely to have greater validity.
Conclusion
While assessments cannot be viewed as a one for all purposes, solution for measuring performance, educators should be reminded that multiple assessments and valid assessment instruments are necessary to address the learning goals and the organization’s mission of knowledge attainment for the students. Formative and summative assessments are important to the process and recognizing that assessment tools should take into consideration the individual needs of the learning disabled student, increasing the amount of assessment will not enhance learning.
One way to include students with learning disabilities is to allow them to take tests under nonstandard conditions, using various types of testing modifications or testing accommodations. The outline of the studies presented identify various means of accommodating learning disabled students while ensuring that knowledge is being attained and the goals set out in the curriculum development are transferred to the student in a valid and reliable manner despite this individual learning disability.
References
Barkley RA, Fischer M, Smallish L, Fletcher K (2004). Young adult follow-up of
hyperactive children: antisocial activities and drug use. J Child Psychol
Psychiatry 45: 195–211.
Bedrosian, J., Lasker, J., Speidel, K., & Politsch, A. (2003). Enhancing the written
narrative skills of an AAC student with autism: Evidence-based research issues.
Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 305–324.
Black, P. (1998). Testing: Friend or Foe? Theory and Practice of Assessment and
Testing. London, Falmer Press.
Bradley R, Danielson L, Hallahan DP. (2002). Identification of Learning Disabilities:
Research to Practice. (Eds.) Bradley, Danielson, Hallahan. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Burns, M.K., & Wagner, D. (2008). Determining an effective interval within a brief
experimental analysis for reading; A meta-analytical review. School
Psychological Review, 37, 126-136.
Butler, S. M. & McMunn, N. D. (2006). A teacher’s guide to classroom
assessment: Understanding and using assessments to improve student learning.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Boudousquie, A., Copeland, K., Young, V., Kalinowsid,
S., et al. (2006). Effects of accommodations on high-stakes testing for students
with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72. 136-152.
Fletcher, J. M. Francis, D. J. O'Malley, K., Copeland, K., Mehta, P., Calowell, C. J.,
Kalinowski, S., Young, V., & Vaughn, S.(2009). Affects of bundling:
Accommodations package on high stakes testing for middle school students with
reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, Vol. 75 Issue 4, p447-463.
Gipps (1994). Beyond Testing. Towards a Theory of Educational Assessment. London,
The Falmer Press.
Hammill, D. D., Leigh, J. E., McNutt, G., & Larsen, S. C. (1987). A new definition of
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 109 – 113.
Hargreaves, E. (2007), The validity of collaborative assessment for learning; Assessment
in Education Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 185–199
Lopes, J. A. (2007). Prevalence of emotional, behavioral and learning problems: a study
of 7th-grade students. Education and Treatment of Children - Volume 30, Number
4, pp. 165-181.
Mellard D. (2003). "Understanding Responsiveness to Intervention in Learning
Disabilities Determination," Retrievable at http://www.nrcld.org/
publications/papers/mellard.shtml.
Nagy, P. (2000). The three roles of assessment: Gatekeeping, accountability, and
instructional diagnosis. Canadian Journal of Education 25(2).
Nugent, W. R. (2008). Construct Validity Invariance and Discrepancies in Meta-Analytic
Effect Sizes Based on Different Measures: A Simulation Study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, vol. 69, 1: pp. 62-78.
Popham, W. J. (2006). Assessment for educational leaders. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and
Bacon.
Reschly DJ and Hosp JL. (2004). "State SLD Identification Policies and Practices,"
Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 27(4), p. 197-213.
Salzer, M. S., Wick, L. C., & Rogers, J. A. (2008). Familiarity with and use of
accommodations and supports among postsecondary students with mental
illnesses. Psychiatric Services, 59, 370 – 375.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Stone, W. L., & Hogan, K. L. (2003). A structured parent interview regarding
cooperative learning for children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities and Developmental Disorders, 23, 639–652.
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skiils. (2007). Retrieved July 3, 2010, from
http://www.tea.statc. tx.us/student.assessment/resources/releasc/taks/2006/
gr7taks.ptlf.
Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2000). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-
risk students in the general education classroom (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Wenzel, T. (2000). Cooperative student activities as learning devices. Analytical
Chemistry v72 p293A-296AAN
The reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004) includes provisions that address ways in which specific disabilities are identified. Acknowledging the criticism of the previous Act, the movement toward change was to address the procedures and criteria specific to determining the components of assessing learning disabilities (LD).
Discrepancies between conceptual definitions, which are multi-faceted, and operational definitions, which have reduced traditionally to a single dimension the construct of learning disabilities, were the focus of the criticism of the previous ACT (Reschly & Hosp, 2004). Learning Disabilities, which are intrinsic to the individual, involve learning and cognition disorders that significantly affect a relatively narrow range of academic and performance outcomes (Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002).
Understanding the components of the conceptual definition of LD is important, and the identification of the measures of assessment of this component will be the focus of this review of literature of educational assessments for students with learning disabilities. Educational assessments document the student’s knowledge, skills and abilities, usually in measurable terms.
Butler and McMunn (2006) define assessment as the act of collecting information about individuals or groups of individuals to understand them. Assessment implementation can include many forms, such as day-to-day observation, tests and quizzes, essays, self assessments, and journaling, to name a few. In conducting assessments the following areas should be included; student work at all stages of development, student process, knowledge and skill, programmatic processes, and instructional methods.
Student evaluation or assessments and procedures are an ongoing process that includes both formative and summative evaluations to provide accurate feedback on the teaching methods, type of activities used, student response, and as a result, student performance. This paper will present a brief review of literature regarding the assessment of students with learning disabilities (LD), and identify issues relevant to validity, reliability, ethical, and legal issues.
Learning disabilities and assessments
A learning disability is a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written and is a disorder that affects how individuals receive, analyze, store, and retrieve information (Hammill, Leigh, McNutt & Larsen, 1987). Learning disabilities manifestation themselves through difficulties experienced over time and can present in areas such as organization, time management, and attention (Salzer, Wick & Rogers, 2008). Learning disabilities vary among individuals and present difficult in learning using such skills as reading, writing, speaking, reasoning, and doing math. Students with learning disabilities typically have difficulties with traditional and standardized testing presenting false assessments when required accommodations are not provided.
Nagy (2000), points to three roles or functions that assessments have, gatekeepers in which assessment determines who is granted a privilege such as admission or graduation; ensuring accountability in which assessment is used to decide if schools are working well; and instructional diagnosis in which assessment is used to discover what students do and do not know and what to do about it. Black (1998) points out that there are differences in the desired purpose of the assessment and the selected instrument used and interpretation determined to serve each purpose. Different purposes require vastly different approaches and mixing the purposes is likely to ensure that none of them will be well served. It is not possible to use one assessment process for many purposes that educational institutions want it to fulfill. It is necessary to first determine the purpose and population for the assessment and then design the assessment program to fit that purpose and population (Gipps, 1994).
Assessing and testing students with learning disabilities can be a challenging and complex process. The learning disabled students Individual Education Program (IEP) should be in place within 60 days from the time a student is referred for learning disability testing. Because learning disabilities can vary greatly among students, the assessment process of gathering information in all areas related to a student's suspected learning disability will prove difficult. Following are examples of testing that has proven to be reliable in assessing learning disable students.
Literature Review
Lopes, (2007) conducted a study that investigated the presence of emotional, behavior, and academic problems in seventh grade students. Behavioral data was gathered using a regression analysis covering the beginning and end of the school year, and academic data was collected six times throughout the year.
The study concluded that there was an increase in performance under the pass/fail systems and an increase in emotional and behavioral problems by the end of the school year. The study also measured the academic grades of students who exhibited emotional and behavior problems and concluded that their progress had worsened significantly by the end of the school year as compared to their peers without exhibited emotional and behavior problems. Academic achievement had lowered by the end of the school year, and their emotional and behavioral problems had increased. Regression analysis results indicated that academic achievement better predicts emotional problems than behavior problems, and odds ratio showed that external and internal problems were more likely in students with lower levels of academic achievement.
Assessment instrument validity of this study was determined using regression analysis, which tests for change over time in the population and simultaneously assesses linear and quadratic time effects. Potential bias inherent in this research included the studies failure to consider the changes to the mean as a result of change in the population as a result of the use of the regression analysis. Greater proportions of students with higher ability scores were identified and students with discrepancies were identified when those with average reading scores may have been identify over a lower percentage of the population who have very low reading scores.
A study on Meta Analysis by Burns, & Wagner, (2008), relies on the use of assessment data to describe the learning problem and offer potential solutions. This study is composed of an analysis of 55 students in grades two to six. Of these students, six were identified as learning disability, seven were labeled with behavioral disorders and 12 were identified as mentally retarded whereas the remaining 30 students were not identified with any disability.
Meta-analytic procedures were used to analyze the link between skill proficiency and interventions categorized as addressing acquisition or fluency needs. Results suggest that the skill-by-treatment paradigm may be useful for matching skill levels in reading to successful interventions. The validity of the study was based in the meta-analytical procedures and their presumption that effect sizes based on different measures are directly comparable.
Recent theoretical work has shown that an invariance condition—universe score, or construct, validity invariance—must hold for either observed score or reliability-corrected effect sizes based on different measures to be directly comparable (Nugent, 2008). Results of studies conducted using meta-analytical procedures suggest that considerable variability in effect sizes can exist across measurement procedures that fail to meet universe score validity invariance and that this variability has the potential to affect negatively meta-analytic results.
Fletcher, Francis, O’Malley, Copeland, Mehta, Caldwell, Kalinowski, Young, and Vaughn (2009) conducted a study to assess the effects of bundling in educational assessments. This study investigated the efficacy of a bundle of accommodations for poor readers in Grade 7. Learning disabled students who participated in this study were randomly selected to take a high-stakes reading comprehension test.
The test results reflected that the accommodations helped both poor and average readers. Bias inherent in this study included accommodations that provided as a package so the value-added impact of structured extended time to the read aloud accommodations could not be assessed. Another bias was that the study was limited to student in grade seven making it an unknown if the accommodations would be fair or effective to younger students. These biases were address by making a comparison of the results of this study to a previous study conducted by Fletcher et al. (2006) that was designed to evaluate the bundled accommodations with younger students (elementary school) and determine the value-added effects of extended time accommodations to the read aloud accommodations.
Validity of this study was determined by using students with an identified learning disability with accommodations are designed to address their specific disability. The instrument used, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, has proven construct validity (TAKS, 2007). This assessment instrument is aligned with grade-based standards from the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills and is based on an interactive item development process in which items are field tested and evaluated for reliability, validity, and bias.
Assessment tools measure the skills and abilities and knowledge attainment of the students in all academic areas and the results serve as a baseline to measure effectiveness of educational programs. A major weakness inherent in educational assessments is the issue of bias.
Bias is inherent in many of the assessment tools and measures taken to make assessments reliable and valid, bias may remain an issue to overcome. Another weakness of assessments can be the cost associated with the development and delivery of the assessment. Finally, but certainly not exhaustive of the assessment weaknesses is the issue of the acceptance of the evaluation results in their ability and use to serve as a baseline to measure effectiveness of educational programs.
Assessments should be both valid and reliable. Reliability and consistency are equals when the discussion is about educational assessments (Popham, 2009). Reliability refers to the quality of the evidence and validity refers to inferences made based on the evidence. When creating an assessment which is reliable and valid, a teacher should use assessment instruments that achieve consistent results and that assess the right information.
Validity of assessments method assesses what it claims to assess and thus produces results that can lead to valid inferences usable in decision making. Reliability is the capacity of an assessment method to perform in a consistent and stable manner (Hargreaves, 2007). Content validity offers a practical approach to assessment development. If assessments are designed to include information in the instructional material in proportion to their importance in the course, then the interpretations of test scores are likely to have greater validity.
Conclusion
While assessments cannot be viewed as a one for all purposes, solution for measuring performance, educators should be reminded that multiple assessments and valid assessment instruments are necessary to address the learning goals and the organization’s mission of knowledge attainment for the students. Formative and summative assessments are important to the process and recognizing that assessment tools should take into consideration the individual needs of the learning disabled student, increasing the amount of assessment will not enhance learning.
One way to include students with learning disabilities is to allow them to take tests under nonstandard conditions, using various types of testing modifications or testing accommodations. The outline of the studies presented identify various means of accommodating learning disabled students while ensuring that knowledge is being attained and the goals set out in the curriculum development are transferred to the student in a valid and reliable manner despite this individual learning disability.
References
Barkley RA, Fischer M, Smallish L, Fletcher K (2004). Young adult follow-up of
hyperactive children: antisocial activities and drug use. J Child Psychol
Psychiatry 45: 195–211.
Bedrosian, J., Lasker, J., Speidel, K., & Politsch, A. (2003). Enhancing the written
narrative skills of an AAC student with autism: Evidence-based research issues.
Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 305–324.
Black, P. (1998). Testing: Friend or Foe? Theory and Practice of Assessment and
Testing. London, Falmer Press.
Bradley R, Danielson L, Hallahan DP. (2002). Identification of Learning Disabilities:
Research to Practice. (Eds.) Bradley, Danielson, Hallahan. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Burns, M.K., & Wagner, D. (2008). Determining an effective interval within a brief
experimental analysis for reading; A meta-analytical review. School
Psychological Review, 37, 126-136.
Butler, S. M. & McMunn, N. D. (2006). A teacher’s guide to classroom
assessment: Understanding and using assessments to improve student learning.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Boudousquie, A., Copeland, K., Young, V., Kalinowsid,
S., et al. (2006). Effects of accommodations on high-stakes testing for students
with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72. 136-152.
Fletcher, J. M. Francis, D. J. O'Malley, K., Copeland, K., Mehta, P., Calowell, C. J.,
Kalinowski, S., Young, V., & Vaughn, S.(2009). Affects of bundling:
Accommodations package on high stakes testing for middle school students with
reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, Vol. 75 Issue 4, p447-463.
Gipps (1994). Beyond Testing. Towards a Theory of Educational Assessment. London,
The Falmer Press.
Hammill, D. D., Leigh, J. E., McNutt, G., & Larsen, S. C. (1987). A new definition of
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 109 – 113.
Hargreaves, E. (2007), The validity of collaborative assessment for learning; Assessment
in Education Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 185–199
Lopes, J. A. (2007). Prevalence of emotional, behavioral and learning problems: a study
of 7th-grade students. Education and Treatment of Children - Volume 30, Number
4, pp. 165-181.
Mellard D. (2003). "Understanding Responsiveness to Intervention in Learning
Disabilities Determination," Retrievable at http://www.nrcld.org/
publications/papers/mellard.shtml.
Nagy, P. (2000). The three roles of assessment: Gatekeeping, accountability, and
instructional diagnosis. Canadian Journal of Education 25(2).
Nugent, W. R. (2008). Construct Validity Invariance and Discrepancies in Meta-Analytic
Effect Sizes Based on Different Measures: A Simulation Study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, vol. 69, 1: pp. 62-78.
Popham, W. J. (2006). Assessment for educational leaders. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and
Bacon.
Reschly DJ and Hosp JL. (2004). "State SLD Identification Policies and Practices,"
Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 27(4), p. 197-213.
Salzer, M. S., Wick, L. C., & Rogers, J. A. (2008). Familiarity with and use of
accommodations and supports among postsecondary students with mental
illnesses. Psychiatric Services, 59, 370 – 375.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Stone, W. L., & Hogan, K. L. (2003). A structured parent interview regarding
cooperative learning for children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities and Developmental Disorders, 23, 639–652.
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skiils. (2007). Retrieved July 3, 2010, from
http://www.tea.statc. tx.us/student.assessment/resources/releasc/taks/2006/
gr7taks.ptlf.
Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2000). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-
risk students in the general education classroom (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Wenzel, T. (2000). Cooperative student activities as learning devices. Analytical
Chemistry v72 p293A-296AAN
Assessment Goals and Assumptions
Assessment Goals and Assumptions
Butler and McMunn (2006) define assessment as the act of collecting information about individuals or groups of individuals to understand them. Student evaluation or assessments and procedures are an ongoing process that includes both formative and summative evaluations. Evaluations are mostly a summative process however must also contain elements of formative evaluations (Butler & McMunn, 2006).
In comparison to education, a formative evaluation in business is considered an interim evaluation and a summative evaluation would be the annual or yearly evaluation. Educational assessment provides feedback that is equitable in regards to student learning, the success of the instructional material and the weak areas requiring attention and revisions (Reynolds, Livingston, & Willson, 2006). Evaluations in business occur in a results-oriented performance culture in which management and employees work together to clarify priorities for performance by focusing on accomplishments and concentrate on results and how their work directly helps the organization accomplish its mission (Grote, 2002). Employee evaluations in business should motivate employees to achieve higher levels of performance.
In this paper, the writer will identify the goals, and assumptions inherent in the employee assessment process and instruments of the employees of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Additionally, the writer will analyze the instrument's quality and appropriateness.
HUD Employee Assessment Process
The foundation of the success of any organization is the individual employee. Performance appraisals can promote both the institutional development of the organization and the personal development of the people working in it. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has established an employee evaluation plan that relies upon three strategic goals for human capital that are mission focused, maintain a high quality workforce reflective of employees who have necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities he or she needs to do their jobs and are held accountable for their performance, and provides for an effective succession planning process (Nelson, 2008).
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which provides oversight for all Federal Agencies, has provided a directive that requires all federal agencies to implement methods aimed at improving individual and organizational effectiveness. These methods are based on the four principles of being results-oriented, aligning employee performance results that contribute to the success of the organization, rewards depend on performance and results and finally the involvement of employees in planning and identifying critical elements and performance standards. Effective performance standards are standards that are accurately developed and applied, which should result in good employee morale and can affect the agency’s mission.
HUD views this as a results-oriented performance culture which management and employees work together to clarify priorities for performance by focusing on accomplishments. By focusing on accomplishments, employees concentrate on results and how their work directly helps the organization accomplish its mission. When management and employees work together to establish performance criteria and standards that the employee will be accountable for achieving, this enables the employee to maximize productivity and fulfill his or her potential; it also enhances planning, performance appraisals, rewards, and areas for improvement.
HUD has three Performance Management Systems that include Employee Performance Planning and Evaluation System (EPPES)—the performance system for non-supervisory bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit employees, Performance Accountability and Communication System (PACS)—the performance system for managers and Supervisors, and Executive Performance Accountability and Communication System (EPACS)—the performance system for senior executives (see figure 2). A performance plan, consisting of job elements and performance standards is a key component of performance management (Latham & Wexley, 1994). Job elements should link to the agency’s mission and goals, and performance standards must clearly indicate how each individual’s performance will be measured.
The performance technique used by HUD to develop performance standards is the SMART method. Using this methodology, performance standards are written to be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound and are written so they describe how results will be obtained and measured, and when the work needs to be done (Nelson, 2008).
The performance management process consists of five basic components that are planning, monitoring, developing, rating, and rewarding. During the planning phase the performance expectations are outlined, discussed and agreed upon between management and the employee. Planning requires setting performance expectations and goals for individuals and groups that support organizational goals. The planning phase also identifies how the employee will accomplish the tasks, performance expectations, and criteria for levels of performance evaluation. An important part of the planning process is communicating organizational and individual performance expectations to employees. HUD uses SMART methodology to communicate expectations. This phase is followed by monitoring the employee’s performance. Monitoring means continually and consistently measuring performance and providing ongoing feedback to the employee and the work group on progress toward reaching goals. Monitoring will provide management with an opportunity to observe and note needed training and changes to assist the employee with his or her capacity development and performance improvement.
The developing phase provides the employee the opportunity to seek training, be given new assignments, improving work processes, or coaching. In the rating phase, the employee’s performance is evaluated against the standards in his or her performance plans and assigned an annual rating of record. The final phase is rewarding the employee for good performance. HUD uses a cash reward system to motivate employees and supervisors toward increased productivity and creativity.
Two evaluation systems, EPPES and PACS
HUD uses five rating levels for EPPES; these levels are also used for the PACS and EPACS systems (See figure 1). The appraisal categories used for each critical element are outstanding which is a rating reflecting that the employee has exceeded significantly the established performance standards for the individual critical element, and the achievement is of exceptionally high quality, Excellent means that the employee has produced a consistently high quality and quantity of work, Fully successful means that when the employee performs the duties and responsibilities of the job and has met the fully successful level of performance described in the performance plan, Minimally satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance standards means that the employee has barely or failed to meet the established performance standards.
Goals and Assumptions
The goals of the SMART evaluation plan, as identified in the SMART Performance Standards Guide, are to identify changes in the performance management system, determine how the work unit and individual employees support the HUD’s strategic goals, discuss the importance of monitoring, developing, reviewing and rewarding employees and implement strategies to communicate performance expectations to employees.
The assumptions presented in the performance guide indicate that evaluators and evaluates should remember that employees rated as Outstanding should not be viewed as perfect employees, but those whose efforts, services, and products are extraordinary and have a substantial effect on mission accomplishment. The rating of Outstanding should represent excellence in performance and therefore should be very difficult to achieve. The rating received of fully successful should not be presented as a negative evaluation by the employee. Fully successfully evaluations are also not viewed as mediocre. An employee performing at a level of fully successful has performed at the level intended by the established standard and is acceptable to the organization. The final assumption related to the evaluation process is that the retention standard must be clear and cannot be absolute.
Analysis of Instrument's Quality and Appropriateness
The assessment instruments used by the Department of HUD are justifiable for their intended purposes and based on the sound methodology of the SMART standards. The assessment instrument supports the quality of the evaluation process and supports an acceptable level of difficulty in distinguishing between the various levels of evaluation. The instruments used for both employee and management evaluations are appropriate because the interpretation of the assessment instrument will reflect employee performance customized to both the performance standards and the organization’s mission and goals.
The assessment results are a summative evaluation of employee knowledge, skill and ability as evidenced by accomplishments tied to the organization’s mission and management plan goals. The summative evaluations of the organization are useful to predict how well the evaluation instruction aligns with the organization’s mission and goals (Nelson, 2008).
Conclusion
Diagnostic assessments are designed to determine knowledge, skills, or misconceptions prior to planning instruction and can include both performances and products (Butler & McMunn, 2006). Both formative and summative evaluations are instrumental in the evaluation process of the employees and management of the organization. The performance management process used by HUD consists of five basic components that are planning, monitoring, developing, rating, and rewarding. This process can be viewed as a performance management system that allows the employee, jointly with management, to define the purpose of the job and relate the performance to the goals of the organization.
References
Butler, S. M. & McMunn, N. D. (2006). A teacher’s guide to classroom
assessment: Understanding and using assessments to improve student
learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Grote, R.C., (2002). The performance appraisal question and answer book: A survival guide for
managers. New York: AMACOM Books.
Latham, G.P., & Wexley, K. N., (1994). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal.
2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1994.
Nelson, K. A., (2008). Strategic human capitol management; revised human capitol plan for
fiscal year 2008-2009. Retrieved June 21, 2010, from www.hud.gov/po/a/administration
Reynolds, C.R., Livingston, R.B., & Willson, V., (2006). Measurement and Assessment in
Education. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Smart Performance Standards retrieved June 19, 2010 from [PDF] SMART Performance Standards Course hudatwork.hud.gov/po/a/dasops/hihrts/eprfmnc/SMARTGuide.pdf - 2007-10-02 -
Figure 1:
HUD Mission: Increase homeownership, support community development, and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination.
HUD
STRATEGIC GOALS
Retrieved from hudatwork.hud.gov/po/a/dasops/hihrts/eprfmnc/SMARTGuide.pdf - 2007-10-02
PROGRAMMATIC GOALS
Increase homeownership opportunities Promote decent affordable housing Strengthen communities
• Expand national homeownership opportunities.
• Increase minority homeownership.
• Make the home buying process less complicated and less expensive.
• Fight practices that permit predatory lending.
• Help HUD-assisted renters become homeowners.
• Keep existing homeowners from losing their homes. • Expand access to affordable rental housing.
• Improve the physical quality and management accountability of public and assisted housing.
• Increase housing opportunities for the elderly and persons with disabilities.
• Help HUD-assisted renters make progress toward self-sufficiency. • Provide capital and resources to improve economic conditions in distressed communities.
• Help organizations access the resources they need to make their communities more livable.
• End chronic homelessness and move homeless families and individuals to permanent housing.
• Mitigate housing conditions that threaten health.
CROSSCUTTING GOALS
Ensure equal opportunity in housing
• Resolve discrimination complaints on a timely basis.
• Promote public awareness of Fair Housing laws.
• Improve housing accessibility for persons with disabilities.
Embrace high standards of ethics, management and accountability
• Rebuild HUD’s human capital and further diversify its workforce.
• Improve HUD’s management, internal controls and systems and resolve audit issues.
• Improve accountability, service delivery and customer service of HUD and its partners.
• Ensure program compliance.
• Improve internal communications and employee involvement.
Promote participation of faith-based and community organizations
• Reduce regulatory barriers to participation by faith-based and community organizations.
• Conduct outreach to inform potential partners of HUD opportunities.
• Expand technical assistance resources deployed to faith-based and community organizations.
• Encourage partnerships between faith-based/community organizations and HUD’s traditional grantees.
Figure 2
SMART Performance Standards Training Manual
Retrieved from hudatwork.hud.gov/po/a/dasops/hihrts/eprfmnc/SMARTGuide.pdf - 2007-10-02
EPPES
PACS
EPACS
Rating Cycle
Oct 1 – Sept 30 Oct 1 – Sept 30 Oct 1 – Sept 30
5 Level
Performance
Ratings
O – Outstanding
E – Excellent
FS – Fully
Successful
MS – Minimally
Satisfactory
US – Unsatisfactory O – Outstanding
E – Excellent
FS – Fully Successful
MS – Minimally
Satisfactory
US – Unsatisfactory
O – Outstanding
E – Excellent
FS – Fully Successful
MS – Minimally
Satisfactory
US – Unsatisfactory
Basis for
Evaluation
Critical Elements
Performance
Standards Critical Elements
(Strategic Goals)
Performance
Objectives Critical Elements
(Strategic Goals)
Performance
Objectives
Butler and McMunn (2006) define assessment as the act of collecting information about individuals or groups of individuals to understand them. Student evaluation or assessments and procedures are an ongoing process that includes both formative and summative evaluations. Evaluations are mostly a summative process however must also contain elements of formative evaluations (Butler & McMunn, 2006).
In comparison to education, a formative evaluation in business is considered an interim evaluation and a summative evaluation would be the annual or yearly evaluation. Educational assessment provides feedback that is equitable in regards to student learning, the success of the instructional material and the weak areas requiring attention and revisions (Reynolds, Livingston, & Willson, 2006). Evaluations in business occur in a results-oriented performance culture in which management and employees work together to clarify priorities for performance by focusing on accomplishments and concentrate on results and how their work directly helps the organization accomplish its mission (Grote, 2002). Employee evaluations in business should motivate employees to achieve higher levels of performance.
In this paper, the writer will identify the goals, and assumptions inherent in the employee assessment process and instruments of the employees of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Additionally, the writer will analyze the instrument's quality and appropriateness.
HUD Employee Assessment Process
The foundation of the success of any organization is the individual employee. Performance appraisals can promote both the institutional development of the organization and the personal development of the people working in it. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has established an employee evaluation plan that relies upon three strategic goals for human capital that are mission focused, maintain a high quality workforce reflective of employees who have necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities he or she needs to do their jobs and are held accountable for their performance, and provides for an effective succession planning process (Nelson, 2008).
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which provides oversight for all Federal Agencies, has provided a directive that requires all federal agencies to implement methods aimed at improving individual and organizational effectiveness. These methods are based on the four principles of being results-oriented, aligning employee performance results that contribute to the success of the organization, rewards depend on performance and results and finally the involvement of employees in planning and identifying critical elements and performance standards. Effective performance standards are standards that are accurately developed and applied, which should result in good employee morale and can affect the agency’s mission.
HUD views this as a results-oriented performance culture which management and employees work together to clarify priorities for performance by focusing on accomplishments. By focusing on accomplishments, employees concentrate on results and how their work directly helps the organization accomplish its mission. When management and employees work together to establish performance criteria and standards that the employee will be accountable for achieving, this enables the employee to maximize productivity and fulfill his or her potential; it also enhances planning, performance appraisals, rewards, and areas for improvement.
HUD has three Performance Management Systems that include Employee Performance Planning and Evaluation System (EPPES)—the performance system for non-supervisory bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit employees, Performance Accountability and Communication System (PACS)—the performance system for managers and Supervisors, and Executive Performance Accountability and Communication System (EPACS)—the performance system for senior executives (see figure 2). A performance plan, consisting of job elements and performance standards is a key component of performance management (Latham & Wexley, 1994). Job elements should link to the agency’s mission and goals, and performance standards must clearly indicate how each individual’s performance will be measured.
The performance technique used by HUD to develop performance standards is the SMART method. Using this methodology, performance standards are written to be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound and are written so they describe how results will be obtained and measured, and when the work needs to be done (Nelson, 2008).
The performance management process consists of five basic components that are planning, monitoring, developing, rating, and rewarding. During the planning phase the performance expectations are outlined, discussed and agreed upon between management and the employee. Planning requires setting performance expectations and goals for individuals and groups that support organizational goals. The planning phase also identifies how the employee will accomplish the tasks, performance expectations, and criteria for levels of performance evaluation. An important part of the planning process is communicating organizational and individual performance expectations to employees. HUD uses SMART methodology to communicate expectations. This phase is followed by monitoring the employee’s performance. Monitoring means continually and consistently measuring performance and providing ongoing feedback to the employee and the work group on progress toward reaching goals. Monitoring will provide management with an opportunity to observe and note needed training and changes to assist the employee with his or her capacity development and performance improvement.
The developing phase provides the employee the opportunity to seek training, be given new assignments, improving work processes, or coaching. In the rating phase, the employee’s performance is evaluated against the standards in his or her performance plans and assigned an annual rating of record. The final phase is rewarding the employee for good performance. HUD uses a cash reward system to motivate employees and supervisors toward increased productivity and creativity.
Two evaluation systems, EPPES and PACS
HUD uses five rating levels for EPPES; these levels are also used for the PACS and EPACS systems (See figure 1). The appraisal categories used for each critical element are outstanding which is a rating reflecting that the employee has exceeded significantly the established performance standards for the individual critical element, and the achievement is of exceptionally high quality, Excellent means that the employee has produced a consistently high quality and quantity of work, Fully successful means that when the employee performs the duties and responsibilities of the job and has met the fully successful level of performance described in the performance plan, Minimally satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance standards means that the employee has barely or failed to meet the established performance standards.
Goals and Assumptions
The goals of the SMART evaluation plan, as identified in the SMART Performance Standards Guide, are to identify changes in the performance management system, determine how the work unit and individual employees support the HUD’s strategic goals, discuss the importance of monitoring, developing, reviewing and rewarding employees and implement strategies to communicate performance expectations to employees.
The assumptions presented in the performance guide indicate that evaluators and evaluates should remember that employees rated as Outstanding should not be viewed as perfect employees, but those whose efforts, services, and products are extraordinary and have a substantial effect on mission accomplishment. The rating of Outstanding should represent excellence in performance and therefore should be very difficult to achieve. The rating received of fully successful should not be presented as a negative evaluation by the employee. Fully successfully evaluations are also not viewed as mediocre. An employee performing at a level of fully successful has performed at the level intended by the established standard and is acceptable to the organization. The final assumption related to the evaluation process is that the retention standard must be clear and cannot be absolute.
Analysis of Instrument's Quality and Appropriateness
The assessment instruments used by the Department of HUD are justifiable for their intended purposes and based on the sound methodology of the SMART standards. The assessment instrument supports the quality of the evaluation process and supports an acceptable level of difficulty in distinguishing between the various levels of evaluation. The instruments used for both employee and management evaluations are appropriate because the interpretation of the assessment instrument will reflect employee performance customized to both the performance standards and the organization’s mission and goals.
The assessment results are a summative evaluation of employee knowledge, skill and ability as evidenced by accomplishments tied to the organization’s mission and management plan goals. The summative evaluations of the organization are useful to predict how well the evaluation instruction aligns with the organization’s mission and goals (Nelson, 2008).
Conclusion
Diagnostic assessments are designed to determine knowledge, skills, or misconceptions prior to planning instruction and can include both performances and products (Butler & McMunn, 2006). Both formative and summative evaluations are instrumental in the evaluation process of the employees and management of the organization. The performance management process used by HUD consists of five basic components that are planning, monitoring, developing, rating, and rewarding. This process can be viewed as a performance management system that allows the employee, jointly with management, to define the purpose of the job and relate the performance to the goals of the organization.
References
Butler, S. M. & McMunn, N. D. (2006). A teacher’s guide to classroom
assessment: Understanding and using assessments to improve student
learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Grote, R.C., (2002). The performance appraisal question and answer book: A survival guide for
managers. New York: AMACOM Books.
Latham, G.P., & Wexley, K. N., (1994). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal.
2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1994.
Nelson, K. A., (2008). Strategic human capitol management; revised human capitol plan for
fiscal year 2008-2009. Retrieved June 21, 2010, from www.hud.gov/po/a/administration
Reynolds, C.R., Livingston, R.B., & Willson, V., (2006). Measurement and Assessment in
Education. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Smart Performance Standards retrieved June 19, 2010 from [PDF] SMART Performance Standards Course hudatwork.hud.gov/po/a/dasops/hihrts/eprfmnc/SMARTGuide.pdf - 2007-10-02 -
Figure 1:
HUD Mission: Increase homeownership, support community development, and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination.
HUD
STRATEGIC GOALS
Retrieved from hudatwork.hud.gov/po/a/dasops/hihrts/eprfmnc/SMARTGuide.pdf - 2007-10-02
PROGRAMMATIC GOALS
Increase homeownership opportunities Promote decent affordable housing Strengthen communities
• Expand national homeownership opportunities.
• Increase minority homeownership.
• Make the home buying process less complicated and less expensive.
• Fight practices that permit predatory lending.
• Help HUD-assisted renters become homeowners.
• Keep existing homeowners from losing their homes. • Expand access to affordable rental housing.
• Improve the physical quality and management accountability of public and assisted housing.
• Increase housing opportunities for the elderly and persons with disabilities.
• Help HUD-assisted renters make progress toward self-sufficiency. • Provide capital and resources to improve economic conditions in distressed communities.
• Help organizations access the resources they need to make their communities more livable.
• End chronic homelessness and move homeless families and individuals to permanent housing.
• Mitigate housing conditions that threaten health.
CROSSCUTTING GOALS
Ensure equal opportunity in housing
• Resolve discrimination complaints on a timely basis.
• Promote public awareness of Fair Housing laws.
• Improve housing accessibility for persons with disabilities.
Embrace high standards of ethics, management and accountability
• Rebuild HUD’s human capital and further diversify its workforce.
• Improve HUD’s management, internal controls and systems and resolve audit issues.
• Improve accountability, service delivery and customer service of HUD and its partners.
• Ensure program compliance.
• Improve internal communications and employee involvement.
Promote participation of faith-based and community organizations
• Reduce regulatory barriers to participation by faith-based and community organizations.
• Conduct outreach to inform potential partners of HUD opportunities.
• Expand technical assistance resources deployed to faith-based and community organizations.
• Encourage partnerships between faith-based/community organizations and HUD’s traditional grantees.
Figure 2
SMART Performance Standards Training Manual
Retrieved from hudatwork.hud.gov/po/a/dasops/hihrts/eprfmnc/SMARTGuide.pdf - 2007-10-02
EPPES
PACS
EPACS
Rating Cycle
Oct 1 – Sept 30 Oct 1 – Sept 30 Oct 1 – Sept 30
5 Level
Performance
Ratings
O – Outstanding
E – Excellent
FS – Fully
Successful
MS – Minimally
Satisfactory
US – Unsatisfactory O – Outstanding
E – Excellent
FS – Fully Successful
MS – Minimally
Satisfactory
US – Unsatisfactory
O – Outstanding
E – Excellent
FS – Fully Successful
MS – Minimally
Satisfactory
US – Unsatisfactory
Basis for
Evaluation
Critical Elements
Performance
Standards Critical Elements
(Strategic Goals)
Performance
Objectives Critical Elements
(Strategic Goals)
Performance
Objectives
Assessment Purposes Strengths and Weaknesses
Educational assessments document the student’s knowledge, skills and abilities, usually in measurable terms. Butler and McMunn (2006) define assessment as the act of collecting information about individuals or groups of individuals to understand them. Student evaluation or assessments and procedures are an ongoing process that includes both formative and summative evaluations.
Both formative and summative evaluation should be conducted to provide accurate feedback on the teaching methods, type of activities used, student response, and as a result, student performance. This paper will present a discussion on the purpose of assessments, and identify their strengths and weaknesses in general terms.
Types, Design and Uses of Assessments
The three types of assessments include student, program, and system assessments (Davis, 1993). Student assessments will assist in identifying their knowledge, their skill and abilities, performance, their applied process or how they go about the tasks of doing their work and their motivation or how he or she felt about his or her work.
The functions of the assessment include diagnostic, formative, and summative. Diagnostic assessments identify knowledge the students need to obtain; formative assessments identify progress in performance; and summative assessments provide a final assessment of progress. Educational assessment provides feedback equitable in regard to student learning, the success of the instructional material and the weak areas requiring attention and revisions (Reynolds, Livingston, & Willson, 2006). Evaluations are mostly a summative process however must also contain elements of formative evaluations (Butler & McMunn, 2006).
Assessment implementation can include many forms, such as day-to-day observation, tests and quizzes, essays, self assessments, and journaling, to name a few. In conducting assessments the following areas should be included; student work at all stages of development, student process, knowledge and skill, programmatic processes, and instructional methods.
During the assessment design process, the teacher determines the basic elements of the assessment. This includes the purpose, either formative or summative, the time frame associated with the assessment, the goals, resources and the type of tool to be used to conduct the assessment (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & William, 2003). Testing should be learner-centered to reflect students' achievement at a point, but cannot be used as a means to evaluate the curriculum. The determination of these elements depends on various factors such as the institutions methodology and goals of learning. Other considerations include, applied learning theories, desired results being sought, the teaching strategies followed, the number of students and the constraints of the educational system, such as the cost and other state and Federal mandates (Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001).
The teacher, student, and other stakeholders are all involved in the assessment process, including parents. The results of the assessment are used to improve the focus of the teaching and instructional methods, identify areas of weakness that require improvements related to student knowledge, skills and abilities as well as areas of motivation, improve program planning, and reporting of results.
Teachers can adapt the curriculum to meet their students' need and give appropriate feedback and support to the student as part of the classroom instruction. They can modify the course objectives. This means that, if their class is weak, they have to depend on other materials to bring up their level to the expected level of the class before they can focus on the course objectives. At the same time, if the class is more advanced, the teachers have to make sure the course objectives are met.
How to Improve Assessments
Testing is emotionally charged and anxiety producing but should be effective in motivating, measuring, and reinforcing learning. Tests serve a minimum of four functions. These functions include helping to evaluate and assess whether students are learning what is expected, motivating academic efforts through well designed instruments, improving understanding of the material presented and reinforcing learning through the identification of concepts that still need to be mastered through instruction and assessments (Sadler, 1998).
To improve assessments, teachers should invest adequate amounts of time in the development of their tests. In development, a decision needs to be made whether the test should be helping educators make better instructional decisions and relate this to what the desired outcomes to measure should be. The assessment should be designed to capture the range of difficulty, the needed time associated with the assessment instrument, the format of the assessment, and the desired scoring procedures (Palomta & Banta, 1999).
Assessments should be consistent with the content of the instruction. Assessment content should identify and address the desired student skill level (Jacobs & Chase, 1992). Ideally, the assessment should measure students' academic achievements.
Assessments should be both valid and reliable. When creating an assessment that is reliable and valid, a teacher should use assessment instruments that achieve consistent results and that assess the right information. Validity of assessments method assesses what it claims to assess and thus produces results that can lead to valid inferences usable in decision making.
Reliability is the capacity of an assessment method to perform in a consistent and stable manner (Hargreaves, 2007). Content validity offers a practical approach to assessment development. If assessments are designed to include information in the instructional material in proportion to their importance in the course, then the interpretations of test scores are likely to have greater validity.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Assessments
Student assessment information is used in planning and decision-making that includes the mission and goals of the institution; academic programs; student support services; resource allocation; and faculty evaluation and rewards (Banta, 1985). The results of assessments can be analyzed not only for what they say about individual students but also for what they show about the strengths and weaknesses of a program.
Assessment tools measure the skills and abilities and knowledge attainment of the students in all academic areas and the results serve as a baseline to measure effectiveness of educational programs. A major weakness inherent in educational assessments is the issue of bias.
Bias is inherent in many of the assessment tools and measures that are taken to make assessments reliable and valid, bias may still remain an issue to overcome. Another weakness of assessments can be the cost associated with the development and delivery of the assessment. Finally, but certainly not exhaustive of the assessment weaknesses is the issue of the acceptance of the evaluation results in their ability and use to serve as a baseline to measure effectiveness of educational programs.
Conclusion
Assessment purposes are instrumental in their design. In designing assessments, educators must determine what the intended purpose of the results of the assessment will measure and how this information will be used to shape the programmatic and cognitive learning process directed at student academic achievement.
The decisions consider in educational assessment should include selection, evaluation, and instruction. Additionally, educators must decide whether a relative or absolute interpretation of students’ test results will be most useful. Finally, likely item-content sources must be considered so that tasks eliciting students’ knowledge, skills, and affect can be incorporated into an assessment instrument (Popham, 2006).
References
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William, D. (2003) Assessment for
Learning: Putting it into practice. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Butler, D.L. & Winnie, P.H. (1995) Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical
synthesis.Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.
Butler, S. M. & McMunn, N. D. (2006). A teacher’s guide to classroom
assessment: Understanding and using assessments to improve student learning.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Ebel, R. L., and Frisbie, D. A. Essentials of Educational Measurement. (5th ed.)
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1990.
Gronlund, N. E., and Linn, R. Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching. (6th ed.) New
York: Macmillan, 1990.
Hargreaves, E. (2007), The validity of collaborative assessment for learning; Assessment
in Education Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 185–199
Mehrens, W. A., and Lehmann, I. J. Measurement and Evaluation in Education and
Psychology. (4th ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1991
Palomba, C. A.,& Banta, T. W., (1999). Assessment essentials: planning, implementing,
and improving assessment in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [405 pp.]
Reynolds, C.R., Livingston, R.B., & Willson, V., (2006). Measurement and Assessment
in Education. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Sadler, D.R. (1998) Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in
Education,5(1), 77-84.
Both formative and summative evaluation should be conducted to provide accurate feedback on the teaching methods, type of activities used, student response, and as a result, student performance. This paper will present a discussion on the purpose of assessments, and identify their strengths and weaknesses in general terms.
Types, Design and Uses of Assessments
The three types of assessments include student, program, and system assessments (Davis, 1993). Student assessments will assist in identifying their knowledge, their skill and abilities, performance, their applied process or how they go about the tasks of doing their work and their motivation or how he or she felt about his or her work.
The functions of the assessment include diagnostic, formative, and summative. Diagnostic assessments identify knowledge the students need to obtain; formative assessments identify progress in performance; and summative assessments provide a final assessment of progress. Educational assessment provides feedback equitable in regard to student learning, the success of the instructional material and the weak areas requiring attention and revisions (Reynolds, Livingston, & Willson, 2006). Evaluations are mostly a summative process however must also contain elements of formative evaluations (Butler & McMunn, 2006).
Assessment implementation can include many forms, such as day-to-day observation, tests and quizzes, essays, self assessments, and journaling, to name a few. In conducting assessments the following areas should be included; student work at all stages of development, student process, knowledge and skill, programmatic processes, and instructional methods.
During the assessment design process, the teacher determines the basic elements of the assessment. This includes the purpose, either formative or summative, the time frame associated with the assessment, the goals, resources and the type of tool to be used to conduct the assessment (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & William, 2003). Testing should be learner-centered to reflect students' achievement at a point, but cannot be used as a means to evaluate the curriculum. The determination of these elements depends on various factors such as the institutions methodology and goals of learning. Other considerations include, applied learning theories, desired results being sought, the teaching strategies followed, the number of students and the constraints of the educational system, such as the cost and other state and Federal mandates (Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001).
The teacher, student, and other stakeholders are all involved in the assessment process, including parents. The results of the assessment are used to improve the focus of the teaching and instructional methods, identify areas of weakness that require improvements related to student knowledge, skills and abilities as well as areas of motivation, improve program planning, and reporting of results.
Teachers can adapt the curriculum to meet their students' need and give appropriate feedback and support to the student as part of the classroom instruction. They can modify the course objectives. This means that, if their class is weak, they have to depend on other materials to bring up their level to the expected level of the class before they can focus on the course objectives. At the same time, if the class is more advanced, the teachers have to make sure the course objectives are met.
How to Improve Assessments
Testing is emotionally charged and anxiety producing but should be effective in motivating, measuring, and reinforcing learning. Tests serve a minimum of four functions. These functions include helping to evaluate and assess whether students are learning what is expected, motivating academic efforts through well designed instruments, improving understanding of the material presented and reinforcing learning through the identification of concepts that still need to be mastered through instruction and assessments (Sadler, 1998).
To improve assessments, teachers should invest adequate amounts of time in the development of their tests. In development, a decision needs to be made whether the test should be helping educators make better instructional decisions and relate this to what the desired outcomes to measure should be. The assessment should be designed to capture the range of difficulty, the needed time associated with the assessment instrument, the format of the assessment, and the desired scoring procedures (Palomta & Banta, 1999).
Assessments should be consistent with the content of the instruction. Assessment content should identify and address the desired student skill level (Jacobs & Chase, 1992). Ideally, the assessment should measure students' academic achievements.
Assessments should be both valid and reliable. When creating an assessment that is reliable and valid, a teacher should use assessment instruments that achieve consistent results and that assess the right information. Validity of assessments method assesses what it claims to assess and thus produces results that can lead to valid inferences usable in decision making.
Reliability is the capacity of an assessment method to perform in a consistent and stable manner (Hargreaves, 2007). Content validity offers a practical approach to assessment development. If assessments are designed to include information in the instructional material in proportion to their importance in the course, then the interpretations of test scores are likely to have greater validity.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Assessments
Student assessment information is used in planning and decision-making that includes the mission and goals of the institution; academic programs; student support services; resource allocation; and faculty evaluation and rewards (Banta, 1985). The results of assessments can be analyzed not only for what they say about individual students but also for what they show about the strengths and weaknesses of a program.
Assessment tools measure the skills and abilities and knowledge attainment of the students in all academic areas and the results serve as a baseline to measure effectiveness of educational programs. A major weakness inherent in educational assessments is the issue of bias.
Bias is inherent in many of the assessment tools and measures that are taken to make assessments reliable and valid, bias may still remain an issue to overcome. Another weakness of assessments can be the cost associated with the development and delivery of the assessment. Finally, but certainly not exhaustive of the assessment weaknesses is the issue of the acceptance of the evaluation results in their ability and use to serve as a baseline to measure effectiveness of educational programs.
Conclusion
Assessment purposes are instrumental in their design. In designing assessments, educators must determine what the intended purpose of the results of the assessment will measure and how this information will be used to shape the programmatic and cognitive learning process directed at student academic achievement.
The decisions consider in educational assessment should include selection, evaluation, and instruction. Additionally, educators must decide whether a relative or absolute interpretation of students’ test results will be most useful. Finally, likely item-content sources must be considered so that tasks eliciting students’ knowledge, skills, and affect can be incorporated into an assessment instrument (Popham, 2006).
References
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William, D. (2003) Assessment for
Learning: Putting it into practice. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Butler, D.L. & Winnie, P.H. (1995) Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical
synthesis.Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.
Butler, S. M. & McMunn, N. D. (2006). A teacher’s guide to classroom
assessment: Understanding and using assessments to improve student learning.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Ebel, R. L., and Frisbie, D. A. Essentials of Educational Measurement. (5th ed.)
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1990.
Gronlund, N. E., and Linn, R. Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching. (6th ed.) New
York: Macmillan, 1990.
Hargreaves, E. (2007), The validity of collaborative assessment for learning; Assessment
in Education Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 185–199
Mehrens, W. A., and Lehmann, I. J. Measurement and Evaluation in Education and
Psychology. (4th ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1991
Palomba, C. A.,& Banta, T. W., (1999). Assessment essentials: planning, implementing,
and improving assessment in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [405 pp.]
Reynolds, C.R., Livingston, R.B., & Willson, V., (2006). Measurement and Assessment
in Education. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Sadler, D.R. (1998) Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in
Education,5(1), 77-84.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Policy Improvement Recommendation Plan
Policy Improvement Recommendation Plan
Transition outcomes for youth with learning disabilities who are served by special education are poor. In comparison, their same-aged peers are more likely to be employed and less likely to struggle with poverty and homelessness following graduation. The learning disabled student is less likely to be enrolled in postsecondary education or training (Courtney & Dworsky, 2005; Johnson, Stodden, Emmanuel, Luecking, & Mack, 2002). Because of these consistently poor outcomes, policymakers have increasingly have focused on creating policies to address these differences.
On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) into law. This law reauthorized and amended the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). On August 3, 2006, the United States Department of Education issued the regulations implementing the IDEIA 2004. These changes, added to the mandates of the IDEA, require that special education teachers and administrators know and understand their duties and obligations under the law. This paper will provide readers with an overview of the requirements of IDEA and recommendations for policy improvements to be presented to our State Senator following the agreement and endorsement of colleges.
In assessing this policy we consider the policy life cycle provided by Fowler, (2009) that includes planning, implementation process, and evaluation process. During the evaluation process, goals are determined; indicators and data collection instruments are selected; data is collected, analyzed, and summarized. The evaluation process culminates in a written evaluation report (Fowler, 2009).
Existing Policy
IDEA 2004 is the most recent reauthorization of the IDEA, the federal law that mandates special education services for children with disabilities, from birth to age 21. IDEA provides specific direction to state education agencies and other public agencies in the provision of these services. Part C of IDEA addresses early intervention services for children under the age of 3. Part B of IDEA governs special education services for children ages three – twenty one, providing them with their right to a free public education. IDEA addresses a broad array of services, ranging from teacher qualification to state to federal data reporting. IDEA requires that children receiving special education services through public schools have an IEP, which is a detailed plan for the child’s yearly educational goals completed by his or her teacher, family, and other concerned individuals, such as social workers or vocational counselors. Once a child reaches the age of 16, IDEA mandates that transition be part of the IEP plan (Hill, 2009).
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 continues the federal commitment to support for youth with disabilities through special education services. The rights and responsibilities of parents, schools and students, can be identified in the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004). One of the main purposes of the Act is to guarantee that a free and appropriate education is available for all Learning Disabled students.
With the implementation of the policy of inclusion for learning disabled students in accordance with IDEA, a community of inclusion concept must be considered. For this concept of "community" to be successful ensuring that the needs of the Learning Disabled students are met within the regular education environment, all talents, gifts, and strengths found within the student(s) abilities must be recognized, encouraged, and utilized to the fullest extent possible (Carter, Ditchman & Sun, 2010).
Recommendations for consideration of policy improvement would include the enhancement of accountability measures and the requirement for the involvement of stakeholders in the development and provision of services. IDEA includes strict accountability measures that states must adhere to remain eligible to receive funding their services, including the collection of data and performance measures on the outcomes of their funded services. One way to improve the accountability measures would be including language calling for the creation of state level interagency databases, which would allow more accurate data sharing among the multiple service providers. This could take the form of state interagency electronic data sharing, so that records would be able to seamlessly to follow youth from one location or service system to another (Van Wingerden et al., 2002).
IDEA is explicit in its expectation that states will involve key stakeholders in their state planning process for the services mandated by the law (Wright & Wright, 2006). There are also other opportunities for stakeholder involvement in the development of services for youth. For example, IDEA funds discretionary grants and personnel improvement grants for states beyond the mandated formula grants (Wright & Wright, 2006). IDEA does not specifically mandate that these stakeholder groups include people from special education or child welfare, respectively. Federal policy could address this issue by mandating the involvement of key stakeholders in the development of policy improvements, if they were in the area of personnel training (e.g., Title IV-E Child Welfare funding) or state service improvement.
Conclusion
It is clear that, despite a substantial federal commitment to transition, outcomes for youth transitioning from special education are quite poor. Transition is a complex process, involving many systems and levels of agency, which can make it difficult to point to a single intervention, or even level of intervention that will bring about the changes that are necessary.
The federal policies that mandate transition services to youth with disabilities could be amended to more completely address the needs of youth. Recommendations in changes to the accountability measures, and the requirement for the involvement of stakeholders and service providers in the development and provision of services are two areas that positive changes will enhance the effectiveness of the policy.
References
Carter, E.K., Ditchman, N., and Sun, Y., (2010). Summer employment and community
experiences of transition age youth with severe disabilities. Report Exceptional
Children, Winter Issue
Courtney, M., & Dworsky, A. (2005). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of
former foster youth: Outcomes at age 19. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for
Children.
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hill, K. (2009) Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 and the John H. Chafee Foster
Care Independence Act of 1999: what are the policy implications for youth with
disabilities transitioning from foster care? CHILD WELFARE, 88(2): 5-
23 (23 ref)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 20 U.S.C § 1400, et. seq.(2004).
Johnson, D., Stodden, R., Emmanuel, E., Luecking, R., & Mack, M. (2002). Current
challenges facing secondary education and transition services: What research tells
us. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 519–531.
Van Wingerden, C., Emerson, J., & Ichikawa D. (2002). Education issue brief:
Improving special education for children with disabilities in foster care. Casey
Family Programs: Seattle.
Wright, P., & Wright, P. (2006). Wrightslaw: IDEA 2004. Harbor House Law
Press:Hartfield, VA.
On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) into law. This law reauthorized and amended the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). On August 3, 2006, the United States Department of Education issued the regulations implementing the IDEIA 2004. These changes, added to the mandates of the IDEA, require that special education teachers and administrators know and understand their duties and obligations under the law. This paper will provide readers with an overview of the requirements of IDEA and recommendations for policy improvements to be presented to our State Senator following the agreement and endorsement of colleges.
In assessing this policy we consider the policy life cycle provided by Fowler, (2009) that includes planning, implementation process, and evaluation process. During the evaluation process, goals are determined; indicators and data collection instruments are selected; data is collected, analyzed, and summarized. The evaluation process culminates in a written evaluation report (Fowler, 2009).
Existing Policy
IDEA 2004 is the most recent reauthorization of the IDEA, the federal law that mandates special education services for children with disabilities, from birth to age 21. IDEA provides specific direction to state education agencies and other public agencies in the provision of these services. Part C of IDEA addresses early intervention services for children under the age of 3. Part B of IDEA governs special education services for children ages three – twenty one, providing them with their right to a free public education. IDEA addresses a broad array of services, ranging from teacher qualification to state to federal data reporting. IDEA requires that children receiving special education services through public schools have an IEP, which is a detailed plan for the child’s yearly educational goals completed by his or her teacher, family, and other concerned individuals, such as social workers or vocational counselors. Once a child reaches the age of 16, IDEA mandates that transition be part of the IEP plan (Hill, 2009).
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 continues the federal commitment to support for youth with disabilities through special education services. The rights and responsibilities of parents, schools and students, can be identified in the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004). One of the main purposes of the Act is to guarantee that a free and appropriate education is available for all Learning Disabled students.
With the implementation of the policy of inclusion for learning disabled students in accordance with IDEA, a community of inclusion concept must be considered. For this concept of "community" to be successful ensuring that the needs of the Learning Disabled students are met within the regular education environment, all talents, gifts, and strengths found within the student(s) abilities must be recognized, encouraged, and utilized to the fullest extent possible (Carter, Ditchman & Sun, 2010).
Recommendations for consideration of policy improvement would include the enhancement of accountability measures and the requirement for the involvement of stakeholders in the development and provision of services. IDEA includes strict accountability measures that states must adhere to remain eligible to receive funding their services, including the collection of data and performance measures on the outcomes of their funded services. One way to improve the accountability measures would be including language calling for the creation of state level interagency databases, which would allow more accurate data sharing among the multiple service providers. This could take the form of state interagency electronic data sharing, so that records would be able to seamlessly to follow youth from one location or service system to another (Van Wingerden et al., 2002).
IDEA is explicit in its expectation that states will involve key stakeholders in their state planning process for the services mandated by the law (Wright & Wright, 2006). There are also other opportunities for stakeholder involvement in the development of services for youth. For example, IDEA funds discretionary grants and personnel improvement grants for states beyond the mandated formula grants (Wright & Wright, 2006). IDEA does not specifically mandate that these stakeholder groups include people from special education or child welfare, respectively. Federal policy could address this issue by mandating the involvement of key stakeholders in the development of policy improvements, if they were in the area of personnel training (e.g., Title IV-E Child Welfare funding) or state service improvement.
Conclusion
It is clear that, despite a substantial federal commitment to transition, outcomes for youth transitioning from special education are quite poor. Transition is a complex process, involving many systems and levels of agency, which can make it difficult to point to a single intervention, or even level of intervention that will bring about the changes that are necessary.
The federal policies that mandate transition services to youth with disabilities could be amended to more completely address the needs of youth. Recommendations in changes to the accountability measures, and the requirement for the involvement of stakeholders and service providers in the development and provision of services are two areas that positive changes will enhance the effectiveness of the policy.
References
Carter, E.K., Ditchman, N., and Sun, Y., (2010). Summer employment and community
experiences of transition age youth with severe disabilities. Report Exceptional
Children, Winter Issue
Courtney, M., & Dworsky, A. (2005). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of
former foster youth: Outcomes at age 19. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for
Children.
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hill, K. (2009) Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 and the John H. Chafee Foster
Care Independence Act of 1999: what are the policy implications for youth with
disabilities transitioning from foster care? CHILD WELFARE, 88(2): 5-
23 (23 ref)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 20 U.S.C § 1400, et. seq.(2004).
Johnson, D., Stodden, R., Emmanuel, E., Luecking, R., & Mack, M. (2002). Current
challenges facing secondary education and transition services: What research tells
us. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 519–531.
Van Wingerden, C., Emerson, J., & Ichikawa D. (2002). Education issue brief:
Improving special education for children with disabilities in foster care. Casey
Family Programs: Seattle.
Wright, P., & Wright, P. (2006). Wrightslaw: IDEA 2004. Harbor House Law
Press:Hartfield, VA.
Policy Evaluation Analysis
Policy Evaluation Analysis
Policy evaluation is especially important in an era of educational accountability and the formation and implementation of educational policies. In understanding the educational policy, it is necessary to contemplation the influence and intention of policies relative to the four dimensions of policy theory. The four dimensions of policy theory including normative, structural, constituentive, and technical, which allow individuals to determine the significant dimensions of the policy (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004).
Policies are conducive for improving education for all students (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004). The zero tolerance policy refers to those policies or practice of not tolerating undesirable behavior and discipline and imposes severe penalties for even the first offense (Fries & DeMitchell, 2007).
This analysis will provide a discussion of the zero tolerance policy and answer the following questions: when and how should this policy be evaluated, who should be responsible for carrying out the studies, who should control the process, what are the possible end results, who benefits from the evaluation, what are the ethical and social concerns that must be considered first and how has financial legislation affected the policy and its development?
Zero tolerance first received national attention as the title of a program developed in 1986 by U.S. Attorney Peter Nunez (Miller, 2000). Zero tolerance emerged into a nationally spread policy when the Clinton Administration signed the Gun- Free Schools Act of 1994 into law (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). The law mandates a one-year calendar expulsion for possession of a firearm, and referral of law-violating students to the criminal or juvenile justice systems. State legislatures and local school districts have broadened the mandate of zero tolerance beyond the federal mandates of weapons, to drugs and alcohol, fighting, threats or swearing (Skiba & Knesting, 2001).
Ethical and social concerns to consider
In recent years, due to an increase in school violence, there has been an increase in legislation and regulatory-policy regarding school violence in an attempt to establish consequences for inappropriate behavior by students. Zero tolerance, as it relates to behavior and discipline, has been defined as the policy or practice of not tolerating undesirable behavior, such as violence or illegal drug use, with the automatic imposition of severe penalties even for first offenses (Walton, 2003).
This agenda has become increasingly important in this era of harassment and bullying being accomplished with the use of current technology. These issues being faced by educators and students alike will not go away, even if the most disruptive students are removed, if no policies are created to answer what are the penalties for engaging such behavior. In answer to this concern, educators may relinquish ethics in their problem-solving and decision-making in response to discipline problems (Gorman & Pauken, 2003).
Zero tolerance policies are under rising disapproval from parents, students, and teachers, as unjust, and arbitrary methods to administer punishment for inappropriate student conduct. These stakeholders question if the policy satisfies its intended purpose of providing safer school environments (Henault, 2001). Those who support zero tolerance policies agree that it does meet its intended purpose, however, individuals who do not support zero tolerance policies allude that the policy is producing critical and problematic results (Gorman & Pauken, 2003).
When, how and by whom should zero tolerance policies be evaluated?
The evaluation of educational policies should be a joint initiative by all stakeholders to include educational leaders, parents, students, and the community. The effectiveness and fairness of zero tolerance policies premise must be assessed and evaluated demonstrating to the stakeholders their significance in the premise of this policy (Anonymous, 2004). Despite this need for by-in by the stakeholders, many school boards continue to toughen their zero tolerance and disciplinary policies as a result of recent school tragedies such as Columbine. Some school boards have begun to experiment with permanent expulsion from the system for certain offenses. Others have begun to apply school suspensions, expulsions, or transfers to behaviors that occur outside of school (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). In 2001, there was a recommendation to end zero tolerance policies for school discipline by the American Bar Association who contended that policy has become an inappropriate solution to all problems that educational institution face and has unfortunate consequences for many students (Henault, 2001).
Fowler (2009) indicates that many policy evaluations are summative which assess the quality of a policy that has been in place for a period of time. Formative evaluations allow the implementers of educational policy the opportunity to make necessary changes to policy for improvement purposes (Fowler, 2009). Formative evaluations, like formative assessments, are ongoing processes in which data is collected and evaluated regularly.
Zero tolerance policies should undergo both summative and formative evaluations throughout the life of the policy both short term and long term evaluations. The school district and school boards responsible for the formation and implementation of the policy should also presume the responsible for the establishment of the evaluation process at the forefront of the development of the policy to ensure that its implementation is fair and unbiased and does not unduly harm students or violate their rights. Because of the nature and opposition of this policy, educational leaders must demonstrate ethical decision-making in circumstances regarding zero tolerance policies and in the evaluation process consider alternatives to inflexible policies within educational institutions. Misconduct policies definitely belong in educational institutions just not the strict zero tolerance policies that now exist (Denig, & Quinn, 2001). The evaluation process should be controlled by the school board as the ultimate responsible entity for the development, implementation, and evaluation of all policies affecting the school district.
Possible End Results
Several researchers contemplate that zero tolerance policies are developing a void between students and the educators who are allegedly using these policies to protect students. Educators who implement zero tolerance policies without consideration of circumstances, motivations, or a student's history are signifying that the concept of innocent until proven guilty does not exist in educational institutions. Consequently, one student may bring a knife to school with the objective of hurting another individual, and another may bring a plastic knife to school with the purpose of spreading peanut butter on a sandwich; however, under zero tolerance policies, the treatment and discipline of both students is the same (Henault, 2001).
In addition, zero tolerance policy is criminalizing students. Educational institutions frequently file criminal charges against students for misconduct even if there no danger to the safety of others exists (Fries & DeMitchell, 2007). When students are disciplined with suspension or police involvement for apparent innocent actions, their trust and revere for authority is in jeopardy. Students will likely come to have misgivings about a justice system with so little flexibility, and indeed some students will try to find a way around the system to evade getting in trouble.
Nonetheless, there are a few benefits to zero tolerance policies, a safe school free of danger, fear, and disruptive students, a policy with unambiguous and clearly stated rules; a student discipline code with consequences stated in advance and reliable application of those consequences (Gorman & Pauken, 2003).
Who benefits from the evaluation?
Overwhelmingly assessments of zero tolerance policies in contemporary education lack common sense in their implementation. The misconduct that warrants suspensions today due to zero tolerance policies once was attributed to children acting age appropriate. The consequences to various student misconduct does not fit the crime and jeopardizes the development of confidence and trust with adults, especially those at school, and the development of a positive stance toward justice and equality in society (Henault, 2001).
Unfortunately, despite the long history of information available since the emergence of this policy in schools, virtually no data supports the effectiveness of the zero tolerance policy. There are no research data showing that zero tolerance can ensure safer schools nor improve student behavior. The weight of the evidence suggests that zero tolerance suspensions and expulsions are applied too inconsistently to have a positive effect on overall student behavior. Research also suggests that the inconsistency in the application of the policy creates racial disparities, is associated with negative outcomes in student behavior, negatively impacts dropout rates, and academic achievement (Henault, 2001).
It is reasonable then to conclude that based on the evaluation of this policy its intervention might threaten student educational opportunity and the risk of the implementation of the policy outweighs its benefits. Therefore, this analysis taken into consideration, the student will ultimately benefit from the evaluation of the policy if the evaluation results in measures to address these identified risks.
Financial Legislation
In 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Gun Free Schools Act (GFSA) which was later repealed and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002 (Kajs, 2006). Funding for the GFSA was tied to the NCLB provision as a means of enforcement. The GFSA requires school districts to comply with its restrictions in order to receive the federal funding by expelling a student for at least one year for bringing a firearm to school (Kajs, 2006).
Through this funding control mechanism, the GFSA did not directly mandate a zero tolerance policy, however, Congress tied federal funding of the GFSA with all of the funding for schools provided by the federal government under the ESEA. This funding measure resulted in schools implementing zero tolerance policies which included; suspending and expelling students for any violent infractions, as a method to ensure that federal funding was not revoked.
Conclusion
As this paper has presented, students, parents and educators are increasingly disapproving of the established zero tolerance policies and their negative effects on student education. Improved regulations and policy development are needed to continue to ensure the safety in the schools without the fundamentally unfair implications of the policy. To prevent students from being subject to the unfair consequences of the policy when implemented, educational institutions must evaluate their zero tolerance policies for discretionary procedures that will offer protection to the students as well. Failure to do so will subject students to the discouraging vision of equal, as opposed to equitable, discipline for misconduct (Henault, 2001). A policy which is evaluated and the result mirror disparate actions where comparable results are shown, than that policy can be considered as unfair and will ultimately fail. In policy implementation and evaluation, educators must consider the ethical and societal stance on the policy and it overall effect on student outcomes.
References
Anonymous (2004). How to adopt a zero tolerance policy that makes sense. Curriculum
Review, 43. Retrieved May 22, 2010 from ProQuest database.
Cooper, B.S, Fusarelli, L.D., & Randall, E.V. (2004). Better policies, better schools:
Theories and applications. Pearson Education, Inc.
Denig, S.J. & Quinn, T. (2001). Ethical dilemmas for school administrators. The High
School Journal, 84. Retrieved May 3, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Fries, K. & DeMitchell, T.A. (2007). Zero tolerance and the paradox of fairness:
Viewpoints from the classroom. Journal of Law and Education, 36. Retrieved
May 22, 2010 from ProQuest database.
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gorman, K. & Pauken, P. (2003). The ethics of zero tolerance. Journal of Educational
Administration, 41(1), 24. Retrieved May 22, 2010 from the Selected Readings
Page, University of Phoenix, EDD 723.
Henault, C. (2001). Zero tolerance in schools. Journal of Law and Education, 30.
Retrieved May 3, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Kajs, L.T. (2006). Reforming the discipline management process in schools: An
alternative approach to zero tolerance. Educational Research Quarterly, 29.
Retrieved May 1, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Miller, A. (2000). Zero tolerance: Fair or not? Junior Scholastic, 13. Retrieved May 3,
2007 from ProQuest database.
Stader, D.L. (2004). Zero tolerance as public policy: The good, the bad, and the ugly. The
Clearing House, 78. Retrieved May 3, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Skiba, R.J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school
disciplinary practice. In R.J. Skiba & G.G. Noam (Eds.), New directions for youth
development (no. 92: Zero tolerance: Can suspension and expulsion keep schools
safe?) (pp. 17-43). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Policies are conducive for improving education for all students (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004). The zero tolerance policy refers to those policies or practice of not tolerating undesirable behavior and discipline and imposes severe penalties for even the first offense (Fries & DeMitchell, 2007).
This analysis will provide a discussion of the zero tolerance policy and answer the following questions: when and how should this policy be evaluated, who should be responsible for carrying out the studies, who should control the process, what are the possible end results, who benefits from the evaluation, what are the ethical and social concerns that must be considered first and how has financial legislation affected the policy and its development?
Zero tolerance first received national attention as the title of a program developed in 1986 by U.S. Attorney Peter Nunez (Miller, 2000). Zero tolerance emerged into a nationally spread policy when the Clinton Administration signed the Gun- Free Schools Act of 1994 into law (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). The law mandates a one-year calendar expulsion for possession of a firearm, and referral of law-violating students to the criminal or juvenile justice systems. State legislatures and local school districts have broadened the mandate of zero tolerance beyond the federal mandates of weapons, to drugs and alcohol, fighting, threats or swearing (Skiba & Knesting, 2001).
Ethical and social concerns to consider
In recent years, due to an increase in school violence, there has been an increase in legislation and regulatory-policy regarding school violence in an attempt to establish consequences for inappropriate behavior by students. Zero tolerance, as it relates to behavior and discipline, has been defined as the policy or practice of not tolerating undesirable behavior, such as violence or illegal drug use, with the automatic imposition of severe penalties even for first offenses (Walton, 2003).
This agenda has become increasingly important in this era of harassment and bullying being accomplished with the use of current technology. These issues being faced by educators and students alike will not go away, even if the most disruptive students are removed, if no policies are created to answer what are the penalties for engaging such behavior. In answer to this concern, educators may relinquish ethics in their problem-solving and decision-making in response to discipline problems (Gorman & Pauken, 2003).
Zero tolerance policies are under rising disapproval from parents, students, and teachers, as unjust, and arbitrary methods to administer punishment for inappropriate student conduct. These stakeholders question if the policy satisfies its intended purpose of providing safer school environments (Henault, 2001). Those who support zero tolerance policies agree that it does meet its intended purpose, however, individuals who do not support zero tolerance policies allude that the policy is producing critical and problematic results (Gorman & Pauken, 2003).
When, how and by whom should zero tolerance policies be evaluated?
The evaluation of educational policies should be a joint initiative by all stakeholders to include educational leaders, parents, students, and the community. The effectiveness and fairness of zero tolerance policies premise must be assessed and evaluated demonstrating to the stakeholders their significance in the premise of this policy (Anonymous, 2004). Despite this need for by-in by the stakeholders, many school boards continue to toughen their zero tolerance and disciplinary policies as a result of recent school tragedies such as Columbine. Some school boards have begun to experiment with permanent expulsion from the system for certain offenses. Others have begun to apply school suspensions, expulsions, or transfers to behaviors that occur outside of school (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). In 2001, there was a recommendation to end zero tolerance policies for school discipline by the American Bar Association who contended that policy has become an inappropriate solution to all problems that educational institution face and has unfortunate consequences for many students (Henault, 2001).
Fowler (2009) indicates that many policy evaluations are summative which assess the quality of a policy that has been in place for a period of time. Formative evaluations allow the implementers of educational policy the opportunity to make necessary changes to policy for improvement purposes (Fowler, 2009). Formative evaluations, like formative assessments, are ongoing processes in which data is collected and evaluated regularly.
Zero tolerance policies should undergo both summative and formative evaluations throughout the life of the policy both short term and long term evaluations. The school district and school boards responsible for the formation and implementation of the policy should also presume the responsible for the establishment of the evaluation process at the forefront of the development of the policy to ensure that its implementation is fair and unbiased and does not unduly harm students or violate their rights. Because of the nature and opposition of this policy, educational leaders must demonstrate ethical decision-making in circumstances regarding zero tolerance policies and in the evaluation process consider alternatives to inflexible policies within educational institutions. Misconduct policies definitely belong in educational institutions just not the strict zero tolerance policies that now exist (Denig, & Quinn, 2001). The evaluation process should be controlled by the school board as the ultimate responsible entity for the development, implementation, and evaluation of all policies affecting the school district.
Possible End Results
Several researchers contemplate that zero tolerance policies are developing a void between students and the educators who are allegedly using these policies to protect students. Educators who implement zero tolerance policies without consideration of circumstances, motivations, or a student's history are signifying that the concept of innocent until proven guilty does not exist in educational institutions. Consequently, one student may bring a knife to school with the objective of hurting another individual, and another may bring a plastic knife to school with the purpose of spreading peanut butter on a sandwich; however, under zero tolerance policies, the treatment and discipline of both students is the same (Henault, 2001).
In addition, zero tolerance policy is criminalizing students. Educational institutions frequently file criminal charges against students for misconduct even if there no danger to the safety of others exists (Fries & DeMitchell, 2007). When students are disciplined with suspension or police involvement for apparent innocent actions, their trust and revere for authority is in jeopardy. Students will likely come to have misgivings about a justice system with so little flexibility, and indeed some students will try to find a way around the system to evade getting in trouble.
Nonetheless, there are a few benefits to zero tolerance policies, a safe school free of danger, fear, and disruptive students, a policy with unambiguous and clearly stated rules; a student discipline code with consequences stated in advance and reliable application of those consequences (Gorman & Pauken, 2003).
Who benefits from the evaluation?
Overwhelmingly assessments of zero tolerance policies in contemporary education lack common sense in their implementation. The misconduct that warrants suspensions today due to zero tolerance policies once was attributed to children acting age appropriate. The consequences to various student misconduct does not fit the crime and jeopardizes the development of confidence and trust with adults, especially those at school, and the development of a positive stance toward justice and equality in society (Henault, 2001).
Unfortunately, despite the long history of information available since the emergence of this policy in schools, virtually no data supports the effectiveness of the zero tolerance policy. There are no research data showing that zero tolerance can ensure safer schools nor improve student behavior. The weight of the evidence suggests that zero tolerance suspensions and expulsions are applied too inconsistently to have a positive effect on overall student behavior. Research also suggests that the inconsistency in the application of the policy creates racial disparities, is associated with negative outcomes in student behavior, negatively impacts dropout rates, and academic achievement (Henault, 2001).
It is reasonable then to conclude that based on the evaluation of this policy its intervention might threaten student educational opportunity and the risk of the implementation of the policy outweighs its benefits. Therefore, this analysis taken into consideration, the student will ultimately benefit from the evaluation of the policy if the evaluation results in measures to address these identified risks.
Financial Legislation
In 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Gun Free Schools Act (GFSA) which was later repealed and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002 (Kajs, 2006). Funding for the GFSA was tied to the NCLB provision as a means of enforcement. The GFSA requires school districts to comply with its restrictions in order to receive the federal funding by expelling a student for at least one year for bringing a firearm to school (Kajs, 2006).
Through this funding control mechanism, the GFSA did not directly mandate a zero tolerance policy, however, Congress tied federal funding of the GFSA with all of the funding for schools provided by the federal government under the ESEA. This funding measure resulted in schools implementing zero tolerance policies which included; suspending and expelling students for any violent infractions, as a method to ensure that federal funding was not revoked.
Conclusion
As this paper has presented, students, parents and educators are increasingly disapproving of the established zero tolerance policies and their negative effects on student education. Improved regulations and policy development are needed to continue to ensure the safety in the schools without the fundamentally unfair implications of the policy. To prevent students from being subject to the unfair consequences of the policy when implemented, educational institutions must evaluate their zero tolerance policies for discretionary procedures that will offer protection to the students as well. Failure to do so will subject students to the discouraging vision of equal, as opposed to equitable, discipline for misconduct (Henault, 2001). A policy which is evaluated and the result mirror disparate actions where comparable results are shown, than that policy can be considered as unfair and will ultimately fail. In policy implementation and evaluation, educators must consider the ethical and societal stance on the policy and it overall effect on student outcomes.
References
Anonymous (2004). How to adopt a zero tolerance policy that makes sense. Curriculum
Review, 43. Retrieved May 22, 2010 from ProQuest database.
Cooper, B.S, Fusarelli, L.D., & Randall, E.V. (2004). Better policies, better schools:
Theories and applications. Pearson Education, Inc.
Denig, S.J. & Quinn, T. (2001). Ethical dilemmas for school administrators. The High
School Journal, 84. Retrieved May 3, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Fries, K. & DeMitchell, T.A. (2007). Zero tolerance and the paradox of fairness:
Viewpoints from the classroom. Journal of Law and Education, 36. Retrieved
May 22, 2010 from ProQuest database.
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gorman, K. & Pauken, P. (2003). The ethics of zero tolerance. Journal of Educational
Administration, 41(1), 24. Retrieved May 22, 2010 from the Selected Readings
Page, University of Phoenix, EDD 723.
Henault, C. (2001). Zero tolerance in schools. Journal of Law and Education, 30.
Retrieved May 3, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Kajs, L.T. (2006). Reforming the discipline management process in schools: An
alternative approach to zero tolerance. Educational Research Quarterly, 29.
Retrieved May 1, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Miller, A. (2000). Zero tolerance: Fair or not? Junior Scholastic, 13. Retrieved May 3,
2007 from ProQuest database.
Stader, D.L. (2004). Zero tolerance as public policy: The good, the bad, and the ugly. The
Clearing House, 78. Retrieved May 3, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Skiba, R.J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school
disciplinary practice. In R.J. Skiba & G.G. Noam (Eds.), New directions for youth
development (no. 92: Zero tolerance: Can suspension and expulsion keep schools
safe?) (pp. 17-43). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
