[NLA] Re: Is the NRS a violation of the law?

[Deborah W. Yoho]

I think the answer to that question depends on many things.
1.  So far, states are free to "exempt" some learners from testing.
(Although I could not find explicit language in the WIA itself that this is
so.  I know it is true here at least.)  What are the policies for
exemptions, if any?  Exempted learners may or may not be "counted" for WIA
funding.  
2.  What is the definition of a learning disability and what assessment is
required to become eligible as "learning disabled"?  In SC, only a licensed
clinical psychologist can apply the LD label for purposes of exemption from
timing when taking tests that involve credentials or college admission,
such as the GED or the SAT.  Very few adults can afford such an assessment.
Most of the adults who are exempted from timing requirements come to
adulthood with the LD label already attached during or before high school,
i.e. the adult was a special education student when enrolled in k-12 and
was assessed by a psychologist then. 

However, apparently there is wide use of some versions of the TABE as an
determination for "level" under the NRS without the timing requirement.  I
think this invalidates the score in terms of its reliability, because the
scores are normed on populations who were tested in a timed situation.  So
far as I know, nobody here is addressing this because nobody wants to.  I
certainly don't.  If and when I am required to use the TABE I will do so
without timing, until told to do otherwise.  If that happens, we would have
a problem similiar to Nancy's, whose agency has opted not to pursue WIA
funding because the TABE is required.  She and I agree that enforcing a
uniform requirement of a group test such as the TABE constitutes
educational malpractice.  CBOs who work primarily with individuals as
opposed to groups therefore do not have "direct and equitable access" to
WIA funds because such a policy affects their programs more than it does
other programs.  In Nancy's case, her program has concluded they are in
effect barred from eligibility for WIA Title II funding.

Incidentally, the stated reason for requiring only one test is for
"uniformity" to compare one program's results with another program's.  This
assumes standardized test scores are valid criteria for making decisions
about what programs are effective and which ones are not. If and when that
day comes, somebody will presumably draw an arbitrary line at a given
score, as though there were an "average rate of progress" or something. 
This has already happened here at the k-12 level.  I still say that the
entire NRS effort will eventually collaspe of its own weight, because the
data is at best incomplete and at worst unreliable, misleading and easily
manipulated.     Debbie Yoho




_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org