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

[LVA]

Debbie-

I can understand why nobody wants to tackle this issue, but just to clarify
our situation-- so far, our state has allowed us to exempt some learners
from annual testing and has allowed funded agencies to choose which tests to
use and whether or not to time people, but next year, all of this may
change.  If it does change, we will be in the same position Nancy is in.

The LD students I mentioned are those who have been tested by a licensed
psychologist.  Because we know that most students cannot afford the tests,
we have found grant funding to pay for this testing for some students. In
the last four years, we have paid for professional LD testing for 12
students using grant funding, and we also have students who have been
professionally tested elsewhere, either in school or through another agency.

Part of the point I was trying to make is if, in the quest for uniformity,
agencies receiving WIA are required to administer timed TABEs, we would have
some students with an official LD diagnosis who, in theory, can claim
exemption from taking timed tests and a lot of other students who show signs
of LD but who have not been professionally tested and so would be timed.
Therefore, even within our agency, the testing results would not be
comparable.

I agree with everything that you and Nancy have written -- I was simply
trying to point out yet another reason why NRS requirements made no sense.
I also agree that the NRS will eventually fall under its own weight, but
unfortunately, while we are waiting for this to happen some agencies doing
valid work may have to curtail their services, may even fold from lack of
funding.

Anne Jellen
LVA-C/A
----- Original Message -----
From: Deborah W. Yoho <dwyoho at earthlink.net>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 6:42 PM
Subject: [NLA] Re: Is the NRS a violation of the law?


> 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

_______________________________________________
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