Standardized Testing time counts towards IEP hours????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, what do parents want the service providers to do? PARCC is all hands on deck, every special ed staffer, multiple hours a day for 2-4 weeks at a time. There's no choice, no way out of it. It's physically impossible to fit this all in, plus make sure your whole caseload gets their hours, plus attend the 15 middle school IEP transition meetings that are scheduled when there isn't PARCC. Time just doesn't function that way. And there's no help coming to make up missed hours, because the year is ending and the school system thinks their employees can make 2+2=6, and it wasn't just your kid that got missed, it was 40 others. What do you want them to do?

From a parents perspective, the employees just lie and use any excuse possible not to follow IEPS. It really stinks. Really disappointed in how dishonest and bad special ed teachers are.

Right, because those teachers would rather administer PARCC instead of teaching??? Are you serious right now? You are calling special ed teacher dishonest and bad because they have to administer a state mandated assessment. Dishonest and bad because they spend their time reading the same test over and over again so your child can have the assessments outlined on their IEP. Dishonest would be not giving your child the accommodations stated on their IEP, that would be illegal. Administering an assessment with the outline accommodations IS following an IEP.

Very true. Parents may not like the situation, but that doesn't mean anyone is being dishonest. Parent understanding and expectations of the IEP may not be reasonable. I am curious about OPs child. If your child doesn't have any testing accommodations at all, why would you push for so much service? If your DC can function in the gen ed settng, what difference does 4 days of testing make in the big picture? This does not constitute a denail of FAPE----which is the point of the IEP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only other alternative is for the spcial educator to get a sub for some part of the testing time. It puts the IEP in compliance but your child will not be better off for it. When there is a special ed sub, they are being pulled out of their classroom for little benefit. Subs are limited in education and training and I promise you they are better off with it.

No, the alternative is to write the IEP correctly in a way that doesn't fake hours by claiming OP's child is getting service hours just by sitting in PARCC.

An IEP is to help a student access the curriculum. Providing accommodations on assessments is helping the child access the curriculum. Does it suck? Yea. Just as much as it suck for every child taking PARCC and every staff member that has to administer it. But in reality, they are receiving supports that are outline on their IEP. The IEP is allowing them to be testing in a small group, reduced distractions, etc. They ARE receiving supports and services from their IEP during that time. Those services may not be geared directly towards the goals on their IEP but they are helping them access the same assessment that everyone else is taking.

Well we don't know what supports OP's child is getting, only that they claim they can be provided by the general ed teacher - so I assume it's something like seating or extra time, not a scribe. Are you seriously trying to claim that the hours that a kid is seated at the front of the class should be counted as actual hours of services in the IEP? No, that is absurd.

If that is exactly what the student needs to access the general education curriculum, then yes. Anything more would be unnecessarily restrictive and would make the school out of compliance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only other alternative is for the spcial educator to get a sub for some part of the testing time. It puts the IEP in compliance but your child will not be better off for it. When there is a special ed sub, they are being pulled out of their classroom for little benefit. Subs are limited in education and training and I promise you they are better off with it.

No, the alternative is to write the IEP correctly in a way that doesn't fake hours by claiming OP's child is getting service hours just by sitting in PARCC.

Would you actually be fine with that, though? If I came to an IEP meeting with an IEP that said your kid would get 9 months of services instead of 10, that would alleviate all your concerns?

As a special ed teacher, I spent a great deal of my time and energy on advocating for my kids. Recently, I've gone up the chain to advocate for changes in how a field trip was set up, and changes in how some after school sports were operating, or for changes in the curriculum that were in my student's best interest. But I can only choose so many issues. The fact that IEPs aren't written with a separate section to describe how kids will be supported during PARCC (beyond the extensive accommodation section we're already creating) is no where near the top of that list.

I'm also laughing at the idea that this issue, of teacher time being eaten up by testing instead of instruction is something hidden or under the table. Teachers and teachers' unions have been incredibly vocal on this issue. Their complaints are all over the media. If you didn't know that instruction basically stops, for all kids, during PARCC, you haven't been paying attention.

Absolutely that's what I want - the service hours to be written clearly. It's not rocket science. If you know in advance that several weeks are going to be taken up with testing then you just subtract that from the total number of hours for the year. Similarly if a service was scheduled for Fridays then they should write the actual number of hours since so many Fridays are off.

And don't fake services either. It's one thing to say "No services for 2 weeks during PARCC" and another to claim that sitting taking the PARCC counts for service hours when there's nothing being provided other than seating.

If this is done, then special ed students will not get accommodations, supplementary aids, etc. during testing. All of these things are part of the special ed service. Special ed service is not just about goals, it encompasses everything the student needs to access the curriculum along with grade level peers.

[Anonymous]

f this is done, then special ed students will not get accommodations, supplementary aids, etc. during testing. All of these things are part of the special ed service. Special ed service is not just about goals, it encompasses everything the student needs to access the curriculum along with grade level peers

What are you prattling on about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

f this is done, then special ed students will not get accommodations, supplementary aids, etc. during testing. All of these things are part of the special ed service. Special ed service is not just about goals, it encompasses everything the student needs to access the curriculum along with grade level peers

What are you prattling on about?

That seems like an unnecessary tone. But, I was responding to a PP who stated that the number of service weeks should be decreased to reflect the PARCC testing period. I stated that if the number of service weeks is changed, schools will be under no obligation to provide accommodations etc. These are considered part of the special education service. So, stating that the schools are being dishonest isn't fair. You can tell them to change the number of service weeks, and I'm sure they will agree, but I want people to understand the implications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

f this is done, then special ed students will not get accommodations, supplementary aids, etc. during testing. All of these things are part of the special ed service. Special ed service is not just about goals, it encompasses everything the student needs to access the curriculum along with grade level peers

What are you prattling on about?

That seems like an unnecessary tone. But, I was responding to a PP who stated that the number of service weeks should be decreased to reflect the PARCC testing period. I stated that if the number of service weeks is changed, schools will be under no obligation to provide accommodations etc. These are considered part of the special education service. So, stating that the schools are being dishonest isn't fair. You can tell them to change the number of service weeks, and I'm sure they will agree, but I want people to understand the implications.

I struggle to understand how clarifying in the IEP that services will not be provided during PARCC testing leads to kids not receiving accommodations. It's not like 'reducing the number of service weeks' would be done with no context and while 'accommodations' fall under the rubric of special ed services, I can't recall any accommodations that are associated with specialized instruction. If a kid is getting reduced service hours because no SPED staff are available for specialized instruction/related services, he would still be able to get accommodations. Accommodations don't usually have to be provided by SPED staff.

We have noted in all our IEPs that 'consultations' with the guidance counselors, school psychologists, SLPs, OT/PTs will not be counted as part of service hours. Clarifying PARCC testing would be no different. It would be along the lines of "The IEP team agrees that during the period of PARCC testing, students receive limited instruction. As such, the number of service hours Larlo receives during the period of PARCC (typically 3 weeks in May), may be pro-rated by a factor of X. Once grade level testing is completed, regular service levels will resume."

I'm sure the statement could be crafted better but you get the idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

f this is done, then special ed students will not get accommodations, supplementary aids, etc. during testing. All of these things are part of the special ed service. Special ed service is not just about goals, it encompasses everything the student needs to access the curriculum along with grade level peers

What are you prattling on about?

That seems like an unnecessary tone. But, I was responding to a PP who stated that the number of service weeks should be decreased to reflect the PARCC testing period. I stated that if the number of service weeks is changed, schools will be under no obligation to provide accommodations etc. These are considered part of the special education service. So, stating that the schools are being dishonest isn't fair. You can tell them to change the number of service weeks, and I'm sure they will agree, but I want people to understand the implications.

I struggle to understand how clarifying in the IEP that services will not be provided during PARCC testing leads to kids not receiving accommodations. It's not like 'reducing the number of service weeks' would be done with no context and while 'accommodations' fall under the rubric of special ed services, I can't recall any accommodations that are associated with specialized instruction. If a kid is getting reduced service hours because no SPED staff are available for specialized instruction/related services, he would still be able to get accommodations. Accommodations don't usually have to be provided by SPED staff.

We have noted in all our IEPs that 'consultations' with the guidance counselors, school psychologists, SLPs, OT/PTs will not be counted as part of service hours. Clarifying PARCC testing would be no different. It would be along the lines of "The IEP team agrees that during the period of PARCC testing, students receive limited instruction. As such, the number of service hours Larlo receives during the period of PARCC (typically 3 weeks in May), may be pro-rated by a factor of X. Once grade level testing is completed, regular service levels will resume."

I'm sure the statement could be crafted better but you get the idea.

So you are asking for it to be reflected in the IEP meeting notes? Both DC and MoCo (the two PARCC jurisdictions I am familiar with) use online forms that don’t have a space that would allow you to write that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

f this is done, then special ed students will not get accommodations, supplementary aids, etc. during testing. All of these things are part of the special ed service. Special ed service is not just about goals, it encompasses everything the student needs to access the curriculum along with grade level peers

What are you prattling on about?

That seems like an unnecessary tone. But, I was responding to a PP who stated that the number of service weeks should be decreased to reflect the PARCC testing period. I stated that if the number of service weeks is changed, schools will be under no obligation to provide accommodations etc. These are considered part of the special education service. So, stating that the schools are being dishonest isn't fair. You can tell them to change the number of service weeks, and I'm sure they will agree, but I want people to understand the implications.

I struggle to understand how clarifying in the IEP that services will not be provided during PARCC testing leads to kids not receiving accommodations. It's not like 'reducing the number of service weeks' would be done with no context and while 'accommodations' fall under the rubric of special ed services, I can't recall any accommodations that are associated with specialized instruction. If a kid is getting reduced service hours because no SPED staff are available for specialized instruction/related services, he would still be able to get accommodations. Accommodations don't usually have to be provided by SPED staff.

We have noted in all our IEPs that 'consultations' with the guidance counselors, school psychologists, SLPs, OT/PTs will not be counted as part of service hours. Clarifying PARCC testing would be no different. It would be along the lines of "The IEP team agrees that during the period of PARCC testing, students receive limited instruction. As such, the number of service hours Larlo receives during the period of PARCC (typically 3 weeks in May), may be pro-rated by a factor of X. Once grade level testing is completed, regular service levels will resume."

I'm sure the statement could be crafted better but you get the idea.

To be clear, specialized instruction does not have to be provided by a special educator either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

f this is done, then special ed students will not get accommodations, supplementary aids, etc. during testing. All of these things are part of the special ed service. Special ed service is not just about goals, it encompasses everything the student needs to access the curriculum along with grade level peers

What are you prattling on about?

That seems like an unnecessary tone. But, I was responding to a PP who stated that the number of service weeks should be decreased to reflect the PARCC testing period. I stated that if the number of service weeks is changed, schools will be under no obligation to provide accommodations etc. These are considered part of the special education service. So, stating that the schools are being dishonest isn't fair. You can tell them to change the number of service weeks, and I'm sure they will agree, but I want people to understand the implications.

I struggle to understand how clarifying in the IEP that services will not be provided during PARCC testing leads to kids not receiving accommodations. It's not like 'reducing the number of service weeks' would be done with no context and while 'accommodations' fall under the rubric of special ed services, I can't recall any accommodations that are associated with specialized instruction. If a kid is getting reduced service hours because no SPED staff are available for specialized instruction/related services, he would still be able to get accommodations. Accommodations don't usually have to be provided by SPED staff.

We have noted in all our IEPs that 'consultations' with the guidance counselors, school psychologists, SLPs, OT/PTs will not be counted as part of service hours. Clarifying PARCC testing would be no different. It would be along the lines of "The IEP team agrees that during the period of PARCC testing, students receive limited instruction. As such, the number of service hours Larlo receives during the period of PARCC (typically 3 weeks in May), may be pro-rated by a factor of X. Once grade level testing is completed, regular service levels will resume."

I'm sure the statement could be crafted better but you get the idea.

Instruction slows down or stops for all students during PARCC. It's really ridiculous how it ties the schools up in knots. A notice like this should go out to all parents. "Notice, your child will receive limited instruction during May due to PARCC testing." If gen ed parents realized how burdensome PARCC testing is, they would complain loudly and it would be the end of PARCC.

They can't put something like in an IEP because by law the entire IEP is negotiable, but PARCC testing is not. Even if you could refuse PARCC testing, your kid will sit in an office doing busy work rather than get actual instruction, but it will be close enough to real schoolwork to let them call it "instruction."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only other alternative is for the spcial educator to get a sub for some part of the testing time. It puts the IEP in compliance but your child will not be better off for it. When there is a special ed sub, they are being pulled out of their classroom for little benefit. Subs are limited in education and training and I promise you they are better off with it.

No, the alternative is to write the IEP correctly in a way that doesn't fake hours by claiming OP's child is getting service hours just by sitting in PARCC.

An IEP is to help a student access the curriculum. Providing accommodations on assessments is helping the child access the curriculum. Does it suck? Yea. Just as much as it suck for every child taking PARCC and every staff member that has to administer it. But in reality, they are receiving supports that are outline on their IEP. The IEP is allowing them to be testing in a small group, reduced distractions, etc. They ARE receiving supports and services from their IEP during that time. Those services may not be geared directly towards the goals on their IEP but they are helping them access the same assessment that everyone else is taking.

Yes, this! Thank you for explaining this well. PARCC testing is state-mandated and schools do not have a choice. One of the pages of the IEP is a discussion of PARCC accommodations and which tests the child will participate in throughout the year. Service does indeed include provision of those accommodations, supplementary aids, and modifications needed to enable the child to participate along with his/her peers. The IEP goals are meant to be meant in one year and do not necessarily require pull out instruction with a special ed teacher.

Service HOURS do not include accomodations that don't actually require any work by the teacher. If that was true, than any child
who needed preferential seating would have 40 hours of services a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

f this is done, then special ed students will not get accommodations, supplementary aids, etc. during testing. All of these things are part of the special ed service. Special ed service is not just about goals, it encompasses everything the student needs to access the curriculum along with grade level peers

What are you prattling on about?

That seems like an unnecessary tone. But, I was responding to a PP who stated that the number of service weeks should be decreased to reflect the PARCC testing period. I stated that if the number of service weeks is changed, schools will be under no obligation to provide accommodations etc. These are considered part of the special education service. So, stating that the schools are being dishonest isn't fair. You can tell them to change the number of service weeks, and I'm sure they will agree, but I want people to understand the implications.

I struggle to understand how clarifying in the IEP that services will not be provided during PARCC testing leads to kids not receiving accommodations. It's not like 'reducing the number of service weeks' would be done with no context and while 'accommodations' fall under the rubric of special ed services, I can't recall any accommodations that are associated with specialized instruction. If a kid is getting reduced service hours because no SPED staff are available for specialized instruction/related services, he would still be able to get accommodations. Accommodations don't usually have to be provided by SPED staff.

We have noted in all our IEPs that 'consultations' with the guidance counselors, school psychologists, SLPs, OT/PTs will not be counted as part of service hours. Clarifying PARCC testing would be no different. It would be along the lines of "The IEP team agrees that during the period of PARCC testing, students receive limited instruction. As such, the number of service hours Larlo receives during the period of PARCC (typically 3 weeks in May), may be pro-rated by a factor of X. Once grade level testing is completed, regular service levels will resume."

I'm sure the statement could be crafted better but you get the idea.

So you are asking for it to be reflected in the IEP meeting notes? Both DC and MoCo (the two PARCC jurisdictions I am familiar with) use online forms that don’t have a space that would allow you to write that.

So you write something and append it to the form.

"The form doesn't have space" is not a good answer!

[Anonymous]

I am desperately trying to figure out what disability this kid has that requires him to need specialized instruction, but doesn't make him distractible (and so doesn't get small group testing), doesn't cause difficulty with reading, writing or processing speed (thus no extended time), doesn't cause difficulties with computation (thus no calculator), doesn't interfere with his receptive language (thus no clarified directions), or impact his vision (no enlarged print), or his hearing (no interpreter), or his handwriting (no scribe) and doesn't make him anxious about the test (thus no breaks, or scheduling accommodations).

OP, can you give us a hint? I've read 100s of IEP's and I've never seen one with just preferential seating, which is quite possibly the least useful accommodation on the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am desperately trying to figure out what disability this kid has that requires him to need specialized instruction, but doesn't make him distractible (and so doesn't get small group testing), doesn't cause difficulty with reading, writing or processing speed (thus no extended time), doesn't cause difficulties with computation (thus no calculator), doesn't interfere with his receptive language (thus no clarified directions), or impact his vision (no enlarged print), or his hearing (no interpreter), or his handwriting (no scribe) and doesn't make him anxious about the test (thus no breaks, or scheduling accommodations).

OP, can you give us a hint? I've read 100s of IEP's and I've never seen one with just preferential seating, which is quite possibly the least useful accommodation on the list.

You're trying to shift the basis of the argument, and by questioning whether the OP's child needs services at all. That's nasty.

[Anonymous]

I struggle to understand how clarifying in the IEP that services will not be provided during PARCC testing leads to kids not receiving accommodations. It's not like 'reducing the number of service weeks' would be done with no context and while 'accommodations' fall under the rubric of special ed services, I can't recall any accommodations that are associated with specialized instruction. If a kid is getting reduced service hours because no SPED staff are available for specialized instruction/related services, he would still be able to get accommodations. Accommodations don't usually have to be provided by SPED staff.

We have noted in all our IEPs that 'consultations' with the guidance counselors, school psychologists, SLPs, OT/PTs will not be counted as part of service hours. Clarifying PARCC testing would be no different. It would be along the lines of "The IEP team agrees that during the period of PARCC testing, students receive limited instruction. As such, the number of service hours Larlo receives during the period of PARCC (typically 3 weeks in May), may be pro-rated by a factor of X. Once grade level testing is completed, regular service levels will resume."

I'm sure the statement could be crafted better but you get the idea.


So you are asking for it to be reflected in the IEP meeting notes? Both DC and MoCo (the two PARCC jurisdictions I am familiar with) use online forms that don’t have a space that would allow you to write that.

I'm in Virginia and in the IEP there is a page called "Present Level of Performance" aka the PLOP page. This page is also used to document the discussions in the IEP. I, again, struggle to understand that DC and MD wouldn't have something similar. Even on the goals pages, there are several places test can be added to clarify, explain, note, etc. things pertinent to that goal. As a PP said, 'the form doesn't have space' is not a good answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

f this is done, then special ed students will not get accommodations, supplementary aids, etc. during testing. All of these things are part of the special ed service. Special ed service is not just about goals, it encompasses everything the student needs to access the curriculum along with grade level peers

What are you prattling on about?

That seems like an unnecessary tone. But, I was responding to a PP who stated that the number of service weeks should be decreased to reflect the PARCC testing period. I stated that if the number of service weeks is changed, schools will be under no obligation to provide accommodations etc. These are considered part of the special education service. So, stating that the schools are being dishonest isn't fair. You can tell them to change the number of service weeks, and I'm sure they will agree, but I want people to understand the implications.

I struggle to understand how clarifying in the IEP that services will not be provided during PARCC testing leads to kids not receiving accommodations. It's not like 'reducing the number of service weeks' would be done with no context and while 'accommodations' fall under the rubric of special ed services, I can't recall any accommodations that are associated with specialized instruction. If a kid is getting reduced service hours because no SPED staff are available for specialized instruction/related services, he would still be able to get accommodations. Accommodations don't usually have to be provided by SPED staff.

We have noted in all our IEPs that 'consultations' with the guidance counselors, school psychologists, SLPs, OT/PTs will not be counted as part of service hours. Clarifying PARCC testing would be no different. It would be along the lines of "The IEP team agrees that during the period of PARCC testing, students receive limited instruction. As such, the number of service hours Larlo receives during the period of PARCC (typically 3 weeks in May), may be pro-rated by a factor of X. Once grade level testing is completed, regular service levels will resume."

I'm sure the statement could be crafted better but you get the idea.

To be clear, specialized instruction does not have to be provided by a special educator either.

Technically, you are correct but, in practice, I've not seen special education provided by anyone other than someone who is qualified to teach special ed orn SLP/OT/PT, etc. In Virginia, the team must identify where the special education hours will be provided - in the general ed classroom, the special ed classroom, etc.