new bill

How well does your school serve students with disabilities? A proposed law in New York City would make that clear.

PHOTO: Cassi Feldman
Midwood High School is considered inaccessible to students with physical disabilities.

New York City schools will be forced to disclose how well they are serving students with disabilities under a bill set to be introduced in the city council on Wednesday.  The new data, advocates hope, will empower parents as they choose schools and demand that their children’s needs are met.

The bill would require every school to disclose how many students are not receiving all of their legally required services, such as speech therapy or instruction from certified special education teachers.

Citywide, more than a quarter of students with disabilities only receive some of the services they’re entitled to — or none at all, according to data the education department must report. But, for now, families have no way of knowing how well individual schools serve students with disabilities.

“We need to identify exactly where this is happening and where students are being shortchanged,” said Mark Treyger, chairman of the city council’s education committee and the bill’s author. “These are legally mandated services that they are not receiving.”

Releasing more granular data would help hold schools accountable for serving students with disabilities, Treyger said, and could result in more resources being sent to those that are struggling to provide them. It could also give parents a way of knowing which schools are better at meeting the needs of special education students instead of relying on word-of-mouth or school visits.

Schools can struggle to provide special education services because their resources are stretched thin, they have trouble finding or keeping qualified special-education teachers, or serve a disproportionate number of students with special needs. Sometimes, the city puts the onus on parents to find services for their children.

The legislation would build on a law the city council passed in 2015, which first required the education department to disclose how many students with disabilities across the city weren’t receiving services spelled out on their individual learning plans. That law forced the education department to release annual reports on special education compliance, which have shown that as many as 41 percent of students with disabilities — over 70,000 students — did not receive at least some mandated services in the 2015-16 school year.

Those numbers have fallen recently: The latest report suggests that 27 percent of special-needs students did not receive services in the 2016-17 school year. But those improvements came as the city was making fixes to its notoriously glitchy special education tracking system, making it hard to tell whether the data reflect improvements in service delivery or simply better record keeping.

Treyger acknowledged that data collection problems could hamper efforts to get a clear picture of special-education compliance at the school level. But he said it would also put more pressure on the city to fix its data-collection systems.

Advocates said the new reporting requirement would be a powerful tool for accountability.

“To get this would be a huge win,” said Maggie Moroff, a special-education policy expert at Advocates for Children. “It would allow us and other advocates to know where to drive our advocacy and allow the [education department] to know where to send support to schools.”

Education department spokeswoman Toya Holness said the city planned to review the bill.

“We are committed to providing a high-quality education to all students with disabilities,” Holness said in a statement, “and have made major investments to ensure students with disabilities receive the programs and services they need, including hiring more staff, opening new programs and expanding partnerships with providers.”

high-stress testing

How the stress of state testing might make it harder for some students to show what they know

PHOTO: Anthony Lanzilote

The annual ritual of state testing in elementary and middle schools often comes within an unwelcome side effect: jittery, stressed-out kids.

Now, a first-of-its-kind study documents some of what’s actually happening to students.

It found that students in one New Orleans charter network saw modest spikes in cortisol, a hormone caused by stress, leading up to state exams. And the students whose cortisol spiked most or crashed furthest did worse than predicted — suggesting that the test scores reflect not just what students know, but how they perform under pressure.

The five researchers behind the study call that a “stress bias.” The paper finds some evidence that students living in higher-crime, higher-poverty neighborhoods are most affected.

That’s not surprising from a biological perspective, said Pamela Cantor, a psychiatrist and the founder of Turnaround for Children, a group that works to address the effects of trauma on children in schools.

“What we’re in effect doing to kids who are exposed to adversity on a chronic basis is actually putting them in a highly unfair situation, where their biology may overreact to the stress and not give them a very good opportunity to reveal the things they likely know,” she said.

The research looks at fewer than 100 students, and some of the findings are ambiguous. “I don’t want to make broad policy claims based on this one paper with a relatively small sample size in one setting,” said lead author Jennifer Heissel, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School. But, she said, “if this is replicated in other settings for other students, we need to reconsider perhaps what we are using high-stakes tests for.”

The study, released earlier this month through the National Bureau of Economic Research, focuses on a network of three charter schools in New Orleans. The researchers analyzed an unusual data source: saliva samples of 93 elementary and middle students, obtained with parents’ consent, during the 2015-16 school year.

The research team compared cortisol levels of students at three points: during a regular week, a week when students took a low-stakes practice test, and the week students took the state test.

Cortisol is a hormone that generally increases after someone wakes up and declines from there. It jumps in response to stress or challenges and decreases due to boredom or disengagement.

The researchers focus on cortisol levels in the period right before the exam, when students were likely to be most be stressed about testing. Indeed, cortisol levels were about 15 percent higher at that time during testing week than they were during a regular week.

“That is in line with other stressors you might encounter through your day,” Heissel explained.

But some students responded more dramatically. “On average, there’s this increase, but individual kids are going in different directions,” she said.

Students whose cortisol noticeably spiked or dipped tended to perform worse than expected on the state test, controlling for past grades and test scores. Boys saw bigger changes than girls. and so did students from higher-poverty neighborhoods, though this difference was not statistically significant. (Keep in mind that the students in the study were almost all low-income, so there was limited room for comparison.)

Source: “Testing, Stress, and Performance: How Students Respond Physiologically to High-Stakes Testing”

It’s possible that some students’ jumps or dips in cortisol during testing week were due to other factors in their lives. But Cantor of Turnaround for Children said it’s not surprising that tests would induce stress, or that students more likely to have experienced trauma would respond differently.

“For children who face adversity in a chronic way, that system is pumped and primed much more so than other kids,” Cantor said. “If a child does overreact to a trigger, one of the ways that manifests itself is that they shut down, they freeze.”

Is that a “stress bias”? If tests unfairly penalize students who respond poorly to stress, that might suggest that “tests aren’t fully capturing what we want and perhaps what we are thinking that they capture,” said Heissel.

Another interpretation, she noted, is that the ability to perform well under pressure is part of what exams measure, and that it’s a skill “to be able to wrangle your stress response.”

The results raise a number of unanswered questions.

One is whether the results would hold for in-class exams administered by teachers. In many cases, those tests have higher stakes for students than do state exams, which in New Orleans have been used to grade and in some cases close schools.

Another is whether the way students are prepared for state exams might affect their stress. The paper offers limited information on the charter network being studied, which is anonymous. But a number of high-profile charter schools place substantial emphasis on preparation for state tests. It’s unclear whether this approach increases or reduces test-related stress.

Either way, the latest paper suggests one way to produce better scores is to ensure students stay calm during testing.

And a final question is, how else might the stress of testing affect students? Past national research offers mixed evidence on whether No Child Left Behind, the federal education law that led to the current state testing regimen, led to general increases in student anxiety.

Cantor said that the key to buffering against adversity is having warm, positive relationships, which can prompt the release of anti-stress hormones.

“A teacher who communicates belief and confidence and inspires trust in kids — that teacher is activating a hormonal system that opposes the effects of cortisol,” she said.

Measure of Success

State ratings identify 163 Colorado schools in need of improvement

PHOTO: AAron Ontiveroz/The Denver Post
Students in kindergarten on the first day of school at McGlone Academy.

More than 160 Colorado schools received one of the state’s two lowest ratings, making them eligible for additional assistance but also vulnerable to intervention if they don’t improve student performance.

The watch list comprises 9 percent of Colorado’s 1,800 schools and educate roughly 74,000 students, or 8.5 percent or the state’s almost 900,000 students. That means the vast majority of students in the state attend a school with one of the two higher rankings on the four-point scale.

The State Board of Education finalized the ratings Wednesday. The state gives separate district-wide ratings, which were finalized last month.

“The state’s accountability system is built on the premise that all students should receive a high quality education and graduate ready for college or careers,” Katy Anthes, Colorado’s education commissioner, said in a statement. “Our goal is to give all students a chance to excel. These designations allow us to identify struggling schools that may need more support to help students achieve their highest aspirations. And they also highlight successful schools so that other schools can learn from them.”

All public schools receive a state rating, known as the School Performance Framework report, each year. It’s based largely on student scores on the state’s English and math tests. Student growth, or how much students learn year-to-year compared to peers with similar results on state tests, carries most weight. High school graduation and dropout rates are also factored in.

There are four ratings: performance (the highest), improvement, priority improvement and turnaround (the lowest).

Schools and districts that have one of the lower two ratings are placed on a watch list and have five years to improve before facing state intervention. Schools on the list are eligible for grants for leadership training and help from outside consultants, but if change doesn’t come fast enough, the state could hand over control to an external manager, require conversion to a charter, or close schools.

Earlier this fall, the State Board of Education ordered the Adams 14 school district, based in Commerce City, and two schools in Pueblo in southern Colorado to turn over control to external managers after earlier intervention efforts did not produce enough improvement.

Colorado is still figuring out what effective intervention looks like and if outsiders can make a difference for students that existing leadership has not been able to achieve.

Most Colorado schools maintained the same rating they had in 2017, with 15 percent moving down at least one level and 14 percent moving up at least one level. Eighteen schools improved enough to get off the state watch list, which is often known as the “accountability clock,” some after initial state intervention last year.

Six schools are entering their eighth year on the watch list: Aurora Central High School, Adams City High School, Aguilar Junior-Senior High School in the tiny Aguilar district in southern Colorado, Hope Online Learning Academy Elementary School in Douglas County, Heroes Middle School, and Risley International Academy of Innovation, the last two both in Pueblo.

Two are entering year six: Central Elementary School in the Adams 14 district and Minnequa Elementary School in Pueblo.

Another four are entering year five, now the last year to improve before state intervention: Manual High School and Montbello Career and Technical High School in Denver, Mesa Elementary in the Montezuma-Cortez district in southwest Colorado, and EDCSD: Colorado Cyber School in Douglas County.

In the past, some schools received more time to improve because the “clock” was paused for several years as the state changed assessments. But now there are no more extensions beyond year five.

Colorado Department of Education

Of the state’s 42 online schools, a little more than half received one of the top two ratings, and 31 percent did not report enough data for the state to grant a rating. Colorado has more stringent regulations of online schools than many states, but there is an ongoing debate about how well these schools serve students.

About 84 percent of the state’s 247 charter schools received one of the top two ratings, compared to 89 percent of all Colorado schools. Twenty-six charter schools, or 10.5 percent, received one of the lowest two ratings.

Look up your school here: