Читать книгу Grading, Reporting, Graduating...and the Law - Miriam Kurtzig Freedman - Страница 10

Introduction: You’re kidding! Another law book for educators and parents! We’ve had enough!

But wait! Grading, Reporting, Graduating . . . and the Law is different. It’s quick. It’s fun. It’s practical. It answers the following important question:

What do educators need to know and do to provide grades, report cards, transcripts, honors, and diplomas to all students—general and special education—fairly and legally?

It provides an antidote for the current complexity about this important question, clarifying legal requirements—so educators can get back to their classrooms!

However, before we deal with the law, let’s ask WHY we’re doing this at all!

Why have grades and report cards? Why honors? What is a diploma? What does it mean? Each school’s answers may be different—unique to the local needs.

Schools need to clarify for themselves and their communities what the purpose and meaning of each is.

This is what we believe and do—and why.

After that, they should notify students and parents—in student handbooks, courses of study, and/or through other means. Then they can start to handle the legal requirements.

Ready now? Let’s get started.

But let’s not get overwhelmed.

In this little flipbook of law, we deal with law only—not politics or pedagogy/education. We will learn what schools have to do, not whether the laws are a good idea. Let’s leave that discussion for another time!

Figure 1 Circles of Influence

Grades and report cards: Telling it like it is.

Do I have to? Yes, you do!

Students are entitled to know how they’re doing in school. They should receive honest and clear statements of their achievement levels. Parents also have rights. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires states to develop a multiple-measure accountability system for all students. Title 1, Part A, Section 1116 of ESSA regulations explain “parent and family engagement.” Schools need to communicate with parents . . . in plain language that they can understand.

This little flipbook of law includes reference to the 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (hereinafter, the IDEA), and 2006, 2008, 2016, and 2017 amendments to Part B (of the IDEA) regulations; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504, or simply 504) and its regulations; the 2009 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act (ADAAA) and its 2010 and 2016 further amendments; the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which replaced the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)—which are reauthorizations of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); the Supreme Court’s 2017 Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 and 1982 Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (hereinafter Endrew F. and Rowley)¹ decisions, selected due process and other court decisions, and U.S. Department of Education guidance.

¹ A word about case and document names in this little flipbook of laws. The full names, citations, and years of court and hearing officer decisions—as well as ED guidance—are spelled out the first time they appear. Thereafter, names may be abbreviated and citations omitted. References and Cases lists complete citations for all.

Phew, that’s a mouthful! Don’t worry—this little flipbook will explain what you need to know.

Grades and report cards—it’s about the WHAT, not the WHO.

Schools provide information to students, parents, and others (colleges, employers, the military) about WHAT the student studies at school and the level of difficulty. The student’s “progress or level of achievement in specific classes, course content, or curriculum.” See Letter to Runkel (OCR 1996), Letter to California (OCR 2006), and In re: Report Cards and Transcripts for Students with Disabilities (OCR 2008).

On the flip side, laws generally bar schools from revealing the student’s status, especially when dealing with students with disabilities. School reports are not about status or disability label—WHO the student is. They should be about the knowledge and skills learned and achieved. In short, the WHAT, not the WHO.

Notably, in reporting the WHAT, the OCR distinguishes between report cards and transcripts (to be explained later).

Another good reason . . .

Focusing on the WHAT avoids potential FERPA (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) violations. See also the special education law, the IDEA’s² privacy regulation at 30 CFR 300.571. Generally, schools should report what courses the student took and how they did—not who they are.³

² See the Glossary at the end of the flipbook.

³ See Merriam-Webster’s Word of the Year 2019 explanation for updated language around use of the singular “they” pronoun when referring to one person of unspecified gender.

KEY: Understand and use the difference between the WHAT and the WHO!

But how do we do this? First the WHAT, then the WHO—not vice versa!

 FIRST. Focus on the subject, the skills, and the knowledge. These are objective criteria— especially timely in our “standards-based” era.

 SECOND. Focus on student needs. How can the school teach the general education standards to the student? Can a student with a disability learn the same materials in the same way or do they need some program changes? Much more on this in the second half of this book, starting on p. 44.

Of note, in Endrew F. (2017), the Supreme Court clarified the reality of the two groups of students with disabilities: (1) those with mild or moderate needs who are mostly taught in the general education curriculum (with aids, benefits, services, accommodations, modifications, etc.) and (2) those who have severe or profound needs and who are to be taught what is appropriate “in light of their circumstances.” An earlier decision, Rowley (1982), dealt with the first group (estimated to be 80%-90% of today’s population of students with disabilities). Endrew F. dealt with the second group (estimated to be 10%-20% of today’s students with disabilities).

Because this little flipbook of laws focuses on students in the general curriculum, it deals mostly with the first group, but not the second. It also does not deal with alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards, which are designed for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.