[blindkid] Gifted testing

Thu Feb 2 17:45:16 UTC 2012

Where it gets really complicated is that generally they need a reference set of scores to compare our kids' non-standard, so-called "standardized" tests to, because they go by percentile ranking. My wife, the professional statistician, will cringe at my awful explanation, but they need to compare our kids to ranking of other kids in order to say NOT that a student got 75% correct, but to determine that 75% correct ranked the child to the top 10% of kids (90th percentile). You cannot say how our kids did against the standard test (and other children in the population) if the test has been modified or adapted in any way because the other kids didn't TAKE the same test, so there are simply no rankings available, and most of these gifted programs consider rankings not scores values as such.

As to the official rules, don't believe what you are told and don't even believe what is in writing. It may not be accurate, and it may not really be official. What you actually need is what the school CLAIMS (in writing) to compare with what they have on file, and if the item in writing is on a WEB SITE, you need to PRINT IT and retain the site address info on the page from your computer, so they cannot change the content later (easily done on their end). (There are also ways to retrieve old copies of the site, but they are not fool-proof.)

In our state, I learned that the OFFICIAL school rules are kept on file with the Secretary of State's office and are available on line with all of the Georgia Laws. Turns out that what was posted on the county web site was NOT what was on file, and the policy to change any rules (also filed with the Secretary of State) was not followed to make any changes, if they really intended to change the rules at all. (It may have been the SoS's policy for change, I cannot remember.) Should this turn into a legal battle, there is not much chance a county's web site will trump the Secretary of State's official records; effectively the law of your state. Then, after all of that is where I believe the ADA, and IDEA would come into play (if need be) though I am certainly no lawyer.

In our case, the argument never got into compliance with ADA issues. They told us they had complied with everything (and I think they believed it). Yes, they had tested in a reasonable way, but they they were claiming our daughter did not qualify, when in fact they were basing this on methods not in compliance with their own testing standards, per the Secretary of State's records.

Our key issue where they were ranking scores by age, not grade level. Our daughter missed the grade/age cut off by 11 days, so many, if not most of the kids she was being compared to were kids in second grade (she was in first). That knocked her percentile ranking from what should have been something like 98th down to 85th (or some similar numbers). The school said they only ranked by age, period. What they officially had on file said differently. There were actually numerous conflicts between what was claimed and what was on record.

The proper testing process is to adapt the test, give it to a large population of blind students, compare scores and determine percentile rankings of numeric scores, but they use what I assume is millions of kids scores to come up with these comparative values for sighted populations. That isn't going to ever be possible with blind kids-- there simply are not enough of them to get a huge sampling. Also, test revisions will have the same problem every time-- how would they update the norms?

Some adapted tests have actually been setup so that they do have "norms" (I hope that is the right term). I suspect they may be less accurate than the main versions of tests, but like Carol points out, some sort of reasonable comprimise has to be found. The standard 3rd grade test (in our county in Georgia) is available adapted. The 1st grade test was not, so they had to get an alternative test. At first they thought they would have to fly someone across the country to be trained to administer the test. That turned out not to be the case, but it was still a big complicated process. Yes, that is a lot of "fuss" to test one child, but wait...

I mention this because I felt badly at first over all the hassle, then I stopped myself and said, "hey, Kendra deserves the same chance as the rest of the kids to get into the program, and they have to test ALL the kids, so even if she should not qualify, she has the right to the same testing experience", which is in itself beneficial. More than that, chances are (as in our county) your school system may have skipped testing numerous blind children over the years, and if they skip YOUR child, they will have an easier time skipping the next ones too. Somewhere the cycle needs to be broken.

I think back to discussions with Joe Cutter of a kid and a sliding board. Line up all the kids. Kids who may have watched other kids slide down sliding boards for months or years to begin with, but assume they have never tried it (for this discussion). Now one at a time, kids go down the slide. Most if the kids watch 2 or 5 or 10 kids ahead of them slide down the board and are mentally practicing the event.

The blind child has no idea (apart from maybe an overheard description) of the sliding board and how it works and what to do. That is why the blind child needs hands-on exploration of the slide ahead of time. That isn't giving the child an unfair advantage, it is just heading slightly towards evening the playing field. Our kids schools need to grasp this basic concept and apply it EVERYWHERE for our children.

Now back to the testing. Virtually all kids will be tested throughout their lives, and many of the tests will be standardized ones. If they take them once a year, by third grade, they'd have had a chance to take them.. well... I suppose 3rd Grade would be their 3rd or 4th chance to take them? The specific number is not the point-- Other kids will have taken the tests in maybe K, plus first grade, maybe second, etc., but the blind child who was "excused" has never taken one. Now it becomes time for her to start. The other kids, like watching children slide before them have an idea of the process and what to expect. (Not the best analogy because the kids have actually "been down the slide", so to speak now. But the blind child has neither watched the testing process OR been tested. Certainly not ideal. )

At this point, the blind child is going to be more distracted and confused by the testing process (with it being new to her), and she may perform less well. This sort of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in that someone said not to test a child because it was "not necessary", anticipating lower scores, and ultimately, when testing is needed, scores are actually made artificially low by having avoided previous testing. Maybe the schools think this should wait until High School. Can you imagine? Or maybe skip all of this and let our kids take their first standardized test when they want to get into college and they are taking an SAT. Waiting is just not good.

Another thing happens with Kendra and testing, and I have no idea how common this is... Often, various testing for her has to be done separately because she is taking different tests, or versions of tests, or she needs extended time, etc. Certainly anything needing to be read to a student would be a great distraction to other kids taking a similar test. So where do they test her? Somewhere that there aren't a lot of people around (as one might expect) but often that means a particular empty room with a giant fan circulating air. When all one can do is listen, some sounds can become a major distraction, like that fan.

When Kendra was younger we had sound distraction issues at "nap time" (probably age three?). They wanted to play quiet music to soothe the kids. Kendra would analyze the music and discus it aloud. Hmm. French Horn. There's an Oboe. That one is in G-Major. (I'm not kidding.) It would be like me trying to rest with the Discovery Channel on full blast.

A blind adult and friend explained to me that for him, certain sounds can be a distraction much like a silent beach ball floating into a room where sighted people are. We often tell sighted kids (well, all kids) to ignore certain things, but what is the chance sighted kids would manage to "just ignore" something as bizarre as a beach ball flying over their desks in class?!! Try to be certain that there are no "beach balls" floating into situations, especially where important testing is involved.

I know I probably said too much (sorry for the long post yet again) and it is a lot to digest, but this is an important topic for us all, and we all have to work our way into these things one step at a time. With any situation that sets our kids apart, we have to wonder if THIS is not the time to adapt and treat the child in the most similar way possible, WHEN WILL IT BE? 

Apart from the convenience of (and potential cost savings for) the school, what would be the advantage for anyone? This is not about what is convenient for the schools. If that were the case, we should all keep our kids at home and not "hassle" the schools at all with things like braille and cane travel. Same thing for a lot of special needs kids. Wheel chairs and walkers can get in the way in the halls, you know? Even a white cane can pose a trip hazard, so leave those at home. You get the idea.... Surely none of us here thinks that way (those who home school are surely doing it for their children's benefit, not as a favor to the schools). We're all "paying customers" here, so to speak. Our kids are every bit as important as any others in any school. The schools need to figure that out, and we can help them do so, by holding our ground.

I'll get off my soap box now.

Oh, and Carol, I agree 100%, if someone ELSE can casually mention, "golly, you would not want to be out of compliance" (with the ADA, etc.)  that is ideal. Failing that, if we have to mention it ourselves, I think the presentation is really important, Just try to avoid the aggressive "you will do this or I will sue the county" method, however tempting that may be. No need to have them on the phone with the county legal department instead of trying to work with you to actually solve the problem.

Richard

On Feb 2, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Carol Castellano wrote:

> If you look at this issue from an ADA point of view, the statement, "The test is not allowed to be altered in any way" would be a problem.  ADA does indeed guarantee equal access.  Ideally, in ADA situations, there would be a good faith discussion of possible remedies, with each party putting forth their questions and ideas until a feasible accommodation solution is reached.  The antidote to an ADA violation is a civil rights complaint.
> 
> In my experience, schools are not used to thinking in terms of ADA, but I have found it effective for someone (an advocate, perhaps) to educate the school on this and come from the position of "of course you wouldn't want to be out of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act" and "gee, the parent would really hate to have to file a civil rights complaint."  The fact is they really WON'T want to be out of compliance.  They simply may not have had experience in thinking--and finding solutions--in this way.
> 
> That all said, the next issue for us parents is to make sure that when our kids ARE included in testing that the version given does not unfairly penalize our kids for not being able to see.  Unfortunately this happens all the time.  In my experience, this is inadvertent and not purposeful, and so is another area where we need to educate those in the school system.  Examples--they leave all questions in and fail the child for not answering the ones he/she can't see.  Or they eliminate certain questions, and change the point scaling of the answers.  So if the test originally had 10 questions and each question was worth 10 points, and they eliminate 2 questions, then the remaining questions are worth 12.5 points each.  This means that if our kids get one wrong on the test, they get a lower score than other kids who got the same one question wrong.
> 
> We sure need to educate those in the school and remain alert.
> 
> Carol