Good morning!  I know many are wondering what I am going to say about the OU/Texas football game.  All I can say is "WOW, what a game!"  It was a great game and I congratulate all of you Texas Longhorn fans on a great win.  No doubt the Big 12 Conference is a premier conference this year with many great teams and it is going to be interesting to see how all of it plays out, but one thing is certain, Texas certainly was the better team on Saturday.  Congratulations on a great win!

I want to congratulate James Miculka and all of our high school band directors and bands for the great performances Monday night at the NISD Band Spectacular that was held at Gus Stadium.  This was a time that all of the bands could perform their UIL Marching Contest show and parents, middle school bands, and others could see them do these performances.  I was very impressed with what I saw, and I truly believe that our bands are making great improvement.  Congratulations to all of them for their performances and I wish them the best in the UIL competition.

This past week we distributed checks to the staff of those schools that qualified for the incentive pay under the Texas Educator Excellence Grant.  The schools qualified for the grant based on the number of economically disadvantaged students in their school and their performance in the 2005-06 TAKS testing compared to schools of similar demographics.  The school year 2006-07 was the planning year and the year of grant submission in which the schools outlined their goals for the grant.  The award was based on the scores for the 2007-08 year.  Checks were distributed to staff at Holmes, Passmore, Cable, Meadow Village, John Jay, Powell, Anson Jones, Pease, and Linton.  The total amount distributed was $1,235,000.  Even though incentive pay can be controversial, I will say that our teachers at each of these schools have been very excited about receiving money from this grant.  In addition, they are so proud they are receiving the money because of the success they have had with their students in terms of performance.  I am very proud of the accomplishment of these schools and I congratulate them on their success.

This week the results of those schools who did not meet "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) will be released by TEA.  This is the standard that is used under NCLB.  As I have explained before, under NCLB there are the same subgroups used in the state accountability system plus the additional subgroups of "special education" and "limited English proficient."  So each of the subgroups of All Students, African American, White, Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, Special Education, and Limited English Proficient must meet the required passing percentage established for reading and mathematics which is 60% and 50% respectively.  Northside will have six schools not meet AYP because the subgroup "Special Education" did not meet the passing standard in mathematics.

The issue is not that the students did not do well, but in the system that has been designed by TEA with approval of the United States Department of Education for how this subgroup is tested and how they are counted in the system.  There are two main issues.

First of all, there are four tests for which an ARD committee is to decide which test a special education student should take.  They are the regular TAKS, TAKS-Accommodated, TAKS Modified (TAKS-M), and TAKS-Alternate (TAKS-Alt).  The TAKS-Alt test is the assessment used for students receiving special education services who have the most significant cognitive disabilities.  The other three tests are all on grade level tests for which it must be decided which one is most appropriate for a child that is receiving special education services.  Students are identified as special education students because they have special learning needs for which the school is to provide services to help that student overcome that learning need.  An example would be a student who has a learning disability.  Under the Individual Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) a committee comprised of the appropriate professionals and the parents makes a determination what educational program is most appropriate for the child which will best serve that child's education.  This is called the Individualized Education Plan (IEP).  Many of these students, because they do have special learning needs, are not working or learning on grade level and the services are being provided that will best serve that student to help them be successful and possibly attain grade level.  Our special education teachers do a great job of working with students who have special learning needs and helping them to be successful.

Yet the problem is that with the exception of TAKS-Alt, all the other choices for a TAKS test for a special education student is on grade level.  If a student receives accommodations in their classroom instruction, then that student might take the TAKS-Acc.  According to state definition a student receiving special education services who has a disability that significantly affects academic progress in the grade level curriculum and precludes the achievement of grade level proficiency within a school year will be assessed with the TAKS-M.  This is pretty clear that the TAKS-M should be given to students who are struggling to work at on grade level curriculum and achieve grade level proficiency.  Yet the TAKS-Acc and the TAKS-M are grade level tests.

Therefore, if an ARD committee under IDEA determines an appropriate IEP (Individualized Education Plan) for a student, it could be that below grade level services need to be provided for that student and that is what the student will be doing.  Yet the state says test them on grade level under the NCLB standards of AYP.  Prior to this, special education students were tested by the SDAA (state developed alternative assessment) which was an appropriate test for the level on which a student was receiving instruction.  No doubt there is conflict in what IDEA is telling school districts to do and what NCLB is telling school districts to do.  To test all special education students on grade level with the exception of those who have significant cognitive disabilities is simply wrong.  To have schools develop an appropriate educational program for a child but test them on a different level is wrong.  To me this is the equivalent of "educational malpractice."  And to say certain schools aren't doing what they should do to serve these students because many of these students might not pass a grade level test is wrong!

The other issue is that schools are capped by 1% of total students tested that can be given the TAKS-Alt and 2% of total students tested that can be counted under the TAKS-M as passers.  Each school through the ARD committees determines whether a special education student should be given the TAKS, TAKS-Acc, or TAKS-M.  If more than 2% are tested with the TAKS-M, even though the ARD committee said that is the appropriate test, then those above the 2% who pass the test are counted as "artificial failures" or to state it more bluntly they are counted as failures in the system.  In Northside we had about 4.4% take the TAKS-M in reading, and 3.5% take the TAKS-M in math.  If more than the 2% passed, then they were counted as failures, and this did occur.

These two issues of inappropriate testing of special education students and the capping of those who can be counted as passers do nothing but set schools and school districts up for failure.  This year as I said the percentage of students that must pass in each subgroup was 60% for reading and 50% for math, and next year it goes to 67% for reading and 58% for math.  Dramatic increases continue to occur until 2014 when 100% of all students in each subgroup is expected to pass or the school will not meet AYP and be classified as needs improvement.  All of this was designed in such a way to set up all schools for failure.  The intent of NCLB was to help all students be successful based on the individuality and ability of each student, and this is what should occur.  We do not have a failed system of education; we have a failed law.  A law that is failing our schools and failing our students in doing what is right for all of our students based on their individuality and ability.

This week you will read some articles in the newspaper and hear reports about schools that do not meet AYP under NCLB.  Again it is not the schools who have failed, but the law.  Personally, I pay a lot more attention to the state accountability system than I do to AYP.  The state system needs changes because of the discriminatory way it treats large, diverse districts, but it certainly is not as ludicrous as the system to determine whether a school meets AYP.

I hope you think about the system I have described to you in this Monday Message and realize how unfair it is to schools and students.  Our teachers, and especially our special education teachers, work miracles with students everyday.  "We Believe" in what we do and "We Believe" in the success of every child.  We don't believe in a system that fails our children!

Have a great week!