Evaluations instead of end-of-year testing

[Innisfree]

Does anyone have experience with this?

 

We have state requirements to either test at or above the 4th stanine (I think) or have an independent evaluation. The testing is always nerve-wracking because I'm not sure if dd can meet the requirements, though so far she always has.

 

Evaluations are a good bit more expensive, and the idea of coordinating one at the end of the year after testing flops is not appealing. But maybe just planning on an evaluation would be better than the stress of worrying about this all year.

 

How does this work with a student who has special needs?

 

I know the people who do this in my neck of the woods also do "educational plans." I really don't want to have them make a plan. And I don't want to pay a lot of money for them to say what they think of our plan. But I do want to know that if we just keep plugging along at our own plan, they'll say we've done a decent job at the end. I know, that sounds thoroughly unreasonable, doesn't it?

 

I think part of the difficulty is that dd is so borderline. There's no diagnosable ID, so one has to expect academic work and a certain amount of progress. But IQ is hovering in the "slow learner" range, and there are the added complications of ASD (low frustration tolerance, no motivation outside of special interest, generally low energy), short attention span, and anxiety.

 

Judging *how much* progress is reasonable to expect is really hard.

 

If I can jump through some sort of reasonably painless hoop now, at the beginning of the school year, which means I don't have to bite my nails all year to get that evaluation saying we're okay at the end, it would be a relief, and worth some extra money.

 

Has anyone else done this? Did you start by getting a plan?

[Lecka]

It sounds like it is similar to having an IEP, and setting goals and then saying "satisfactory progress" or "met goal" or "didn't work on it."

 

So I don't know exactly, but I think someone who does this kind of thing (or has background) for IEPs would not think it was weird.

 

And then -- at the end you say if the goals are met, or whatever.

 

Just my impression, but to me it is normal to have some people involved with the goal side who are not involved with planning or implementation.

[Lecka]

My take on the word "evaluation" is also not synonymous with testing.

 

I read it like you could take in a portfolio or records to be evaluated, which is also (or can be depending) very IEPish.

[Lecka]

It seems like if you have a plan, maybe they look at it and think it is okay, but if she has been doing well and you are continuing on, I don't think it would seem bad. They are used to kids with individualized plans so I don't think they will be judgmental about her level.

[Innisfree]

Thanks, Lecka.

 

I guess my worry is just that by establishing goals in a formal way ahead of time, we're setting ourselves up for failure if we can't meet them.

 

When we had an ISP with the school one year (like an IEP but for homeschoolers), it was utterly unrealistic. To the school, it looked reasonable. But they didn't sit and try to work with my dd. For her, it turned out to be unreasonable, even though I had signed off on it because I had thought it was workable.

 

My fear is of getting into that sort of situation, or into one where we have to meet and check progress regularly or something. We have enough appointments already.

 

We actually work very diligently, but it's like trying to swim through molasses or something.

 

If evaluators say insufficient progress has been made, what actually happens? I know from a state-regulation perspective there is a year of homeschooling probation, but maybe if the evaluation is done by a certain time, the evaluator gives you a chance to fix things? I really don't want to get put on academic probation, lol. But that ends up being the same must-meet-yearly-standards worry we already have.

 

I used to think that if we just had a real diagnosis, all these worries would go away. I see people online saying things like "if you have this diagnosis, forget about meeting goals on a normal time schedule," and I used to think what a relief it would be to not have to worry about that. To just say, instead, "we'll work steadily and diligently and accept that this is where we are."

 

But here we are, with a diagnosis, and still worrying about meeting standards. I'm not sure how to just relax. Obviously, we will work hard regardless. But it's hard to know what will be accepted as enough. Maybe it would be worth paying for a planning session to figure some of this out.

[Lecka]

If the goals are turning out to be unrealistic, can you have another meeting to change the goals? 

 

I think there is just a difference between "this is just not working" and "this is working, but the progress is sloooooooowwwwwwww." 

 

If progress is slow but there is progress, you might be able to put "working towards goals" or break the goal down to a smaller component.

 

For example, we have IEP goals that, instead of being written as just one goal, are broken down into component parts..... so that there is a way to show progress even if the actual goal is not met.

 

My take is..... when you had your ISP and it stopped seeming good.... you could have met again and re-written it (maybe).  That is a solution.  Trying to somehow meet the original goal is not the only solution.

 

Now -- that does take more meetings!  It is not the easiest!  But it can be there as an option. 

 

I am having an IEP amendment meeting next week (re-scheduling from today b/c someone was sick at school) and it is to change my son's math b/c what I/we thought seemed really good last year has turned out not to work.  So we are changing the IEP. 

 

It is a pain and an extra appointment, but it is not stressful like "oh no will we make it to a certain place by the end of the year." 

 

So I think give it a try or look into it, see if you can get goals that you can change during the year, or goals with a wording where you can say "satisfactory progress" even if the goal is not met. 

 

Those are the mechanisms I have seen to show "hey, he is making progress, we have some appropriate programs, and he is doing very good for him." 

 

Also -- if there are records of what you are doing, that is part of what we have.  If we have a record saying "well, we did this every day for two months, and here is the incremental progress we saw" then even if on paper maybe it looks teeny tiny, then in the context of "well, we worked on it every day for two months" it can seem more like "satisfactory progress" than if it wasn't worked on or was barely worked on (maybe b/c we assumed he would pick it up a lot easier and not need to work on it daily).

Edited September 30, 2016 by Lecka

[Innisfree]

Yes, that all sounds so reasonable when you say it! :-)

 

I ought to give these people a call and see what's actually involved. I did get in touch last spring, but the idea paying for a basic consultation to know how the system worked put me off, and then as it turned out she passed the testing.

 

Thanks so much.

 

If anyone else has had experience with going the evaluation route, I'd be curious about your experiences.

[Crimson Wife]

 

I guess my worry is just that by establishing goals in a formal way ahead of time, we're setting ourselves up for failure if we can't meet them.

 

To me, this is hypocritical because my PS child has had goals be carried over from year-to-year when she made clear progress but didn't quite reach the IEP goal. For the 2nd half of K and 1st half of 1st one goal was for her to learn the first 50 Dolch sight words. She went from a baseline of maybe 8 to something like 37. Clear progress but the goal was not met. So they carried it over to the following year.

[Lecka]

Exactly!  They put "satisfactory progress" and the goal stays on the IEP the next year! 

 

Or maybe they go "oh, we need to spend more time on that."  Or "maybe if we use a different program it will be better."  Or maybe I complain.  If it is really not okay, then that is different.

 

But if everything seems okay, then yeah.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Lecka

[kbutton]

I think you need to find out exactly what evaluation means legally for your state. For my state, it means a teacher licensed in our state looks at work samples and says the child has made adequate yearly progress, and that is based on the child's capabilities, and where the child began and end. The baseline is, I think, beginning of the year to end of year progress. I believe that is one reason the law is worded that way. It's not only theoretically possible to have a child take longer developmentally, but also for a parent to decide their child is "ahead" and opt to just not really do school that year. This wording allows parents to make the calls but not opt out of educating their child.

Edited September 30, 2016 by kbutton

[Innisfree]

To me, this is hypocritical because my PS child has had goals be carried over from year-to-year when she made clear progress but didn't quite reach the IEP goal. For the 2nd half of K and 1st half of 1st one goal was for her to learn the first 50 Dolch sight words. She went from a baseline of maybe 8 to something like 37. Clear progress but the goal was not met. So they carried it over to the following year.

Yes, that has been my concern precisely. If she were in school, there would be no problem as long as everyone is working and progress is gradually being made. And, hopefully, that's how it would work with a homeschool evaluation too.

 

I guess I was just looking for reassurance from someone who has done this, because I'm really not interested in going through the process of having someone else come up with an education plan for me to follow. I'm satisfied with our materials, and I think we're making the best progress we can. I just hope that would be apparent to an evaluator, and I'm wondering if there really is value in starting the process at this time of year.

[Innisfree]

I think you need to find out exactly what evaluation means legally for your state. For my state, it means a teacher licensed in our state looks at work samples and says the child has made adequate yearly progress, and that is based on the child's capabilities, and where the child began and end. The baseline is, I think, beginning of the year to end of year progress. I believe that is one reason the law is worded that way. It's not only theoretically possible to have a child take longer developmentally, but also for a parent to decide their child is "ahead" and opt to just not really do school that year. This wording allows parents to make the calls but not opt out of educating their child.

 

I think you're right, and I'm just going to need to talk to the evaluator. It's just very vague. "Adequate yearly progress" is so completely dependent on the individual child and the standards of the individual evaluator. The vagueness has very positive aspects, as you cite, but it it very hard to know just what is required to meet that standard.

[kbutton]

I think you're right, and I'm just going to need to talk to the evaluator. It's just very vague. "Adequate yearly progress" is so completely dependent on the individual child and the standards of the individual evaluator. The vagueness has very positive aspects, as you cite, but it it very hard to know just what is required to meet that standard.

 

We can choose our own evaluators, which helps. You can kind of get a feel for whether they "get" kids with LDs or SNs, and whether or not they "get" homeschooling. I remember an acquaintance who is a teacher said to me that she doesn't get worried about my kids homeschooling because "I know you won't let them get behind." I have also heard her talk about how the homeschoolers she gets in her class are usually behind. Well, I don't ask her to evaluate my kids, lol! I would LOVE to have her perspective on whether they are "keeping up," and she is right in the sense that I will not allow my kids' education to be neglected, but what she doesn't understand is that there are many routes to the goal, and that "not letting them" might be as futile a thought as nailing jello to a tree. To her credit, she took me to heart (before we homeschooled and my son was in school) when I mentioned that perhaps the homeschoolers she had in class were kids that would have also struggled in school. But, she's too flip and glib about standards for me to feel comfortable with her signing off on what is essentially my CYA each year.

 

I also avoid evaluators who say things like, "anything you can do at home will be better than they could get in school." :-) 

 

If you have a choice in evaluators, ask around. I pay our evaluator more than the going rate so that I can sit and talk with them about some of the pros and cons of where we are and what we are doing vs. just having them view samples and give me their rubber stamp. I want them to let me know if they are concerned about an area, and I want to know if they think my plan of action takes into account the necessary factors.

[Innisfree]

Kbutton, thanks for this.

 

So, do you start talking with your evaluator fairly early in the year, in order to find out what they think before you're done and committed for the year? Maybe this isn't relevant, if you've used the same evaluator for several years.

[kbutton]

Kbutton, thanks for this.

 

So, do you start talking with your evaluator fairly early in the year, in order to find out what they think before you're done and committed for the year? Maybe this isn't relevant, if you've used the same evaluator for several years.

 

Sometimes--our latest one, I sort of did. I did a lot of listening to others about their experiences. Our first evaluator was a contact from when our son was in school (she offered, IIRC). I couldn't tell if she wanted to be our long-term go-to person, so I went with someone else year 2. I had reservations about her, and I should have listened to them. She signed our papers. She also gave me a heavy dose of "you do too much school at home" while asking me random questions and not listening to the answers (and even interrupting). I am open to a new perspective. I am not open to criticism that was based on strongly dogmatic ideas about homeschooling that took nothing of our lives into account. The last one we used was a tutor for our kids, and she has a background in spec ed and also has kids that are NT or gifted. That kind of fit our 2e needs pretty well. I don't know if we'll use her next or not as she found a better job situation for her family. 

 

If you have a choice of evaluators, I would ask other parents and keep your ear to the ground. If your state has a homeschool association, or you can find listings of homeschool groups, they are often good sources for finding a HS-friendly evaluator. I also find that secular homeschoolers seem to be less dogmatic and more pragmatic about this sort of thing because they are less likely to be homeschooling for purely religious reasons. I love my fellow Christian homeschool friends, but sometimes it can be kind of an insular group that hasn't explored other options. :-)