[DOWNLOAD FIRST DRAFT IN WORD FORMAT, WITH COMMENTS FROM PROF. WOO]
[DOWNLOAD FIRST DRAFT IN WORD FORMAT (ORIGINAL, UNEDITED VERSION]
[DOWNLOAD EDITED ARTICLE IN WORD FORMAT]

When Ryan Smiley failed the high school exit exam this year, he took the California Department of Education to court. Smiley is dyslexic and needs special aids to help him with the exam. Unfortunately for him and other disabled students, he was denied those accommodations last March.

Along with two other students and the Learning Disabilities Association of California (LDA-CA), he filed a suit against the California Department of Education in a federal court in San Francisco. They allege that the department discriminates against students with disabilities by not providing them with special accommodations guaranteed by Federal law.

The law ensures that students with disabilities get all the help they need throughout their educational lives, by providing them with aids like calculators, spell checks and audiotapes. Some disabled students study under programs like the Individualized Education Program (IEP) or "Section 504." Designed to cater to the students special needs, the programs' curriculum differs from that of the mainstream schools.

When Smiley and his parents met teachers to discuss the exam last year, they were told that he would be allowed to use full accommodations on all the tests. But the family was never informed on how to request those accommodations. All Smiley was told in class was that he would be taking the exam in a separate room and would be allowed extra time. But when Smiley sat down for the exams, not only was he prevented from using accommodations, he was also tested on material he had not studied such as algebra.

One of the reasons for this could be the confusion over the implementation of the test itself. Doug Stone, spokesperson for the California Department of Education, recalls that untill two days before the exams the department, districts and schools did not know if the exam for ninth graders was a practice run or the real thing.

"My sense is that school and district personal focused only on getting the students to take the test," said Stone. "So the districts probably did not dot every i."

As a result, only 18 percent of special education students passed the English part. Even fewer, 9 percent, passed the ath portion of the exam. This result has alarmed parents and teachers alike. Fred Drier, Principal Palo Alto High School said that "certain students do require special attention. Unless the state provides accommodations these students will loose out."

Daunna Minnich, of the Palo Alto based Community Advisory Committee for Special Education, also predicts trouble ahead.

"The exam tests the students disabilities rather than their education," she said. " There is a real fear that it will hurt students from lower socio-economic backgrounds more than those students whose parents can afford to be good advocates."

The department had put forward some proposals last month for accommodations that would be in line with the students' IEP or Section 504. These accommodations included large print versions of the tests, audio presentations, mechanical or electronic assistance and transcribers. But the Board of Education disagreed with some aspects of these recommendations.

Said Stone, "The board and department have different perspectives on the means, but agree on the ends."

The board says that use of accommodations would interfere with the test's measurements of students' abilities to read and write., So this November it voted to prohibit students from using calculators, spell checks, audiotapes and other aids. Critics like the LDA-CA said that the decision was made hastily, without research and seeking the advice of experts and educators.

To add fuel to fire, say critics, the board has opted for a waiver policy under which a student can get permission to take the exam with the otherwise prohibited accommodations. But when the student passes the exam the school district will have to request the board to discount the exam. The LDA-CA calls this proposal "bizarre, confusing and convoluted." The board is to convene in December to further discuss the waiver proposals.

The districts are hoping that a decision is reached soon so they can start preparing for the next exams in March 2002. Meetings have been scheduled with testing administrators and principals to plan for them. Said Cynthia Pino, Associate Superintendent Educational Services of the Palo Alto Unified School District, "We do know that there is a lot of discussion going on between the board and the department, hopefully a decision will be reached soon."

In the meantime all Smiley and his co-plaintiffs can do is wait for the case hearing, scheduled for Dec 14. Juleus Chapman, who is one of the dyslexic plaintiffs, will be taking the exams next year. Like Smiley he needs special facilities such as a word processor and spell check.

"If they are going to test me without giving me the accommodations I need, it'll be really unfair," he said in a court document. "Its going to be very difficult for me to show them what I've learned and what I can do."