I also feel that students in minority schools are also at a disadvantage when taking the GHSGT. As with ESL students, these students have a very difficult time understanding some of the questions on the test because they are culturally biased. In addition, students in special education are having a difficult time passing the test as well. Not passing the test jeopardizes a child's future. When a child does not pass the test, all they get at graduation is a certificate of attendance. What can they do with a certificate of attendance you ask. NOTHING! You cannot go to college, trade school or the military. Heck, McDonalds wants all of their employees to have diplomas these days. So what can these students do? Many of them are becoming stick up kids. I think Georgia needs to come up with a viable alternative for our youth before we lose them all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Separate Tests
The following is a study I reported on from a CEPD class regarding an article in a journal. Do you believe students with any of the disorders in this study should be included in the Georgia testing? Why or Why Not?
A Study of Twins and Their Siblings
Journal Reaction
Reviewers using twins and their siblings to study the causes of six behavior orders regarding genetic and shared environment look at how genetics and shared environment influences the six disorders as noted below: (by identifying differences the gene ratio between the monozygotic (MZ) twins with dizygotic twins (DZ) which is 100% to 50% ratio) .
1. Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD),
2. Conduct Disorder (CD),
3. Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD),
4. Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD)
5. Separation Anxiety Disorder (SAD), and
6. Major Depressive Disorder (MDD).
According to Pulkkinen, Vaalamo, Hietala, Kaprio, and Rose (2003) in their findings in their general report, “indicates that individual twins and singletons are comparable for externalizing [which are ADHD, CD and ODD] and internalizing [GAD, SAD and MDD] problem behaviors which supports the hypothesis that findings related to these phenotypes from twin studies are likely to be applicable to the general population” (2).
This review is geared to a specific population [similar to Ehringer’s et al study of Colorado) located in Virginia conducted by Faraone and Doyle (2001) and Rhee and Waldman (2002) have highlighted several studies of ADHD reporting heritablities between 39 to 98%....In two studies, the Cardiff Birth Survey (Thapar et al., 1995, and the Virginia Twin Study of Adolescent Behavioral Development (VTSABD) (Evaes et al., 1997) the authors report evidence for competitive interaction between the twins” (Ehringer, et al 13).
According to the Angola et al, 1998 report many of the disorders which are diagnosed in adolescence are factors that can lead on into adulthood and studying the cause of these disorders in adolescents may serve as treatment for the causes of the diseases leading into adulthood and how to effectively treat these diseases in adolescence so that they will not lead into adulthood.
Educational Implications are children who exhibit these disorders and who go untreated which can cause serious problems in a class room environment. They may also become a liability to society. However, if these disorders can be diagnosed earlier and some type of treatment provided to these children, they may be able to lead a normal adult life.
When these twin studies are performed, the studies must take into account other factors these children may have been exposed to when performing the studies, i.e. teen pregnancy, teratogens, lack of nutrition, and PCBs et. al. When the studies are conducted and the samples are selected, the researches should have obtained information regarding participants to develop a treatment plan.
The investigators were Marissa A. Ehringer, Soo Hyun Rhee, Susan Young, Robin Corley and John K. Hewitt from the University of Colorado at Boulder. The Boulder Colorado report was defined for a specific population versus a general population. The findings were twin studies and the siblings according to prevalence rates for the six adolescent disorders are expected to increase with age for these disorders more. Some of these disorders differ between the sexes. “CD was significantly more prevalent in boys for all age groups for past year and lifetime symptoms. Whereas GAD, SAD and MDD were more prevalent for girls..” (7). Testing using the Biometrical Modeling for the externalizing disorder for ADHD were similar, and for the internalizing disorders of GAD and MDD. The testing for the MZ males and MZ females presented significant differences for the internalizing disorders (9).
The investigators concluded that genetics can influence the externalizing disorders of ADHD, CD and ODD. The internalizing findings were much more complicated, for genetics as well as shared environments had an influence on these disorders affecting anxiety and depressive behavior in adolescents (15).
This report used some data provided by the family members which may have been biased to some extent on some of the findings. For example under “Methods” the sample for the Longitudinal Twin Sample came from the Colorado Department of Health’s Division of Vital Statistics which was based on children in pre-adolescent from 12 and older (5). This is a sample of third party information also generally provided sometimes by parents (although some samples were gathered through Colorado’s school district).
How valid is this report? The report does not mention the classification of prenatal development in selecting its sample size. It mentions genetic effects, but it does not define if prenatal development (nutrition, exposure to teratogens, et. al) were inclusive. The report does not mention the background break down of the population i.e., middle class or impoverished children. How reliable is the information in this report because of some of the information was provided by parents and self-reports from participants? Perhaps this report’s focus could have been based around actual observation of these children in the living environment with an emphasis on the origin of the disorder and how to fix it to include corrective therapy under observation which could track and measure the adequacy of the therapy.
Notes:
The investigators were Marissa A. Ehringer, Soo Hyun Rhee, Susan Young, Robin Corley and John K. Hewitt from the University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder Colorado. Marissa A. Ehringer represented the following departments at the University of Colorado: Institute for Behavioral Genetics and Department of Integrative Physiology. She can receive correspondence at Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado 447 UCB, Boulder, CO., 80309-0447; or email: Marissa.Ehringer@colorado.edu.
Very interesting article about the various disorders and whether students with these disorders should be held to same testing standards as the rest of the population.
I think all students hsould be presented in standardized test within any department of education. But the value ot capturing these results is not to attain a certain score so we can show improvement or attainment of a certain score for purposes of meeting APY. The goal of including all students in whatever testing we require is to actually better understand the nature of our student population and the learning challenges they face. To use the results punitively is incorrect -- but to not gather results seems ridiculous. If we exempted students with ADHD/ADD we would be losing a rather significant segment of our population from the testing pool -- and what we really need to know, given that this pool seems to be increasing regularly, is how do we need to change our curriculum and teaching strategies to meet the needs of these students.
Post a Comment