While musing recently on the tragic events of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks on New York, Pennsylvania and Washington DC, I got to thinking about what was happening in the world of dyslexia 20 years ago, and wondering if we have made any progress in the years since. Looking back at the ORBIDA Newsletter, Spring 2001, I noted that the lead article is titled: “Landmark Lawsuit Settled. Settlement in favor of Oregon’s dyslexia students, Federal case prevents high-stakes tests being used against students with learning disabilities.” Now that sounds like a significant event.

As a reminder, the ASK (Advocates for Special Kids) lawsuit was brought in 1999 by long time ORBIDA member, Cathy Wyrick on behalf of all students in Oregon with Learning Disabilities. It grew out of concerns by several Portland Public Schools parents that the “high stakes” in a new education testing law would unfairly hurt their students with learning disabilities. (At that time, we couldn’t use the word dyslexia). Many of these parents were ORBIDA members. She found an attorney to take the case through IDA. The lead Attorney for Disability Rights Advocates had given a presentation at the IDA conference in San Francisco about winning a case to ensure appropriate accommodations for students with Learning Disabilities at Boston University.

At the time, the Oregon Department of Education was implementing a set of laws to standardize educational quality across the state and to raise standards for passing new statewide tests on reading, writing, and math. The stated goal was to better inform universities and employers about the knowledge base and skills represented by an Oregon high school diploma. These laws were Oregon’s version of a nationwide push for high stakes educational reform. A key component was the concept of high stakes consequences for failure to meet each level. The law decreed that failure on any of these tests at grades 3, 5, 8 or 10 would have serious penalties for the struggling student. These high-stakes penalties included: being retained in grade (even in 8^th grade), denied sports or other extra-curricular participation, denied access to advanced classes, and denied acceptance at state universities.

The law also reorganized high school into two levels: CIM (Certificate of Initial Mastery) which students were supposed to pass at grade ten followed by a CAM (Certificate of Advanced Mastery) which would be the equivalent of a High School Diploma.

The idea of high standards sound good, but as is often the case with new laws there can be consequences that are not considered until some damage has been done. Disability Rights Advocates took the case to establish a precedent showing that all these laws were illegal under IDEA because the needs of students with disabilities had not been included and the states had not ensured that all students were being adequately taught.

Luckily, Edie Wyrick’s middle school was a pilot school for the new 8^th grade test scoring, thus presenting a preview of what would happen when the system was fully implemented. Edie, in common with many dyslexic students, had great abilities to express her written ideas in terms of content and style, but failed miserably at spelling. The writing portion was a pencil and paper hand written test, and spelling and conventions accounted for 40% of the score. Edie’s IEP documented her spelling disability, and in the classroom accommodations section specified that she should not be judged on her spelling unless she had the opportunity to use a computer based spell checker or a proof reader. Edie however, was not allowed to use a spell checker on this writing assessment and predictably, failed to pass the pilot test.

Red flags went up immediately for Edie’s mother Cathy, who anticipated that a failing grade on the “live” standardized test called the CIM (Certificate of Initial Mastery), could limit her daughter’s access to higher level AP classes, potentially a high school diploma and admission to an Oregon University.

Cathy reached out to Disability Rights Advocates, who took the case and filed the class action ASK suit in February 1999 contending that the civil and educational rights of students with disabilities were being violated by the OSAS (Oregon State Assessment System).

After almost two years of negotiations in Federal Court, a settlement was reached. It was based on a DRA proposal for recommendations from a neutral Blue Ribbon Panel. This panel included experts in special education and educational measurement appointed by both sides. In Summary, the underlying principles of the Blue Ribbon Report included the following seven points:

1.     Students with learning disabilities should be provided a statewide assessment option that leads to the CIM. (Certificate of Initial Mastery)

2.     The State should not directly assess a student's learning disability.

3.     Accommodations that are on a student's IEP or 504 plan should be allowed unless

4.     Problem Resolution and an Appeals Process should be a three-tiered approach that incorporates both formal and informal problem solving.

5.     Purposeful and systematic training for both parents and school personnel should be conducted

6.     On-going research and study should be continued, specifically in the area of psychometric analysis assuring the reliability, validity, and fairness for State tests for students with learning disabilities.

7.     The Oregon Assessments should not be used for high stakes consequences for students. (The State agreed to a policy to prohibit these as part of the settlement).

In response to the ASK lawsuit and to this day, ODE (Oregon Department of Education) has continued to work toward implementing assessment tools with accommodations that are aligned to a set of standards of student performance. In large part because of the ASK case, the Oregon Statewide Assessment System (OSAS), has become one of the most inclusive, thorough and thoughtful assessment systems in the country because of its deliberate process for determining research-based accommodations for students with disabilities.

Probably the biggest changes now 20 years after ASK however, have occurred because of the steady progress schools have made in adapting teaching and assessment to the realities of computer based technologies. For instance, now that summative assessments are computer based, handwriting is not an issue and all students can access spell checkers that highlight misspellings just as we do in the world of work. Our students with print disabilities have greater access to the wonderful reading, writing and spelling software that they can use in the classroom and on assessments, and Oregon students have a wide variety of alternative ways beyond standardized testing to prove what they know and can do.

Many thanks go to Cathy and Edie for getting the ball rolling on this important discussion of inclusion and equity for all students! We also know Cathy as the founder twenty years ago, with Dorothy Whitehead, of the Blosser Center for Dyslexia Resources, Oregon’s first accredited program to train tutors and teachers in the Orton Gillingham method. Cathy currently serves as director of Northwest Dyslexia Resources.