It's not an absurd interpretation at all, Bruce.

The first two accommodations are common in many different settings, including
high stakes tests like the SAT and the ACT. A special location and extended
time are necessary for some children to be able to focus on the task, and in
some cases necessary to allow the other children to focus. It would be highly
tendentious to call either of those accommodations "cheating." Forcing a child
who can't cope with a normal testing environment (for example, because he
needs to get up and walk around every few minutes) to take a test in one
simply imposes a barrier that is irrelevant to the goal of the test (measuring
what the student knows or can do).

The open-book accommodation would appear to be where the real potential for
something that can reasonably be called cheating lies, if the test depends on
memorized facts more than on analysis, but under either interpretation this is
at the teacher's discretion.

And, of course, if the special-ed teacher is going beyond the specified
accommodations and actively helping the student, that would be cheating too,
but that would have nothing to do with the grammatical interpretation of the IEP.

Karl

Bruce Despain wrote:
> 
> 
> Susan,
> 
>  
> 
> My take on the matter is that the last phrase is meant to modify the
> last clause only.  Notice that the first two clauses share the same
> subject (he) and that the subject to the last clause is “tests.”  To
> make it have solely the meaning you want the phrase would have to end “…
> all at the teacher’s discretion.”   The fact that there is no comma
> before the phrase further suggests that there is contrast to a sentence
> adverbial intended.  However, that said, the whole spirit of the
> sentence suggests that it is indeed meant to relate to all these
> test-taking activities.  The teacher is being allowed to use her own
> discretion in just one aspect of test taking?  That seems absurd, as all
> these circumstances would seem to compromise the test taking environment
> in similar ways.  The fact that “discretion” is misspelled should
> suggest as well that the rule cannot be taken literally.  
> 
>  
> 
> Bruce  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Susan van Druten
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 04, 2009 1:43 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* syntax in a legal document
> 
>  
> 
> The IEP reads as follows: "He may take tests in the resource room, have
> extended time to complete them, and they may be open book per teacher
> discreation [sic]."  Is there any way the /per teacher discretion /line
> could be seen as modifying the entire sentence?    
> 
>  
> 
> I am the teacher who must give my tests to the special ed teacher who
> lets the students cheat on tests.  I'm looking for a loophole, so the
> IEP will have to be rewritten.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for any help!
> 
> Susan
> 
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list"
> 
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> 
> 
> 
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
> reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
> 
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list"
> 
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/