One of the outcomes of regular education reform in Australia has been the development of a national testing program for school students. This article examines the degree to which students with a disability participate in this testing, and the extent to which the testing of students with a disability may help to achieve the National Goals of Schooling in this country. Several international comparisons with the Australian situation are made. A number of recommendations are made to facilitate the participation of students with a disability in national testing as a means of achieving the goal of educational equity for these students.
AhearnE.M. (2000). Synthesis Brief. Students with disabilities in state assessments: The NCEO state reports. Eric Document Reproduction Service, No. ED445433.
2.
AlbrechtS.F.JolesC. (2003). Accountability and access to opportunity: Mutually exclusive tenets under a high-stakes testing mandate. Preventing School Failure, 47(2), 86–91.
3.
Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). (2002). Literacy and numeracy national assessment testing program 2002: Principal's handbook. Sydney: Author.
4.
BechgerT.M.van SchootenE.de GlopperC.HoxJ.J. J. (1998). The validity of international surveys of reading literacy: The case of the IEA reading literacy study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24(2), 99–125.
5.
BoothT.AinscowM. (1998). Introduction. In BoothT.AinscowM. (Eds.), From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education (pp. 1–20). New York: Routledge.
6.
BoscardinM.L. (1997). The impact of special education legislation on schooling: A United States perspective. In MitchellD.KugelmassJ. (Eds.), The view finder: New models for re-forming special education (Vol. 4, pp. 4–11). Reston, VA: DISES.
7.
BrownR.L. (1997). Legislation in Australian special education intent and effect: The impact on child, family and teacher. In MitchellD.KugelmassJ. (Eds.), The view finder: New models for re-forming special education (Vol. 4, pp. 41–45). Reston, VA: DISES.
8.
BrunigesM. (2001, July). The relationship between assessment and curriculum in improving teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Australasian Curriculum Assessment and Certification Authorities Conference, Sydney.
9.
CarterC.GibbsG.GibsonR.GlogauL.OrpeJ. (2001, July). New Zealand National Certificate of Educational Achievement: Development progress in 2000–2001. Paper presented at the annual conference of ACACA. Retrieved June 6, 2003, from www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/manuals/pdf_doc/nzministry.pdf
10.
Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices (CISP). (1998). Including students with disabilities in accountability systems. Pittsburgh: Author.
11.
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). (2002a). School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP). An insert to the SAIP report on mathematics III assessment, 2001: Highlights from the report. Retrieved June 6, 2003, from www.cmec.ca/saip/math2001/public/highlights.en.pdf
12.
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). (2002b). The School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP). Writing assessment III. Information for parents and students. Retrieved June 6, 2003, from www.cmed.ca/saip/2002we/hdbk.parents.en.pdf
13.
DempseyI.ForemanP.JenkinsonJ. (2002). Educational enrolment of students with a disability in New South Wales and Victoria. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 49(1), 31–46.
14.
Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2002a). National Goals and Adelaide Declaration. Retrieved June 6, 2003, from www.dest.gov.au/schools
15.
Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2002b). The Adelaide Declaration on National goals for schooling in the twenty-first century. Retrieved June 6, 2003, from www.dest.gov.au/schools/adelaide/index.htm
Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2002d). Inquiry into the education of students with disabilities (Submission to the senate employment, workplace relations and education references committee). Retrieved June 6, 2003, from www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/eet_ctte/reports/index.htm
DoreR.WagnerS.BrunetJ.P. (1998). School integration of children with a disability in provinces and territories in Canada. Retrieved June 6, 2003, from www.cmec.ca/stats/pcera/compaper/98–44en.pdf
20.
DornS. (1998). The political legacy of school accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 6(1), 1–36.
21.
DysonA. (1997). Dilemmas, contradictions and democracy Models in the governance of special needs education in England and Wales. In MitchellD.KugelmassJ. (Eds.), The view finder: New models for re-forming special education (Vol. 4, pp. 12–19). Reston, VA: DISES.
22.
ElliotJ.L.HyeonsookS.ThurlowM.L.YsseldykeJ.E. (1995). A perspective on education and assessment in other nations: Where are students with disabilities?Washington, DC: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
23.
ElliotJ.L.ThurlowM.L. (1997). Opening the door to educational reform: Understanding educational assessment and accountability. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
FirestoneW.A.MayrowetzD. (2000). Rethinking ‘high stakes’: Lessons from the United States and England and Wales. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 724–749.
26.
FordA.DavernL.SchnorrR. (2001). Learners with significant disabilities: Curricular relevance in an era of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 214–222.
27.
ForemanP. (2001). Integration and inclusion in action. Sydney: Harcourt.
JonesR.W. (1999). The Third International Mathematics and Science Study: Anatomy of this international comparative study in science education. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 45(2), 27–37.
34.
KalyanpurM.HarryB. (1999). Culture in special education: Building reciprocal family-professional relationships. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
35.
KearnsJ.F.KleinertJ.L.KennedyS. (1999). We need not exclude anyone. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 33–38.
36.
KleinertH.L.HaigJ.KearnsJ.F.KennedyS. (2000). Alternate assessments: Lessons learned and roads to be taken. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 51–66.
37.
LabonD. (1999). Inclusive education at work: Students with disabilities in mainstream schools. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
38.
LingardT. (2000). Is the National Literacy Strategy raising the achievement of lower attainers?British Journal of Special Education, 27(3), 117–123.
39.
LokanJ. (1997). Overview of developments with the national statement and profiles to 1993. In LokanJ. (Ed.), Describing learning: Implementation of curriculum profiles in Australian schools 1986–1996 (ACER Research Monograph No. 50). Camberwell, Vic.: Australian Council for Educational Research.
MatlockL.FielderK.WalshD. (2001). Building the foundation for standards-based instruction for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5), 68–72.
43.
McDermottT.K.McDermottD.F. (2002). High-stakes testing for students with special needs. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(7), 504–5, 544.
44.
McLaughlinM.J.NoletV.RhimL.M.HendersonK. (1999). Integrating standards including all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(3), 61–71.
45.
McNeilL.M. (2000). Creating new inequalities: Contradictions of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 729–734.
46.
Ministerial Council of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2002). National report on schooling in Australia: Preliminary paper. National benchmark results: Reading and Numeracy: Years 3 and 5. Retrieved June 6, 2003, from www.curriculum.edu.au/mctyapdf/2000_benchmarks.pdf
47.
MitchellD. (1997). Special education legislation and policies in the context of education reforms: the New Zealand model. In MitchellD.KugelmassJ. (Eds.) The view finder: New models for re-forming special education (Vol. 4, pp. 20–25). Reston, VA: DISES.
48.
MitchellD.KugelmassJ. (1997). Introduction. In MitchellD.KugelmassJ. (Eds.) The view finder: New models for re-forming special education (Vol. 4, pp. 1–3). Reston, VA: DISES.
49.
National Centre for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2000). Mathematics and science in eighth grade: Findings from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000014
50.
National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). (2004). NCEA and the National Qualifications Framework. Retrieved May 27, 2005, from www.nzqa.govt.nz/publications
NoletV.McLaughlinM.J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. San Francisco: Thousand Oaks.
53.
O'LearyM. (2000, April 24–28). The effects of age-based and grade-based sampling on the relative standing of countries in international comparative studies of student achievement. Paper presented as the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
54.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2002). Participation rates. Retrieved June 6, 2003, from www.pisa.oecd.org
55.
PascoeS. (2001). Generic versus content-driven assessment. Paper presented at the 2001 annual conference for the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Certification Authorities. Retrieved December 16, 2002, from www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/manuals/pdf_doc/pascoe.pdf
QuenemoenR.F.LehrC.A.ThurlowM.L.MassanariC.B. (2001). Students with disabilities in standards-based assessment and accountability systems: Emerging issues, strategies and recommendations (NCEO Synthesis Report 37). Washington, DC: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
58.
RoachV.SalisburyC.McGregorG. (2002). Applications of a policy framework to evaluate and promote large-scale change. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 451–464.
SkrticT.M. (1995). The functionalist view of special education and disability: deconstructing the conventional knowledge tradition. In SkrticT.M. (Ed.), Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity (pp. 65–103). New York: Teachers College Press.
62.
SmithW.J.FosterW.F. (1997). Legal rights for students with disabilities: Indicators of legislative performance in Canada. In MitchellD.KugelmassJ. (Eds.), The view finder: New models for re-forming special education (Vol. 4, pp. 26–33). Reston, VA: DISES.
63.
StakesR.HornbyG. (2000). Meeting special needs in mainstream schools: A practical guide for teachers (2nd ed.). London: David Fulton Publishers.
64.
ThomasM.D.BainbridgeW.L. (2001). All children can learn: Facts and fallacies. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(9), 660–662.
65.
ThurlowM.BoltS. (2001). Empirical support for accommodations most often allowed in state policy (Synthesis Report 41). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Centre on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved December 16, 2002, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis41.html
66.
ThurlowM.L.NelsonR.J.TeelucksinghE.YsseldykeJ.E. (2000). Where's Waldo? A third search for students with disabilities in State accountability reports (Technical Report 25). Washington, DC: University of Minnesota.
67.
VanderwoodM.McGrewK.S.YsseldykeJ.E. (1998). Why we can't say much about students with disabilities during educational reform. Exceptional Children, 64(3), 359–370.
68.
WebsterB. JFisherD.L. (2000). Accounting for variation in science and maths achievements: A multi-level analysis of Australian data on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(3), 339–360.
69.
WedellK. (1997). The national curriculum, educational standards and the local management of English schools. In OECD (Ed.), Implementing inclusive education (pp. 154–162). Washington, DC: Author.
70.
WinstanleyC. (2001, July). Reporting and moderation processes for the New Zealand National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). Paper presented at the Annual ACACA conference. Retrieved December 12, 2002, from www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/manuals/pdf_doc/winstanley.pdf
YsseldykeJ.E.NelsonR.J. (1998). Enhancing communication: Desirable characteristics for state and district educational accountability reports (Synthesis Report No. 30). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Centre on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved December 12, 2002, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis30.html
73.
ZammitS.A.MeiersM.FrigoT. (1999). Assessment and reporting of student achievement for students with specific educational needs against literacy and numeracy benchmarks. Camberwell, Vic.: Australian Council for Educational Research.
