Hawaii uses the Stanford Achievement Test, 8th Edition (Stanford 8), to assess the academic performance of students in Grades 3, 6, 8, and 10. Three longitudinal cohorts were analyzed for achievement performance among Grades 3 to 6, 6 to 8, and 8 to 10. ANOVAs indicated significant differences in overall performance between nondisabled students and three high-incidence categories of students with disabilities (specific learning disability, emotional impairment, and mild mental retardation). Local subgroup norms were developed on the basis of Stanford 8 reading and mathematics results from 1992 to 1996 to supplement the national norms and provide an additional means of comparison to evaluate performance for these categories. The longitudinal cohorts of students with disabilities made greater gains in achievement from third to sixth grade than their national counterparts and cohort of nondisabled students in Hawaii. Between 8th and 10th grade, students with learning disabilities and emotional impairments made gains equal to or greater than their national counterparts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Algozzine, B. (1993). Including students with disabilities in systemic efforts to measure outcomes: Why ask why? In J. L. Ysseldyke & M. L. Thurlow (Eds.), Views on inclusion and testing accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 7). Minneapolis, MN: National Center for Educational Outcomes.
2.
Americans With Disabilities Act of (1990), 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq.
3.
Bond, L. A., & Roeber, E. D. (1995). The status of state assessment programs in the United States (Annual Report). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
4.
Brandon, P. (1984). Hawaii public school students' results on the Stanford Achievement Test: A followup to the Native Hawaiian Educational Assessment Project Final Report (Office of Program Evaluation and Planning Report No. 84–85: 18). Honolulu, HI: Kamehamena Schools/Bishop Estate, Office of Program Evaluation and Planning.
5.
Brandon, P. R., & Jordan, C.Gender differences favoring Hawaii girls in mathematics achievement: Recent findings and hypotheses. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 1994, 26(1), 18–21.
6.
Brandon, P. R., Jordan, C., & Higa, T. A. (1995). Why Hawaii girls outperform Hawaii boys on mathematics tests: Suggestions about the influence of immigration and native Hawaiian peer culture. In P. Rogers & G. Kaiser (Eds.), Equity in mathematics education: Influences on feminism and culture (pp. 98–108). London: The Falmer Press.
7.
Brandon, P. R., Newton, B. J., & Hammond, O. W. (1987). Children's mathematics achievement in Hawaii: Sex differences favoring girls. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 427–461.
8.
Brown, L., & Bryant, B. R. (1984). The why and how of special norms. Remedial and Special Education, 4, 52–61.
9.
Chin-Chance, S. A., Gronna, S. S., & Jenkins, A. A. (1996a, March). Assessing special education students in a norm referenced statewide testing program: Hawaii State Department of Education. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards Assessing Special Education Students Consortium, Washington, DC.
10.
Chin-Chance, S. A., Gronna, S. S., & Jenkins, A. A. (1996b, June). Who are we assessing? Determining participation rates for students with disabilities in a norm referenced statewide testing program: Hawaii State Department of Education. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards Assessing Special Education Students Consortium, Minneapolis, MN.
11.
Crouse, J., & Trusheim, D. (1989). Five challenges for the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Educational Digest, 54, 26–28.
12.
Fischer, R. J. (1994). The Americans with Disabilities Act: Implications for measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 13(3), 17–25.
13.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103–227, 108 Stat. 125 (1995).
14.
Gronna, S. S., Jenkins, A. A., & Chin-Chance, S. A. (1997, March). Creating local norms to evaluate students in a norm-referenced statewide testing program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
15.
Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (1994). Exceptional children: Introduction to special education.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
16.
Hawaii Department of Education. (1993). Program standards and guidelines for special education and special services in Hawaii (Publication No. RS-93–3664). Honolulu: Author.
17.
Hawaii Department of Education. (1996a). State testing office statistics. Honolulu: Author.
18.
Hawaii Department of Education. (1996b). The Superintendent's sixth annual report on school performance and improvement in Hawaii (Publication No. RS-96–8270). Honolulu: Author.
19.
Heim, M. (1994). SAT scores and what? The Kamehameha Journal of Education, 5, 83–88.
20.
Hishinuma, E. S. (1995). WISC-III accommodations: The need for practitioner guidelines, journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 130–135.
21.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of (1990, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400–1485.
22.
Koehler, P. H. (1993). Inclusion and adaptation in assessment of special needs students in Arizona. In J. L. Ysseldyke & M. L. Thurlow (Eds.), Views on inclusion and testing accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 7, pp. 11–18). Minncapolis, MN: National Center for Educational Outcomes.
23.
McGrew, K. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (1996, January). Research questions on accommodations for students with disabilities in large-scale assessment programs. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards Assessing Special Education Students Consortium, Tampa, FL.
24.
Microsoft Corporation. (1996). Microsoft Office for Windows 95 (Version 7.0) [Computer software]. Redmond, WA: Author.
25.
National Center for Educational Outcomes. (1994). State special education outcomes: A report on state activities in the assessment of educational outcomes for students with disabilities.Minneapolis, MN: Author.
26.
The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1992). School reform: Opportunities for excellence and equity for individuals with learning disabilities, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 276–280.
27.
Nunnally, J. C. (1972). Educational measurement and evaluation (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
28.
Overton, T. (1996). Assessment in special education: An applied approach (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
29.
Petersen, N. S., Kolen, M. J., & Hoover, H. D. (1989). Scaling, norming, and equating in educational measurement. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 221–262). New York: Macmillan.
30.
Phillips, S. E.High stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 1994, 7(2), 93–120.
31.
Phillips, S. E. (1995). All students, same test, same standards: What the new Title 1 legislation will mean for the educational assessment of special education students, Oakbrook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
32.
Powell, B., & Steelman, L. C.Bewitched, bothered and bewildering: The use and misuse of state SAT and ACT scores. Harvard Educational Review, 1996, 66(1), 27–59.
33.
The Psychological Corporation. (1992a). The Stanford achievement test (8th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Author.
34.
The Psychological Corporation. (1992b). Stanford Achievement Test Series: Technical data report (8th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Author.
35.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U. S. C. § 794, § 504.
36.
Reschly, D. J. (1993). Consequences and incentives: Implications for inclusion/exclusion decisions regarding students with disabilities in state and national assessment programs. In J. L. Ysseldyke & M. L. Thurlow (Eds.), Views on inclusion and testing accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 7, pp. 35–46). Minneapolis, MN: National Center for Educational Outcomes.
37.
Reynolds, M. (1993). Inclusion and assessment at the margins. In J. L. Ysseldyke & M. L. Thurlow (Eds.), Views on inclusion and testing accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 7, pp. 47–63). Minneapolis, MN: National Center for Educational Outcomes.
38.
Sax, G. (1997). Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
39.
Scott, S. S. (1990). Coming to terms with the “otherwise qualified” student with a learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 398–405.
40.
SPSS Inc. (1996). SPSS for Windows 95. (Version 7.0) [Computer software]. Chicago: Author.
41.
Thurlow, M. L., Erickson, R., & Danielson, L. C. (1996, April). Future directions in research and practice: Results for special education. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Orlando, FL.
42.
Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Silver-stein (1995). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 260–270.
43.
Voyles, L C. (Ed.). (1996). States act to include students with disabilities in standards. CEC. Today, 3(3), 1–9.
44.
Wallace, G., Larsen, S. C., & Elskin, L. K. (1992). Educational assessment of learning problems: Testing for teaching (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
45.
What is Goals2000: The Educate America Act? (1994, Fall). Teaching Exceptional Children, pp. 79–80.
46.
Ysseldyke, J. E. (1996, January). Issues in including students with disabilities in statewide assessment and accountability systems. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards Assessing Special Education Students Consortium, Tampa, FL.
47.
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Thurlow, M. L. (Eds.). (1993). Views on inclusion and testing accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 7). Minneapolis, MN: National Center for Educational Outcomes.
