Assessment of educational results for students with disabilities has been an element of nearly all recent reform, policy, and legislative activities. IDEA '97 includes specific provisions regarding the participation of students with disabilities in general education assessment of student progress at both the district and state levels. Historically, when legal issues regarding the relationship between students with disabilities and outcomes assessments have arisen, courts have said such assessments (e.g., minimum competency, exit exams) are allowable provided the student is provided (a) appropriate accommodations to demonstrate his or her skills and (b) adequate opportunity to learn the subject matter measured by such tests. As newer assessments of progress toward higher learning standards are adopted by districts and states, these issues are likely to be revisited. Additionally, IDEA '97 creates both opportunities and challenges regarding students with disabilities' partial participation in general state assessments, as well as alternate assessments of educational outcomes when appropriate. Policies regarding assessment of students with disabilities, seemingly, have outpaced practices and, perhaps, legal interpretations of their appropriateness when stakes are attached to student participation and performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
2.
Ayers, W., Day, G.F., & Rotatori, A.F. (1990). Legal, judicial, and IEP parameters of testing. In A. F. Rotatori , R. A. Fox, D. Sexton , & J. Miller (Eds.), Comprehensive assessment in special education: Approaches, procedures, and concerns (pp. 124-144). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
3.
Braden, J.P., Elliott, S.N., & Kratochwill, T.R. (1997). The performance of students with and without exceptional educational needs on performance assessment and multiple choice achievement measures. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research .
4.
Brookhart v. Illinois Board of Education, 534 F. Supp. 725 (C.D. Ill. 1983).
5.
Council for Exceptional Children. (1998). Focus on the IEP and assessment. Reston, VA: Author.
6.
Debra P. v. Turlington, 474 F. Supp. 244 (M.D. Fla. 1979), 644 F. 2d. 397 (5th Cir. 1981).
7.
DeStefano, L., & Metzer, D. (1991). High stakes testing and students with handicaps: Analysis of issues and policies. In R. E. Stake (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation (Vol. 1A, pp. 281-302). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
8.
Erickson, R., & Thurlow, M.L. (1997). 1997 state special education outcomes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
9.
Espin, C.A., Deno, S.L., & Albayrak-Kaymak, D. (1998). Individualized education programs in resource and inclusive settings. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 164-174.
10.
Freedman, M. (1998, Fall). Testing all children: Dealing with education reform, higher standards, and the requirements of IDEA 97. IDEA Newsletter, 1, 1-3.
11.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, U.S. Congress, 2nd Session.
12.
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, U.S. Congress, 2nd Session.
13.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
14.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1401-1485.
15.
Kearns, J.F., Naylor, S., Burdge, M., & Clayton, J. (1998, September). Alternate assessment in Kentucky. Paper presented at the IDEA Institute Series of the U.S. Department of Education, New Orleans.
16.
Kleinert, H.L., Kearns, J., & Kennedy, S. (1997). Accountability for all students: Kentucky's alternate portfolio assessment for students with moderate and severe cognitive disabilities . The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps , 22, 88-101.
17.
McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (Eds.). (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18.
McLaughlin, M.J. (1997). Special education in an era of school reform: An overview (Report commissioned by the Academy for Educational Development) . Washington, DC: Federal Resource Center.
19.
Osborne, A.G. (1994). Procedural due process rights for parents under the IDEA. Preventing School Failure, 39, 22-26.
20.
Osborne, A.G. (1996). Legal issues in special education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
21.
Phillips, S.E. (1993a). Update on testing accommodations: Part 1. National Council on Measurement in Education Newsletter, 2(1), 2, 6.
22.
Phillips, S.E. (1993b). Update on testing accommodations: Part 2. National Council on Measurement in Education Newsletter, 2(2), 2-3.
23.
Phillips, S.E. (1996). Legal defensibility of standards: Issues and policy perspectives. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 15, 5-13
24.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
25.
Roach, V., Dailey, D., & Goertz, M. (1997). Opening the door to educational reform: Understanding educational assessment and accountability. Boston: Federation for Children with Special Needs.
26.
Senate report of the Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments of 1997. Available: wais.access.gpo.gov
27.
Shriner, J.G., & Danielson L. (1997, October). Assessment of students with disabilities as part of education reform in the United States. Paper presented at the Invited Symposium on Education Reform in the United States and England and Wales (University of Cambridge, University of Maryland, and the U.S. Department of Education), Washington, DC.
28.
Shriner, J.G., Spande, G., & Thurlow, M.L. (1994). State special education outcomes 1993. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
29.
Shriner, J.G., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Thurlow, M.L. (1994). Standards for all American students. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26(5), 1-19.
30.
Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 406 (1979).
31.
Thurlow, M.L., Elliott, J., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1998). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements . New York: Corwin.
32.
Thurlow, M.L., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995). A compilation of states' guidelines for accommodations in assessment for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report No. 18). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
33.
U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Guidance on standards, assessments, and accountability. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
34.
Yell, M.L. (1998). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
35.
Yell, M.L., & Shriner, J.G. (1997). The IDEA Amendments of 1997: Implications for special and general education teachers, administrators, and teacher trainers . Focus on Exceptional Children, 30(1), 1-20.
36.
Ysseldyke, J.E., & Marston, D. (1992). The use of assessment information to plan instructional interventions: A review of the research. In T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (2nd ed., pp. 661-682). New York: Wiley .
37.
Ysseldyke, J.E., Olsen, K., & Thurlow, M. (1997). Issues and considerations in alternate assessments (Synthesis Report 27). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
38.
Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., McGrew, K., & Vanderwood, M. (1994). Making decisions about the inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments (Synthesis Report 13). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
39.
Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., & Shin, H. (1994). Opportunity to learn. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
