This article reports on findings from a review of statewide large-scale test blueprints. The qualitative and descriptive numerical review of themes found in state blueprints provides information on trends in statewide reading assessments. These trends are then set against the backdrop of testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Results indicate that most constructs tested in statewide assessments are amenable to accommodations, but some present challenges (e.g., those that test foundational skills of reading such as phonemic awareness). Next steps are proposed, focusing on both paper-based and computerized statewide tests.
AlgozzineB.WoodK. D. (1994). Reading and special education in the twenty-first century: Time to unify perspectives. In WoodK. D.AlgozzineB. (Eds.), Teaching reading to high-risk learners: A unified approach (pp. 1–8). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
2.
ArmbrusterB. B.LehrF.OsbornJ. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the U.S. Department of Education.
3.
Barton-ArwoodS. M.WehbyJ.FalkK. (2005). Reading instruction for elementary age students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Academic and behavioral outcomes. Exceptional Children, 72, 7–27.
4.
BiemillerA.SiegelL. S. (1997). A longitudinal study of the effects of the Bridge Reading Program for children at risk for reading failure. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 20, 83–92.
5.
BlachowiczC.OgleD. (2008). Reading comprehension: Strategies for independent learners. New York, NY: Guilford.
6.
BrowderD. M.XinY. P. (1998). The meta-analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 32(3), 130–153.
7.
CarverR. P. (1990). Reading Rate: A Review of Research and Theory. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace, Jovanovich.
8.
CattsH. (2009). The narrow view of reading promotes a broad view of comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 178–183.
9.
ClapperA.MorseA.LazarusS.ThompsonS.ThurlowM. (2005). 2003 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (NCEO synthesis report). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
10.
ClineF.JohnstoneC.KingT. (2006). Focus group reactions to three definitions of reading (as originally developed in support of NARAP goal 1). Minneapolis, MN: National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects.
11.
Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences in Education. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
12.
CrawfordP. (1995). Early literacy: Emerging perspectives. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10, 71–86.
13.
DillonD.O’BrienD. (in press). The role of motivation in designing large-scale reading comprehension assessments. Applied Measurement in Education.
14.
EdyburnD. L. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32, 1–24.
15.
GavelekJ. R.RaphaelT. E. (1996). Changing talk about text: New roles for teachers and students. Language Arts, 73, 182–192.
16.
GerstenR.FuchsL.WilliamsJ.BakerS. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320.
17.
GillonG. (2000). The efficacy of phonological awareness intervention for children with spoken language impairment. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 126–141.
18.
JohnstoneC.ThompsonS.ThurlowM.ClapperA. (2008). The potential for multi-modal approaches to reading for students with disabilities as found in state reading standards. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(4), 219–229.
19.
JohnstoneC.ThurlowM.AltmanJ.TimmonsJ.KatoK. (2009). Assistive technology approaches for large-scale assessment: Perceptions of teachers of students with visual impairments. Exceptionality, 17(2), 66–75.
20.
KatimsD. S. (2000). Literacy instruction for people with mental retardation: Historical highlights and contemporary analysis. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3–15.
21.
KluthP.Darmody-LathamJ. (2003). Beyond sight words: Literacy opportunities for students with autism. Reading Teacher, 56, 532–535.
22.
LaitusisC. C.CookL. L. (2008). Reading aloud as an accommodation for a test of reading comprehension. ETS Research Spotlight, 1(1), 15–20.
23.
LazarusS. S.ThurlowM. L.LailK. E.ChristensenL. (2009). A longitudinal analysis of state accommodations policies: 12 years of change, 1993–2005. The Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 67–80.
24.
LazarusS. S.ThurlowM. L.LailK. E.EisenbraunK. D.KatoK. (2006). 2005 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis rep. 64). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
25.
LincolnY.GubaE. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
MoatsL. C.LyonG. R. (1995). Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Topics in Language Disorders, 16(2), 73–86.
27.
NassajiH. (2007). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 57(1), 79–113.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
30.
No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
31.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2000). Program for International Student Assessment 2000. Paris: Author.
32.
PikulskiJ. J.ChardD. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. Reading Teacher, 58, 510–519.
33.
PinnellG. S. (2003). Extending the meaning of text: Going beyond the book in guided reading. In PinnellG. S.SharerP. L. (Eds.), Teaching comprehension in reading: Grades K-2 (pp. 185–210). Columbus: Literacy Collaborative at Ohio State University.
RobertsP. (1998). Extending literate horizons: Paulo Friere and the multi-dimensional word. Educational Review, 50, 105–114.
36.
SingletonJ. L.SupallaS.LitchfieldS.SchleyS. (1998). From sign to word: Considering modality constraints in ASL/English bilingual education. Topics in Language Disorders, 18(4), 16–29.
37.
SireciS. G.ScarpatiS.LiS. (2005). The effects of test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457–490.
38.
SnowC. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading comprehension. Arlington, VA: RAND.
39.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew Effects in Reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
40.
ThurlowM. L.JohnstoneC. J.ThompsonS. J.CaseB. (in press). Using universal design research and perspectives to increase the validity of scores on large-scale assessments. In KarchmerM. (Ed.), Assessing deaf students’ academic achievement in an age of accountability. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
41.
ThurlowM. L.LiuK. K.LazarusS. S.MoenR. E. (2005). Questions to ask to determine how to move closer to universally designed assessments from the very beginning, by addressing the standards first and moving on from there. Retrieved from www.readingassessment.info
42.
VaughnS.BosC.SchummV. (2004). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at risk students in the general education classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Longman.
43.
YoonJ.ParkM.CommeyrasM. (2002, May). A comparative study of symbolic reading: Salt Peddler and Shinbone. Current Issues in Education, 5(2). Retrieved from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume5/number2/
