States and districts are required by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (Public Law 105-17) to have students with disabilities participate in state and district assessments and to report on their performance. High-stakes testing is a significant part of standardsbased reform and educational accountability. However, there are both intended and unintended consequences of high-stakes testing on students with disabilities. There is the potential for these assessments to result in many benefits for students with disabilities, but educators need to know about the ways to ensure that this happens. Participation on Individualized Education Plan teams, good decisions about accommodations and alternate assessments, and careful thought about diploma options and related issues can help students realize the benefits of high-stakes testing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allington, R. , & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992). Does high stakes testing improve school effectiveness?Spectrum, 10(2), 3-12.
2.
Bruininks, R. H., Thurlow, M. L., Lewis, D. R., & Larson, N. W. (1988). Postschool outcomes for students in special education and other students one to eight years after high school. In R. H. Bruininks, D. R. Lewis, & M. L. Thurlow (Eds.), Assessing outcomes, costs, and benefits of special education programs (Report No. 88-1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Department of Educational Psychology, University-Affiliated Program on Developmental Disabilities.
3.
Darling-Hammond, L. , & Falk, B. (1995). Using standards and assessments to support student learning: Alternatives to grade retention. In National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools and Teaching (Ed.), Reports to the chancellor’s committee on grade transition standards. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
4.
Edgar, E. (1987). Secondary programs in special education: Are many of them justifiable?Exceptional Children, 52(6), 555-561.
5.
Education Commission of the States . (1998). Designing and implementing standard based accountability systems. Denver, CO: Author.
6.
Education Commission of the States . (1999). Education accountability systems in 50 states. Denver, CO: Author.
7.
Elliott, J. L. , & Thurlow, M. L. (2000). Improving test performance of students with disabilities in state and district assessments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
8.
Elliott, J., Thurlow, M. L., & Ysseldyke, J. (1996). Assessment guidelines that maximize the participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments: Characteristics and considerations (Synthesis Report 25). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
9.
Gamaron, A. , & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research. Review of Education Research, 57(4), 415-435.
10.
Guy, B., Shin, H., Lee, S. Y., & Thurlow, M. L. (1999). State graduation requirements for students with and without disabilities (Technical Report 24). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
11.
Holmes, C. T. (1989). Grade level retention effects: A meta analysis of research studies. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 16-33). London: Falmer.
12.
Johnson, D. R. , McGrew, K., Bloomberg, L., Bruininks, R. H., & Lin, H. C. (1997). Results of a national follow-up study of young adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 8, 119-133.
13.
Koretz, D. M. , Barron, S., Mitchell, K. J., & Stecher, B. M. (1996). Perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information district (MR-792-PCT/FF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
14.
Lane, S. , Parke, C. S., & Stone, C. (1998). A framework for evaluating the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement, 17(2), 24-28.
15.
Langenfeld, K. L. , Thurlow, M. L., & Scott, D. L. (1997). High stakes testing for students: Unanswered questions and implications for students with disabilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
16.
Linn, R. L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(3), 5-16.
17.
Madaus, G. (1988). The influence of testing on the curriculum. In L. Tanner (Ed.), Critical issues in curriculum: 87th yearbook of the NSSE, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
McDonnell, L. , McLaughlin, M., & Morison, P. (1997). Educating one & all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy.
19.
McGill-Smith, P. (1992). Can’t get on the train without a ticket. Teaching Exceptional Children, 25(1), 49.
20.
McGrew, K., Thurlow, M. L., Shriner, J. G., & Spiegel, A. N. (1992). Inclusion of students with disabilities in national and state data collection programs (Technical Report 2). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
21.
Nelson, R. J. (1999). Closing or widening the gap of inequality? The intended and unintended consequences of educational accountability systems for students with disabilities. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota at Minneapolis, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
22.
Reardon, S. (1996, April). Eighth-grade minimum competency testing and early high school drop-out patterns. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
23.
Shriner, J. (2000). Legal perspectives on school outcomes assessment for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 232-239.
24.
Sinclair, M. , Christenson, S., Thurlow, M. L., & Evelo, D. (1994). Are we pushing students in special education to drop out of school?Research Policy Brief, 6(1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Research and Training Center on Residential Services and Community Living.
25.
Stake, R. (1999). The goods on American education. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 668-672.
26.
Thompson, S., Erickson, R., Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., & Callendar, S. (1999). Status of the states in the development of alternate assessments (Synthesis Report 31). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
27.
Thompson, S. , & Thurlow, M. (1999). 1999 state special education outcomes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
28.
Thurlow, M. L. , Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1998). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
29.
Thurlow, M. L. , House, A., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (in press). Students with disabilities in large-scale assessments: State participation and accommodation policies. Journal of Special Education.
30.
Thurlow, M. L. , & Thompson, S. J. (2000). Diploma options and graduation policies for students with disabilities (National Center of Educational Outcomes Policy Directions 10). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
31.
Thurlow, M. L. , Ysseldyke, J. E., & Anderson, C. L. (1995). High school graduation requirements: What’s happening for students with disabilities?Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
32.
U. S. Department of Education . (1999). Testing, teaching, and learning. Washington, DC: Author.
33.
Wagner, M. (1992). What happens next? Trends in postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. The second comprehensive report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students (ERIC Document Reproductions Service No. ED 356 603). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
34.
Wagner, M. , Newman, L., D’Amigo, R., Jay, E. D., Butler-Nalin, P., Marder, C., & Cox, R. (1991). Youth with disabilities: How are they doing?Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
35.
Why Johnny stayed home . (1997, October 6). Newsweek, 130, 14, 60.
36.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., McGrew, K., & Shriner, J. (1994). Recommendations for making decisions about the participation of students with disabilities in statewide assessment programs: A report on a working conference to develop guidelines for statewide assessments and students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 15). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
37.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., McGrew, K., & Vanderwood, M. (1994). Making decisions about the inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments: A report on a working conference to develop guidelines on inclusion and accommodations (Synthesis Report 13). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
38.
Zlatos, B. (1994). Don’t test, don’t tell: Is “academic red-shirting” skewing the way we rank our schools?The American School Board Journal, 191(11), 24-28.
