Accommodations. (2002). Retrieved April 30, 2002, from University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes: http://www.coled.umn.edu/nceo/.
2.
Alternate assessments. (2002). Retrieved June 30, 2002, from University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes: http://www.coled.umn.edu/nceo/.
3.
BartonP. E. (1999). Tests, tests, tests. American Educator, 23 (2), 18–23.
4.
Cochran-SmithM. (2000). Gambling on the future. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (4), 259–261.
5.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1999). Fair and unfair testing accommodations. The School Administrator, 56, (10), 24–30.
6.
McColskeyW. H.McMunnN. (2000). Strategies for dealing with high-stakes state tests.Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (2), 115–120.
7.
National Education Association. (January 2001). Where the stakes are high for students. NEA Today.
8.
PitoniakM. J.RoyerJ. M. (2001). Testing accommodations for examinees with disabilities: A review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues. Review of Educational Research, 71 (1), 53–104.
9.
RoderickM.EngelM. (2001). The grasshopper and the ant: Motivational responses of low-achieving students to high-stakes testing. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23 (3), 197–227.
10.
ThurlowM. L.ElliottJ. L.YsseldykeJ. E. (1998). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.*
11.
ThurlowM. L.JohnsonD. R. (2000). High-stakes testing of students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (4), 305–314.
