Connecticut experienced two major changes in testing policy for children with disabilities that played a major role in conclusions about educational progress in the state. First, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 required that all students with disabilities participate in grade-level, standardized tests. This movement of students deepened a crisis of stagnant and disparate achievement indicators. Policy reversed in 2007, when the federal Department of Education opened the door for modified assessments based on grade-level content and standards. When testing policy reversed, the exclusion of students with disabilities temporarily resolved this crisis by artificially inflating test results in math and reading. This article provides an overview of testing data from the Connecticut State Department of Education within its historical context. These fluctuations in standard test participation often linked closely with overall results and produced misinterpretations of educational and racial progress over time. Responses to these changes in testing policy make Connecticut an illuminating case regarding the problem of high-stakes testing and changes in policies for students with disabilities in a particular state characterized by deep racial and economic inequity. Rather than raising questions, moving children helped reinforce the legitimacy of high-stakes testing and nationally touted educational reforms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnninoP. G. (2007). Final regulations on school assessments: An attempt to align the NCLBA and IDEIA. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 31(6), 830–833). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20786408.
2.
AppleM. (2006). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
BerlinerD. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287–302).
5.
BlumenthalR. (2006). Why Connecticut sued the government over No Child Left Behind. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 564–569).
6.
BrowderD., Ahlgrim-DelzellL., FlowerC., KarvonenM., SpoonerF., & AlgozzineR. (2005). How states implement alternative assessments for students with disabilities: Recommendations for national policy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15(4), 209–220). doi:10.1177/10442073050150040301
7.
CawthonS. (2007). Hidden benefits and unintended consequences of ‘No Child Left Behind’ policies for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Education Research Journal, 44(3), 460–492). doi:10.3102/0002831207306760
8.
CochraneL., & BentonH. (2011, March 11). [Letter to CT State Department of Education, Bureau of Special Education]. Greater Hartford Legal Aid & Center for Children's Advocacy, Hartford, CT.
9.
Connecticut State Department of Economic and Community Development. (2013). Connecticut per capita income, median household income, and median family income at state, county, and town level: ACS 2013 data. Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/ecd/cwp/.
10.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (2004). Connecticut mastery test, third generation, summary performance results, grades 4, 6, and 8 [Online data set]. Retrieved from http://cmt3.cmtreports.com/.
11.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (2011). Connecticut Adequate Yearly Progress [Online database]. Retrieved from http://ctayp.emetric.net/.
12.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (2012). 2011 MAS Reading Final & 2011 MAS Math Final [Excel file]. Received from CT SDE on September 19, 2012 via e-mail.
Connecticut State Department of Education, Bureau of Special Education. (2011). Hartford public schools: Monitoring visit report. Retrieved from http://www.hartfordinfo.org/
16.
Conner LambeckL. (2011, August 4). Outside interests were working behind the scenes to reconstitute school board. The Connecticut Post. Retrieved from http://www.ctpost.com
17.
CottoR. (2012a). Addition through subtraction: Are rising test scores in Connecticut school districts related to the exclusion of students with disabilities?New Haven, CT: Connecticut Voices for Children.
18.
CottoR. (2012b). Understanding Connecticut's application for a waiver from the No Child Left Behind act. New Haven, CT: Connecticut Voices for Children.
19.
CubanL. (2010). As good as it gets: What school reform brought to Austin. Cambridge, MA, & London, England: Harvard University Press.
20.
Darling-HammondL., & Vasquez HeiligJ. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75–110). doi:10.3102/0162373708317689
ElliotS. N., KettlerR. J., & RoachA. T. (2008). Alternative assessments of modified achievement standards: More accessible and less difficult tests to advance assessment practices. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19(3), 140–152). doi:10.1177/1044207308327472
23.
FrahmR. (2005, March 29). Urban schools make gains in test scores: Over five years, gap shrinks between poor and middle-class regular education pupils. The Hartford Courant. Retrieved from http://courant.com.
24.
FrahmR. (2005, October 20). 4thgrade reading results take downturn. The Hartford Courant. Retrieved from http://courant.com
25.
FrahmR. (2006, March 3). Study says test scores going in wrong direction: Commissioner questions report's findings. The Hartford Courant. Retrieved from http://courant.com.
26.
Hartford Public Schools. (2010, July 15). Connecticut Mastery Test and Connecticut Academic Performance Test 2010 Preliminary results: Closing the achievement gap. Retrieved from http://www.shipmangoodwin.com/
27.
HehirT. (2006). New directions in special education: Eliminating ableism in policy and practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
28.
HoA. D. (2008). The problem with proficiency: Limitations of statistics and policy under No Child Left Behind. Educational Researcher, 37(6), 351–360). doi:10.3102/0013189X08323842
29.
HodgsonJ. R., LazarusS. S., & ThurlowM. L. (2010). Characteristics of states’ alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in 2009-2010 (Synthesis Report 80). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/
30.
KatsiyannisA., ZhangD., RyanJ. B., & JonesJ. (2007). High-stakes testing and students with disabilities: Challenges and promises. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(3), 160–167). doi:10.1177/10442073070180030401
31.
KennedyE. M. (2006). Forward. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 453–456).
32.
KoretzD. (2008). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge, MA, & London, England: Harvard University Press.
33.
LangenfeldK. L., ThurlowM. L., & ScottD. L. (1996). High stakes testing for students: Unanswered questions and implications for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report No. 26). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis26.htm.
34.
LazarusS. S., CormierD. C., & ThurlowM. L. (2011). States accommodations policies and development of alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards: A discriminant analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 301–308). doi:10.1177/0741932510362214
35.
LazarusS. S., ThurlowM. L., & EdwardsL. M. (2013). States’ flexibility plans for phasing out the Alternate Assessment Based on Modified Academic Achievement Standards (AA-MAS) by 2014-15 (Synthesis Report 89). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
36.
LazarusS. S., ThurlowM., LailK. E., & ChristensenL. (2009). A longitudinal analysis of state accommodations policies: Twelve years of change, 1993–2005. The Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 67–80). doi:10.1177/0022466907313524
37.
LeeJ. (2008). Is test-driven external accountability effective? Synthesizing the evidence from cross-state causal-comparative and correlational studies. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 608–644). doi:10.3102/0034654308324427
38.
LipmanP. (2004). Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York, NY, & London, England: Routledge Falmer.
39.
McGrewK. S., ThurlowM. L., & SpiegelA. N. (1993). An investigation of the exclusion of students with disabilities in national data collection programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3), 339–352). doi:10.3102/01623737015003339
40.
McSpadden McNeilL. (2005). Faking equity: High-stakes testing and the education of Latino youth. In ValenzuelaA. (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino youth. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
41.
MerrittG. E. (2009, July 30). Scores up for all but 10th-graders: Minority students narrow achievement gap. State's top educator sees need for high school reforms. The Hartford Courant. Retrieved from http://courant.com.
42.
MinnemaJ., & ThurlowM. (2003). Reporting Out-of-level test scores: Are these students included in accountability programs? (Out-of-Level Testing Project Report 10). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/onlinepubs/OOLT10.html.
43.
NagleK., YunkerC., & MalmgrenK. W. (2006). Students with disabilities and accountability reform: Challenges identified at the state and local levels. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17(1), 28–39). doi:10.1177/10442073060170010301
44.
NicholsS. L., & BerlinerD. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
45.
NicholsS. L., GlassG. V., & BerlinerD. C. (2006). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning?Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v14n1.2006.
46.
NicholsS. L., GlassG. V., & BerlinerD. C. (2012). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Updated analyses with NAEP data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(20). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v20n20.2012.
47.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107–110, §101, 601, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
RoachA., & ElliottS. (2006). The influence of access to general education curriculum on alternate assessment performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(2), 181–194). doi:10.3102/01623737028002181
50.
RothsteinR., JacobsenR., & WilderT. (2008). Grading education: Getting accountability right. Washington, DC, & New York, NY: Economic Policy Institute and Teachers College Press.
SchierberlM. J. (2014, January 9). [Letter to Robert Arnold, Special Education Director,Bridgeport Public Schools]. Connecticut State Department of Education, Bureau of Special Education, Hartford, CT.
53.
ShaftelJ., & RuttB. T. (2012). Characteristics of students who take an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(3), 156–167). doi:10.1177/1044207311424909
54.
SternbergB. (2006). Real improvement for real students: Test smarter, serve better. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 557–563).
55.
ThurlowM. (2002). Positive educational results for all students: The promise of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 195–202). doi:10.1177/07419325020230040201
U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2000 (NCES 2001-517). Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2000/2001517.pdf.
58.
U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). The Nation's Report Card: Fourth-Grade Reading 2000 (NCES 2001-499). Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2000/2001499.pdf.
59.
ValenzuelaA. (Ed.). (2005). Leaving children behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino youth. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
