The article presents a longitudinal study of an urban charter middle school to examine the impact testing pressures can have on the education of students with disabilities and English language learners, and how this may lead to a narrowing of the content they are taught. The study examines various sources of data, including the school's evolving language, literacy, and math programs, high-stakes test results, school improvement plans, and written IEP goals. Over several years, as low test scores and failure to make AYP had an increasing impact on school life, skills specifically targeted on annual state tests became the guide for how math and literacy and language development were addressed. In effect, instruction in these areas became equated with test preparation. As ranges in proficiency led to ability grouping in pertinent courses, there was a narrowing of skills addressed in the lower-level classes that were entirely populated by students categorized as limited-English proficient and/or having a disability. In effect, this turned test preparation into the math and literacy curricula for these students, which in turn affected decisions regarding which skills would be addressed in students’ IEPs. Implications for schools, policy, and further research are suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbediJ. (2009). English language learners with disabilities: Classification, assessment, and accommodation issue. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 10(2), 1–30).
2.
AhearnE. (2006). Standards-based IEPs: Implementation in selected states. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
3.
AlbrittenD., MainzerR., & ZieglerD. (2004). Will students with disabilities be scapegoats for school failures?Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(3), 74–75).
Booher-JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: ‘Educational triage’ and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal42(2) 231–268).
6.
ColeC. (2006). Closing the achievement gap series: Part 3. What is the impact of NCLB on the inclusion of students with disabilities?Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.
7.
ConleyD. T. (2014). The Common Core State Standards: Insight into their development and purpose. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
8.
ConnorD. J., & FerriB. A. (2007). The conflict within: Resistance to inclusion and other paradoxes in special education. Disability & Society, 22(1), 63–77).
9.
DornS. (2010). The political dilemmas of formative assessment. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 325–337).
10.
EckesS. E., & SwandoJ. (2009). Special education subgroups under NCLB: Issues to consider. Teachers College Record, 11(11), 2479–2504).
11.
FisherD., FreyN., & AttaroC. (2013). The push to get there: A Common Core road map for higher student achievement across the disciplines. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, & Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
12.
GoodmanJ. F., & BondL. (1993). The Individualized Education Program: A retrospective critique. The Journal of Special Education, 26(4), 408–422).
13.
HallD., WienerR., & CareyK. (2003). What new “AYP” information tells us about schools, states, and public education. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
14.
HamayanE., & Freeman FieldR. (2006). English language learners at school: A guide for administrators, 2nd edition. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
15.
HardmanM. L., & DawsonS. (2008). The impact of federal public policy on curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 5–11).
16.
KoretzD. (2008). A measured approach. American Educator, Fall 2008.
17.
KreutzerR. C. (2004, January 1). Teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of Individual Education Plans (IEP) (ProQuest ETD Collection for FIU; Paper AAI3128608). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/dissertations/AAI3128608
18.
Lindholm-LearyK. J. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
19.
LinnR. L. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 3–13).
20.
MarchantG. J., PaulsonS. E., & ShunkA. (2006). Relationships between high-stakes testing policies and student achievement after controlling for demographic factors in aggregated data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(30), 1–34).
21.
MartinP. C. (2012). Misuse of high-stakes test scores for evaluative purposes: Neglecting the reality of schools and students. Current Issues in Education, 15(3).
22.
MenkenK. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy.Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
23.
MenkenK. (2009). Policy failures: No Child Left Behind and English language learners. In GroenkeS., & HatchA. (Eds.), Critical pedagogy and teacher education in the neoliberal era: Small openings. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
24.
OwensDD (2015). The origins of the Common Core: How the free market became public education policy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
25.
PerlsteinL. (2007). Tested: One American school struggles to make the grade. New York, NY: Macmillan.
26.
ShepardL. A. (2011). Assessment lessons from K-12 education research: Knowledge representation, learning, and motivation. 2011 Physics Education Research Conference 1413(1), AIP Publishing.
27.
SindelearN. W. (2006). Using test data for student achievement: Answers to ‘No Child Left Behind.’Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
28.
SmithK., & TeasleyM. (2014). The impact of Common Core State Standards on the school community. Children and Schools, 36(2), 67–69).
29.
ThurlowM. L. (2002). Positive educational results for all students: The promise of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 195–202).
30.
ThurlowM. L. (2014). Dispelling misperceptions: Shifting focus from whether standards-based reforms result in better outcomes to how they can result in better outcomes! A response to Ryndak et al. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(2), 154–155).
31.
TungR. (2013). Innovations in educational equity for English language learners. Voices in Urban Education, 37, 2–5).
32.
Van RoekelN. P. D. (2010). English language learners face unique challenges. National Education Association. Retrieved on February 3.
33.
VerdugoR. (2006). A report on the status of Hispanics in education: Overcoming a history of neglect. Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States. Human and Civil Rights. Retrieved from http://199.223.128.53/assets/docs/HE/ELL_Policy_Brief_Fall_08_(2).pdf
34.
VoltzD. L., & ForeC.III (2006). Urban special education in the context of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 27(6), 329–336).
35.
WrightW. E. (2006). A catch-22 for language learners. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 22–27).
36.
YellM. L., KatsiyannasA., & ShinerJ. G. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, adequate yearly progress, and students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 32–39).
37.
YsseldykeJ., NelsonJ. R., ChristensonS., JohnsonD. R., DennisonA., TriezenbergH., HawesM. (2004). What we know and need to know about the consequences of high-stakes testing for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(1):175–95).
