Professionals with expertise in assessment and diverse learners are in demand to assist in developing and implementing large-scale assessment and accountability systems. This article highlights aspects of current federal legislation that pertain to the development of these systems, describes the areas of expertise and unique perspectives of educational diagnosticians, school psychologists, and special educators that can be used to inform best practice, and emphasizes where additional training is needed to assist educational personnel in taking on new roles. Given the enormous impact that these systems are likely to have on educational agencies, it is argued that individuals with assessment skills and diverse learner expertise must take an active role to ensure the best possible outcomes for all students as these systems are implemented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Council for Exceptional Children, (2003). What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines for special educators. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved September 22, 2005, from http://www.cec.sped.org/bk/catalog2/Red_book_5th_edition.pdf
2.
Grimes, J., & Kums, S. (2003, December). An intervention-based system for addressing NCLB and IDEA expectations: A multiple tiered model to ensure every child learns. Paper presented at the 2003 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness to Intervention symposium, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved December 23, 2004 , from http://www.nrcld.org/html/symposium2003/grimes/index.html
3.
Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2003). An experimental analysis of accommodation decisions on large-scale mathematics tests. Exceptional Children, 69, 211-225.
4.
Final Regulations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 20 U.S.C §300 et seq. (1999).
5.
Iowa Department of Education. (2002). The Iowa professional development model. Des Moines : Author. Retrieved December 23, 2004, from http://www.state.ia.us/educate/ecese/tqt/tc/doc/ipdm02.html
6.
Kratochwill, T.R., & Shemoff, E.S., (2003). Evidence-based practice: Promoting evidence-based interventions in school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly18, 389-408.
7.
National Association of School Psychologists, ( 2000a). Principles for professional ethics. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved September 22, 2005, from http://www.nasponline.org/pdf/ProfessionalCond.pdf
8.
National Association of School Psychologists, ( 2000b). Standards for training and field placement programs in school psychology. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved September 22, 2005, from http://www.nasponline.org/certification/FinalStandards.pdf
9.
National Center for Learning Disabilities, ( 2005). No Child Left Behind: Understanding assessment options for IDEA-eligible students. Retrieved September 22, 2005, from http://www.ld.org/NCLB/pdf/AssessmentOptions.pdf
10.
National Research Council. (1999). Testing, teaching, and learning: A guide for states and school districts. Committee on Title I Testing and Assessment, R. F. Elmore and R. Rothman (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. §1001 et seq.
12.
Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., Moen, R., Thompson, S. & Morse, A.B. (2004). Progress monitoring in an inclusive standards-based assessment and accountability system (Synthesis Report 53). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved September 22, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis53.html
13.
Quenemoen, R., Lehr, C., Thurlow, M., Thompson, S., & Bolt, S.E. (2000). Social promotion and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges in developing state policies (Synthesis Report No. 34) . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved December 23, 2004, from http://www.education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis34.html
14.
Reschly, D. (2000). The present and future status of school psychology in the United States. School Psychology Review, 29, 507-522.
15.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2004). Assessment in special and inclusive education (9th ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co.
16.
Schulte, A.G., Elliott, S.N., & Kratochwill, T.R. (2001). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations on students' standardized achievement test scores. School Psychology Review, 30, 527-547.
17.
Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Technical Report 34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes . Retrieved December 23, 2004, from http://www.education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical34.htm
18.
Thompson, S., Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (2001). Alternate assessments for students with disabilities . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press .
19.
Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. (1999). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center.
20.
Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged: Final Rule, Dec. 2, 2002, 34 C.F.R. §200 et seq. # (2002)
21.
Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged: Final Rule, Dec. 9, 2003, 34 C.F.R. §200 et seq # (2003)
22.
U.S. Department of Education, (2005). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance. Retrieved September 22, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/altguidance.doc
23.
Wehmeyer, M.L., Lattin, D.L., Lapp-Rincker, G., & Agran, M. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262-272.
