Questions related to the inclusion of students with disabilities in the Oregon statewide assessment program were sent to 1,201 special education teachers and 625 principals representing Grades K—12. Teachers and principals responded positively to questions probing their knowledge of statewide policy and their understanding of how to acquire information from the state education department related to test policy. A significant difference between teachers and principals existed on numerous policy questions. Differences were also found between principals and special education teachers on questions related to the usefulness of test results in guiding instructional programs and improving school accountability efforts; on these questions, teachers consistently responded less favorably than principals. Both groups felt that very few parents understood individual test reports for their children.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abrams, L.M., Pedulla, J.J., & Madaus, G.F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers' opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 18—29.
2.
Albrecht, S.F., & Joles, C. (2003). Accountability and access to opportunity: Mutually exclusive tenets under a high-stakes testing mandate. Preventing School Failure, 47, 86—91.
3.
Baker, E.L. (2003). From usable to useful assessment knowledge: A design problem (CSE Report 612). Los Angeles: University of California—Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
4.
Bolt, S., Krentz, J., & Thurlow, M. (2002). Are we there yet? Accountability for the performance of students with disabilities (Technical Report 33). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved July 16 from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical33.htm
5.
Carter, S.C. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty schools. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
6.
Cimbricz, S. (2002). State-mandated testing and teachers' beliefs and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2), 1—22.
7.
Cizek, G.J. (2005). High-stakes testing: Contexts, characteristics, critiques, and consequences. In R. P. Phelps (Ed.), Defending standardized testing (pp. 23—54). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
Conley, D.T. (2003). Who governs our schools? Changing roles and responsibilities . New York: Teachers College Press .
9.
Cook, B.G., & Schirmer, B.R. (2003). What is special about special education? Overview and analysis. The Journal of Special Education , 37, 200—204.
10.
Crawford, L., Almond, P., Tindal, G., & Hollenbeck, K. (2001). Teacher perspectives on inclusion of students with disabilities in high-stakes assessments. Special Services in the Schools, 18(1/2), 95—118.
11.
DeBard, R., & Kubow, P.K. (2002). From compliance to commitment: The need for constituent discourse in implementing testing policy. Educational Policy , 16, 387—405.
12.
Dorn, S. (2004, October). Sideways policy analysis: An historian looks at high-stakes testing. Paper presented at the National Academy of Education Fellows Retreat, Tempe, AZ.
13.
Elmore, R.F., & Fuhrman, S.H. (2001). Holding schools accountable: Is it working?Phi Delta Kappan,83, 67—72.
14.
Feuerstein, A., & Dietrich, J.A. (2003). State standards in the local context: A survey of school board members and superintendents. Educational Policy, 17, 237—256.
15.
Firestone, W., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 95—113.
16.
Fuhrman, S.H. (2003). Redesigning accountability systems for education (Policy Brief No. RB-38). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
17.
Grant, S.G. (2001). An uncertain lever: Exploring the influence of state-level testing on teaching social studies. Teachers College Record, 103, 398— 426.
18.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
19.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, H.R. 1350. Retrieved December 27, 2004, from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/z?c108:h.1350.enr
20.
Kampfer, S.H., Horvath, L.S., Kleinert, H.L., & Farmer Kearns, J. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of one state's alternate assessment: Implications for practice and preparation . Exceptional Children, 67, 361—374.
21.
Koretz, D.M., & Barton, K. (2003). Assessing students with disabilities: Issues and evidence (CSE Report 587). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
22.
Koretz, D., Mitchell, K., Barron, S., & Keith, S. (1996). The perceived e fects of the Maryland school performance assessment program (CSE Report 409). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
23.
Mabry, L., Poole, J., Redmond, L., & Schultz, A. (2003). Local impact of state testing in Southwest Washington . Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(22), 1—35.
24.
Marshall, C., & Patterson, J.A. (2002). Confounded policies: Implementing site-based management and special education policy reforms. Educational Policy, 16, 351—386.
25.
Mazzeo, C. (2001). Frameworks of state: Assessment policy in historical perspective. Teachers College Record, 103, 367—397.
26.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425.
27.
Olson, L. (2004, January 8). Enveloping expectations. Education Week, 23, 8—20.
28.
Smith, M.L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8—11.
29.
Stecher, B.M., Barron, S., Kaganoff, T., & Goodwin, J. (1998). The e fects of standards-based assessment on classroom practices: Results of the 1996—97 RAND survey of Kentucky teachers of mathematics and writing (CSE Report 482). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
30.
Stecher, B., & Borko, H. (2002). Combining surveys and case studies to examine standards-based educational reform (CSE Report 565). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
31.
Stecher, B., & Chun, T. (2001). School and classroom practices during two years of education reform in Washington state (CSE Report 550). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
32.
Taylor, G., Shepard, L., Kinner, F., & Rosenthal, J. (2003). A survey of teachers' perspectives on high-stakes testing in Colorado: What gets taught, what gets lost (CSE Report 588). Santa Cruz: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Diversity, and Excellence.
33.
Vogler, K. (2002). The impact of high-stakes, state-mandated student performance assessment on teachers' instructional practices. Education, 123(1), 39—51.
