This study examined the results of students with disabilities participation in statewide exams reported by public schools in North Carolina from 2000—2001 to 2003—2004. Results included (a) students without disabilities significantly outperformed their peers with disabilities in each of four content areas (English 1, Algebra 1, Biology, and Physical Science); (b) among the four disability groups, students with learning disabilities (LD) and other health impairments (OHI) had comparable performance levels as both groups consistently outperformed peers with emotional/behavioral disorders (E/BD) or educable mental disabilities (EMD); (c) all groups showed measurable rates of improvement over the 4 years on the English 1 and Physical Science tests; and (d) students from economically advantaged school districts demonstrated significantly higher rates of success.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, J.A., Kutash, K., & Duchnowski, J.A. (2001). A comparison of the academic progress of students with EBD and students with LD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 106—115.
2.
Bakken, T., & Kortering, L. (1999). The constitutional and statutory obligations of schools to prevent students with disabilities from dropping out of school . Remedial and Special Education, 20, 360—366.
3.
Bolt, S.E., & Thurlow, M.L. (2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy: Synthesis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 141—152.
4.
Bradley, R., Henderson, K., & Monfore, D.A. (2004). A national perspective on children with emotional disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 211—223.
5.
Brolin, D.E., & Loyd, R.J. (2004). Career development and transition services: A functional life skills approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Merrill/Prentice Hall.
6.
Center on Education Policy. (2004). State high school exit exams: A maturing reform. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 3, 2005, from http://www.ctredpol.org/highschoolexit/ExitExam-Aug2004/ExitExam2004.pdf
7.
Chapman v. California Department of Education, 36 IDELR 91 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
8.
Defur, S.H. (2002). Education reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with disabilities: One state's approach. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 203—211.
9.
Elliott, J.L., Erickson, R.N., Thurlow, M.L., & Shriner, J.G. (2000). State-level accountability for the performance of students with disabilities: Five years of change? The Journal of Special Education, 34, 39—47.
10.
Elliott, J.L., & Thurlow, M.L. (2000). Improving test performance of students with disabilities on district and state assessments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
George, A., & Mallery, P. (2000). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
13.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. 20 U.S.C. § 614 et seq. (2004)(reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990).
14.
Johnson, D.R., Stodden, R., Emanuel, E., Luecking, R., & Mack, M. (2002). Current challenges facing secondary education and transition services: What research tells us. Exceptional Children, 68, 519—531.
15.
Johnson, D.R., & Thurlow, M.L. (2003). A national study on graduation requirements and diploma options (Technical Report 36). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, and University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
16.
Lehr, C.A., Johnson, D.R., Bremer, C.B., Cosio, A., & Thompson, M. (2004). Essential tools. Increasing rates of school completion: Moving from policy and research to practice. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.
17.
Manset, G., & Washburn, S.J. (2000). Equity through accountability: Mandating minimum competency examinations for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 15, 160—167.
18.
Martin, J.E., Marshall, L.H., & Sale, P. (2004). A three year study of middle, junior high, and high school IEP meetings. Exceptional Children, 70, 285—297.
19.
McLaughlin, M.J., & Thurlow, M. (2003). Educational accountability and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges. Educational Policy, 17, 431—451.
20.
New York State Education Department. (2003 ). Continuing the journey: The New York State post school indicators study. Retrieved August 8, 2005, from http://psocenter.org/state_profiles.html#ny
21.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 USC 70 § 6301 et seq. Retrieved March 7, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/index/az/index.html
22.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2003). National School Lunch Program: July 1, 2002—June 30, 2003.
23.
O'Neill, P.T. (2001). Special education and high stakes testing for high school graduation: An analysis of current law and policy. Journal of Law and Education, 30, 185.
24.
Public Schools of North Carolina. (2005). Reports of supplemental disaggregated state, school system (LEA), and school performance data. Retreived from http://disag.ncpublicschools.org
25.
Rene v. Reed, 751 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
26.
Rhoades, K., & Madaus, G. (2003). Errors in standardized tests: A systematic problem . Chestnut Hill, MA: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy.
27.
Schulte, A.C., & Villwock, D.N. (2004). Using high stakes tests to derive school-level measures of special education efficacy. Exceptionality, 12, 107—126.
28.
Schulte, A.C., Villwock, D.V., Whichard, S.M., & Stallings, C. (2001). High-stakes and expected progress standards for students with learning disabilities: A five-year study of one district. School Psychology Review, 30, 487—506.
29.
Schulte, A.L., Elliott, S.N., & Kratochwill, T.R. (2001). Effects of testing accommodations on standardized mathematics test scores: An experimental analysis of the performances of students with and without disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 527—547.
30.
Smith, T.E., & Hilton, A. (1994). Program design for students with mental retardation . Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 29, 3—8.
31.
Special Educator. (2004). A brief history of high-stakes testing challenges, interpretations. The Special Educator, 19(17), 7.
32.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33.
Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2001). State special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 7, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2001StateReport.html
34.
Thurlow, M.L. (2000). Standards-based reform and students with disabilities: Reflections on a decade of change. Focus on Exceptional Children , 32, 1—26.
35.
Thurlow, M.L. (2002). Positive educational results for all students . Remedial and Special. Education, 23, 195—202.
36.
Thurlow, M.L., Lazarus, S.S., Thompson, S.J., & Morse, A.B. (2005). State policies assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education , 38, 232—240.
37.
Turner, M.D., Baldwin, L., Kleinert, H.L., & Kearns, J.F. (2000). The relation of a statewide alternate assessment for students with severe disabilities to other measures of instructional effectiveness . The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 69—76.
38.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of Individuals with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Author.
39.
Ysseldyke, J., Dennison, A., & Nelson, R. (2004). Large-scale assessment and accountability systems: Positive consequences for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 51) . Washington, DC: National Center on Educational Statistics.
40.
Ysseldyke, J., Nelson, J.R., Christenson, S., Johnson, D.R., Dennison, A., Triezenberg, H., et al. (2004). What we know and need to know about the consequences of high-stakes testing for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 75—94.
