Many students with disabilities (SWD) are not meeting proficiency, and achievement scores disaggregated by disability status show that SWD are often not meeting progress targets established by states. A survey was developed to collect data from 218 general and special educators to analyze trends in teachers’ attitudes and practices that may be affecting the educational experience and achievement of many SWD. Results of these analyses provide information regarding the attitudes of teachers toward the ability of SWD and the fairness and validity of high-stakes testing. Teachers’ attitudes toward the ability of SWD, teacher classification, and the amount of teacher training were all found to be predictors of the use of evidence-based practice. The attitude of teachers toward the ability of SWD to learn and achieve higher level thinking was found to predict proficient scores of SWD on the New England Common Assessment Program achievement test.
AlbrechtS.JolesC. (2003). Accountability and access to opportunity: Mutually exclusive tenets under high-stakes testing mandate. Preventing School Failure, 47, 86-91.
2.
AltmanJ. R.LazarusS. S.QuenemoenR. F.KearnsJ.QuenemoenM.ThurlowM. L. (2010). 2009 Survey of States: Accomplishments and new issues at the end of a decade of change. Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.
3.
American Educational Research Association. American Psychological Association, and National council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association: Washington, DC.
BiddleS. (2006, March). Attitudes in education: Assessing how teachers’ attitudes about inclusion of learning disabled students affects their use of accommodations. The Science Teacher, pp. 52-56.
6.
BrehmS. S.KassinS. M. (1996). Social psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
7.
BrophyJ. (1982). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations. East Lancing: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.
8.
BrophyJ.GoodT. L. (1970). Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for children’s classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 365-374.
9.
BrophyJ.GoodT. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
10.
BulgrenJ.MarquisJ.DeshlerD.SchumakerJ.LenzB. (2006). The instructional context of inclusive secondary general education classes: Teachers’ instructional roles and practices, curricular demands, and research-based practices and standards. Learning Disabilities, 4(1), 39-65.
11.
ChudowskyN.ChudowskyV.KeberN. (2009). State test score trends through 2007–08, Part 4: Has progress been made in raising achievement for students with disabilities?Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/studentswdisabilities.pdf
12.
CookB. G. (2001). A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward their included students with mild and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 203-213.
13.
CranoW.MellonP. (1978). Causal influence of teachers’ expectations on children’s academic performance: A cross lagged panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 169-182.
14.
CrawfordL.AlmondP.TindalG.HollenbeckK. (2001). Teacher perspectives on inclusion of students with disabilities in high-stakes assessments. Special Services in the Schools, 18, 95-118.
15.
CrawfordL.TindalG. (2006). Policy and practice: Knowledge and beliefs of education professionals related to the inclusion of students with disabilities in a state assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 208-217.
16.
CroninJ.DahlinM.XiangY.McCahon. (2009). The accountability illusion. Washingtion, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
17.
DarleyJ.FazioR. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35, 867-881.
18.
DeBardR.KubowP. K. (2002). From compliance to commitment: The need for constituent discourse in implementing testing policy. Educational Policy, 16, 387-405.
19.
DenoS.FuchsL.MarstonD.ShinJ. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507-524.
20.
DestefanoL.ShrinerJ.LloydC. (2001). Teacher decision making in participation of students with disabilities in large scale assessments. Exceptional Children, 68, 7-22.
21.
Disability Rights Advocates. (2001). Do no harm-high stakes testing and students with learning disabilities. Available from www.dralegal.org
22.
EllinsJ.PorterJ. (2005). Departmental differences in attitude to special educational needs in the secondary school. British Journal of Special Education, 32, 188-195.
23.
FletcherJ.FrancisD.BoudousquieA.CopelandK.YoungV.KalinowskiS.VaughnS. (2006). Effects of accommodations on high stakes testing for students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 136-150.
24.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?School Psychology Review, 22, 1-30.
25.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1996). Combining performance assessment and curriculum-based measurement to strengthen instructional planning. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 183-192.
26.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.EatonS. B.HamlettC.KarnsK. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65-85.
Harr-RobinsJ.SongM.HurlburtS.PruceC.DanielsonL.GaretM.. . . JacobsonJ. (2012). The inclusion of students with disabilities in school accountability systems (NCEE 2012-4056). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
29.
HornstraL.DennessenE.BakkerJ.van den BerghL.VoetenM. (2010). Teacher attitudes toward dyslexia: Effects on teacher expectations and the academic achievement of students with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 515-529.
30.
HumphreysL.StubbsJ. (1977). A longitudinal analysis of teacher expectation, student expectation, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 261-270.
31.
HurwitzJ.ElliotS.BradenJ. (2007). The influence of test familiarity and student disability status upon teachers’ judgments of students’ test performance. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 115-144.
32.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 2004, P. L. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. (2004).
JussimL.EcclesJ. (1992). Teacher expectations: II. Construction and reflection of student achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 947-961.
35.
KatsiyannisA.ZhangD.RyanJ. B.JonesJ. (2007). High-stakes testing and students with disabilities: Challenges and promises. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18, 160-167.
36.
KettlerR.NieblingB.MrochA.FeldmanE.NewellM.ElliotS.. . . BoltD. (2005). Effects of testing accommodations on math and reading scores: An experimental analysis of the performance of students with and without disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31, 38-48.
37.
KlehmM. (2013). High-Stakes Testing and Students With Disabilities: A Teacher Attitude Survey (HST-SWD). Teacher attitudes: The effects of teacher beliefs on teaching practices and achievement of students with disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rhode Island, Kingston.
38.
KoretzD. (1996). Using student assessment for educational accountability. In HanushekE. A.JorgensonD. W. (Eds.), Improving America’s schools: The role of incentives (pp. 171-195). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39.
LaVoieJ.AdamsG. (1973, May). Pygmalion in the classroom: An experimental investigation of the characteristics on teacher expectancy. Paper presented at the Midwest Psychological Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
40.
Lawrence-BrownD. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards-based learning that benefit the whole class. American Secondary Education, 32, 34-62.
41.
LevyH. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping every child reach and exceed standards. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 81, 161-164.
42.
McLeskeyJ.WaldronN. L. (2002). Inclusion and school change: Teacher perceptions regarding curricular and instructional adaptations. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 41-54.
43.
McTigheJ.BrownJ. (2005). Differentiated instruction and educational standards: Is détente possible?Theory Into Practice, 44, 234-244.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P. L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425.
46.
O’NeilP. (2001). Special education and high stakes testing for high school graduation: An analysis of current law and policy. Journal of Law & Education, 30, 185-222.
47.
ReidD. K.ValleJ. W. (1996). A Constructivist perspective from the emerging field of disability studies. In FosnotC. T. (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 150-171). New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
48.
RistR. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 40, 411-451.
49.
RockM. L.GreggM.EllisE.GableR. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31-47.
50.
RosenthalR. (1997, August16). Interpersonal expectancy effects: A 40 year perspective. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, Chicago, IL.
51.
RosenthalR.JacobsonL. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teachers’ expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
52.
SchuteA.VillwockD.WhichardS.StallingsC. (2001). High stakes testing and expected progress standards for students with learning disabilities: A five year study of one district. School Psychology Review, 30, 487-506.
53.
TaylorG.ShepardL.KinnerF.RosenthalJ. (2003). A survey of teachers’ perspectives on high-stakes testing in Colorado: What gets taught, what gets lost (CSE Report 588). Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Evaluation, Diversity, and Excellence, University of California.
54.
TomlinsonC. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences: Standards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58, 6-11.
55.
TomlinsonC. A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roper Review, 26, 188-189.
56.
VoglerK. (2002). The impact of high-stakes, state-mandated student performance assessment on teachers’ instructional practices. Education, 123(1), 39-51.
57.
WardM. J.MontagueN.LintonT. H. (2003). Including students with disabilities and achieving accountability: Educators’ emerging challenge (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED481111). Corpus Christi: Texas A&M University.
58.
WilliamsT. (1976). Teacher prophecies and the inheritance of inequality. Sociology of Education, 49, 223-236.
59.
WittrockM. C. (1986). Students thought process: Handbook of research on teaching. New York, NY: Macmillan.
60.
WoodrockS.VialleW. (2011). Are we exacerbating students’ learning disabilities? An investigation of preservice teachers’ attributions of the educational outcomes of students with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 223-241.
