Local Option Competency Testing: Conceptual Issues with Mildly Handicapped and Educationally At-Risk Students

Abstract

Conceptual issues arising from the use of minimum competency tests (MCT) with mildly handicapped and at-risk students are examined in this paper, with a focus on local option states. Permission to modify testing procedures for handicapped students and to establish competence by different standards may be unfair to at-risk students. Reciprocity among districts is also examined as a potential impetus for ''shopping” to find a district with standards that can be met. Modified testing procedures are examined in terms of the unknown consequences of specific modifications and the possibility that such modifications may change the difficulty of the tests. These conceptual issues must be considered as the practice of using MCTs with handicapped and at-risk students might well have unanticipated adverse effects on careers of students functioning marginally in the public schools.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Balow

I.H.

MacMillan

D.L.

, & Hendrick

I.G

. (1986). Local option competency testing: Psychometric issues with mildly handicapped and educationally marginal students. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 32–37.

California State Department of Education. (1980). Proficiency assessment in California. Sacramento: Author.

Cawelti

. (1978). National competency testing: A bogus solution. Phi Delta Kappan, 59, 619–621.

Cohen

S.B.

Safran

, & Polloway

. (1980). Minimum competency testing: Implications for mildly retarded students. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 15, 250-255.

Committee on Policy Research (August 23, 1985). The dropout problem in California. Sacramento: Author.

Diana v. State of Education. Civil Action No. C-70-37 (N.D. Cal., 1970).

Dunn

L.M

. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded—Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35, 5-22.

Fisher

T.H

. (1978). Florida's approach to competency testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 59, 599–602.

Forness

S.R

. (1985). Effects of public policy at the state level: California's impact on MR, LD, and ED categories. Remedial and Special Education, 6 (3), 36–43.

10.

Glass

G.V

. (1979). Looking at minimal competency testing. Education and Urban Society, 12, 47–55.

11.

Grossman

H.J

. (Ed.). (1973). Manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.

12.

Hall

Griffin

Cronin

, & Thompson

. (1985). Factors related to competency test performance for high school learning disabled students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7, 151–160.

13.

Larry

. V. Wilson Riles. Civil Action No. 71-2270 (N.D. Cal., 1971).

14.

MacMillan

D.L.

Hendrick

I.G.

, & Watkins

A.V

. (1988). Impact of Diana, Larry R, and PL 94–142 on minority students: A reinterpretation. Exceptional Children, 54, 426–432.

15.

McCarthy

M.M

. (1983a). The application of competency mandates to handicapped children. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 146–164.

16.

McCarthy

M.M

. (1983b). Minimum competency testing for students: Educational and legal issues. Educational Horizons, 61, 103–110.

17.

Palardy

J.M

. (1984). An analogy for reviewing promotion/retention and minimum competency decisions. Education, 104, 401–404.

18.

Pipho

. (1980). State minimum competency testing programs: Analysis of state minimum competency testing programs. Final report. Denver: Education Commission of the States, Department of Research and Information Services, 65 pages.

19.

Polioway

E.A.

, & Smith

J.D

. (in press). Current status of the mild mental retardation construct: Identification, placement, and programs. In M.C. Wang, M.C. Reynolds, & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice. Oxford, Eng.: Pergamon Press.

20.

Pullin

. (1982). Minimum competency testing, the denied diploma and the pursuit of educational opportunity and educational adequacy. Report. Grant NIE CSE-R-180. Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles.

21.

Serow

R.C

. (1984). Effects of minimum competency testing for minority students: A review of expectations and outcomes. The Urban Review, 16 (2), 67–75.

22.

Singer

, & Balow

. (1987). Proficiency and its consequences. Final Report. California Policy Seminar, Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

23.

Smith

J.D.

, & Jenkins

D.S

. (1980). Minimum competency testing and handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 46, 440–443.

24.

Zigler

, & Balla

. (Eds.). (1982). Mental retardation: The developmental-difference controversy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.