This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Katsiyannis, A. Articles by Jones, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

High-Stakes Testing and Students With Disabilities

Challenges and Promises

Clemson University

Dalun Zhang

Texas A&M University

Joseph B. Ryan

Clemson University

Julie Jones

Clemson University

The use of high-stakes testing has become an increasingly popular assessment for schools to use in demonstrating individual academic performance of students, and providingaccountability for school improvement. Given the potential negative consequences associated with mandatory testing (e.g., grade retention, withholding of high school diplomas, labeling failing schools), students, parents, and school districts all bear significant risks based upon student test scores. The historically poor performance of students with disabilities on these assessments has raised concerns over minimum standards, permissible test modifications, and alternate assessments. The authors provide a review of recent research literature, legislation, and court decisions pertaining to the use of high-stakes testing for students with special needs in support of : (a) federal legislation (i.e., No Child Left Behind and Individual With Disabilities Education Act), (b) Mandatory Competency Exams to determine grade promotion, and (c) Mandatory Exit Exams to meet graduation requirements.

References

• Alexander Noon et al. v. Alaska Department of Education and Anchorage School District, Case number A04-0057 CV.
• Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R., & Dauber, S.L. (1995). On the success of failure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Amrein, A.L., & Berliner, D.C. (2002). The impact of high-stakes tests on student academic performance: An analysis of NAEP results in states with high-stakes tests and ACT, SAT, and AP test results in states with high school graduation exams.: Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Education Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University. Retrieved August 3, 2005, from http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0211-126-EPRU.pdf
• 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Board of Education v. Ambach, 436 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1982).
• 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, 25, 141—152.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Brookhart v. Board of Education, 697 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1983 ).
• Browder, D., Spooner, F., Algozzine, R., Algrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., & Karvonen, M. (2003). What we know and need to know about alternate assessment. Exceptional Children, 70, 45—61.
• Buchmann, M. (1989). The script of life in modern society: Entry into adulthood in a changing world. Chicago: University of Chicago.
• Bump, C.M. (2005). Reviving the coercion test: A proposal to prevent federal conditional spending that leaves children behind. University of Colorado Law Review, 76, 521.
• Center on Education Policy. (2004, August). State high school exit exams: A maturing reform. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 3, 2005 from http://www.ctredpol.org/highschoolexit/ExitExamAug2004/ExitExam2004.pdf
• Chapman v. California Department of Education, 36 IDELR 91 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
• Debra P. v. Turlington, 644 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1981).
• Dunn, C., Chambers, D., & Rabren, K. (2004). Variables affecting students' decisions to drop out of school. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 314—324.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Elliott, S.N., & Marquart, A.M. (2004). Extended time as a testing accommodation: Its effects and perceived consequences. Exceptional Children, 70, 349—367.
• General Accounting Office. (2005). Most students with disabilities participated in statewide assessments, but inclusion options could be improved. Retrieved August 8, 2005, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05618.pdf
• Havner, R. (2005). Special ed: The next big challenge. Mobile Register. Retrieved August 16, 2005, from http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news
• Jimerson, S.R., Anderson, G.E., & Whipple, A.D. (2002). Winning the battle and losing the war: Examining the relationship between grade retention and dropping out of high school. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 441—457.[CrossRef]
• Johnson, E., & Arnold, N. (2004). Validating an alternate assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 266—275.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Johnson, D.R., & Thurlow, M.L. (2003). A national study on graduation requirements and diploma options for youth with disabilities (Technical Report No. 36). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 10, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Technical36.htm
• Johnson, D.R., Thurlow, M., Cosio, A., & Bremer, C.D. (2005). High school graduation requirements and students with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. Retrieved August 7, 2005, from http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1994
• Kampfer, S., Horvath, L.S., Kleinert, H.L., & Kearns, J. (2001). Teacher's perceptions of one state's alternate assessment: Implications for practice and preparation. Exceptional Children, 67, 361—374.
• Kelin, R., & Kurtz, M.B. (2003, May 7). House soften MCAS graduation rule. Boston Globe, p. B1.
• Krentz, J., Thurlow, M., Shyyan, V., & Scott, D. (2005). Alternative routes to the standard diploma (Synthesis Report 54). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 7, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis54.html
• Lewis, D. (2004). The FCAT is out of the bag: Prominent concerns regarding Florida's Comprehensive Assessment Test. Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy, 15, 313.
• MacMillan, D., Widaman, K., Balow, I., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Hendric, I., & Hemsley, R. (1992). Special education students exiting the educational system. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 20—36.
• Manset, G., & Washburn, S.J. (2000). Equity through accountability: Man-dating minimum competency examinations for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 160— 167.
• Meloy, L.L., Deville, C., & Frisbie, D.A. (2002). The effect of a read aloud accommodation on test scores of students with and without a learning disability in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 248—255.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Mooney, J. (2004, March 22). Disputed high school test tempts NJ leader. New Jersey Star-Ledger, p. 13.
• Olson, L. (2003, May 14). States debate exam policies for diplomas. Education Week, 22(36), 1.
• O'Neill, P.T. (2000). Pass the test or no diploma: High stakes graduation testing and children with learning disabilities. Retrieved August 10, 2005, from http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/assessment/oneill.html
• 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.
• O'Neill. P.T. (2003). High stakes testing law and litigation. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2003, 623.
• Owings, W., & Magliaro, S. (1999). Grade retention: A history of failure. Retrieved August 10, 2005, from http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/legal_legislative/grade_retention.html
• Pallas, A.M. (1993). Schooling in the course of human lives: The social context of education and the transition to adulthood in industrial society. Review of Educational Research, 63, 409—447.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Quenemoen, R.F., Lehr, C.A., Thurlow, M.L., Thompson, S.J., & Bolt, S. (2000). Social promotion and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges in developing state policies (NCEO Synthesis Report 34). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 10, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Synthesis34.html
• Rene v. Reed, 751 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
• Roach, A., Elliott, S., & Webb, N. (2005). Alignment of an alternate assessment with state academic standards: Evidence for the content validity of the Wisconsin alternate assessment. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 218—231.
• Rowe, J.R. (2004). High school exit exams meet IDEA—An examination of the history, legal ramifications, and implications for local school administrators and teachers. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2004, 75.
• Rumberger, R. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 583— 625.
• 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.
• State of Alaska. (2004). Alaska's students with disabilities can graduate without passing state exam. The Special Educator, 19(19), 7.
• Student 1 v. Driscoll, C.A. No. 02-30152-MAP (D. Mass. Sept. 19, 2002), re-filed, C.A. No. 03-0071 (Mass. Super. 2003).
• Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2001). 2001 State special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://edication.umn/nceo/onlinepubs/2001statererport.html
• Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2003). 2003 State special education outcomes: Marching on. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 3, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2003StateReport.htm
• Thorin, E.J., & Irvin, L.K. (1992). Family stress associated with transition to adulthood of young people with severe disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17, 31—39.
• Thurlow, M.L., & Johnson, D.R. (2000). High stakes testing for students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 289—298.[Free Full Text]
• Thurlow, M.L., Lazarus, S.S., Thompson, S.J., & Morse, A.B. (2005). State policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 232—240.
• Togut, T.D. (2004). High-stakes testing: Educational barometer for success, or false prognosticator for failure. Hartfield, VA: Harbor House Law Center, Inc. Retrieved August 10, 2005, from http://harborhouselaw.com/articles/highstakes.togut.htm
• 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, 69—76.
• U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Students with disabilities making great strides, new study finds (press release). Retrieved August 7, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/07/07282005.html
• Whitney-Thomas, J., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1996). Packing the parachute: Parents' experiences as their children prepare to leave high school. Exceptional Children, 63, 75—87.
• Yell, M.L., Katsiyannis, A., & Shriner, J.G. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, adequate yearly progress,and students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children 38 (4), 32—39.
• Ysseldyke, J., Dennison, A., & Nelson, R. (2003). Large-scale assessment and accountability systems: Positive consequences for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 51). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 3, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis51.html
• 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.

Journal of Disability Policy Studies, Vol. 18, No. 3, 160-167 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/10442073070180030401


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. J. Lewandowski, B. J. Lovett, and C. L. Rogers Extended Time as a Testing Accommodation for Students With Reading Disabilities: Does a Rising Tide Lift All Ships? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, December 1, 2008; 26(4): 315 - 324. [Abstract] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Katsiyannis, A. Articles by Jones, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?