Low performance on high-stakes test drives special education referrals: A texas survey

Educational Forum

Volumn 68, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 126-132

  Fielding, Cheryl ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PAN AMERICAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 15244360848     PISSN: 00131725     EISSN: 19388098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00131720408984619     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Allington, R. L., A. McGill Franzen, and R. Schick. 1997. How administrators understand learning difficulties: A qualitative analysis. Remedial and special education 18(4): 223-32.
2. Cohen, M., and J. E. Heumann. 2001. Clarification of the role of the IEP team in selecting individual accom-modations/modifications in administration, and alternate assessments for state and district-wide assessments of student achievement. Washington, D.C.: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, United States Department of Education Memorandum. 12 January: 4.
3. Destefano, L., J. G. Shriner, and C. A. Lloyd. 2001. Teacher decision making in participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessment. Exceptional Children 68(1): 7-22.
4. Fielding, C. 2002a. Statewide survey results: Part I of II. The DiaLog 31(3): 8-12.
5. Fielding, C. 2002b. Statewide survey results: Qualitative items-Part II of II. The DiaLog 32(1): 8-16.
6. Fielding, C., and T. Overton. 2000. Educational diagnosticians and licensed specialists in school psychology: A collaborative effort. The DiaLog 30(1): 2-6.
7. Gay, L. R and P. W. Airasian. 2000. Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
8. Gordon, S. P., and M. Reese. 1997. High-stakes testing: Worth the price? Journal of School Leadership 7(4): 345-68.
9. Helton, G. B., B. A. Ray, and M. D. Biderman. 2000. Responses of school psychologists and special education teachers to administrative pressures to practice unethically: A national survey. Special Services in the Schools 16(1-2): 111-34.
10. IDEA Practices. 1997. Idea ’97 laws and regulations. Washington, D.C.: IDEA Partnerships. Available at: wunu.ideapraclices.org/law/index.php.
11. Irons, E. J., C. Fielding, L. Klos-Franks, B. Grubbs, and Y. K. Kim. 1999. Special education accountability: Truth and consequences. The DiaLog 28(3): 7-9.
12. Shriner, J. G. 2000. Legal perspectives on school outcomes assessment for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education 33(4): 232-39.
13. Texas Education Agency. 2000a. About TEA rules. Austin, Tex.: Office of Accountability Reporting and Research. Available at: www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/homeabout rules.html.
14. Texas Education Agency. 2000b. Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Title 19, Part II, Chapter 89. Adaptations for special populations. Austin, Tex. Available at: wzuw.lea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter089lch089d.html.
15. Texas Education Agency. 2001. Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Title 19, Part II, Chapter 101. Assessment. Austin, Tex. Available at: www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/lac/chap-ter’lO’l fch\01a.html.
16. Texas Education Agency. 2003. Welcome to the student assessment division. Austin, Tex. Available at: www.tea.state.tx.us/student. assessment/.
17. Texas Legislature Online. 2001. The Texas statutes. Austin, Tex. Available at: www.capitol.slate.tx.us/statules/statutes.html.
18. Ysseldyke, J., M. Thurlow, J. Bielinski, A. House, M. Moody, and J. Haigh. 2001. The relationship between instructional and assessment accommodations in an inclusive state accountability system. Journal of Learning Disabilities 34(3): 212-20