What we know and need to know about the consequences of high-stakes testing for students with disabilities

Exceptional Children

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 75-94

  Ysseldyke, Jim ^a,d   Nelson, J Ruth ^b,c   Christenson, Sandra ^a,d   Johnson, David R ^a,e,f   Dennison, Amanda ^a,e   Triezenberg, Heidi ^a,e   Sharpe, Michael ^a,e   Hawes, Maureen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b Bethel College   (United States)

^c BETHEL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Assessment and Accreditation Committee   (United States)

^e Institute on Community Integration   (United States)

^f Institute on Community Integration ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 16244396099     PISSN: 00144029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/001440290407100105     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1992). Strategies and tactics for effective instruction. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
2. Allington, R., & McGill-Franzen, A (1992). Unimended effects of reform in New York Educational Policy, 6(4), 397-414.
3. Altheide, D. L. (1996). Qualitative media analysis. London: Sage.
4. Asimov, N. (2003, March 3). Disabled students call test unfair; state high school exit exam forcing them out of classroom, some say. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1.
5. Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determination. American Psychologist, 33, 344-358.
6. Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What's at stake in high-stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 384-397.
7. Benton, J. (2003, March 3). A lesson in consequences: Texas' effort against social promotion faces a test: TAKS scores to dictate who moves on, but exceptions are possible. The Dallas Morning News, p. 1A
8. Bond, L. A., & King, D. (1995). State high school graduation testing: Status and recommendations. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
9. Braden, J. P. (2002). Best practices for school psychologists in educational accountability: High stakes testing and educational reform. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 301-321). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
10. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
12. Christenson, S., Picklo, D., & Triezenberg, H. (2003, August). Consequences of using assessment information to make grade advancement decisions. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
13. Christenson, S. L., &: Sheridan, S. M. (2001). School and families: Creating essential connections for learning. New York: Guilford Press.
14. Chudowsky, N., & Behuniak, P. (1998). Using focus groups to examine the consequential aspect of validity. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 17(4), 28-38.
15. Cimbricz, S. (2002). State-mandated testing and teacher's beliefs and practice [Electronic version]. Education Policy Analysis, 10(2), 1-21. Retrieved June 23, 2002, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v2010n2002.html
16. Cizek, G. (2001). More intended consequences of high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(4), 19-27.
17. Clarke, M., Haney, W, & Madaus, G. (2000). High stakes testing and high school completion. The National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy Statements, 1(3), 1-11.
18. Council for Exceptional Children (2003, October 29). No Child Left Behind Act makes "no sense" for students with disabilities, say special education teachers. Reston, VA: Author.
19. Darling-Hammond, L., & Falk, B. (1995). Using standards and assessments to support student learning: Alternatives to grade retention. In National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching, Report to the Chancellor's Committee on Grade Transition Standards. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
20. Defur, S. H. (2002). Education reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with disabilities: One state's approach. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 203-211.
21. DeStefano, L., Shriner, J. G., & Lloyd, C. A. (2001). Teacher decision making in participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments. Exceptional Children, 68, 7-22.
22. Downs, A. (2000, October 1) Special ed, MCAS a troubling mix. The Boston Globe, p. C5. Retrieved July 23, 2002, from http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe/ document?_ansset=GeHauKO-EZYRMsSEZYRUUA
23. Draper, N. (2000, May 30). Suburban special-ed kids make gains on skills tests; Fears are proving unfounded that learning-disabled students would have trouble passing. The Star Tribune, p. 1B.
24. Erickson, R. N., Thurlow, M. L, & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1996). Neglected numerators, drifting denominators, and fractured fractions: Determining participation rates for students with disabilities in statewide assessment programs (Synthesis Report No. 23). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 3, 2002, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis23.html
25. Filbin, J. (2002). No more field trips on test days: How students with disabilities benefit from the CSAP. Inside Special Education, 3(2), 2. Retrieved July 15, 2002, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/download/pdf/ INSIDE_Fall2001.pdf
26. Firestone, W A., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000). Rethinking "high stakes": Lessons from the United States and England and Wales. Teachers College Record, 102, 724-749.
27. Fortini, M. E., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2000). The universal design for promoting self-determination. In R. A. Villa & J. S. Thousand (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzle together (2nd ed., pp. 575-589). Baltimore: P. H. Brookes.
28. Frase-Blunt, M. (2000). High stakes testing a mixed blessing for special students. Today, 7(2), 1, 5, 7, 15.
29. Glaser, R., & Silver, E. (1994). Assessment, testing, and instruction: Retrospect and prospect. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
30. Gloeckler, L. C. (2001). The door to opportunity: Let's open it for everyone. State Education Standard, 2, 21-25.
31. Gottlieb, R. (2002, September 30). 'A' is for anxiety; parents are becoming increasingly concerned about the effects of high-stakes testing. The Hartford Courant, p. A1.
32. Gray, C. (2000, September 18) School lag in disability program; LEAP exams bring out flood of students with special needs. The Times-Picayune, p. 1.
33. Haladyna, T. H., Nolan, S. B., & Hass, N. S. (1991). Raising standardized achievement test scores and the origins of test pollution. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 2-7.
34. Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41). Retrieved January 20, 2002, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41
35. Hartocollis, A. (2001, February 28). High school dropout rate rises, and Levy fears new test will bring huge surge. The New York Times, p. B6.
36. Hauser, R. M. (1997). Indicators of high school completion and dropout. In R. M. Hauser, B. V. Brown, & W. R. Prosser (Eds.), Indicators of children's well-being (pp. 152-184.) New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
37. Hayward, E. (2001, April 2). MCAS jitters spur schools to reduce student stress. The Boston Herald, p. 4.
38. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
39. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17, 20 Stat. 1401 (1999).
40. Johnson, D. R., & Thurlow, M. L. (2003). A national study on high school graduation requirements and diploma options for youth with disabilities (Tech. Rep. No. 36). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
41. Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 199-203.
42. Kellaghan, T., Madaus, G. F., Raczek, A. (1996). The use of external examinations to improve student motivation. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
43. Koff, S. (2002, May 11). Graduate rate rises for students with disabilities. Plain Dealer, p. A6.
44. Kossan, P. (2000, November 22). Keegan backs off AIMS requirement. Arizona Republic, p. A1. Retrieved July 9, 2002, from http://www.azcentral.com
45. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46. Lane, S., & Stone, C. A. (2002). Strategies for examining the consequences of assessment and accountability programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 23-30.
47. Mathews, J. (2000, August 1). The downside of high-stakes tests; state exams intended to raise graduation standards causing some students to drop out. The Washington Post, p. A09.
48. Mehrens, W. A. (1998). Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 6(13).
49. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50. National Center for Fair and Open Testing, & Coalition for Authentic Reform in Education. (2000, September). MCAS Alert: Making the Massachusetts dropout crisis worse. Retrieved July 8, 2002, from http://www.fairtest.org/care/ MCAS%20Alert%20Sept.html
51. Neill, M., & Gayler, K. (2001). Do high-stakes graduation tests improve learning outcomes? Using state-level NAEP data to evaluate the effects of mandatory graduation tests. In G. Orfield & M. L. Kornhaber (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education (pp. 107-126) New York: Century Foundation.
52. Nelson, J. R. (2002). Closing or widening the gap of inequality: The intended and unintended consequences of Minnesota's Basic Standards Tests for Students with Disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
53. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
54. Oakes, J. (1986). Keeping track, part I: The policy and practice of curriculum inequality. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 12-17.
55. Oakes, J. (1995). Two cities' tracking and within-school segregation. Teachers College Record, 96, 681-693.
56. O'Day, J., & Smith, M. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy (pp. 250-312). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
57. Olson, L. (2001, June 6). States turn to end-of-course tests to bolster high school curriculum. Education Week, 39. [Electronic version].
58. Packer, J. (2003, October 27). Speech at the annual meeting of the AREA, Organization of Institutional Affiliates, Washington, DC.
59. Pappano, L. (2002, March 31). Pupils feel the pressure on MCAS. The Boston Globe, p. B6.
60. 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 (Synthesis Report No. 34). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved December 15, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis34. html
61. Quintanilla, R. (2002, January 8). 5-year high school idea is back: Daley endorses option to trim rate of dropouts. The Chicago Tribune, p. 1.
62. Rothman, R. (1996). Taking aim at testing. American School Board Journal, 183(2), 27-30.
63. Rudavsky, S. (2002, December 15). Advocates for special needs rap mandate. The Boston Globe, p. B17.
64. Schulte, A., 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.
65. Sharpe, M. N., & Hawes, M. E. (2003). The intended and unintended consequences of large-scale assessments on the development of individualized education plans (Tech. Rep. No. 1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.
66. Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K. C. (1991, April). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
67. Should test results of special-education students be treated the same as test results from other students? (2003, March 4). The Plain Dealer, p. A2.
68. Sinclair, M., Christenson, S., Thurlow, M., & Evelo, D. (1994). Are we pushing students in special education to drop out of school? Research Policy Brief, 6(1). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Research and Training Center on Residential Services and Community Living.
69. Spicuzza, R., & Ysseldyke, J. (1999). Using accelerated math to enhance instruction in a mandated summer school program. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
70. Texas Education Agency, Region IV Education Service Center. (1995). Including students with disabilities in statewide assessment and accountability systems: A study of the issues. Houston, TX: Author.
71. Thompson, C. L., & Cunningham, E. K. (2000). Retention and social promotion: Research and implications for policy (Report No. EDO-UD-00-0). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 449 241)
72. Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (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. Retrieved July 8, 2002, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2001StateRepor.html.
73. Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2003). 2003 State special education outcomes: Marching forward. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
74. Thurlow, M. L., & Johnson, D. R. (2000). High stakes testing for students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 289-298.
75. Udvari-Solner, A., Villa, R. A., & Thousand, J. (2002). Access to the general educational curriculum for all: The universal design process. In J. Thousand (Ed.), Creativity and collaborative learning: The practical guide to empowering students, teachers, and families (2nd ed., pp. 85-103). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
76. U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Taking responsibility for ending social promotion: A guide for educators and state and local leaders. Retrieved December 6, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/socialpromotion/intro.html
77. Vashinav, A. (2002, May 12). Some see crisis for special ed pupils on MCAS. The Boston Globe, p. B1.
78. Walberg, H. J. (1984, February). Families as partners in educational productivity. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 397-400.
79. Walberg, H. (2003, April 30). Accountability helps students at risk [Commentary]. Education Week, 22(33), 42.
80. Webb, N. L., Horton, M., & O'Neal, S. (2002, April). An analysis of the alignment between language arts standards and assessments in four states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
81. Whitmore, R. (2000, April 14). Exit exams blamed for rise in dropouts: Minorities most affected by push for stricter testing in Texas. The Detroit News. Retrieved July 9, 2002, from http://detnews.com/2000/nation/0004/14/a12- 36798.htm
82. Ysseldyke, J. E., & Christenson, S. L. (2003). Functional assessment of academic behavior. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.