Consequences of high-stakes assessment for students with and without disabilities

Educational Policy

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 662-690

  Christenson, Sandra L ^a   Decker, Dawn M ^b   Triezenberg, Heidi L ^c   Ysseldyke, James E ^a   Reschly, Amy ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c La Grange Area Department of Special Education   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Consequences; High stakes assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547871599     PISSN: 08959048     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0895904806289209     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
2. Some analyses used the entire sample (N = 249). Those that compared the responses of general and special educators provided the clearest distinction between what is happening for students with and without disabilities.
3. A copy of the survey may be obtained from the senior author.
4. Abrams, L.M., Pedulla, J.J., & Madaus, G.F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers' opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory Into Practice, 42 (1). 18-29.
5. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
6. American Federation of Teachers. (1997, September). Passing on failure: District promotion policies and practices. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 15, 2003, from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/fall97/ index.html
7. Amrein, A.L., & Berliner, D.C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (18). 1-33.
8. Amrein, A.L., & Berliner, D.C. (2003). The effects of high-stakes testing on student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60 (5). 32-38.
9. Barnett, K.P., Clarizio, H.F., & Payette, K.A. (1996). Grade retention among students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 33 (4). 285-293.
10. Brennan, R.T., Kim, J., Wenz-Gross, M., & Siperstein, G.N. (2001). The relative equitability of high-stakes testing versus teacher-assigned grades: An analysis of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). Harvard Educational Review, 71 (2). 173-216.
11. Clarke, M., Haney, W., & Madaus, G. (2000). High stakes testing and high school completion. NBETPP Statements, 1 (3). Retrieved May 20, 2004, from http://www.bc.edu/research/nbetpp/publications/v1n3.html
12. Clarke, M., Shore, A., Rhoades, K., Abrams, L., Miao, J., & Li, J. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from interviews with educators in low-, medium-, and high-stakes states. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy, Boston College.
13. DeCesare, D. (2002). How high are the stakes in high-stakes testing ? Principal, 8 (3). 10-12.
14. Defur, S.H. (2002). Education reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with disabilities: One state's approach. Remedial and Special Education, 23 (4). 203-211.
15. Fuller, E.J., & Johnson, J.F., Jr. (2001). Can state accountability systems drive improvements in school performance for children of color and children from low-income homes ? Education and Urban Society, 33 (3). 260-283.
16. Goertz, M., & Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing an accountability programs. Theory Into Practice, 42 (1). 4-11.
17. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18. Holmes, C.T. (1989). Grade-level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 16-33). London: Falmer.
19. Holmes, C.T., & Matthews, K.M. (1984). The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Reviews of Educational Research, 54, 225-236.
20. Jackson, G. (1975). The research evidence of the effects of grade retention. Review of Educational Research, 45, 613-635.
21. Jimerson, S. (1999). On the failure of failure: Examining the association between early grade retention and education and employment outcomes during late adolescence. Journal of School Psychology, 37 (3). 243-272.
22. Jimerson, S. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 30 (3). 420-437.
23. Linn, R.L. (2001). A century of standardized testing: Controversies and pendulum swing. Educational Assessment, 7 (1). 29-38.
24. McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morrison, P. (Eds.). (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25. McLeskey, J., & Grizzle, K.L. (1992). Grade retention rates among students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58 (6). 548-554.
26. 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: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 19, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis34.htm
27. Roderick, M. (1994). Grade retention and school dropout: Investigating the association. American Educational Research Journal, 31 (4). 729-759.
28. Roderick, M., & Engel, M. (2001). The grasshopper and the ant: Motivational responses of low-achieving students to high-stakes testing. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23 (3). 97-227.
29. Roderick, M., Jacob, B.A., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (4). 333-357.
30. Roeber, E., Bond, L.A., & Braskamp, D. (1997). Trends in statewide student assessment programs, 1997. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
31. Shepard, L.A., & Smith, M.L. (1990). Synthesis of research on grade retention. Educational Leadership, 47, 84-88.
32. Smirk, J. (2001). Alternatives to retention. NASSP Bulletin, 85 (629). 3-15.
33. Smith, M.L., & Fey, P. (2000). Validity and accountability in high-stakes testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (5). 334-344.
34. Steeves, K.A., Hodgeson, J., & Peterson, P. (2002). Are we measuring student success with high-stakes testing ? Educational Forum, 66, 228-235.
35. 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. ED449241)
36. Thurlow, M.L., & Johnson, D.R. (2000). High-stakes testing of students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (4). 305-314.
37. U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Taking responsibility for ending social promotion: A guide for educators and state and local leaders. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/socialpromotion/intro.html
38. Ysseldyke, J., Nelson, J.R., Christenson, S.L., 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 (1). 75-94.