Clarifying the Policy Contexts of Statewide Testing and Accountability and Their Impact on Secondary-Level Students with Disabilities

Assessment for Effective Intervention

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 51-63

  Krentz, Jane L ^a   Clapper, Ann T ^a   Thurlow, Martha L ^a   Johnson, David R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950522683     PISSN: 15345084     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/073724770102600406     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Allington, R.L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992). Unintended effects of educational reform in New York. Educational Policy, 6(4), 397–414.
2. Cohen, D.K., & Spillane, J. (1993). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. In S.H. Furhman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. (pp. 35–95) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3. Disability Rights Advocates. (2001). Do no harm - High-stakes testing and students with learning disabilities. Oakland, CA: Author.
4. Education Commission of the States. (1999). Education accountability systems in 50 states. Denver, CO: Author.
5. Glatthom, A.A. (1998). Planning and organizing for curriculum renewal. In S.J. Gross (Ed.), ASCD curriculum handbook (pp. 1–53). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
6. Krentz, J., Thurlow, M., & Callender, S. (2000). Accountability systems and counting students with disabilities (Technical Report 29). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
7. Institute for Educational Leadership. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Recognizing the state's role in public education: School leadership for the 21 st century initiative: A report of the task force on state leadership. Washington, DC: Author.
8. Massell, D., Kirst, M., & Hoppe, M. (1997). Persistence and change: Standards-based reform in nine states (CPRE Research Report). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
9. National Association of State Boards of Education. (2001). NASBE state profiles: State education governance at a glance. Alexandria, VA: Author. Available at http://www.nasbe.org/govmatrix.html
10. National Education Association. (2001). An overview of NEA's tools for auditing standards-based education. [Brochure]. Washington, DC: Author.
11. National Research Council (1999). Testing, teaching and learning: A guide for states and school districts. Washington, DC: Author.
12. New York State Education Department. (2001). Report to the Board of Regents on special education data. Albany, NY: Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities.
13. Olson L. (2000, January 19). New thinking on what makes a leader. Education Week, 19(9), 1–8. Retrieved January 10, 2002 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=19lead.h19.
14. Olson, L. (2000, January 24). States adjust high-stakes testing plans. Education Week, 20(19), 1, 18, 19. Retrieved January 10, 2002 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=19lead.h20.
15. Olson, J.F., Jones, I., & Bond, L. (2001). State student assessment programs annual survey: Summary report. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
16. Quenemoen, R., Lehr, C.A., Thurlow, M., Thompson, S.J., & Bolt, S. (2000). Social promotion and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges in developing state policies (Synthesis Report 34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
17. Rubin, H.G. (2001, Sept 27). “Mass. School officials mull appeals for exit test.” Education Daily, 34 (185), pp. 2, 4.
18. Shriner, J.G., & DeStefano, L. (2001). Curriculum access and state assessment for students with disabilities: A research update. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Council for Exceptional Children, Kansas City, MO.
19. Thompson, S.J., Thurlow, M.L., Quenemoen, R., Esler, A., & Whetstone, P. (2001). Addressing standards and assessments on state IEP forms (Synthesis Report 31). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
20. Thompson, S.J., Thurlow, M.L., & Whetstone, P. (2001). Recommendations for addressing standards and IEPs on state and district IEP forms (Policy Directions 10). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
21. Thurlow, M.L., & Esler, A. (2000). Appeals processes for students who fail graduation exams: How do they apply to student with disabilities? (Synthesis Report #36). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
22. Thurlow, M.L., & Weiner, D.J. (2000). Non-approved accommodations: Recommendations for use and reporting (Policy Directions No. 11). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
23. Wilson, L.L. (1999, May). Targeting student learning refocuses the policy process. Retrieved September 24, 2001 from http://www.nsba.org/nepn/newsletter/599.htm.
24. Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., & Linn, D. (1999). NGA Brief: Including students with disabilities in statewide assessments and accountability systems. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association.
25. Ziebarth, T. (2000). Models of state education governance. ECS state notes/governance. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Available at http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/13/31/1331.htm.