Individualizing assessment and opportunity to learn: Lessons from the education of students with disabilities

Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 109-135

  Pullin, Diana C ^a  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952573568     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511802157.006     Document Type: Chapter

References (74)

1. Abedi, J., C. Hofstetter, and C. Lord. Spring 2004. Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research 74: 1-28.
2. Alexander, K. and M. Alexander. 2005. American public school law, 6th ed. Belmont, Calif.: Thomson.
3. American Educational Research Association. 2000. Position statement of the American Educational Research Association on high-stakes testing in preK-12 education. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
4. American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education (AERA, APA, NCME). 1999. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
5. Christiensen, C. and S. Dorn. Summer 1997. Competing notions of social justice and contradictions in special education reform. The Journal of Special Education 31: 181-98.
6. Cohen, D. K. and H. C. Hill. 2001. Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven: Yale University Press.
7. Darling-Hammond, L. 2005. Instructional leadership for systemic change: The story of San Diego’s reform. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Education.
8. Elmore, R. 1996. Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review 66: 1.
9. Elmore, R. 2004. School reform from the inside out. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
10. Firestone, W. A., R. Y. Schorr, and L. F. Monfils, eds. 2004. The ambiguity of teaching to the test: Standards, assessment and educational reform. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Florian, L. and D. Pullin. 1999. Defining difference: A comparative perspective on legal and policy issues in education reform and special educational needs. In Comparative perspectives on education reformand students with disabilities, edited by M. McLaughlin and M. Rouse. London: Routledge.
12. Gartner, A. and D. Lipsky. 1987, November. Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review 57: reprinted in Special education at the century’s end: Evolution of theory and practice since 1970 (1992), edited by T. Hehir and T. Latus, 123-57. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Review.
13. Gipps, C. 1994. Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. New York: Routledge Falmer.
14. Government Accountability Office. 2005, January 14. Special education: Children with autism. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO-05-220.
15. Hancock v. Driscoll, 443 Mass. 428, 822 N.E. 2d 1134. 2005.
16. Handler, J. 1986. The conditions of discretion: Autonomy, community, bureaucracy. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.
17. Hehir, T. and S. Gamm. 1999. Special education: From legalism to collaboration. In Law and school reform: Six strategies for promoting educational opportunity, edited by J. Heubert, 205-43. NewHaven: YaleUniversity Press.
18. Helms v. School District No. 3 of Broken Arrow, 750 F. 2d 820 (10th Cir. 1984).
19. Heubert, J. and R. Hauser. 1999. High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
20. Honig, M., J. Kahne, and M. McLaughlin. 2001. School-community connections: Strengthening opportunity to learn and opportunity to teach. InHandbook of research on teaching, 4th ed., edited by V. Richardson, 998-1028. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
21. Howe, K. 1997.Understanding equal educational opportunity: Social justice, democracy, and schooling. Advances in Contemporary Educational Thought, vol. 20. New York: Teachers College Press.
22. Hudak, G. and P. Kihn. 2001. Labeling: Pedagogy and politics. New York: Routledge- Falmer.
23. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 2004. 20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.
24. Kelman, M. and G. Lester. 1997. Jumping the queue: An inquiry into the legal treatment of students with disabilities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
25. Knable v. Bexley City School District, 238 F. 3d 755 (6th Cir. 2001).
26. Koretz, D. and K. Barton. 2003-2004. Assessing students with disabilities: Issues and evidence. Educational Assessment 9 1/2: 29-60.
27. Lehr, C. and M. Thurlow. 2003. Putting it all together: Including students with disabilities in assessment and accountability systems (Policy Directions No. 16). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy16.htm.
28. Losen, D. J. and G. Orfield. 2002. Racial inequity in special education. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
29. Massachusetts Department of Education. 2003, September 22. Concerns and questions about alternate assessment. Retrieved August 27, 2004, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/alt/.
30. Massachusetts Department of Education. 2004a. Individual student success plans - Guidance document for districts. Retrieved July 4, 2005, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/.
31. Massachusetts Department of Education. 2004b. MCAS performance appeals. Retrieved July 4, 2000, from http://5atwww.doe.mass.edu/.
32. Mason, C., S. Field, and S. Sawilowsky. 2004. Implementation of self-determination activities and student participation in IEPs. Exceptional Children 70: 441-51.
33. McDermott, R. P. 1993. The acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In Understanding practice, edited by S. Chaiklin and J. Lave, 269-305. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. McDonnell, L. 2004. Politics, persuasion, and educational testing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
35. Mehan, H., A. Hertweck, and J. Meihls. 1986. Handicapping the handicapped: Decisionmaking in students’ educational careers. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
36. Minnema, J., M. Thurlow, and S. Warren. 2004, September. Understanding out-of-level testing in local schools: A first case study of policy implementation and effects. Outof- level Testing Project Report 11. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/OOLT11.html.
37. Minnema, J., M. Thurlow, R. Moen, and G. Van Getson. 2004, September. States’ procedures for ensuring out-of-level test instrument quality. Out-of-level Testing Project Report 14. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
38. Minow, M. 1990. Making all the difference: Inclusion, exclusion, and American law. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
39. Nagle, K. and J. Crawford. 2004, April. Opportunities and challenges: Perspectives on NCLB from special education directors in urban school districts. EPPRI Issue Brief Six. College Park: Educational Policy Reform Research Institute, The University of Maryland.
40. National Research Council (NRC). 1997. Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform, edited by L. M. McDonnell, M. J. McLaughlin, and P. Morison. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
41. National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Minority students in special and gifted education, edited by S. Donovan and C. Cross. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
42. National Research Council (NRC). 2004. Participation of English language learners and studentswith disabilities in NAEP and other large-scale assessments, edited by K. Hakuta and A. Beatty. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
43. Neal, D. and D. Kirp. 1986. The allure of legalization reconsidered: The case of special education. In School days, rule days: The legalization and regulation of education, edited by D. Kirp and D. Jensen. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
44. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 107th Cong., 1st sess., 20 U.S.C. 4301. et seq.
45. Oswald, D. P., M. J. Coutinho, A. M. Best, and N. N. Singh. 1999. Ethnic representation in special education: The influence of school-related economic and demographic variables. The Journal of Special Education 32: 194-206.
46. Pullin, D. 1999. Whose schools are these and what are they for? The role of the rule of law in defining educational opportunity in American public education. In Handbook of educational policy, edited by G. Cizek, 3-29. SanDiego: Academic Press.
47. Pullin, D. 2002. Testing individuals with disabilities: Reconciling social science and social policy. In Assessing individuals with disabilities in educational, employment, and clinical settings, edited by Committee on Disabilities, American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
48. Pullin, D. 2005. When one size does not fit all - the special challenges of accountability testing for students with disabilities. In Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement (Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education), issue 2, edited by J. L. Herman and E.H.Haertel. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
49. Pullin, D. 2006. Ensuring an adequate education: Opportunity to learn, law and social science. Boston College Third World Law Journal 27: 83-130.
50. Pullin, D. In press. Stigma, stereotypes and civil rights in disability classification systems. In Issues in the classification of children in education: Perspectives and purposes of classification systems, edited by M. McLaughlin and L. Florian.
51. Quenemoen, R., S. Rigney, and M. Thurlow. 2002. Use of alternate assessment results in reporting and accountability systems: Conditions for use based on research and practice (Synthesis Report 43). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis43.html.
52. Quenemoen, R., Thompson, S., and M. Thurlow. 2003, June. Measuring academic achievement of students with significant cognitive disabilities: Building understanding of alternate assessment scoring criteria (Synthesis Report 50).Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis50.html.
53. Quenoemoen, R. and M. Thurlow. 2002. Including alternate assessment results in accountability decisions (Policy Directions No. 13). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy13.htm.
54. Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc. 1989. 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky.).
55. Salvia, J., J. Ysseldyke, and S. Bolt. 2007. Assessment in special and inclusive education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
56. Shaywitz, S. 2003. Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: A. Knopf.
57. Shriner, J. 2000, Winter. Legal perspectives on school outcomes assessment for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education 33: 232-39.
58. Shulman, L. S. and J.H. Shulman. 2004, March. Howandwhat teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies 36: 257-71.
59. Sipple, J., K. Killeen, and D. Monk. 2004, Summer. Adoption and adaptation: School district responses to state imposed learning and graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26: 143-68.
60. Skrtic, T. 1991, May. The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review 61:2. Reprinted in Special education at the century’s end: Evolution of theory and practice since 1970 (1992), edited by T. Hehir and T. Latus, 203-72. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Review.
61. Spillane, J. 2004. Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
62. Spillane, J., B. Reiser, and T. Reimer. 2002, Fall. Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research 72: 387-431.
63. Test, D., C. Muson, C. Hughes, M. Konrad, M. Neal, and M. Wood. 2004. Student involvement in Individualized Education Program meetings. Exceptional Children 70: 391-412.
64. Thompson, S. and M. Thurlow,. 2003. State special education outcomes: Marching on. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/StateReport.html.
65. Thurlow, M., J. Minnema, and J. Treat. 2004. A review of 50 states’ online large-scale assessment policies: Are English language learners with disabilities considered? (ELLs withDisabilities Report 5).Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 5, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/ELLsDisReport5.html.
66. Thurlow, M., R. Moen, and J. Altman. 2006. Annual performance reports: 2003-2004 state assessment data. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 5, 2007, from http://www.education.umn.edu/NCEO/.
67. Turnbull, H. and A. Turnbull. 1998. Free appropriate public education, 5th ed. Denver: Love.
68. U.S. Department of Education. 2003. Title I - Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Part II; Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 68698 (2003) (to be codified at 34 CFR Part 200).
69. U.S. Department of Education. 2004. Twenty-sixth annual report to the Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, D.C. Retrieved April 3, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2004/index.html.
70. U.S. Department of Education. 2007, April 9. Title I - Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; IDEA; Final Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 17748-01 (to be codified at 34 CFR Parts 200 and 300).
71. Varenne, H. and R. McDermott. 1998. Successful failure: The school America builds. Boulder: Westview Press.
72. Vaughn, S. and L. Fuchs. 2003. Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 18: 137-46.
73. Ysseldyke, J., A. Dennison, and R. Nelson. 2004, May. Large-scale assessment and accountability systems: Positive consequences for students with disabilities. (Synthesis Report 51). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 1, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis51.html.
74. Zatta, M. and D. Pullin. 2004, April. Education and alternate assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Implications for educators. Education Policy Analysis Archives 12: 1-27. www.epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n16/.