Using growth for accountability: Measurement challenges for students with disabilities and recommendations for research

Educational Researcher

Volumn 39, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 537-544

  Buzick, Heather M ^a   Laitusis, Cara Cahalan ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

accountability; ESEA; growth models; longitudinal; measurement; special education; state assessments; students with disabilities; value added

Indexed keywords

EID: 78651414870     PISSN: 0013189X     EISSN: 1935102X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X10383560     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Abt Associates. (2006). Improving results for students with disabilities: Key findings from the 1997 National Assessment Studies. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates.
2. Ahearn, E. (2009). Growth models and students with disabilities: Report of state interviews. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Retrieved fromhttp://www.projectforum.org.
3. Alaska Department of Education. (2007). Match rate-Students fall 2005 to fall 2006. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eed.state.ak.us/tls/assessment/AKGrowthModel/May2007/Student%20match%20rate%2005%20to%2006.pdf.
4. Albus, D., Lazarus, S.S., Thurlow, M.L., & Cormier, D. (2009). Characteristics of states' alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in 2008 (Synthesis Report 72). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
5. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2009). 2009 Public policy agenda. Retrieved fromhttp://www.asha.org/advocacy/briefs-agenda/09PPA.htm.
6. Betebenner, D. (2009). Norm- and criterion-referenced student growth. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28, 42-51.
7. Braun, H. (2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value-added models. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center.
8. Braun, H., Chudowsky, N., & Koenig, J. (Eds.). (2010). Getting value out of value-added: Report of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
9. Braun, H., & Wainer, H. (2007). Value-added modeling. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics: Vol. 26. Psychometrics (pp. 475-501). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
10. Briggs, D., & Weeks, J. (2009). The impact of vertical scaling decisions on growth interpretations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28, 3-14.
11. Center on Education Policy. (2009, November). Has progress been made in raising achievement for students with disabilities? Author: Washington, DC.
12. Christensen, L.L., Lazarus, S.S., Crone, M., & Thurlow, M.L. (2008). 2007 State policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 69). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
13. Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. (2010). CCD Education Task Force response to Race to the Top notice inviting applications for Comprehensive Assessment Systems Grants. Retrieved fromhttp://www.c-c-d.org/task_forces/education/CCD%20Race%20to%20the%20Top%20NIA%20letter%20final.pdf.
14. Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.
15. Council for Exceptional Children. (2009). Race to the Top comments of Council for Exceptional Children. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12938.
16. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2009). Guide to United States Department of Education Growth Model Pilot Program, 2005-2008. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, Accountability Systems and Reporting State Collaborative.
17. Delaware Department of Education. (2009, November). Accountability technical manual. Retreived from http://www.doe.k12.de.us/aab/files/DDOE-TM%202008-09-Final.pdf#AccountabilityTechnicalManual2008-2009.
18. Dunn, J., & Allen, J. (2009). Holding schools accountable for non-proficient students: Coordinating measurement and accountability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28, 27-41.
19. Eckes, S., & Swando, J. (2009). Special education subgroups under NCLB: Issues to consider. Teachers College Record, 111(11). Retrieved fromhttp://www.tcrecord.org/library.
20. Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound test accommodation decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(3), 174-181.
21. Hendrickson, A. (2007). An NCME instructional module on multistage testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26, 44-52.
22. Hill, R., Gong, B., Marion, S., DePascale, C., Dunn, J., & Simpson, M.A. (2006). Using value tables to explicitly value growth. In R. Lissitz (Ed.), Longitudinal and value added models of student performance (pp. 255-290). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
23. Klein, J.A., Wiley, H.I., & Thurlow, M.L. (2006). Uneven transparency: NCLB tests take precedence in public assessment reporting for students with disabilities (Tech. Rep. No. 43). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
24. Kolen, M.J., & Brennan, R.L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
25. Koretz, D.M., & Hamilton, L.S. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed., pp. 531-578). Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger.
26. Laitusis, C.C., Cook, L.L., Buzick, H.M., & Stone, E.A. (in press). Adaptive testing options for accountability assessments. In M. Russell (Ed.), Assessing students in the margins: Challenges, strategies, and techniques. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
27. Lissitz, R.W., & Huynh, H. (2003). Vertical equating for state assessments: Issues and solutions in determination of adequate yearly progress and school accountability. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation. Retrieved fromhttp://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=10.
28. National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2009). Growth models for accountability: Considerations and recommendations for including students with disabilities (Policy Briefing). Washington, DC: Author.
29. National Opinion Research Center. (2010). Interim report on the evaluation of the growth model pilot project. Retrieved fromhttp://www.2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/growth-model-pilot/gmpp.pdf.
30. Pitoniak, M.J., & Royer, J.M. (2001). Testing accommodations for examinees with disabilities: A review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 53-104.
31. Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Shriner, J., & DeStefano, L. (2007). Assessment accommodation considerations for middle school students with disabilities. In C. C. Laitusis & C. Cook (Eds.), Large-scale assessment and accommodations: What works? Washington, DC: Council for Exceptional Children.
33. Sireci, S.G., Scarpeti, S.E., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457-490.
34. Texas Department of Education. (2008). Response to United States Department of Education: Clarification questions on Texas' growth model pilot proposal. Retrieved fromhttp://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/growth_proposal/111208_TXResponseto_USDE_ClarificationQuestions.pdf.
35. Thurlow, M., Lazarus, S., Quenemoen, R., & Moen, R. (2010). Using growth for accountability: Considerations for students with disabilities (Policy Directions 21). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved fromhttp://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy21.
36. Thurlow, M.L., Quenemoen, R., Altman, J.R., & Cuthbert, M. (2008). Trends in the participation and performance of students with disabilities (Tech. Rep. 50). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
37. U.S. Department of Education. (2003, December 9). Title I- Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged: Final regulations. Federal Register, 68(236), 68698-68708.
38. U.S. Department of Education. (2005, November 18). Secretary Spellings announces growth model pilot, addresses Chief State School Officers' Annual Policy Forum in Richmond. Retrieved fromhttp://www.2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/11/11182005.html.
39. U.S. Department of Education. (2007, April 9). Final Rule 34 CFR Parts 200 and 300: Title I-Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged; Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Federal Register, 72(67), 17748-17781.
40. Weiss, D.J. (1982). Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 473-492.
41. Yen, W.M. (2007). Vertical scaling and No Child Left Behind. In N. J. Dorans, M. Pommerich, & P. W. Holland (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 273-282). New York: Springer.
42. Yen, W.M. (2008). Measuring academic growth in California. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
43. Ysseldyke, J.E., & Bielinski, J. (2002). Effect of different methods of reporting and reclassification on trends in test scores for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 189-200.
44. Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., Langenfeld, K.L., Nelson, J.R., Teelucksingh, E., & Seyfarth, A. (1998). Educational results for students with disabilities: What do the data tell us? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.