Special educational needs, disability and school accountability: An international perspective

International Journal of Inclusive Education

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 443-458

  Smith, Emma ^a   Douglas, Graeme ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

accountability; high stakes testing; social justice; special education

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900432459     PISSN: 13603116     EISSN: 14645173     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2013.788222     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Altman, J.R., S.S. Lazarus, R.F. Quenemoen, J. Kearns, M. Quenemoen, and M.L. Thurlow.2010. 2009 survey of states: Accomplishments and new issues at the end of a decade ofchange. Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes. http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2009StateSurvey.pdf (accessed September 2011).
2. Baird, J.A., T. Isaacs, S. Johnson, G. Stobart, G. Yu, T. Sprague, and R. Daugherty. 2011. Policyeffects of PISA. Oxford: Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment. http://oucea.education.ox.ac.uk/wordpress/wp-content/ uploads/2011/10/Policy-Effects-of-PISA-OUCEA.pdf (accessed March 2012).
3. Bradshaw, J., R. Ager, B. Burge, and R. Wheater. 2010. PISA 2009: Achievement of 15-yearoldsin England. Slough: NFER.
4. Brown, G. 2009. The Romanes lecture given at the Sheldonian Theatre Oxford. http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news-stories/2009/090227-1.html (accessed February 27, 2009).
5. Cabinet Office. 2010. The coalition: Our programme for government. London: Cabinet Office.
6. Cameto, R., A.M. Knokey, K. Nagle, C. Sanford, J. Blackorby, B. Sinclair, D. Riley, et al. 2009.State profiles on alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: A reportfrom the National Study on Alternate Assessments, NCSER 2009-3013. Washington,DC: National Center for Special Education Research. http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/(accessedAugust 2011).
7. Centre on Education Policy. 2007. NCLB's accountability provisions for students with disabilities.Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy Roundtable Discussion. http://www.cepdc.org (accessed August 2011).
8. Cole, C. 2006. Closing the achievement gap series: Part III what is the impact of NCLB on theinclusion of students with disabilities?. Bloomington, Indiana: Center for Evaluation andEducation Policy. http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/ projects/PDF/PB-V4N11-Fall-2006-NCLB-dis.pdf (accessed August 2011).
9. Darling-Hammond, L. 2007. Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of 'NoChild Left Behind'. Race, Ethnicity and Education 10, no. 3: 245-60.
10. Dee, T., and B. Jacob. 2009. The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement.National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Paper No. 15531, NBER,Cambridge, MA.
11. DfE. 2010. The importance of teaching. The Schools White Paper 2010. http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/CM-7980.pdf (accessed March 2011).
12. Dolin, J. 2007. PISA: An example of the use and misuse of large-scale comparative tests. InPISA according to PISA: Does PISA keep what it promises?, ed. S.T. Hopmann, G.Brinek, and M. Retzl, 93-126. Berlin: LIT Verlag.
13. Douglas, G., J. Travers, M. McLinden, C. Robertson, E. Smith, N. Macnab, S. Powers, et al.2012. Measuring educational engagement, progress and outcomes for children withspecial educational needs: A review. Ireland: National Council for Special Education.
14. Ertl, H. 2006. Educational standards and the changing discourse on education: The reception andconsequences of the PISA study in Germany. Oxford Review of Education 32, no. 5: 619-34.
15. Figlio, D.N., and L.S. Getzler. 2002. Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system,Working Paper 9307. National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER, Cambridge, MA.http://www.nber.org/papers/w9307 (accessed August 2012).
16. Figlio, D., and S. Loeb. 2011. School accountability. In Economics of education, Vol. 3, ed.E.A. Hanushek, S. Machin, and L. Woessmann, 383-421. The Netherlands: North-Holland.
17. Gorard, S., N. Adnett, H. May, K. Slack, E. Smith, and L. Thomas. 2007. Overcoming the barriersto higher education. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
18. Haney, W. 2000. The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy AnalysisArchives 8, no. 41: 1-323. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/ 432/828 (accessed August2012).
19. Hanushek, E.A. 2005. Why the Federal Government should be involved in school accountability.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24, no. 1: 167-78.
20. Hanushek, E.A., and M.E. Raymond. 2005. Does school accountability lead to improved studentperformance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24, no. 2: 297-327.
21. Hörmann, B. 2007. Disappearing students PISA and students with disabilities. In PISA accordingto PISA: Does PISA keep what it promises?, ed. S.T. Hopmann, G. Brinek and M. Retzl,157-174. Berlin and Vienna: LIT Verlag.
22. Hout, M., and S.W. Elliot. 2011. Incentives and test-based accountability in education.Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/ catalog.phprecord-id=12521.
23. Hursh, D. 2005. The growth of high-stakes testing in the USA: Accountability, markets and thedecline in educational equality. British Educational Research Journal 31, no. 5: 605-22.
24. Iowa Department of Education. 2011. The state report card for NCLB. Iowa: Department ofEducation.
25. Klenowski, V., and C. Wyatt-Smith. 2012. The impact of high stakes testing: The Australianstory. Assessment in Education 19, no. 1: 65-79.
26. Kraus, L. 2012. The impact of No Child Left Behind on IDEA's guarantee of free, appropriatepublic education for students with disabilities: A critical review of recent case law. http://www.luc.edu/law/academics/special/center/ child/childed-forum/pdfs/2009-student-papers/kraus-impact-no-child.pdf (accessed August 2012).
27. LaRoche, S., and F. Cartwright. 2010. Independent review of the 2009 PISA results for Ireland.Dublin: Educational Research Centre.
28. Lazarus, S., D. Cormier, and M. Thurlow. 2011. States' accommodations policies and developmentof alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards: A discriminantanalysis. Remedial and Special Education 32, no. 4: 301-8.
29. Lazarus, S.S., M.L. Thurlow, K.E. Lail, and L. Christensen. 2009. A longitudinal analysis ofstate accommodations policies: Twelve years of change, 1993-2005. Journal of SpecialEducation 43: 67-80.
30. Lowrey, K.A., E. Drasgow, A. Renzaglia, and L. Chezan. 2007. Impact of alternate assessmenton curricula for students with severe disabilities: Purpose driven or process driven?Assessment for Effective Intervention 32, no. 4: 244-53.
31. McLaughlin, M.J., and L.M. Rhim. 2007. Accountability frameworks and children with disabilities:A test of assumptions about improving public education for all students. InternationalJournal of Disability, Development and Education 54, no. 1: 25-49.
32. McLaughlin, M.J., and M. Thurlow. 2003. Educational accountability and students with disabilities:Issues and challenges. Educational Policy 17, no. 4: 431-451.
33. National Council on Disability. 2008. The No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act: A progress report.
34. National Council on Disability. http://www.educationalpolicy.org/ publications/pubpdf/NCD-2008.pdf (accessed August 2011).
35. NCEE. 1983. A nation at risk? http://www.njafter3.org/edu/docs/Reports-A- Nation-At-Risk.pdf (accessed June 2010).
36. NCES. 2011. The Condition of Education: Children and Youth with Disabilities. Washington,DC: National Centre for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator-cwd.asp (accessed January 2012).
37. OECD. 2001. Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000. http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/free/9601141e.pdf (accessed July 2012).
38. OECD. 2002. PISA 2003 main study, school co-ordinator's manual. http://www.namsmat.is/vefur/rannsoknir/PISA-skyrslur-almennt/3-Handbakur/ PISA-2003-school-coordinator-manual.pdf (accessed July 2012).
39. OECD. 2007. Students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages: Policies, statisticsand indicators. Paris: OECD.
40. OECD. 2008. PISA 2009 main survey, school co-ordinator's manual. https://mypisa.acer.edu.au/images/mypisadoc/sc-manual-ms09-v2-1.pdf (accessed July 2012).
41. OECD. 2010. PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do: Student performance inreading, mathematics and science (Volume I). http://dx.doi.org/10. 1787/9789264091450-en (accessed July 2012).
42. Orfield, G. 2000. Policy and equity: Lessons of a third of a century of educational reforms inthe United States. In Unequal schools, unequal chances: The challenges to equal opportunityin the Americas, ed. F. Reimers, 284-302. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
43. Rockoff, J., and L. Turner. 2008. Short run impacts of accountability on school quality.National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Paper No. 14564, NBER,Cambridge, MA.
44. Rutkowski, L., and D. Rutkowski. 2010. Getting it 'better': The importance of improving backgroundquestionnaires in international large-scale assessment. Journal of CurriculumStudies 42, no. 3: 411-30.
45. Shippen, M., D.E. Houchins, M. Calhoon, C. Furlow, and D. Sartor. 2006. The effects of comprehensiveschool reform models in reading for urban middle school students with disabilities.Remedial and Special Education 27, no. 6: 322-28.
46. Smith, E. 2012. Key issues in education and social justice. London: Sage.
47. State of Arizona Department of Education. 2010. State of Arizona consolidated state applicationaccountability workbook. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Education. http://www.azed.gov/research-evaluation/files/2011/07/ conappaypwb-10-07-06.pdf (accessed August2011).
48. Stobart, G., and T. Eggen. 2012. High-stakes testing-value, fairness and consequences.Assessment in Education 19, no. 1: 1-6.
49. Sunderman, G. 2008. Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity and schoolreform. New York: Corwin Press.
50. Tomlinson, S. 1985. The expansion of special education. Oxford Review of Education 2, no. 2:195-205.
51. Tomlinson, S. 2012. The irresistible rise of the SEN industry. Oxford Review of Education 38, no. 3: 267-86.
52. US Department of Education. 2002. No Child Left Behind: Executive summary. http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/presidentplan/page-pg3.html (accessed July 2011).
53. US Department of Education. 2007. Modified academic achievement standards: Non-regulatoryguidance. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
54. Usher, A. 2012. AYP Results for 2010-11-May 2012 update.
55. Washington, DC: Centre onEducation Policy.
56. West, A., P. Mattei, and J. Roberts. 2011. Accountability and sanctions in English schools.British Journal of Educational Studies 59, no. 1: 41-62.
57. Wolf, P.J., J. Witte, and D.J. Fleming. 2012. Special Education and the Milwaukee ParentalChoice Program. SCDP Milwaukee Evaluation Report #35. http://www.uaedreform.org/SCDP/Milwaukee-Eval/Report-35.pdf (accessed August 2012).
58. Wuttke, J. 2007. Uncertainties and Bias in PISA. In PISA according to PISA: Does PISA keepwhat it promises?, ed. S.T. Hopmann, G. Brinek and M. Retzl, 241-264. Berlin and Vienna:LIT Verlag.
59. Young, T. 2010. British schoolchildren now ranked 23rd in the world, down from 12th in 2000.The Daily Telegraph, December 7.