High-Stakes Testing and Students With Disabilities

Abstract

The use of high-stakes testing has become an increasingly popular assessment for schools to use in demonstrating individual academic performance of students, and providingaccountability for school improvement. Given the potential negative consequences associated with mandatory testing (e.g., grade retention, withholding of high school diplomas, labeling failing schools), students, parents, and school districts all bear significant risks based upon student test scores. The historically poor performance of students with disabilities on these assessments has raised concerns over minimum standards, permissible test modifications, and alternate assessments. The authors provide a review of recent research literature, legislation, and court decisions pertaining to the use of high-stakes testing for students with special needs in support of : (a) federal legislation (i.e., No Child Left Behind and Individual With Disabilities Education Act), (b) Mandatory Competency Exams to determine grade promotion, and (c) Mandatory Exit Exams to meet graduation requirements.

Accessibility to NAPLAN Assessments for Students With Disabilities: A ‘Fair Go’

“…While these concerns have been raised, more recent reviews of high-stakes testing and increased emphasis of accountability indicate many positive outcomes (Katsiyannis et al, 2007). Hager and Slocum (2011) have indicated that carefully designed alternate assessment systems have the potential to provide meaningful information about the progress of all students, including those with significant cognitive disabilities, that can guide decisionmaking at the classroom and district level.…”

Educational Justice, Transformative Leadership Practices, and Special Needs Students

“…Special needs students have much in common with many other segments of the school population who are disadvantaged in terms of academic achievement (Katsiyannis, Zhang, Ryan & Jones, 2007;O'Donnell, & White, 2005;Dantley & Tillman, 2006), cultural inclusion within the norms and values of a "mainstream" school population and curriculum (Delpit, 1988;Marshall & Oliva, 2006;Cooper, 2009;Brooks, Jean-Marie, Normore, & Hodgkins, 2007;and Riehl, 2000) and effective leadership for their distinct needs (Theoharis, 2007;Theoharis & Causton-Theoharis, 2008). Advancing democratic ideals for all students is fundamental to the vision of a just society as Dewey (1916) so convincingly articulated.…”

“…School leaders are expected to produce high levels of student achievement and schools have placed special needs students into separate programs which have been inadequate in serving their academic needs and have marginalized them from the rest of the student population (Katsiyannis, Zhang, Ryan, & Jones, 2007;McKenzie et al, 2008;Solórozano, 2008). Despite this trend, transformative leaders have successfully challenged traditional school systems through such practices as inclusion and, in doing so better serving special needs students (Brooks, Jean-Marie, Normore & Hodgkins, 2007;Theoharis, 2007;Theoharis & Causton-Theoharis, 2008).…”

“…However, they have accomplished this largely on their own initiative; for although theorists have discussed transformative leadership at a conceptual level, research focusing on its instruction and practice for special needs leadership has been scant. The force of NCLB (2002) has contributed to tracking special needs students, placing them in separate English language learner and special education programs, retaining them, and decreasing their high school graduation rates (Katsiyannis, Zhang, Ryan, & Jones, 2007;Solórozano, 2008). Aronowitz (2004) has added that schools have relegated special needs learners to the bottom rungs of the educational system through punishment and disciplinary procedures.…”

A Study of the Relationship Between Educational Placment and the Achievement of Urban Low Socioeconomic Hispanic Middle School Students With and Without Specific Learning Disabilities

“…In 2007, after a literature review on high-stakes testing in light of NCLB, Katsiyannis, Zhang, Ryan and Jones (2007) concluded that high stakes testing increased: (a) participation of SWD in formal state assessments, (b) levels of performance by special education students in high-stakes testing, and (c) participation of special educators in training on standards and assessments. Negative consequences in high-stakes testing, per Katsiyannis et.…”