1999
DOI: 10.1177/004005999903100311
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Integrating Standards Including All Students

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
4
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Act 60 and related reform efforts contained language about reforming education for all children, and these efforts were reinforced through the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requiring states and districts to include students with disabilities in state and district assessments and performance reporting (Thurlow & Johnson, 2002). Yet in spite of the promise of these educational reform efforts to meet the needs of all students, research on the effects of their implementation has identified both intended and unintended consequences for students with disabilities and those placed at risk of academic failure (Furney, Hasazi, Clark/Keefe, & Hartnett, 2003;McLaughlin, 1999;McLaughlin, Nolet, Rhim, & Henderson, 1999;Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000;Shriner & DeStefano, 2003;Thurlow, 2000;Thurlow, House, Boys, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 2000;Turnbull, Turnbull, Wehmeyer, & Park, 2003). Unintended effects include the failure of some states to include students with disabilities and those placed at risk in curriculum reform efforts and state-mandated testing; a focus within assessment on academic content standards as opposed to a broader set of standards including career or vocational skills, the arts, health, and so forth; and the increasingly complex nature of standards-based curriculum and assessments (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000).…”
Section: Purpose Of the Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Act 60 and related reform efforts contained language about reforming education for all children, and these efforts were reinforced through the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requiring states and districts to include students with disabilities in state and district assessments and performance reporting (Thurlow & Johnson, 2002). Yet in spite of the promise of these educational reform efforts to meet the needs of all students, research on the effects of their implementation has identified both intended and unintended consequences for students with disabilities and those placed at risk of academic failure (Furney, Hasazi, Clark/Keefe, & Hartnett, 2003;McLaughlin, 1999;McLaughlin, Nolet, Rhim, & Henderson, 1999;Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000;Shriner & DeStefano, 2003;Thurlow, 2000;Thurlow, House, Boys, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 2000;Turnbull, Turnbull, Wehmeyer, & Park, 2003). Unintended effects include the failure of some states to include students with disabilities and those placed at risk in curriculum reform efforts and state-mandated testing; a focus within assessment on academic content standards as opposed to a broader set of standards including career or vocational skills, the arts, health, and so forth; and the increasingly complex nature of standards-based curriculum and assessments (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000).…”
Section: Purpose Of the Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, CISP (1998), Ford et al (2001), Matlock et al (2001), McLaughlin et al (1999, Quenemoen et al (2001) and Sirotnik and Kimball (1999) suggest that the positive outcomes of such as system would include:…”
Section: Including Students With a Disability In Nationally Reported mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The focus should be on developing accountability systems that allow all students to be assessed within a common framework while accommodating individual differences. For example, CISP (1998), Ford et al (2001), Matlock et al (2001), McLaughlin, Nolet, Rhim andHenderson (1999), Quenemoen et al (2001) and Sirotnik and Kimball (1999) suggest that the positive outcomes of such a system would include:…”
Section: Including Students With a Disability In Nationally Reported Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…McCormick (1998) découvrait que la planification de l'enseignement se faisait généralement à partir du curriculum et que le PI était utilisé à raison d'une ou de deux fois par année pour planifier l'enseignement Grisham-Brown et Hemmeter (1998). présentaient une approche établie sur les activités de classe pour développer le PI et assurer le lien entre le PI et les activités de classe ou curriculum ordinaire McLaughlin, Nolet, Rhim et Henderson (1999). stipulaient que lorsque le PI était aligné au programme de formation, les élèves HDAA étaient bien plus exposés aux thématiques ordinaires et l'enseignement était plus encadré.…”
unclassified