1981
DOI: 10.1177/001440298104700705
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Minimum Competency Testing and the Handicapped

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1981
1981
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Further, there is fear that creating a "special education" diploma will assign an obvious stigma that follows the person into later years. Ewing and Smith (1981) argued that linking high school graduation certification to competency test requirements is potentially harmful to handicapped students; they reasoned that such a linkage may cause many to suffer unnecessary humiliation as a result of test requirements that are unfair and discriminatory.…”
Section: Minimum Competency Testing and Handicapped Studentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, there is fear that creating a "special education" diploma will assign an obvious stigma that follows the person into later years. Ewing and Smith (1981) argued that linking high school graduation certification to competency test requirements is potentially harmful to handicapped students; they reasoned that such a linkage may cause many to suffer unnecessary humiliation as a result of test requirements that are unfair and discriminatory.…”
Section: Minimum Competency Testing and Handicapped Studentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Six years after Congress authorized the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, individuals working in special education began to investigate the development of effective and appropriate accommodation for students with disabilities during standardized testing procedures (Ewing & Smith, 1981). The number of students with documented disabilities who participate in high-stakes tests has greatly increased in recent years (Do-Hong, Schneider & Siskind, 2009).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is so much variation within the handicapped population that establishing standards across that population, or even within categories, is likely to be as unfair for some individuals as would be using the same standards or assessment procedures as those used with nonhandicapped students (Pullin, 1980). There also remains the larger question of whether MCT is an appropriate vehicle for identifying and remediating those academic deficiencies associated with certain types of exceptionalities (Danielson, 1980;Ewing & Smith, 1981;Fenton, 1980;Grise, 1980). In the case of students whose handicap does not entail a basic inability to perform at or near grade level, MCT may be useful.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%