U.S. Legal Issues in Educational Testing of Special Populations

Chapter

Abstract

Legal challenges to educational testing programs have focused primarily on the issues of adverse impact, parental rights, testing irregularities, nonstandard test administrations, and testing English language learners (ELLs).1 However, once a case goes to trial, issues of validity, reliability, passing standards, and adherence to other professional standards may be raised.2 This chapter focuses on the legal, psychometric, and policy issues related to educational testing of special populations. Although prior federal cases and professional standards provide guidance, some tough policy decisions remain.

Keywords

Fatigue Assure Expense Tate Defend 

References

  1. Advocates for Special Kids v. Oregon Dep’t of Educ., Settlement Agreement, No. CV99-263 KI (2001, February 1).Google Scholar
  2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing [Test Standards]. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  3. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Pub. L. No. 101-336, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. (1990).Google Scholar
  4. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 36.309 (1992).Google Scholar
  5. Anderson v. Banks, 520 F.Supp. 472 (S.D. Ga. 1981), reh’g, 540 F.Supp. 761 (S.D. Ga. 1982).Google Scholar
  6. Bd. of Educ. of Northport-E. Northport v. Ambach, 436 N.Y.S.2d 564 (S.C. N.Y. 1981), rev’d 458 N.Y.S.2d 680 (N.Y. App. 1982).Google Scholar
  7. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).Google Scholar
  8. Brookhart v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 534 F. Supp. 725 (C.D. Ill. 1982), rev’d, 697 F.2d 179 (7th Cir. 1983).Google Scholar
  9. Cal. Dep’t of Educ., Interpreting CAHSEE Scores 2004–2005, available at http://www.cde.ca.gov
  10. Cal. Dep’t of Educ. (CDE) v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. (SFUSD), No. C-98-1417 MMC (N.D. Cal. 1998); San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. (SFUSD) v. State Bd. of Educ. (SBE), Settlement Agreement, No. 99-4049 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Nov. 2000).Google Scholar
  11. Cal. State Bd. of Educ. (2000), Item 28 of December 6–7 Board Minutes, Item 31 of October 10–11 Board Minutes.Google Scholar
  12. Chapman (Kidd) v. Cal. Dep’t of Educ., 229 F. Supp.2d 981 (N.D. Cal. 2002), No. C 01-01780 CRB (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2003, Sept. 5, 2003).Google Scholar
  13. Coachella Valley v. California, No. CPF-05-505334 (Cal. Sup. Ct., May 25, 2007).Google Scholar
  14. Debra P. v. Turlington, 644 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1981), aff’d, 730 F.2d 1405 (11th Cir. 1984).Google Scholar
  15. Elliott, S. N., Kettler, R. J., Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., Compton, E., McGrath, D., et al. (2010). Effects of using modified items to test students with persistent academic difficulties. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 475–495.Google Scholar
  16. Fraser, K., & Fields, R. (1999, February). NAGB public hearings and written testimony on students with disabilities and the proposed voluntary national test October–November 1998, Synthesis Report. Google Scholar
  17. G.I. Forum v. Texas Education Agency (TEA), 87 F.Supp.2d 667 (W.D. Tex. 2000).Google Scholar
  18. Golden, Daniel (2000, January 21). Evening the score: Meet edith, 16; she plans to spell-check her state writing test. The Wall St. J., at A1.Google Scholar
  19. Gorin, J. (2010, May). Enhanced assessment item development: An item difficulty modeling approach. Paper presented at the NCME annual meeting, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  20. Huesman, R. Jr., & Frisbie, D. A. (2000). The validity of ITBS reading comprehension test scores for learning disabled and non learning disabled students under extended-time conditions. Paper presented at the AERA annual meeting, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  21. HumRRO (2006, March 28). January 2006 Update, Press Release, Cal. Dep’t of Educ.Google Scholar
  22. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Pub. L. No. 102-119, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (1991).Google Scholar
  23. Jacobson, L. (2007). California offers long-term help with exit exams. Educ. Week, Oct. 24, 2007, at 23.Google Scholar
  24. Meloy, L. L., Deville, C., & Frisbie, D. (2000, April). The effect of a reading accommodation on standardized test scores of learning disabled and non learning disabled students. Paper presented at the NCME annual meeting, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  25. Murphy v. United Parcel Service (UPS) Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (1999).Google Scholar
  26. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301–6578 (2002).Google Scholar
  27. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 200.1 et seq. (2006).Google Scholar
  28. Phillips, S. E. (1993, March 25). Testing accommodations for disabled students. 80 Ed. Law Rep. 9.Google Scholar
  29. Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled Rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93–120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Phillips, S. E. (2000). G.I. Forum v. TEA: Psychometric evidence. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 343–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Phillips, S. E. (2002). Legal issues affecting special populations in large-scale testing programs. In G. Tindal & T. Haladyna (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all students (Vol. 109, pp. 109–148), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Phillips, S. E. (2010). Assessment law in education, Chapters 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9. Prisma Graphics, Phoenix, AZ, available at http://www.SEPhillips.dokshop.com
  33. Phillips, S. E. & Camara, W. J. (2006). Legal and ethical issues. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., Vol. 733, pp. 733–755) Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.Google Scholar
  34. Porter, R (2000). Accountability is overdue: Testing the academic achievement of limited-english proficient (LEP) students. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(4), 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reading Sch. Dist. v. Pa. Dep’t of Educ., 855 A.2d 166 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).Google Scholar
  36. Rene v. Reed, 751 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. App. 2001).Google Scholar
  37. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §701 et seq. (1973).Google Scholar
  38. Section 504 Regulations, 45 C.F.R. § 84 et seq. (1997).Google Scholar
  39. Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397,406 (1979).Google Scholar
  40. Stoica, W. M. (2010, May). Recommendations for AA-MAS item modifications: Utilizing information from focus groups and surveys with special educators. Paper presented at the NCME annual meeting, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  41. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1997).Google Scholar
  42. Tindal, G. (1999, June). Test accommodations: What are they and how do they affect student performance? CCSSO large scale assessment conference, Snowbird, UT.Google Scholar
  43. Valenzuela v. O’Connell, No. JCCP 004468 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 12, 2006), rev’d, O’Connell v. Superior Court, 47 Cal. Rptr.3d 147 (Cal. App. 2006).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ConsultantMesaUSA

Personalised recommendations