Advertisement

US Policies Supporting Inclusive Assessments for Students with Disabilities: A 60-Year History

  • Susan C. WeigertEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Policies over the past 60 years promoting access to inclusive instruction and assessment of students with disabilities (SWDs) can be described as an ever-evolving set of conventions designed to promote fairness, shaped by the interacting principles of equity and excellence (Skirtic, 1991). The emphasis on equity of educational opportunity has promoted increased inclusion of SWDs in state assessments and has encouraged increasing emphasis on holding these students to the same high achievement standards as for all students. While the history of inclusive assessment has witnessed many advances in accessibility, the innovations in testing policies and supports have been less successful in promoting equity of educational benefit for SWDs. The present chapter traces key policy milestones in the legislative journey toward greater equity and excellence through a discussion of disability laws and regulation and highlights the need for a greater emphasis on fairness through equity of opportunity to learn.

Keywords

Inclusive assessment Equity of educational opportunity Disability law Fairness in assessment 

References

  1. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (2014). Standards for edu- cational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading. NCEE 2016–4000. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.Google Scholar
  3. Browder, D., Wakeman, S., & Flowers, C. (2009). Which came first, the curriculum or the assessment? In W. D. Shafer & R. W. Lissitz (Eds.), Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: Policy, practice, and potential. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Browder, D., Wakeman, S., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Browder, D. M., Wood, L., Thompson, J., & Ribuffo, C. (2014). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities. CEEDAR Document NO. IC-3. CEEDAR Center. Retrieved on August, 31, 2015. Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. (1954).Google Scholar
  7. Danielson, L. (2009, October 22). Personal communication.Google Scholar
  8. Downing, J. E., & Demchak, M. (1996). First Steps: Determining individual abilities and how best to support students. In J. E. Downing (Ed.), Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms: Practical strategies for teachers (pp. 35–61). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Duncan, A. (2010). Keeping the promise to all america’s children. Remarks made to the council for exceptional children, April 21, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  10. Elliott, S. N., Kettler, R. J., Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., Compton, E., McGrath, D., … Roach, A. T. (2010). Effects of using modified items to test students with persistent academic difficulties. Exceptional Children., 76(4), 475–495.Google Scholar
  11. Elliott, S. N., Kurz, A., Beddow, P., & Frey, J. (2009). Cognitive load theory: Instruction-based research with applications for designing tests. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Boston, MA. February 24.Google Scholar
  12. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2004). Determining adequate yearly progress from kindergarten through grade 6 with curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Instruction, 29(4), 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ginsberg, A. L., Noell, J., & Plisko, V. W. (1988). Lessons from the wall chart. Educational evaluation and policy analysis., 10(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hehir, T. (2005). New directions in special education: eliminating ableism in policy and practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kearns, J. F., Towles-Reeves, E., Kleinert, H. L., & Kleinter, J. (2009). Who are the children who take alternate achievement standards assessments? In W. D. Schafer & R. W. Lissitz (Eds.), Alternate Assessments Based on Alternate Achievement Standards: Policy, Practice, and Potential. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Koehler, P. D. (1992). Inclusion and adaptation in assessment of special needs students in Arizona. In M. L. Thurlow & J. E. Yesseldyke (Eds.), Can “all” ever really mean “all” in defining and assessing student outcomes? (Synthesis report No. 5). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar
  17. Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2016). 2015–16 high school assessment accommodations policies: An analysis of ACT, SAT, PARCC, and Smarter Balanced (NCEO Report 403). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar
  18. Linn, R. L. (1994). Performance assessment: Policy promises and technical measurement standards. Educational Researcher, 23(9), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McGrew, K. S., Thurlow, M. L., Shriner, J. G., & Spiegel, A. N. (1992). Inclusion of students with disabilities in national and state data-collection programs. (Technical Report 2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar
  20. Mislevy, R. M. (2015). Resolving the paradox of rich performance tasks. Paper presented at the Fifteenth Annual Maryland Conference: Test Fairness in the New Generation of Large- scale Assessment October 30, The University of Maryland at College Park.Google Scholar
  21. National Academy of Education. (1998). Goals 2000: Reforming education to improve student achievement. Washington DC: National Academy of Education.Google Scholar
  22. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  23. Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A. M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., & Wei, X. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). NCSER 2011–3005. National Center for Special Education Research.Google Scholar
  24. Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  25. Phillips, S. E. (1994). High stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93–120. Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Phillips, S. E. (2002). Legal issues affecting special populations in large-scale assessment programs. In G. Tindal & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all students: Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  28. Quenemoen, R. (2009). The long and winding road of alternate assessments: Where we started, where we are now, and the road ahead. In W. D. Schafer & R. W. Lissitz (Eds.), Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: Policy, practice, and potential. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing Co..Google Scholar
  29. Russo, C., & Osborne, A. (Eds.). (2008). Essential concepts and school-based cases in special education law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  30. Scott, G. A. (2011). Higher education and disability: Improved federal enforcement needed to better protect students’ rights to testing accommodations (GAO-12-40, Report to Congressional Requesters). Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office.Google Scholar
  31. Shriner, J., & Thurlow, M. L. (1993). State special education outcomes: A report on state Activities at the end of the century. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  32. Simon, M, Karasoff, P., & Smith, A. (1991). Effective practices for inclusion Programs: A technical assistance planning guide. (unpublished paper supported by U.S. Department of Education Cooperative Agreements #GOO87C3056–91 and #GOO87C3058–91).Google Scholar
  33. Skirtic, T. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61(2).Google Scholar
  34. Stecker, P. M. (2005). Monitoring student progress in individualized educational programs using curriculum-based measurement. In U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education: IDEAS that Work: Toolkit on teaching and assessing students with disabilities. National Center on Student Progress Monitoring.Google Scholar
  35. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (P.L. 89–10).Google Scholar
  36. The White House. (1990). National educational goals, Office of the Press Secretary. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  37. Thompson, S. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2000). State alternate assessments: Status as IDEA alternate assessment requirements take effect (Synthesis report 35). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar
  38. Thurlow, M. L., Seyfarth, A., Scott, D. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1997). State assessment policies on participation and accommodations for students with disabilities: 1997 update (Synthesis report No. 29). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar
  39. Thurlow, M. L., & Yesseldyke, J. E. (1993). Can “all” ever really mean “all” in defining and assessing student outcomes? (Synthesis Report No.5). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar
  40. Tindal, G. (2009). Reflections on the Alternate Assessment in Oregon. In W. D. Shafer & R. W. Lissitz (Eds.), Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: Policy, practice, and potential. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  41. U.S. Department of Education. (1993). The reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act, executive summary, 1993. U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  42. U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Elementary and secondary education. Guidance on standards, assessments and accountability. Retrieved Oct 2, 2009 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/standardsassessment/guidance_pg4.html#disabilities3.
  43. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Standards and assessments non-regulatory guidance March 10, 2003. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  44. U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Secretary spellings announces new flexibility for states raising achievement for students with disabilities, May 10, 2005. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  45. U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Peer review of state assessment systems: Non-regulatory guidance for states for meeting requirements of the elementary and secondary education act of 1965, as amended. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  46. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The condition of education 2016 (NCES 2016–144), Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2013-14.asp.
  47. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (2003). Letter to givens. Retrieved August 24, 2016 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2003–1/given020403iep1q2003.pdf. Washington, DC: Author.
  48. U.S. Department of Justice. (2015). Testing accommodations. Washington, DC: author. Retrieved from: http://www.ada.gov/regs2014/testing_accommodations.html.
  49. Wallace, T., Ticha, R., & Gustafson, K. (2008). Study of General Outcome Measurement (GOMs) in reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Year 1. RIPM Technical Report #27.Google Scholar
  50. Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M. L., McGrew, K. S., & Shriner, G. J. (1994). Recommendations for making decisions about the participation of students with disabilities in statewide assessment programs: A report on a working conference to develop guidelines for statewide assessments and students with disabilities (Synthesis report 15). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar
  51. Zigmond, N., & Kloo, A. (2009). The ‘two percent students’: Considerations and consequences of eligibility decisions. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(4), 478–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.US Department of Education, Office of Special Education ProgramsWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations