IEP Team Decision-Making for More Inclusive Assessments: Policies, Percentages, and Personal Decisions

  • Naomi Zigmond
  • Amanda Kloo
  • Christopher J. Lemons
Chapter

Abstract

Since the 2001–2002 school year, the accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) have shaped much of the work of public school teachers and administrators in the United States. NCLB required each state to develop content and achievement standards in several subjects, to administer tests to measure students’ attainment of those standards, to develop targets for student performance on those tests, and to impose a series of sanctions on schools and districts that did not meet the targets. Together, the standards, assessments, and consequences constitute a standards-based accountability system. State assessments are the mechanism for determining whether schools have been successful in teaching students the knowledge and skills defined by the content standards. The accountability provisions ensure that schools are held accountable for educational results. Many states had such a system in place before NCLB took effect, but since 2001–2002, every state in the United States has had to develop and implement a standards-based accountability system that meets the requirements of the law. This mandate has affected every public school student, every public school, and every district in the nation.

Keywords

Stake 

References

  1. Crawford, L., Almond, P., Tindal, G., & Hollenbeck, K. (2002). Teacher perspectives on inclusion of students with disabilities in high stakes assessments. Special Services in the Schools, 18(1/2), 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Defur, S. H. (2002). Education reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with disabilities: One states approach. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Donnellan, A. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavior Disorders, 9, 141–150.Google Scholar
  4. English, F. W., & Steffy, B. E. (2001). Deep curriculum alignment: Creating a level playing field for all children on high-stakes tests of educational accountability. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
  5. Federal Register (2003, December 9). Department of Education, 34 CFR Part 200, Title I – Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged; final rule, pp. 68968–68708Google Scholar
  6. Federal Register (2007, April 9). 34 CFR Parts 200 and 300, Title I – Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged; rules and regulations, pp. 17747–17781Google Scholar
  7. Improving America’s Schools Act, Pub. L. No. 103–382. (1994). Retrieved September 10, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/toc.html
  8. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No 101-476. (1990). Retrieved September 10, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/edpicks.jhtm
  9. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-7. (1997). Retrieved September 10, 2008, from http://www.cec.sped.org/law_res/doc/law/index.php
  10. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446. (2004). Retrieved September 10, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.htm
  11. Koenig, J. A., & Bachman, L. F. (Eds.). (2004). Keeping score for all: The effects of inclusion and accommodation policies on large-scale educational assessments. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kohler, P. D., & Field, S. (2003) Transition-focused education: Foundation for the future. Journal of Special Education, 37, 174–183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lazarus, S. S., Hodgson, J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2010) States’ participant guidelines for alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS) in 2009 (Synthesis Report 75). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar
  14. Lazarus, S. S., Rogers, C., Cormier, D., & Thurlow, M. L. (2008). States’ alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) in 2008 (Synthesis Report 71). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar
  15. Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Christensen, L. L., & Cormier, D. (2007). States’ alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) in 2007 (Synthesis Report 67). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar
  16. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2005) Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 525–531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mislevy, R. L. (2007). What you test is what you get: Q&A with Robert J. Mislevy, Ph.D. Endeavors, 9(16), 4–5.Google Scholar
  18. National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (2002). Position statement: Rights without labels. Retrieved April 19 2010, from http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_rwl.aspx
  19. No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2001). Retrieved September 11, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/eseas02/index/html
  20. Public Law 94-142 (1975) Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Retrieved 1/09, from http://users.rcn.com/peregrin.enteract/add/94-142.txt
  21. Quenemoen, R. (2009, July). Identifying students and considering why and whether to assess them with an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards. In M. Perie (Ed.), Considerations for the alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) (Chapter 2, pp. 17–50). Retrieved from the New York Comprehensive Center: http://nycomprehensivecenter.org/docs/AA_MAS_part2.pdf
  22. Romberg, T., Zarinnia, A., & Williams, S. (1989). The influence of mandated testing on mathematics instruction: Grade eight teachers’ perceptions. In T. Romberg & L. Wilson (1992, September). Alignment of tests with the standards. Arithmetic Teacher, 40(1), 18–22.Google Scholar
  23. Shepard, L. A. (1989, April). Why we need better assessments. Educational Leadership, 46(7), 4–9.Google Scholar
  24. Thurlow, M. (2007).The challenge of special populations to accountability for all. In D. Clark (Ed.), No child left behind: A five year review (Congressional Program, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 39–44). Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  25. 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. Retrieved from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis29.html
  26. US Department of Education. (1997). Individuals with disabilities education act, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSEP/policy/IDEA/index.html
  27. US Department of Education. (2005). Alternate assessment standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/nclb/twopercent.doc
  28. US Department of Education. (2007). Modified academic achievement standards: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/nclb/twopercent.doc
  29. Vaughn, S., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Denton, C. A., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., et al. (2008). Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties. Learning & Individual Differences, 18(3), 338–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ysseldyke, J., & Thurlow, M. (1994). Guidelines for inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments (Policy Directions No. 1). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar
  31. Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Bielinski, J., House, A., Moody, M., & Haigh, J. (2001). The relationship between instructional and assessment accommodations in an inclusive state accountability system. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(3), 212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naomi Zigmond
    • 1
  • Amanda Kloo
    • 2
  • Christopher J. Lemons
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Instruction and Learning, School of EducationUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations