Abstract
This chapter explores the implications of the discussion of legislation, policy and practice in educational accountability with students with impairment in Chaps. 1 through 3 and the identified explicit and implicit assumptions identified in Chap. 4 for equitable educational accountability practice for these students in the future. It elaborates first the concept of a psychometric model of impairment in educational accountability and shows that psychometric overconcern with standardization of process as the means to promote assessment fairness has the opposite effect---a negative impact on equitable inclusion of students with impairment in educational accountability. Three recommendations for future policy and practice are made: the need for greater variety of assessment forms to allow students with impairment optimal demonstration of their educational achievement; the need for educational standards that are appropriate for students with impairment so that achievement and growth can be monitored in meaningful ways for schools, students and parents; and, finally, the need for further research to explore the interaction between impairment and knowledge construction to ensure that the construction of educational achievement outcomes for students with impairment is not standardized as a deficit against the achievements of those without impairment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Pitoniak and Royer (2001, p. 94) note that public perception of educational accountability may be that it is intended to be normative, not criterion-referenced, and hence may have concerns about the advantages possibly posed by accommodations such as extra time. This perception is of course increased by the competitive nature of public reporting of school outcomes promoted in educational accountability.
- 2.
This is contra to a focus on validity of inference in terms of test specifications (Phillips 1994).
- 3.
Researchers have often queried the validity of developmental curriculum sequences since by their very nature they embed hierarchies of content difficulty in their stages of learning (see, e.g., Ashcraft and Christy 1995).
- 4.
For an overall review of motivation research, see, e.g., Wigfield et al. (1998).
- 5.
It has been noted that from a cultural perspective this is still problematic as it identifies the concept of disability as belonging to an individual, not a societal construction (Swain et al. 2003, p. 14). The extent of recognition of cultural identity of people who are deaf is such that respect is accorded to this culture through the terminology ‘a deaf person’. Johnson and McIntosh (2009, p. 69) note considerable prior research on deaf culture, including the conceptualization of culture as “everything you believe and everything you do that enables you to identify with people like you and that distinguishes you from people who differ from you. Culture is about groupness.”
- 6.
While Boundy and Karger focus on students with dyslexia, the discussion is relevant to all students with impairment.
References
American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.
Ashcraft, M. H., & Christy, K. S. (1995). The frequency of arithmetic facts in elementary texts: Addition and multiplication in grades 1–6. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 396–421.
Boundy, K., & Karger, J. (2008). Special issues affecting inclusion of students with dyslexia in statewide assessments and their implications. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 34(4), 36–40.
Broadfoot, P. (2009). Preface. In C. Wyatt-Smith & J. Cumming (Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st century. Connecting theory and practice (pp. v–xi). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Cumming, J. (2009). Assessment challenges, the law and the future. In C. Wyatt-Smith & J. Cumming (Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st century. Connecting theory and practice (pp. 157–182). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Darling, R. (2003). Toward a model of changing disability identities: A proposed typology and research agenda. Disability and Society, 18(7), 881–895.
Darling, R., & Heckert, A. (2010). Orientations towards disability: Differences over the lifecourse. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 57(2), 131–143.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). Inequality and access to knowledge. In J. Banks & C. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 465–483). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Department for Education (DfE[UK]). (2010). Key Stage 2 attainment by pupil characteristics in England 2009/10 (Statistical First Release SFR 35/2010). London: Department of Education
Elliott, S. N., & Marquart, A. M. (2004). Extended time as a testing accommodation: Its effects and perceived consequences. Exceptional Children, 70, 349–367.
Giesinger, K.F. (1994). Psychometric issues in testing students with disabilities. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 121–140.
Geisinger, K.F. (2005). The testing industry, ethnic minorities, and individuals with disabilities. In R. P. Phelps (Ed.), Defending standardized testing (Chapter 10, pp. 187–203). Mahwah, MJ: Lawrence Erlbaum [Taylor & Francis e-book, kindle version].
Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in Education, 24, 355–392.
Goldstein, H. (1996). Statistical and psychometric models for assessment. In H. Goldstein & T. Lewis (Eds.), Assessment: Problems, developments and statistical issues. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning—Tensions and synergies. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207–223.
Hoffman, v. Board of Education of City of New York, 400 N. E.2d 317 (1979).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (US). Pub. L. No. 108-446, § 104, Stat. 1142 (2004).
Johnson, J., & McIntosh, A. (2009). Towards a cultural perspective and understanding of the disability and deaf experience in special multicultural education. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 67–83.
Kahn, J.P. (2011, May 19). Dancing with feeling. The Boston Globe (p. 31).
Kleinert, H., Browder, D., & Towles-Reeves, E. (2009). Models of cognition for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Implications for assessment. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 301–326.
Maxwell, G. S. (2010). Moderation of student work by teachers. In B. McGaw, P. Peterson, & E. Baker (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 3, pp. 457–463). Oxford: Elsevier.
Nester, M. A. (1993). Psychometric testing and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 38, 75–85.
Orfield, G., & Kornhaber, M. (Eds.). (2001). Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education. New York: Century.
Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93–120.
Phillips, S. E., & Camara, W. J. (2006). Legal and ethical issues. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 733–754). Westport, Ct: Praeger.
Pitoniak, M. J., & Royer, J. M. (2001). Testing accommodations for examinees with disabilities: A review of psychometric, legal, and social issues. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 53–104.
Popham, W. J. (1999). Why standardized tests don’t measure educational quality. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 8–15.
Pullin, D. (2008). Assessment, equity and opportunity to learn. In P. Moss, D. Pullin, J. Gee, E. Haertel, & L. Jones Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 333–351). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ragosta, M., & Wendler, C. (1992). Eligibility issues and comparable time limits for disabled and nondisabled SAT examinees. New York, N.Y.: College Entrance Examination Board Report No. 92-5. (ED 349 337).
Silverstein, R. (1999–2000). Emerging disability policy framework: A guidepost for analyzing public policy. Iowa Law Review, 85(4), 1691–1806.
Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S. E., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 457–490.
Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. Abingdon: Routledge.
Swain, J., French, S., & Cameron, C. (2003). Controversial issues in a disabling society. Buckingham: Open University.
Thurlow, M., Hurley, C., Spicuzza, R., & El Sawaf, H. (1996). A review of the literature on testing accommodations for students with disabilities (Minnesota Report No. 9). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 24, 2011 http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/onlinepubs/archive/AssessmentSeries/MnReport.9.html.
United Nations (UN). (2007). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. (Opened for signature 30 March 2007). New York: UN.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Rodriguez, D. (1998). The development of children’s motivation in school contexts. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 23, pp. 73–118). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Zuriff, G. E. (2000). Extra examination time for students with learning disabilities: An examination of the maximum potential thesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(1), 99–107.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cumming, J.J. (2012). Developing an Equitable Accountability System for Students With Impairment. In: Valuing Students with Impairment. SpringerBriefs in Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2935-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2935-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2934-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2935-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)