Students with Disabilities in Standards-based Assessment and Accountability Systems: Emerging Issues, Strategies, and Recommendations
NCEO Synthesis Report 37
Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes
Prepared by:
Rachel F. Quenemoen, Camilla A. Lehr, Martha L. Thurlow, and Carol B. Massanari
February 2001
Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
Quenemoen, R. F., Lehr, C. A., Thurlow, M. L., & Massanari, C. B. (2001). Students with disabilities in standards-based assesment and accountability systems: Emerging issues, strategies, and recommendations (Synthesis Report 37). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis37.html
For too
long, when we found that some students were not achieving high standards set for
them, we lowered the standards for those students. Through standards-based
reform, we have an opportunity to change that pattern. Now, for ALL students, we
must keep the standards high, and do whatever it takes to help students be
successful. We can change the curriculum, the structure, the time it takes to
learn, the way we assess, but we cannot lower the standards.
This paper
addresses emerging issues affecting students with disabilities in
standards-based assessment and accountability systems. Challenges and possible
strategies for addressing the challenges are provided as identified by
researchers, policymakers, and practitioners, based on a model developed by the
National Center on Educational Outcomes, “Issues Related to Students with
Disabilities in Assessment and Accountability Systems.” The strategies presented here are
concrete approaches to address challenges policymakers and practitioners are
seeing in early implementation of inclusive assessment and accountability
systems. All of these strategies have potential to increase the positive
consequences and minimize the negative consequences of school reform for
students with disabilities.
Yet, as
documented elsewhere, state and district approaches to standards-based reform
vary widely—in the beliefs and assumptions inherent in the system, in the nature
of content and performance standards, in the nature of the assessment methods
used, and in the degree of stakes (Almond et al., 2000). Thus there cannot be a
“recipe” of recommended concrete strategies that will work in all contexts, but
we can make some general recommendations built on the strategies discussed here.
In that light, we provide a few general recommendations that can apply to all
states and districts as we work toward fully inclusive assessment and
accountability systems that truly benefit all students.
Overview
In 1994,
Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The
Title I provisions of the Act require that expectations and outcomes for
students served by Title I be the same as for all other children. This
reauthorization, called the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) of 1994, also
requires that states and districts set challenging standards for student
achievement, and develop and administer assessments to measure student progress
toward those standards. As they do this, all students in schools receiving Title I
funds are to be held to these standards, the progress of
all
students is to be measured by these assessments, and results for all students must be reported to the
public. Using assessment reports reflecting the progress of
all
students toward high standards, schools are to make the instructional and
structural changes needed so that all
of their students have opportunity to meet the standards. These features of
Title I law are the core components of what is called standards-based reform:
content and performance standards set for all students, development of
measurement tools to measure the progress of all students toward the standards,
and accountability systems that require continuous improvement of student
achievement.
Students
with disabilities are specifically included in the definition of “all” students in IASA 1994, but the
amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA
1997) further clarify Congressional expectations. IDEA 1997 focused state and
district attention on the challenges of full participation of students with
disabilities in assessment systems, and in conjunction with the IASA
legislation, on the challenges of understanding and developing inclusive
accountability systems that will improve outcomes for all students. In other
words, the assessment provisions of IDEA must be considered within the context
of the accountability provisions of IASA.
We are
several years into national, state, and district efforts at implementing
standards-based reform. In 1999, the National Research Council (NRC) published a
review of progress thus far in standards-based reform, specifically based on
Title I requirements. In this report, the authors suggest that a “theory of
action” for driving the reform movement is inherent in the reform legislation:
Generally,
the idea of standards-based reform states that, if states set high standards for
student performance, develop assessments that measure student performance
against the standards, give schools the flexibility they need to change
curriculum, instruction, and school organization to enable their students to
meet the standards, and hold schools strictly accountable for meeting
performance standards, then student achievement will rise.
As
portrayed by the theory of action, the intended outcome of standards-based
reform is increased levels of learning and achievement for
all students in our nation’s schools. The model assumes that all students
are included in all components of the reform agenda – standards, assessments,
flexibility, and strict accountability.
As
standards-based reform is implemented for all students, concerns have been
raised that despite the intended positive consequence of higher student
achievement for all students, there is the potential for unintended negative
consequences. Furthermore, the reform movement has influenced the implementation
of additional policies and procedures that must be examined for all students,
with and without disabilities. These secondary policies and practices are also
implemented with the intent to improve student learning and achievement. For
example, states have begun to implement policies to end social promotion. The
overall intent of these policies is to ensure that students have mastered grade
level material before being promoted. However, among the unintended effects of
this policy may be an increase in the number of students retained and in the
number of students who drop out (Quenemoen, Lehr, Thurlow, Thompson, & Bolt,
2000).
This paper
addresses emerging issues affecting students with disabilities in
standards-based assessment and accountability systems. Challenges and possible
strategies for addressing the challenges are provided, as identified by
policymakers, researchers, and practitioners, based on a model developed by the
National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO). Finally, recommendations for
action are proposed.
Model for Considering Issues Related to Students with Disabilities in Standards-based Assessment and Accountability Systems
The model
shown in Figure 1 illustrates an adaptation of the theory of action of
standards-based reform. The model shows:
•
The components of the accountability system driving school reform (content
standards, performance standards, curriculum and instruction, assessment
systems, reporting and improvement plans, consequences, and stakes),
•
Challenges that arise as students with disabilities are included in the system,
and
•
Examples of some issues affecting students with disabilities in inclusive
accountability systems and secondary policies and practices.
Definition of Key Terms Accountability System: a systematic collection, analysis, and use of information to hold schools, educators, and others responsible for the performance of students and the education system. (Education Commission of the States, 1998.) Assessment System: a process of collecting data for the purpose of making decisions. (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 2001.) Testing: the process of administering a test to an individual or group to obtain a score. Testing is one way to gather assessment information. (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 2001.) |
Figure 1. Model for Considering Issues Related to Students wtih Disabilities in Standards-based Assessment and Accountability Systems
Issues Related to Students with Disabilities (SWD) in Assessment and
Accountability Systems
(NCEO Adapted from the Model of the Theory
of Action of Standards-based Reform; NRC, 1999)
Components of Accountability System
ONE SYSTEM FOR ALL STUDENTS Content Standards Performance Standards Curriculum and Instruction Multiple Measures of
Progress, Including Large-Scale Assessments and Alternates Reporting and Improvement Plans Consequences and Stakes |
Inclusive Accountability Challenges for SWD
Linking content standards and IEP objectives/student needs, expanded standards, parallel standards, other Accommodations and alternates: One assessment system, all students All staff accountable for ALL students – Improvement planning based on data, training issues High stakes issues: District, school, individual Training and staff development: Administrators, general education and special education staff, parents, community members |
Possible Consequences for SWD
Intended (positive) · Higher levels of learning
and achievement against common standards · Access to general
education curriculum · Opportunity to learn,
Mastery of grade level material · Meaningful diplomas · Accountable System AND
Students |
Unintended (negative)
· Lowered expectations on IEP objectives to ensure mastery · Misinterpretation of achievement results · Higher rates of dropout, retention, absenteeism, lower graduation rates · Teacher burnout · Cheating on tests · High rates of exemption/exclusion – “disappearing students” |
The model was initially adapted from the NRC model by staff at NCEO,
and was further refined after discussion by 135 participants at the
June 2000 Alternate Assessment Forum in Salt Lake City, Utah. (For
complete proceedings from the Alternate Assessment Forum in Salt
Lake City, Utah, see
http://www.coled.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Forum2000/ForumReport2000.htm.)
Participants were primarily state department of education assessment
and special education staff, but also included some local or
regional education staff, university staff, parents, and test
publisher staff. The model was used in a Forum plenary session
designed to facilitate conversations to identify and explore the
effects of assessment and accountability systems for students with
disabilities, as experienced up to this point.
The process was divided into three rounds. In round one, groups of
four to eight people discussed a series of questions about inclusive
accountability challenges for students with disabilities, and then
discussed the consequences of these challenges for students with
disabilities. In round two, one person from the original group
remained at a table with the original notes, and others left to join
new groups. The same series of questions was posed in the second
round with the newly formed groups. In round three, participants
returned to their original discussion groups to address needed
strategies at the state, regional, and national levels to resolve
issues that arise from identified challenges and consequences.
For each of the three rounds of discussion, recorders at each table
completed discussion recording forms and notes capturing participant
responses. At the completion of the process, documented participant
responses to each round of discussion were collated according to the
three categories of: (1) perceived challenges, (2) perceived
positive or negative consequences, and (3) perceived strategies.
Brief summaries of the challenges, consequences, and strategies as
perceived by the participants are presented below by general
category. These summaries are followed by some general
recommendations and concluding remarks.
It is important to remember that these challenges, consequences, and
strategies are the perceptions of a group of involved
stakeholders at one point in time. It is hoped that researchers and
policymakers can use the summary to develop informed research
questions and policy revisions where necessary. Further, it is hoped
that practitioners at the state and district levels can make use of
proposed strategies and recommendations to continuously improve
standards-based assessment and accountability systems so that all
students benefit from them.
Content and Performance Standards for All Students
Participants perceived challenges in designing a system to measure
performance of all students against common standards. They suggested
that the challenges vary depending on the nature of the state and
district content standards as suggested in earlier writing on the
gray areas of assessment systems (Almond, Quenemoen, Olsen, &
Thurlow, 2000). The greatest challenges appear to be in states with
highly specific content requirements, with limited flexibility as to
how students will learn to the standards, and with limited
flexibility as to how students will show what they know and are able to do. A more
general challenge in all states is how to adjust performance
standards for the alternate assessment for students with the most
significant disabilities. However, some participants suggested that
content and performance standards provide a clear directive on
“what” students, including those with disabilities, need to know and
be able to do, and that the standards force us to address
“opportunity to learn” issues for all students.
Accommodations and Alternate Assessments – One System, All Students
Challenges involved in designing one assessment system for all
students include varying understanding of accommodations,
modifications, and alternate assessment, as well as issues of
technical adequacy of these options. Numerous writers have called
attention to these issues (Thurlow, House, Boys, Scott, & Ysseldyke,
2000; Tindal, 1998; Tindal & Fuchs, 1999). According to
participants, there can be a mismatch between purposes of assessment
for system level instructional improvement versus individual
instructional planning. Another mismatch may be between the need to
have data that have high validity and reliability versus moral,
ethical, and inclusion issues. The “one system, all students”
challenges closely intertwine with measurement and reporting issues.
Measurement and Reporting – Psychometric Soundness
Technical and psychometric difficulties with existing assessment
systems were perceived as a major issue, but fairness of use of
results is a related and complicating issue. Some of the challenges
identified by participants include: putting all students on the same
scale versus accountability for all, a need for a balance between
what makes sense for improvement planning versus psychometric
soundness, and how to compare fairly across schools, districts, and
states with so many uncontrolled variables.
School Improvement Planning Based on Data for ALL Students
The development of the assessment system is meant to yield data that
will drive instructional improvement. For instructional improvements
that benefit all students to occur, several challenges have to be
addressed, including training on purpose and uses of data, and
ensuring that all students, specifically those with disabilities and
those with limited English proficiency, are included in the
improvement processes. Helping local teams understand their roles,
and the complexities of making good plans based on the data are
major challenges to states and districts, as perceived by these
discussants.
Training, Professional Development – All Partners Supporting All Students
Discussants expressed a belief that there is a high and immediate
need for broadly based training for administrators, parents, and
both general and special education teachers. This echoes the
concerns raised by the National Research Council in
Testing, Teaching, and Learning (1999, p. 3): “In our view,
standards-based policies can affect student learning only if they
are tied directly to efforts to build the capacity of teachers and
administrators to improve instruction.”
High Stakes Issues
States and districts vary in the stakes attached to their assessment
system. There were both system level and individual student level
issues raised about high stakes. Participants discussed whether we
are just looking at “testing” all students OR testing all and using results for improvement. Other
questions they raised involved the civil rights implications of
various approaches to diplomas, and whether the system should be
held accountable prior to holding students accountable.
Perceived Consequences for Students with Disabilities
Positive Consequences
The discussion groups recognized anticipated positive consequences
of standards-based reform efforts for students with disabilities in
implementation thus far. These positive consequences include:
Higher Levels of Learning and Achievement Toward Common Standards
Discussants reported a perception that the linking of
the state standards and the functional curriculum for students with
the most significant disabilities has improved IEP goal writing, and
has refocused the IEP on instruction and curriculum. Some reported
that more students with disabilities are being included in the
general education curriculum and in general education classes. In
addition, teachers report doing more authentic instruction, and
using more instructional accommodations. However, given the limited
time that we have had focused efforts to include all students, there
was limited discussion of actual measurement of achievement gains
for students with disabilities at this point in time.
Access to General Education Curriculum
Participants speculated that schools could become more
inclusive as general and special educators partner to ensure all
students have access to the general education curriculum. They
perceived that “ownership” of special education students is now
shared with general education more so than in the past. Here again,
the evidence was anecdotal, but perceptions were generally positive.
Opportunity to Learn, Mastery of Grade Level Material
As special education students are expected to learn
toward high standards, IEP teams, general education staff, and
special education staff are forced to rethink how students spend
their time in school. For example, teachers have suggested that as
they learn new assessment strategies for their students
participating in alternate assessments and link those strategies
back to instruction, they have refocused on learning and away from
caretaking.
Accountable System and Students, Meaningful Diplomas
Participants observed that teachers report they are
thinking of new ways to assess students, simplifying IEPs, and
getting down to what is important. The new accountability provisions
open communication pipelines from state to local, and administrators
to providers. Ultimately as we implement standards-based reform,
there is a perception that we have refocused on core learning and
skills, and the ability of students to apply the skills in multiple
settings. That makes the diploma – whichever option the student
earns – more meaningful.
Negative Consequences
Participants also perceived negative consequences in implementation,
which are described in the following categories:
Lowered Expectations on IEP Objectives to Ensure Mastery
There was concern expressed that assessments may begin
to address only lower level skills, ones that all can accomplish, as
teachers and schools raise concerns about accountability indices.
Concomitantly, IEPs may reflect this focus on lower level skills in
more limiting annual objectives. States that have developed an
IEP-based alternate assessment are at highest risk for this
unintended negative consequence. Additionally, if states and
districts interpret standards-based measures as being demonstrated
only through traditional academic exercises (e.g., classroom based
learning, testing), we may short-change students with respect to
employability skills or life skills education while they spend more
time on academics outside of applied settings.
Misinterpretation of Achievement Results
There was discussion of possible inappropriate use of
scores. For example, high stakes based on large-scale assessment
scores may provide incentives to include more students in alternate
assessment, or a backlash may develop that suggests that disability
is the reason students cannot learn or cannot perform well on
assessments, thus students with disabilities should not be expected
to learn. Alternatively, interpretations of low scores for students
with disabilities may be used to suggest that special education is
not effective, without attention to the complexities of establishing
valid and reliable trend lines within a population that is
constantly shifting (Bielinski & Ysseldyke, 2000; Ysseldyke &
Bielinski, in press).
Higher Rates of Dropout, Retention, Absenteeism, Lower Graduation Rates
Participants discussed concerns that challenging
standards and inappropriate use of assessment data without
appropriate interventions and opportunities to learn will cause
students with disabilities to give up, drop out, be retained, or be
truant.
Staff Burnout, Cheating on Tests, Other Symptoms of an Unworkable System
There have been numerous headlines related to teacher
burnout, high rates of teacher and principal retirements or
resignations, and cheating on high stakes tests during the past few
years. No one would argue that the challenges of implementing such
massive reform has taken its toll on otherwise dedicated
professional staff. Participants did not address this item in any
detail – and some suggested that change is never easy, and this
shift to standards-based accountability is a major shift.
High Rates of
Exemption/Exclusion – Disappearing Students
Finally, there was concern expressed that schools may
become less inclusive with high stakes test pressures. Schools may
be unwilling to “house” classes of students with significant
disabilities if having a large number of students in the alternate
assessment lowers the accountability index rating for that site.
Participants suggested that this can be addressed by formulas in the
accountability system to allow for unusual population profiles, or
through equating processes to integrate results from the alternate
assessment into the accountability indices. The expression was used
that “Kids and teachers are hiding under rocks from the assessment –
special education, private schools, teachers exempting students,
moving kids – who’s accountable for them?”
From the discussion on perceived positive and negative consequences
of the challenges, participants moved to identifying concrete
strategies to maximize positive and minimize negative consequences
of standards-based reform for students with disabilities.
The discussion groups at the Alternate Assessment Forum identified
numerous strategies to address consequences. These strategies fall
into five broad categories:
•
Improvement of instruction
•
Improvement of assessment tools, measurement, and reporting
•
Improvement of the accountability system
•
Training of multiple partners
•
Addressing high stakes and related civil rights issues
Strategies for Improvement of Instruction
include intensifying work on alignment of curriculum, instruction,
and assessment, but with more formalized evaluation of opportunity
to learn and teacher performance. Discussants suggested that
integration between special education and general education is a key
strategy, making general education teachers more responsible for
differentiated instruction, and helping special education teachers
focus on preparing students for community life, independence,
employability. A key strategy here is to improve preservice training
for all educators, since general education needs more attention to
individualized teaching, and special education needs more attention
to specialized assessment, planning, and teaching.
Strategies for Improvement of Assessment
Tools, Measurement, and Reporting include the development of a
standards assessment model with inclusivity built in at all levels,
including assessment item and process development, administration,
scoring, and reporting. Participants suggested that states and
districts need to ensure that all students are assessed and that the
determination of a particular type of participation is appropriate.
States and districts can compare strategies used elsewhere to be
sure every student counts, perhaps through using accountability
indices to incorporate different levels of performance for general
assessment and alternate assessment; through sending scores of
students in separate facilities back to the home school, or by
coding carefully, yet ensuring every score counts, even if
additional data are required to fit the assessment results into the
accountability system fairly.
States and districts must account for
all students (e.g., absences, excluded, regular, accommodated,
alternate), and how they do so should be included as an element of
the monitoring process. An additional framework for special
education and limited English proficient students may be helpful:
for example, instead of four levels, add a fifth category that might
include access skills. For example, for the alternate assessment
participants, we may explore the use of prerequisites for skills
that help us make scores more meaningful in the short term; for
limited English proficient students, we may explore the use of
prerequisites for English. Care would be needed to avoid using these
categories as a way to circumvent all students being measured,
however. Working toward more accommodation friendly assessment
systems while balancing issues of reliability and validity is
essential. Test publishers have to work more closely with their
customers, the states and districts, on solving technical issues,
and researchers must be partners in the effort.
Strategies for Improvement of the
Accountability System include review of accountability processes
and products to make changes as necessary based on data that are
emerging. Participants recommended keeping varied perspectives in
the stakeholder mix, since having people who do not think students
with disabilities should be in the system work with you helps you to
address tough questions up front rather than after implementation is
entrenched. Include special education and LEP staff in early
discussions about accountability, and involve parents and
policymakers as well. States need to take the time to consider all
aspects of accountability. Learn from other’s mistakes. Develop or
adopt a usable model for continuous improvement for use by school
improvement teams, and provide training and support as local teams
implement the model.
Strategies for Training of Multiple Partners
focus on changing attitudes and on building skills. Training for
special educators is a must, and should include how to collect a
body of evidence and strategies to collect data on students with
diverse needs. But administrators and general education teachers
must be included in the training – all the partners need basic
assessment literacy, and an understanding of how assessment data are
used to identify improvement strategies. State and local
partnerships that include higher education are needed for developing
and implementing training. It is important to conduct multiple
meetings where people sit down and talk through the issues. Include
parents in development, in refinement, and in delivery of training.
All partners, including parents and students as appropriate, may
need to understand why it is important to have higher expectations
for all children, including those with the most significant
difficulties.
Strategies for Addressing High Stakes and Related Civil Rights
Issues include the strategies of directly articulating civil rights
issues to all partners, and embracing the reality that all students
have the right to an opportunity to learn, and to fair assessment
and accountability practices. Keep discussions open and all partners
involved as diploma options, promotion requirements, or access to
interventions are determined. Understand and carefully abide by the
valid uses of specific assessment data for various purposes, and
educate legislators and governors on the appropriateness of various
approaches for varying purposes and uses. Develop skills of teachers
and teams in developing a body of evidence of student work that can
supplement assessment scores for high stakes decisions for students,
and develop policymakers’ understanding of the need for multiple
measures.
Recommendations
Including students with disabilities in standards-based assessment
and accountability systems is one way to ensure all students have
equal opportunities to learn to high standards, and is required by
Federal law. Yet state and district staff who are implementing
standards-based reform are finding that challenges in implementation
of fully inclusive systems arise from many different sources,
ranging from the technical adequacy of existing assessment
instruments for all students to the attitudes and beliefs of
educators and other stakeholders about what students with
disabilities can and should learn. Each of these challenges can
affect students with disabilities in positive or negative ways,
depending on how they are addressed.
The strategies that emerged from the discussions at the Alternate
Assessment Forum in Salt Lake City are concrete approaches to
address challenges policymakers and practitioners are seeing in
early implementation of inclusive assessment and accountability
systems. All of these strategies have potential to increase the
positive consequences and minimize the negative consequences of
school reform for students with disabilities in some settings. Yet,
as documented elsewhere, state and district approaches to
standards-based reform vary widely – on the beliefs and assumptions
inherent in the system, on the nature of content and performance
standards, on the nature of the assessment methods used, and on the
degree of stakes (Almond et al., 2000). Thus, there cannot be a
“recipe” of recommended concrete strategies that will work in all
contexts, but we can make some general recommendations built on the
strategies discussed here. In that light, here are a few general
recommendations that can apply to all states and districts as we
work toward fully inclusive assessment and accountability systems
that truly benefit all students.
1.
With essential internal and external partners, use a data-based
continuous improvement process to monitor the implementation of your
inclusive assessment and accountability systems.
•
Recognize from the start that the systems can be continuously
improved, and encourage feedback and open discussions of what is
working and what is not within education and with the public. Expect
the test publisher or developers of your assessment system tools to
be involved in these discussions.
•
Study the implications of early implementation of the assessment
system and the accountability system using a research based
evaluation model managed by a neutral research organization (e.g.,
University, research firm) if possible. Include measurement of
consequences of your system for special populations as a design
requirement. Use the data to develop test specifications, and expect
your test publisher or developers to respond to needs you identify.
Expect the people or organizations providing technical expertise to
help you solve problems of accessibility as you identify them. Work
with policymakers to make sure that accountability policies are
refined to address identified needs.
•
Work hard to discern the difference between blind resistance to
change and the informed insight of stakeholders who see legitimate
problems with the system. Working often and openly with a broadly
based implementation advisory group of stakeholders with varied and
strong perspectives will help you sort through the noise of early
implementation.
•
Make sure your advisory group clearly addresses and includes the
targeted populations that have had traditional “performance gaps,”
and their representatives. These groups include, but are not limited
to, students with disabilities, limited English proficient students,
disadvantaged students, and ethnic minorities.
•
Develop an open relationship with leaders of news organizations in
your state. Offer them seminars on the assessment and accountability
system, and provide good information on the consequences of an
inclusive assessment and accountability system for all groups of
students.
2.
Identify all the key stakeholders, and keep communications open
among all partners as implementation occurs. Commit to a top-down,
bottom-up partnership in learning how to include all students
fairly. Some leaders in state assessment and accountability systems
call this “growing this from the classroom and school up!”
•
Work with legislators and governors to build their commitment to and
understanding of a flexible, continuous improvement model of
assessment and accountability systems that benefit all students.
•
Listen to, learn from, and respond to the students, parents,
teachers, and schools in the front lines of implementation of
assessment and accountability, including those from all special
populations.
•
As a state or district leader, be willing to take a stand for
changes or improvements that will help all students reach toward
high standards, and then show what they know and are able to do.
Then be willing to sell the rationale to leaders both at the
legislature and in the classroom if it is necessary. A time of great
opportunity for positive change for all students is a time for
courage and commitment.
3.
Keep the standards high and keep your focus clear.
•
“Keep your eyes on the prize” of all students and all schools being
successful.
•
Provide resources, strategies, training, or whatever it takes to
help schools improve teaching and learning. That may include helping
them understand what the data mean for different groups of students,
or how to develop good school improvement plans. It may require
specific training on instructional methods, on structural options
for the school day and classroom, varied approaches to assessment,
or WHATEVER it takes to help students be successful.
•
You may find you need to change the nature of some of your state or
district content or performance standards, based on thoughtful
review and consideration of what the citizens of your state or
district believe all students should know and be able to do. Keep
the standards high for all students, even as you change the precise
nature of the standards.
For too long, when the education system found that some students
were not achieving high standards set for them, the system lowered
the standards for those students. Through standards-based reform
there is an opportunity to change that pattern. Now, for all students, we must keep the standards
high and do whatever it takes to help students be successful. There
can be changes in the curriculum, the structure, the time it takes
to learn, the way we assess, but there cannot be lowering of the
standards.
With the great opportunity to ensure that all students will be
successful comes some risks. According to our model, the intended
positive consequences of standards-based reform for students with
disabilities include:
• Higher
levels of learning and achievement against common standards
• Access to
the general education curriculum
•
Opportunity to learn, and mastery of grade level material
•
Meaningful diplomas
•
Accountable system AND students
Yet we are also seeing negative and unintended consequences such as:
•
Lowered expectations on IEP objectives, in order to ensure mastery
•
Misinterpretation of achievement results
• Higher
rates of dropout, retention, absenteeism, lower graduation rates
•
Teacher burnout
•
Cheating on tests
• High
rates of exemption/exclusion – disappearing students
There are many concrete strategies for states and districts to use
to increase the positive consequences of standards-based reform for
students with disabilities and to minimize the negative ones. States
and districts can share their experiences and ideas to generate more
strategies. But in the long run, a methodical and thoughtful
commitment by all stakeholders to all students is required if
standards-based reform is to benefit all students. By recognizing
the benefits and the risks, by working together to identify and
overcome challenges and continuously improve our systems for
measuring student outcomes, and by holding our schools accountable
for all students, all students and all schools can be successful.
References
Almond, P., Quenemoen, R., Olsen, K., & Thurlow, M. (2000).
Gray areas of assessment systems (Synthesis Report 32).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Bielinski, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (2000).
Interpreting trends in the performance of special education students
(Technical Report 27). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Education Commission of the States. (1998).
Designing and implementing
standards-based accountability systems. Denver, CO: Author.
National Research Council. (1999).
Testing, teaching, and learning: A guide for states and school
districts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Quenemoen, R., Lehr, C. A., Thurlow, M., Thompson, S. J., & Bolt, S.
(2000). Social promotion and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges
in developing state policies (Synthesis Report 34). Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational
Outcomes.
Raber, S & Roach, V. (Fraser, K., ed.) (1998).
The push and pull of standards-based reform: How does it affect
local school districts and students with disabilities? Center
for Policy Research.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2001).
Assessment, Eighth Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Tindal, G. (1998). Models for understanding task comparability
in accommodated testing. Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and
Teaching.
Tindal G., & Fuchs, L. (1999).
A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for
defining accommodations. Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional
Resource Center.
Thurlow, M., House, A., Boys, C., Scott, D., Ysseldyke, J. (2000).
State participation and accommodations policies for students with
disabilities: 1999 update
(Synthesis Report 33). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Ysseldyke, J., & Bielinski, J. (in press). Effects of failure to consider student reclassification on the interpretation of test performance. Manuscript submitted for publication.