Extra Time Is A Virtue: How Standardized Testing Accommodations After College Throw Students with Disabilities Under the Bus

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haley Moss
Keyword(s):  
Standardized Testing ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Testing Accommodations ◽  
Extra Time

When the Achievement Gap Becomes High Stakes for Special Education Teachers: Facing a Dilemma with Integrity

2017 ◽  
Vol 119 (9) ◽  
pp. 1-39
Author(s):  
Heinrich Mintrop ◽  
Robin Zane
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Achievement Gap ◽  
Standardized Testing ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Special Education Teachers ◽  
Wide Spectrum ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Accountability System

Context A fundamental assumption behind a high stakes accountability system is that standardized testing, proficiency goal setting for demographic student subgroups, and sanctions would motivate teachers to focus on students whose performance had heretofore lagged. Students with disabilities became one such subgroup under the No Child Left Behind system. Special education teachers faced a novel pressure: to radically narrow the achievement gap between their students with disabilities towards proficiency or incur sanctions and corrective action for their schools and districts. Purpose The study uses the concept of “integrity” to analyze public service workers’ agency in situations of strain or crisis. Integrity consists of four overlapping domains of judgment: obligations of office, personal integrity, client needs, and prudence. Research Design The study is an in-depth multiple case study of seven teachers; 21 structured interviews, and 17 observations, augmented by a number of informal contact that included invitations to observe teacher meetings and conversations with school administrators. Findings The study found that the special education teachers faced a true dilemma. Teachers adopted contradictory solutions — some embraced the new demands, some rejected them. Both seemed equally untenable. The study reveals salient dimensions of this dilemma: how teachers related to the external moral obligation to equalize, what they chose to ‘see’ when they viewed the achievement gap; how they explained, or explained away, their agency in narrowing the gap; how they strategized and muddled through with instructional maneuvers to make the gap go away; and what they regarded, and guarded, as fields of professional responsibility and autonomous decision making. Implications What kind of accountability system would enable a collective dialogue among special education teachers in which high expectations, keen diagnosis, instructional expertise, internal responsibility for individualized learning gains, openness to external challenge, and attention to results would be the poles of the discussion? At the core, such an accountability system would validate the professionalism of the most expert teachers and avoid activating their defensiveness and demoralization. It would guard against middling expectations by making the performance of a wide spectrum of high and low performing schools or special education departments transparent. It would stay away from high pressure attached to unrealistic goals in order to discourage teachers from developing blind spots about their students, or acting with mere compliance and expediency. It would motivate a dynamic of student-centered continuous improvement in reference to a common standard, but also to low-stakes metrics that may guide iterative improvement.

Testing Accommodations for Students with Disabilities

1995 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 260-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARTHA L. THURLOW ◽  
JAMES E. YSSELDYKE ◽  
BETH SILVERSTEIN
Keyword(s):  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Testing Accommodations ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Reform Agenda ◽  
Testing Procedures ◽  
American Students

With a national reform agenda that includes all american students and federal legislation barring job discrimination against individuals with disabilities, concerns have mounted about how to accurately assess persons with disabilities. including these individuals in the assessment process often requires the modification of tests and testing procedures. along with these modifications come many complicated issues. this article reviews the literature pertaining to testing accommodations for people with disabilities. we address policy and legal considerations, existing standards, research on current practice, and research on technical concerns. we examine the relatively limited set of empirical studies on accommodations and assessments (many of which were conducted by test publishers) and recommend a significant program of research on testing accommodations for students with disabilities.

scholarly journals Accessibility to NAPLAN Assessments for Students With Disabilities: A ‘Fair Go’

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Davies
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
The United States ◽  
Testing Accommodations ◽  
National Assessment ◽  
Assessment Program ◽  
Achievement Levels

A National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) that requires assessment of all students in Years 3, 5, 7, and 9 is now firmly established on the Australian educational landscape. Australian legislation and policies promote inclusive assessments for all; however, in relation to NAPLAN, almost 5% of students, many of whom have disabilities, are either exempt or withdrawn. Those students with disabilities that are assessed are provided only basic testing accommodations under special considerations, and the achievement levels of these students are not accurately benchmarked. Lessons from experiences in the United States can assist in the development of a more effective and inclusive assessment regime. A range of strategies, including testing accommodations and modifications, needs to be applied to ensure access to NAPLAN assessment for all students.

Educators' Perceptions and Documentation of Testing Accommodations for Students with Disabilities

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 35-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleta A. Gilbertson Schulte ◽  
Stephen N. Elliott ◽  
Thomas R. Kratochwill
Keyword(s):  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Testing Accommodations
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document