High Stakes Testing and Expected Progress Standards for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Five-year Study of One District

References

• Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992). Unintended effects of educational reform in New York. Educational Policy, 6, 397–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bielinski, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2000). Interpreting trends in the performance of special education students (Technical Report 27). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved July 25, 2001, from http://www.education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/TechReport27.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Borich, G. D., & Nance, D. D. (1987). Evaluating special education: Shifting the professional mandate from process to outcome. Remedial and Special Education, 8(3), 7–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carnine, D., & Granzin, A. (2001). Setting learning expectations for students with disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 466–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council of Chief State School Officers. (2000). CCSSO releases report on education indicators across the state. Retrieved December 9, 2001 from http://www.ccsso.org/news/pr040300.html
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. L., & Furby, L. (1970). How should we measure “change”-or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shinn, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeStefano, L., & Metzer, D. (1991). High stakes testing and students with handicaps: An analysis of issues and policies. In R. E. Stake (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation (Vol. 1A, pp. 281–302). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, J. L., Erickson, R. N., Thurlow, M. L., & Shriner, J. G. (2000). State-level accountability for the performance of students with disabilities: Five years of change? Journal of Special Education, 34, 39–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & McKevitt, B. C. (2001). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations on the scores of students with and without disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 3–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Florence County School District v. Carter (91–1523), 510 U.S. 7 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1996). Combining performance assessment and curriculum-based measurement to strengthen instructional planning. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 183–192
   Google Scholar
• Grise, P. (1986). Handicapped students and minimum competency testing. Special Services in the Schools, 2(2–3), 177–185.
   Google Scholar
• Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hoover, H. D., Hieronymus, A. N., Frisbie, D. A., & Dunbar, S. B. (1993). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (Form K). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
   Google Scholar
• Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments of 1997. (P.L. 105–17). 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
   Google Scholar
• Kavale, K. A., Fuchs, D., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Setting the record straight on learning disability and low achievement: Implications for policymaking. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9, 70–77.
   Google Scholar
• Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Schumm, J. S., & Elbaum, B. (1997). Outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 153–161.
   Google Scholar
• Koretz, D. (1996). Using student assessments for educational accountability. In E. A. Hanushek & D. W. Jorgenson (Eds.), Improving America's schools: The role of incentives (pp. 171–195). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koretz, D. (1997). The assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky (CSE Techical Report 431). Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, C., & Patterson, J. (2000). Are principals prepared to manage special education? National Association of Secondary School Principals Newsleader, 47(2), 9–20.
   Google Scholar
• McDonnell, L. M., & Choisser, C. (1997). Testing and teaching: Local implementation of new state assessments (CSE Technical Report 442). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.
   Google Scholar
• McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (Eds.). (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• McGrew, K. S., Thurlow, M. L., & Spiegel, A. (1993). An investigation of the exclusion of students with disabilities in national data collection programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3), 339–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, M. W., & Warren, S. H. (1992). Outcome assessments for students with disabilities: Will it be accountability or continued failure? Preventing School Failure, 36(4), 29–33.
   Google Scholar
• Mehrens, W. A. (1998). Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence? Education Policy Analysis Archives [On-line serial] 6(13). Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/v6n13.html.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, R. H. (1996). Value-added indicators of school performance. In E. Hanushek & D. W. Jorgensen (Eds.), Improving America's schools: The role of incentives (pp. 197–223). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moody, S. W., Vaughn, S. R., Hughes, M. T., & Fisher, M. (2000). Reading instruction in the resource room: Set up for failure. Exceptional Children, 66, 305–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Public Schools of North Carolina. (1996a). North Carolina End-of-Grade Tests (Technical Report #1). Raleigh, NC: Public Schools of North Carolina, Department of Public Instruction, Division of Accountability Services.
   Google Scholar
• Public Schools of North Carolina. (1996b). Setting annual growth standards: “The formula” (Accountability Brief Vol. 1 [1]). Raleigh, NC: Public Schools of North Carolina, Department of Public Instruction, Division of Accountability Services.
   Google Scholar
• Public Schools of North Carolina. (1999). The North Carolina state testing results (1997–98). Raleigh, NC: Public Schools of North Carolina, Department of Public Instruction, Division of Accountability Services.
   Google Scholar
• Quenemoen, R. F., Lehr, C. A., Thurlow, M. L., & Massanari, C. (2001). Students with disabilities in standards-based assessment and accountability systems: Emerging issues, strategies, and recommendations (Synthesis Report 37). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved July 25, 2001, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis37.html.
   Google Scholar
• Schulte, A. C., Osborne, S. S., & Erchul, W. P. (1998). Effective special education: A United States dilemma. School Psychology Review, 27, 66–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinn, M. R. (1986). Does anyone care what happens after the refer-test-place sequence: The systematic evaluation of special education program effectiveness.
   Google Scholar
• School Psychology Review, 15, 49–58.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, C. A., & Doane, J. A. (2001). The potential for empirically based estimates of expected progress for students with learning disabilities: Legal and conceptual issues. School Psychology Review, 30, 473–486.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 55–64.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, M. (1989). The transition experiences of youth with disabilities: A report from the national longitudinal transition study. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
   Google Scholar
• Ysseldyke, J., & Geenen, K. (1996). Integrating the special education and compensatory education systems into the school reform process: A national perspective. School Psychology Review, 25, 418–430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J. N., Jenkins, L., & Couthino, M. (1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 531–535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zlatos, B. (1994). Don't test, don't tell: Is “academic redshirting” skewing the way we rank our schools? American School Board Journal, 181(11), 24–28.
   Google Scholar