Students with disabilities are not expected to be sheltered from standardized tests. In order to qualify for special education services, students must undergo a series of individualized assessments. They are then tested to ensure that they are progressing towards the goals that have been set forth in their Individualized Education Plans (IEP). In order to remain eligible for services, every three years students must undergo another series of tests to maintain their eligibility for special education services. The differences between all of these tests and the high-stakes testing are that the new standardized tests were created for students that do not receive any specialized services. The tests are often administered to determine how the students are performing based on a set of standards, specified criteria, or when compared to other students. There is no indication or accountability made for students who receive specialized services under the generalized standardized testing system. There is, however, a set of guidelines developed by each state department of education to differentiate which students take the standard district and state assessments and which students take an alternative standardized assessment.
Students with disabilities do benefit from taking standardized assessments, be they the same tests or an altered format. Just by being expected to take part in the high-stakes testing process, these students are held to a higher standard than they were before they were expected to comply with the district and state testing policies. By having the educational bar raised, and having higher expectations held for them, they often work harder and accomplish more than they would have under other circumstances. Additionally, for the students with special needs that take the general standardized assessment tests, they also are included in the general student body for which the educators face accountability for testing results, often meaning that there has been more effort placed on the work needed for these students to achieve success. The notable differences in learning styles for general education students as well as the students who have special needs are being met to try and ensure the best possible outcomes on the standardized exams. Two of the most important and key elements that needs to considered when evaluating the testing outcomes is do the scores demonstrate what the students know and what they can do. This determination has three important elements: the purpose of the assessment being conducted, the accommodations that are being made for the students, and what types of alternative assessments are available for students when necessary.
High-stakes testing often has two purposes: teacher accountability and student accountability. Initially, the focus was on the accountability of the teacher and the schools. The testing was to ensure that the teachers were indeed instructing the students. Later, the tests had the added element, in some cases, that diplomas and class promotions also be tied to the results. When that occurred, student accountability was being assessed as well. There is no cut and dry solution, however, to account for students with disabilities who may have issues that interfere with their learning processes and also not be able to demonstrate their true knowledge and aptitude in a standardized testing format.
In light of these difficulties, it is generally acceptable that there may need to be accommodations made for students with disabilities during times when standardized assessments occur. Even though a wide range of various accommodations are acceptable during instructional periods, there are debates about what accommodations are acceptable during times of standardized testing periods. Some of the most common accepted accommodation practices include extended testing time periods, not needing to transfer answers onto a separate answer sheet, but rather record them directly into the text booklet, repetition of directions, and individual testing areas.
Another controversial issue in high-stakes testing is the alternative testing of students with disabilities. Many states have recently introduced these assessments and generally fewer than two percent of the students take these assessments, which accounts for about twenty percent of students identified as having disabilities. Many states are still working on developing alternative tests for students who qualify for these services. There are a wide variety of approaches that are being taken to incorporate these assessments, including the use of portfolios and using checklists and paper and pencil tests. For some students, even those who do not qualify as having a disability, these alternative assessments are being used for various purposes, such as meeting graduation requirements when the traditional standardized testing minimums have not been met.
For some students with disabilities, the standardized tests hold some of the highest stakes that are possible for their education. In some states or districts, the tests can determine whether or not a student gets promoted to the next grade. It has been proven in many studies that grade retention does not improve a student’s academic performance in the short or long term. The high-stakes tests are also used in some areas to determine if a student is able to earn a traditional diploma, a special education diploma, or a certificate of completion or attendance. Such determinations have significant impacts on the life of the student in both the immediate time as well as their long-range and future goals. For some students, exit exams determine if the student is able to earn a high school diploma. If the student does not, the traditional consequences are earning half of the income over one’s lifetime than a high school graduate and therefore will affect the student’s ability to be self-sufficient and overall socio-economic status for life. By the same token, if employers know that the diploma earned is one that demonstrates a student’s ability to meet certain qualifications, it can help to enable a student with disabilities the opportunity to an economically stable life and positive social arena since the validity of the education has been earned with the documentation of the certificate.
There are many reasons why students do not perform well on standardized tests. This includes both regular education students and students with disabilities. The outcome is that teachers redirect the focus their teaching and the curriculum for the next year to improve test scores. This is not always serving the students best interests about what will help them most in real-life applicability, but it is teachers adjusting their focus to teach to the test to improve test scores and focusing on the high-stakes that those test scores drive. The tests can be used in a positive way, however, to identify critical areas where overall student scores were low so that particular area can have a modified teaching strategy and that area of the curriculum be redesigned for the following instructional year. Non-intentional use of the high-stakes tests sometimes includes using the scores as justification to make referrals for special education services, certain students who performed poorly on the tests may have decreased expectations from the teaching staff, a more narrow curriculum as it is focused to teach for the test, using instructional time to practice for the test, and using scores to determine graduate and diploma type.
Another area where high-stakes tests are misused is when the scores are used as a part of the IEP process to determine a student’s educational track. If a student performs poorly on the high-stakes standardized test, and this is used as a part of the IEP process, the student is then often placed in a track lower than the capabilities of the student. Once this is done, it is rare that the student ever closes the gap and is able to make up the differences between the lower track and the appropriate track during the student’s educational career. Instead, the IEP should attempt to maintain the highest level of standards for the student, offer a challenging, but not overwhelming curriculum, and ensure that courses are at the appropriate level for the student, subject by subject. As often as possible, students should be placed in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), which includes a general education class, with accommodations, if necessary, and at the highest track that the student is capable of meeting success.
Another reason to keep students with special education needs engaged is to keep them enrolled. About forty percent of students that are identified as special education students and continue to have IEPs in high school do not graduate from high school. By eliminating even more students from graduating due to high-stakes testing, there is only a disservice being done to students who have learning difficulties. Some states due enable students with disabilities flexibility when meeting requirements in earning their diplomas. This individual screening process puts the individual back into the IEP and is more appropriate in determining a correct set of outcomes for each particular student. When done correctly, it will also enable students’ alternative ways to demonstrate their comprehension of material and prove that they are indeed worthy of the diploma (Thurlow & Johnson, 2000).
High-stakes testing accommodations encounter many different accommodation necessities and many children with many and varying types of disabilities. The federal law is quite vague when it comes to what is acceptable and necessary with accommodations for students with disabilities during periods of state standardized tests. In 2004 the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) (2004) did require states to report, under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2002), proof that all students, including students that have special needs, were making academic progress. This requirement is one of the reasons that all students, in most cases, undergo standardized testing and also why these high-stakes tests are critical, including for students that do have learning disabilities.
Accommodations for students during these tests can include one of more of the five areas: the way in which material is presented, the amount of time that is given for the testing, the setting in which the testing occurs, the manner in which the student is able to respond, and aids which are able to be used. Presentation adjustments can include such things such as Braille, large-print, and read aloud assistance. Time accommodations include allowing more time or unlimited time to take the assessments and can include breaks when other students would not have any. This also may include having the testing period broken up into smaller segments, sometimes even spread out over more days. Setting accommodations usually involve a student being in a smaller group than other or, in some instances, being alone in a room. Response accommodations for students include dictation of answers, using Braille or word processors, or writing in test booklets rather than transferring material onto an answer sheet. Other aids that can benefit students with special needs include voice activated computers, calculators, and limiting the amount of material that is presented at one time. Any of these accommodations that might be required during high-stakes testing or any other standardized testing must be included in a students’ IEP (Edgemon, Jablonski, & Lloyd, 2006).
The most commonly requested accommodation for high-stakes testing, and other standardized tests is well, is for time. Time extensions and allowances for breaks during the testing process is a common consideration. It, however, must be documented as necessary in each student IEP that requests the extension. The most common reasons for the time extension that is noted in IEPs is for students with Attention Deficit Disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Murphy, 2004).
When needed, however, it is important for the teacher to be able to discern which accommodations in the IEP are necessary for class, during testing, and during periods of standardized testing. At the secondary level, when classes are often in 45-85 minute blocks, a student with ADD or ADHD may not appear to need accommodations. When it is time for high-stakes testing or other standardized testing, however, that student may not be able to handle several straight hours of testing, without breaks, in a cramped room, an unfamiliar environment, with students and teachers with which he or she is not familiar. For such instances, it may be pertinent for a students that has had a diagnosis of ADD or ADHD to keep an IEP on file, have it reviewed annually, have the accommodations that have been beneficial in the past remain specified and also have remarks in there that the accommodations can be used when needed and should be implemented during periods of standardized testing. By doing so, the student, when taking the high-stakes test, which are of such great importance to not only the schools, but the student as well, can be placed in an environment and given the extra support under which he or she has performed well in the past. If the extra time periods or breaks are not needed during the testing period, the student just does not need to use them. The concern is to have them available if needed. This can only be done if the IEP remains in place (Murphy, 2004).
Schools and students have much at stake during standardized testing sessions. When accommodations for students with special needs are put into place and utilized in the proper format, they can be beneficial in helping the students be able to demonstrate their true capabilities. That was the spirit behind IDEIA and the purpose of the NCLB movement.
References
Edgemon, E. A., Jablonski, B. R., & Lloyd, J. W. (2006). Large-scale assessments: A teacher's
guide to making decisions about accommodations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(3),
6-11. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/201145140?accountid=35812
Murphy, K. (2004). ADHD documentation for test accommodations under the ADA: Clarifying
the confusion. The ADHD Report, 12(5), 1-5. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/210870743?accountid=35812
Thurlow, M. L. & Johnson, D. R. (2000). High stakes testing of students with disabilities.
