Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- List of Contributors
- ASSESSMENT, EQUITY, AND OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Assessment Through the Lens of “Opportunity to Learn”
- 3 A Sociological Perspective on Opportunity to Learn and Assessment
- 4 A Sociocultural Perspective on Opportunity to Learn
- 5 Individualizing Assessment and Opportunity to Learn
- 6 Cultural Modeling as Opportunity to Learn
- 7 Opportunities to Learn in Practice and Identity
- 8 Game-Like Learning
- 9 Sociocultural Implications for Assessment I
- 10 Issues of Structure and Issues of Scale in Assessment from a Situative/Sociocultural Perspective
- 11 Sociocultural Implications for Assessment II
- 12 Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn
- Index
- References
5 - Individualizing Assessment and Opportunity to Learn
Lessons from the Education of Students with Disabilities
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- List of Contributors
- ASSESSMENT, EQUITY, AND OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Assessment Through the Lens of “Opportunity to Learn”
- 3 A Sociological Perspective on Opportunity to Learn and Assessment
- 4 A Sociocultural Perspective on Opportunity to Learn
- 5 Individualizing Assessment and Opportunity to Learn
- 6 Cultural Modeling as Opportunity to Learn
- 7 Opportunities to Learn in Practice and Identity
- 8 Game-Like Learning
- 9 Sociocultural Implications for Assessment I
- 10 Issues of Structure and Issues of Scale in Assessment from a Situative/Sociocultural Perspective
- 11 Sociocultural Implications for Assessment II
- 12 Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn
- Index
- References
Summary
Students with disabilities are a group for whom opportunity to learn (OTL) and educational assessment present special issues of public policy and challenges for educational research and practice. These challenges highlight both the powerful prospects for improving schools and the significant limitations inherent in current practice. One commentator has suggested that “when read critically, special education provides the structural and cultural insights that are necessary to begin reconstructing public education for the historical conditions of the twenty-first century and, ultimately, for reconciling it with its democratic ideals” (Skrtic 1991, 206).
Children with disabilities were a group long excluded from our nation's schools. In 1974, Congress estimated that more than a million children with disabilities were not in school (Hehir and Gamm 1999; Pullin 1999). When a commitment was made to educate this population, it was embedded in a series of state and federal legal protections that define access to educational opportunity in a manner quite different from the opportunities afforded to students without disabilities. Although our system of educating students with disabilities is far from perfect in either design or implementation, examination of the treatment of students with disabilities affords a different lens for viewing the challenges associated with providing every child with a full and fair opportunity to learn utilizing appropriate and meaningful testing and assessment.
Almost nine percent of the students in the country, more than six million children and youth, received special education services in 2002 under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); almost half of these students were those placed in the category of individuals with specific learning disabilities (U.S. Department of Education 2004).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn , pp. 109 - 135Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008
References
, , and . Spring 2004. Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research 74: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Educational Research Association. 2000. Position statement of the American Educational Research Association on high-stakes testing in preK-12 education. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education (AERA, APA, NCME). 1999. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
and . Summer 1997. Competing notions of social justice and contradictions in special education reform. The Journal of Special Education 31: 181–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and . 2001. Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005. Instructional leadership for systemic change: The story of San Diego's reform. Lanham, Md.: ScarecrowEducation.Google Scholar
1996. Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review 66: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and , eds. 2004. The ambiguity of teaching to the test: Standards, assessment and educational reform. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Florian, L. and D. Pullin. 1999. Defining difference: A comparative perspective on legal and policy issues in education reform and special educational needs. In Comparative perspectives on education reform and students with disabilities, edited by and . London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gartner, A. and D. Lipsky. 1987, November. Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review 57: reprinted in Special education at the century's end: Evolution of theory and practice since 1970 (1992), edited by and , 123–57. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Review.Google Scholar
1994. Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
Government Accountability Office. 2005, January 14. Special education: Children with autism. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO–05–220.
Hancock v. Driscoll, 443 Mass. 428, 822 N.E. 2d 1134. 2005.
1986. The conditions of discretion: Autonomy, community, bureaucracy. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Hehir, T. and S. Gamm. 1999. Special education: From legalism to collaboration. In Law and school reform: Six strategies for promoting educational opportunity, edited by , 205–43. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Helms v. School District No. 3 of Broken Arrow, 750 F. 2d 820 (10th Cir. 1984).
and . 1999. High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Honig, M., J. Kahne, and M. McLaughlin. 2001. School-community connections: Strengthening opportunity to learn and opportunity to teach. In Handbook of research on teaching, 4th ed., edited by , 998–1028. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
1997. Understanding equal educational opportunity: Social justice, democracy, and schooling. Advances in Contemporary Educational Thought, vol. 20. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 2004. 20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.
and . 1997. Jumping the queue: An inquiry into the legal treatment of students with disabilities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Knable v. Bexley City School District, 238 F. 3d 755 (6th Cir. 2001).
and . 2003–2004. Assessing students with disabilities: Issues and evidence. Educational Assessment 9 1/2: 29–60.Google Scholar
and . 2003. Putting it all together: Including students with disabilities in assessment and accountability systems (Policy Directions No. 16). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy16.htm.Google Scholar
Massachusetts Department of Education. 2003, September 22. Concerns and questions about alternate assessment. Retrieved August 27, 2004, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/alt/.
Massachusetts Department of Education. 2004a. Individual student success plans – Guidance document for districts. Retrieved July 4, 2005, from http:// www.doe.mass.edu/.
Massachusetts Department of Education. 2004b. MCAS performance appeals. Retrieved July 4, 2000, from http://5 at www.doe.mass.edu/.
, , and . 2004. Implementation of self-determination activities and student participation in IEPs. Exceptional Children 70: 441–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, R. P. 1993. The acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In Understanding practice, edited by and , 269–305. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2004. Politics, persuasion, and educational testing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
, , and . 1986. Handicapping the handicapped: Decision-making in students' educational careers. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
, , and . 2004, September. Understanding out-of-level testing in local schools: A first case study of policy implementation and effects. Out-of-level Testing Project Report 11. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/OOLT11.html.Google Scholar
, M. Thurlow, R. Moen, and G. Van Getson. 2004, September. States' procedures for ensuring out-of-level test instrument quality. Out-of-level Testing Project Report 14. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar
1990. Making all the difference: Inclusion, exclusion, and American law. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Nagle, K. and J. Crawford. 2004, April. Opportunities and challenges: Perspectives on NCLB from special education directors in urban school districts. EPPRI Issue Brief Six. College Park: Educational Policy Reform Research Institute, The University of Maryland.
National Research Council (NRC). 1997. Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform, edited by , , and . Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Minority students in special and gifted education, edited by and . Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC). 2004. Participation of English language learners and students with disabilities in NAEP and other large-scale assessments, edited by and . Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Neal, D. and D. Kirp. 1986. The allure of legalization reconsidered: The case of special education. In School days, rule days: The legalization and regulation of education, edited by and . Philadelphia: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 107th Cong., 1st sess., 20 U.S.C. 4301. et seq.
, M. J. Coutinho, A. M. Best, and N. N. Singh. 1999. Ethnic representation in special education: The influence of school-related economic and demographic variables. The Journal of Special Education 32: 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullin, D. 1999. Whose schools are these and what are they for? The role of the rule of law in defining educational opportunity in American public education. In Handbook of educational policy, edited by , 3–29. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2002. Testing individuals with disabilities: Reconciling social science and social policy. In Assessing individuals with disabilities in educational, employment, and clinical settings, edited by Committee on Disabilities, American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Pullin, D. 2005. When one size does not fit all – the special challenges of accountability testing for students with disabilities. In Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement (Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education), issue 2, edited by and . Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2006. Ensuring an adequate education: Opportunity to learn, law and social science. Boston College Third World Law Journal 27: 83–130.Google Scholar
In press. Stigma, stereotypes and civil rights in disability classification systems. In Issues in the classification of children in education: Perspectives and purposes of classification systems, edited by and .Google Scholar
. and 2002. Use of alternate assessment results in reporting and accountability systems: Conditions for use based on research and practice (Synthesis Report 43). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis43.html.Google Scholar
, , and . 2003, June. Measuring academic achievement of students with significant cognitive disabilities: Building understanding of alternate assessment scoring criteria (Synthesis Report 50). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis50.html.Google Scholar
and . 2002. Including alternate assessment results in accountability decisions (Policy Directions No. 13). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/ OnlinePubs/Policy13.htm.Google Scholar
Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc. 1989. 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky.).
and , with . 2007. Assessment in special and inclusive education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
2003. Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: A. Knopf.Google Scholar
2000, Winter. Legal perspectives on school outcomes assessment for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education 33: 232–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and . 2004, March. How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies 36: 257–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and . 2004, Summer. Adoption and adaptation: School district responses to state imposed learning and graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26: 143–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skrtic, T. 1991, May. The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review 61:2. Reprinted in Special education at the century's end: Evolution of theory and practice since 1970 (1992), edited by and , 203–72. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Review.Google Scholar
2004. Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
, , and . 2002, Fall. Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research 72: 387–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, C. Muson, C. Hughes, M. Konrad, M. Neal, and M. Wood. 2004. Student involvement in Individualized Education Program meetings. Exceptional Children 70: 391–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and ,. 2003. State special education outcomes: Marching on. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/ StateReport.html.Google Scholar
, , and . 2004. A review of 50 states' online large-scale assessment policies: Are English language learners with disabilities considered? (ELLs with Disabilities Report 5).Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 5, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/ELLsDisReport5.html.Google Scholar
, , and . 2006. Annual performance reports: 2003–2004 state assessment data. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 5, 2007, from http://www.education.umn.edu/ NCEO/.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Education. 2003. Title I – Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Part II; Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 68698 (2003) (to be codified at 34 CFR Part 200).
U.S. Department of Education. 2004. Twenty-sixth annual report to the Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, D.C. Retrieved April 3, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/ annual/osep/2004/index.html.
U.S. Department of Education. 2007, April 9. Title I – Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; IDEA; Final Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 17748–01 (to be codified at 34 CFR Parts 200 and 300).
and . 2003. Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 18: 137–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and . 2004, May. Large-scale assessment and accountability systems: Positive consequences for students with disabilities. (Synthesis Report 51). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 1, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis51.html.Google Scholar
and . 2004, April. Education and alternate assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Implications for educators. Education Policy Analysis Archives 12: 1–27. www.epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n16/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4
- Cited by