Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:03:08.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

National Reporting and Students with a Disability in the United States and Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Ian Dempsey
Ian Dempsey*
Affiliation:
The University of Newcastle, Australia
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Ian Dempsey, Centre for Special Education and Disability Studies, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan NSW 2308. Phone: 02 4921 6282. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In many Western countries in the past two decades, there has been considerable general education reform, typically with increased educational accountability through national reporting. The major features of this accountability process, as it has occurred in the United States, are described, with an emphasis on what this has meant for students with a disability. Key features of the process include the provision of significant federal funding contingent on the achievement of specified outcomes; the introduction of a widespread testing regime using standards-based assessment and the reporting of these outcomes at the state, district and school level; and providing access to the regular curriculum to students with a disability unless there is a good reason not to do so. The education reform process in Australia is also described and contrasted with the US movement. A conclusion of the discussion is that the Australian states and territories have been reluctant participants in the reporting process for students with a disability, and that leadership by the Commonwealth is the only likely avenue by which improvements in reporting for these students may come about.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 26 , Issue 1-2 , 2002 , pp. 16 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Australian Capital Territory Department of Education and Training (1997). Special needs education curriculum support paper. Canberra: Author.Google Scholar
Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2001a). Disability rights: Education. Canberra: Author, http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/education/education.html Google Scholar
Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2001 b). A way forward: Report of the disability sector’s response to the draft disability discrimination education standard. Canberra: Author, http://www.dice.org.au/in/ddaed.html Google Scholar
Ahearn, E. M. (2000). Educational accountability: A synthesis of the literature and review of a balanced model of accountability. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of special Education.Google Scholar
Bielinski, J. (2001). Overview of test accommodations. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26, (2), 17–20.Google Scholar
Bielinski, J., Ysseldyke, J.E., Bolt, S., Friedeback, M., & Friedeback, J. (2001). Prevalence of accommodations for students with disabilities participating in statewide testing programs. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26, (2), 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boston, C. (2001). The debate over national testing: ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 458 214).Google Scholar
Bracey, G.W. (2002). Why do we scapegoat the schools? The Washington Post - Outlook, May 5, B1, B4.Google Scholar
Burdette, P. (2001). Alternate assessment: Early highlights and pitfalls in reporting. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26, (2), 61–66.Google Scholar
Caldwell, B. & Roscam, J. (2002). Australia’s education choices. Canberra: Menzies Research Centre, http://www.mrcltd.org.au/uploaded_documents/educationpapersemifinal.pdf Google Scholar
Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (2002). Finance assistance granted to each state in respect of 2000 States Grants (Primary and Secondary Assistance) Act 1996. Canberra: Author, http://www.deetya.gov.au/schools/publications/Green/2000GreenReport1.pdf Google Scholar
Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (2001). Disability standards for education: Draff. Canberra: Author. http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/iae/analysis/Draft_Disability_Standards.htm Google Scholar
Dempsey, I. (2001). Principles and policies for inclusion. In Foreman, P. (Ed.), Integration and inclusion in action, 2nd ed, (pp. 35–58). Sydney: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Dempsey, I. & Foreman, P. (1997). Trends in the educational placement of students with disabilities in NSW. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 44, 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempsey, I., Foreman, P., & Jenkinson, J. (2002). Educational enrolment of students with a disability in New South Wales and Victoria. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 49, 31–46.Google Scholar
Department of Education, Employment and Training, Victoria, (2001 a). Assessment and reporting in Victorian schools. Melbourne: Author, http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/assess/pdfs/AR_Consultation.pdf Google Scholar
Department of Education, Employment and Training, Victoria (2001b). Standards and accountability, quality assurance in Victorian schools: Benchmarks 2000. Melbourne: Author, http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/ standards/pdf/SchMan00.pdf Google Scholar
Department of Education, Employment and Training, Victoria (2000). Measuring academic progress against each KLA: Students with disabilities and impairments. Melbourne: Author. http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/standards/pdf/D&I.pdf Google Scholar
Department of Education, Science and Training (2002). The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling In the Twenty-first Century. Canberra: Author, http://www.detya.gov.au/schools/adelaide/adelaide.htm Google Scholar
Department of Education, Queensland (2002). Guidelines for special consideration in assessment: Students with disabilities, learning difficulties, and learning disabilities. Brisbane: Author, http://education.qld.gov.au/ ta!/liu/policy/spec_cons.pdf Google Scholar
Firestone, W.A. & Mayrowetz, D. (2000). Rethinking “high stakes”: Lessons from the United States and England and Wales. Teachers College Record, 102, 724–749.Google Scholar
Florian, L. & Pullin, D. (2000). Defining difference: A comparative perspective on legal and policy issues in education reform and special education needs. In McLaughlin, M.J. & Rouse, M. (Eds.), Special education school reform in the United States and Britain (pp. 11–37). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ford, A., Davern, L., & Schnorr, R. (2001). Learners with significant disabilities: Curricula relevance in an era of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 214–22.Google Scholar
Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994) (P.L. 103-227). U.S. Congress, 2nd Session.Google Scholar
Hartocollis, A. (2002). Racial gap found in test scores across New York. The New York Times, March 28, 1.Google Scholar
Maryland State Department of Education (2002). Independence Mastery Assessment Program, http://mdk12.org/practices/ensure/requirements/imap.html Google Scholar
McDonnell, L., McLaughlin, M., & Morison, P. (Eds.), (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, M.J., Nolet, V., Shenoy, A., STarrall, L.D. (2002). Creating performance goals and indicators In special education. University of Maryland, MA: Educational Policy Reform Research Institute.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, M.J. & Tilstone, C. (2000). Standards and curriculum: The core of educational reform. In McLaughlin, M.J. & Rouse, M. (Eds.), Special education school reform in the United States and Britain (pp. 38–65). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Midgely, S. (1998). Third way: The challenge for all in education. Times Education Supplement, June 26.Google Scholar
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (2002a). The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century, (http://www.curriculum.edu.au/mceetya/adeldec.htm).Google Scholar
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (2002b). National Report on Schooling in Australia. Carlton South, Vic: Author. http://www.curriculum.edu.au/mctyapdf/2000_benchmarks.pdf Google Scholar
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (2000). The Hobart Declaration on Schooling 1989. Carlton South, Vic: Author, http://www.curriculum.edu.au/mceetya/hobdec.htm Google Scholar
Minnema, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., Bielinski, J., & Scott, J.K. (2001). Past and current research on out-of-level testing for students with disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26, (2), 49–55.Google Scholar
Moe, T.M. (2001). Schools, vouchers and the American public. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.Google Scholar
National Assessment of Educational Progress (2002). P.L 107-110 - No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. http://www.nagb.org/about/plaw.html Google Scholar
National Center on Educational Outcomes (2002). Participation of students with disabilities, http://education.umn.edu/nceo/TopicAreas/Participation/participation.htm Google Scholar
Olson, L. (2002a). Testing systems in most states not ESEA-ready. Education week, 21, (16), 1, 26-27.Google Scholar
Olson, L. (2002b). British group nudges tests toward classroom assessment. Education week, 21, (27), 8.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001). Knowledge and skills for life - first results from PISA 2000, Programme for international student assessment. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
Productivity Commission (2003). Report on government services 2003. Canberra: Author. http.?/www.pc.gov.au/gsp/2003/index.html Google Scholar
Shriner, J.G. (2000). Legal perspectives on school outcomes assessment for students with disabilities, Journal of Special Education, 33, 232–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shriner, J.G. & DeStephano, L. (2001). Participation in statewide assessments: Views of district level personnel. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26, (2), 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2001). 2001 State special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2001StateReport.html Google Scholar
Thompson, S., Thurlow, M., & Lazarus, S. (2001). Reporting on the state assessment performance of students with disabilities. University of Maryland, MA: Education Policy Reform Research Institute.Google Scholar
Traub, J. (2002). The test mess. The New York Times Magazine, April 7, pp. 46–51.Google Scholar
Tucker, M.S. (2002). The roots of backlash: A midterm assessment of the standards and accountability movement. Education Week, 21, (16), 76, 42-43.Google Scholar
Thurlow, M., Elliott, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1998). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Turlow, M.L. & Wiener, D.J. (2001). Considerations in the use of non-approved accommodations. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26, (2), 29–37.Google Scholar
Turner, M.D., Baldwin, L., Kleinert, H.L., & Kearns, J.F. (2000). The relation of a statewide alternate assessment for students with severe disabilities to other measures of instructional effectiveness. Journal of Special Education, 34, 69–76 Google Scholar
van Kraayenoord, C., Elkins, J., Palmer, C., & Rickards, F.W. (2000). Literacy, numeracy and students with disabilities. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training. http://www.deetya.gov.au/schools/literacy&numeracy/publications/disabilities/swd.htm Google Scholar
Ysseldyke, J. E., Olsen, K., & Thurlow, M. (1997). Issues and considerations in alternate assessments (Synthesis Report 27). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 415 656).Google Scholar