Standardized+Testing+and+Special+Education

Theresa Costello Prof. Alma Allston EDA 505 10/25/06

Throughout New York City, Special Educators in “testing grades” are plagued with the task of preparing their students, who are performing significantly below grade level, to attempt to pass standardized exams in English Language Arts and Mathematics. In reference to the promotional status of Special Education students and standardized tests, the New York City Department of Education has stated that “all Special Education students will be promoted according to the criteria set forth in the child’s Individual Education Plan IEP” (schools.nyc.gov). The IEP contains a section where it identifies the promotional criteria for that particular student, which is based on his/her performance, abilities, and the goals devised by the Special Education teacher and Related Service Providers. If it is stated that a child is performing or achieving below grade level in any specific academic area and her anticipated promotion is based on the criteria established in the IEP, why should the student take a test when that test is not accurately measuring what she is capable of achieving? If the child in question would get promoted irregardless of her score on the standardized test, because of the promotional criteria on her IEP overrides the test score, again, why should she be subjected to the anxiety that tests render and the virtual inevitability of failure? McLoughlin and Lewis (2001) stated that standardized tests, or norm-referenced tests, are designed to measure students’ achievement against a normative group. The very purpose of the IEP is to identify a particular child who is in need of special education services because it has been determined through a battery of tests during his evaluation that he, in fact, //does not// fall within the normative group. Why then are they being tested on the very material the law and schools have confirmed they have not mastered, and in many cases, have not come close to approaching yet? Educators were recently given instruction to administer 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade mock ELA standardized tests for the 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students, respectively in a NYC Public School. The students in a 4th grade, self-contained Special Education setting were also instructed to take the test, despite the fact that all students in the class were performing at least two levels below grade-level in Reading. During the exam, one student began to cry, explaining the test was too hard and she couldn’t read the material. Upon receiving the test, another student immediately found himself in a similar situation and proceeded to throw his pencil on the floor, push the test off of his desk, slam his head on the desk, and began to cry inconsolably. When his anger and agitation subsided, he asked to have the test returned to him only to randomly fill in the answer key without looking at the test in the hopes that he might get some of the questions marked correct. A third student started demonstrating on-task behavior, but as the test wore on, he became increasingly frustrated with the level of material presented to him, refused to continue the test, and ultimately engaged in self-injurious behavior. These behaviors were all exhibited even with the modified instruction implemented and appropriate testing accommodations provided as required by their IEPs. With the understanding that students with special needs do have to participate in standardized assessments, Thurlow stated in her article, __Educating Students With Disabilities: Do You Pass the Test?__ (2005), that IDEA and NCLB require districts and school administrators to ensure that staff accommodate students with disabilities during instruction, as well as during the test. Instructional strategies to accommodate students include asking students to evaluate their own learning styles and under what conditions do they feel they learn best. Consider individual strengths and weaknesses, developing skills to accommodate the areas of improvement, and teaching students how to use the accommodations is another strategy has been suggested. Testing accommodations include reading and simplifying instruction, extended time limits, testing in a small room, and dictation of responses (p. 14). These accommodations may help a percentage of students reach success, but what about the students who have been provided with all of the aforementioned assistance, but simply cannot pass the tests, because they cannot read or execute the problems on the level that has been presented to them? Alternate Assessments have been established for students “who have significant cognitive disabilities and are unable to participate meaningfully in general state and district assessment systems, even with accommodations” (Roach, & Elliott, 2006, 181). They assess students based on academic standards, but the criteria for meeting expectations are significantly different. There are children, however, who have cognitive abilities that don’t meet alternate assessment criteria, but whose cognitive abilities indicate that succeeding on grade-level assessments is out of their reach. This dilemma begs the question, “What do we do with the students stuck in the middle?” This is a long standing and frustrating challenge for staff and families of students with special needs and the notion of Free Appropriate Public Education under IDEA is not accurately delineated, which has “led to frequent disagreements between parents and schools regarding what constitutes an appropriate education for a particular student” (Yell & Drasgow, 2000, 206). Although school districts and their staff may recognize the great disparity of these circumstances, the law prevents them from doing much change the situation. With the modified instruction students with special needs receive, they are presumably being taught the skills that are necessary to take the standardized tests. Why not, then, test the children on the level they are performing at, so the application of the skills they have acquired can be measured? School administrators, legal representatives, and child advocates need to explore different avenues, in which children with special needs can accurately be tested, so to better measure what is being taught and subsequently acquired by these students.
 * Standardized Tests and Special Education**


 * References**

McLoughlin, J. A. & Lewis, R. B. (2001). //Assessing students with students with special needs// (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

New York City Department of Education. (2006) **Retrieved October 25, 2006 http://schools.nyc.gov/doefacts/factfinder/ServiceDetails.aspx?id=81**

Roach, Elliott (2006). The influence of access to general education curriculum on alternate assessment of performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities. //Educational evaluation and policy analysis.// 28, 2, 181-194.

Thurlow, M. L. (2005). Educating students: do you pass the test? //PL Student Counseling//, 12-15.

[|Internet Marketing] Yell, M. L. & Drasgow, E. (2000). Litagating a free appropriate public education: the lovaas hearings and cases. //Journal on Special Education//, 33, 4, 205-214.