High Stakes Testing Case Study

If the schools didn’t make AYP for three years in a row, they had to provide free tutoring and supplemental educational service. Everyone involved felt that the NCLB had unsolved issues. (Randolph & Wilson-Younger, 2012). There are teachers that argue that the testing is not fair with the children that are under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Children with individualized education plans are being forced to take standardized test on their grade level and the teachers argue that the tests might be way above where these children are academically. This also includes the children who have English as their second language because they are struggling when they are taking the standardized tests. Additionally, Choi, (Aug. 2012) describes how many schools struggle to meet the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the Act called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Pressures on the schools to meet the AYP can affect how each school does their testing and teaching policies. While states have been silent, the question has been whether states have a responsibility to intervene.

The tests require children to draw from knowledge they learn or experiences they’ve had outside of school, which is different for each student. According to W. James Popham, an expert on educational assessment, “If children come from advantaged families and stimulus-rich environments, then they are more apt to succeed on items in standardized achievement test items than will other children whose environments don't mesh as well with what the tests measure”. The biases in the development and administration of standardized tests often contribute to the achievement gap between whites and minorities. As a result students from low-income and minority families, English Language Learners, and students with disabilities are more likely to be held back a grade, be placed in unnecessary remedial education programs, and be denied a diploma (Reese, pg. 1). Another problem with standardized testing is the tests do not accurately measure teacher quality. Standardized tests are often used to evaluate teachers and schools staff based on their student’s scores. However, standardized tests are limited indicators of student knowledge and progress; therefore they do not reflect the wide range of knowledge and skills a teacher covers in the classroom. It is unfair to isolate the impact of one individual because teaching is a collaborative and developmental process (FairTest, pg. 1). People think that if standardized test scores are high they can label teachers as

**Halstead, J. A. (2013). The NLN's Fair Testing Imperative and implications for faculty development. Nursing Education Perspectives, 34(2), 72.

It is abundantly clear, after reading this article, that minorities students are overrepresented in special education classrooms. One point that really stuck out for me from this article was how students are placed in special programs and provided with special services because of their results on early elementary testing. “Diverse learners are more likely to be referred for additional testing and placement in special education programs because achievement tests typically do not assess literacy skills that they may have acquired outside school, and these skills often differ from the ones these children are expected to have when they enter school” (pg. 2). As educators

The Washington Post published the story “2015 Superintendent of the Year: High-stakes testing is the ‘fool’s gold’ of accountability” by Valerie Strauss on August 27 about one superintendent’s discontent with constant “high stakes testing”. Strauss was covering the story of man who was named the “2015 American Association of School Administrators National Superintendent of the Year”, Philip D. Lanoue who is the superintendent of the Clarke County School District in Georgia, which is one of the most impecunious districts in the state. Lanoue believes that the constant pattern of standardized testing in schools is completely different from what he refers to as actual “meaningful assessment” and considers the tests to be unbeneficial for students.

“A student body must be composed of more than students who do well on a test. A standardized achievement test cannot measure intangibles such as a candidate's drive and individual determination” (Spiegler, 2013). Since the mid-1800s, high stakes testing has been an enormous part of American education. In the American education system, the lack of success have been held accountable on the increasing levels in poverty, universal use of high stakes testing, and quality of teachers. High stakes testing demonstrates bias against women and categories of socioeconomic variety. The SAT and ACT are unfair because wealthier citizens can afford tutors to assist students with test tips and higher scores on the exams. While in the process of applying for

The course objective of this course, as outlined in the syllabus, is to provide historical, political and social context of the test and standards movements and their relation to assessment practices in Special Education. I chose this piece of evidence because I was able to critically analyze the role of standardized and non-standardized assessments within the school context, understanding alternative assessment requirements for students with disabilities and identify the relationship/correlation between testing practices and the disproportionality of students of color in Special Education. This piece of evidence illustrates my progress in this claim because it allowed me to analyze the article(s), support my analysis with evidence, as well as discuss the implications my understandings of the topic as it pertains to my views, roles and responsibilities as a teacher of Special

High Stakes Testing has been overly integrated in the education systems. High-stakes testing are used to determine grade retention, school curriculum, and whether or not students will receive a high school diploma (Myers, 2015). Since the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, high stakes testing has become the norm and mandating that students must pass a standardized test before moving up in grade. As a special education director, the focus is to ensure the student’s accommodations are being followed. Accommodations help increase students’ academic performance. “Both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) call for students with disabilities to participate in the general education curriculum and in testing programs to the maximum extent possible for each student (Luke and Schwartz, 2010).” Throughout the years, high stakes testing is becoming more common than ever before. The reality is high stakes testing is one indicator in evaluating children with specific needs. This paper will discuss, the violation of the statutory language regarding assessment based on IDEA, the strategies and goals of a remediation, staff training, common Core and PARCC assessment, and funding for the remediation plan under IDEA.

The special education programs in the United States have been designed to help children with special needs learn easier and fit in better with the education program. Unfortunately, many minority students get caught up in the mix and don’t get the proper attention they deserve. Furthermore, minority students are seriously over-represented in the educational programs. Many minority students are misdiagnosed and put into special education programs when in fact; they do not have a learning disability. This has become a growing problem in this country because it is seen as the easy way out. Schools all over the U.S. are doing this in order to not have to properly test and evaluate students for learning problems.

The author performed two separate interviews face-to-face, selecting two individuals with different backgrounds in order to obtain unique perspectives. The first interviewee, named Jennifer Hodge, works for Allen ISD as a special education teacher for a self-contained DEAR (Developing Early Academics Readiness) class for students in kindergarten through sixth grade. In addition, her experience includes teaching for 22 years, with seven of those years teaching students with disabilities in both self-contained classrooms along with resource and inclusion environments. The meeting to discuss psychoeducational testing occurred in Jennifer’s work place during her conference period over a 45 minute period on Friday, August 28, 2015. The second

This report compromises evidence surrounding the use of standardized testing for students with disabilities. Testing protocols for minority students necessitates a great deal of reform. Yielding a corroborated framework, two powerful research professionals join forces; producing pragmatic analysis and improvement ideals in regards to assessing students with disabilities, a vastly marginalized minority in regards to standardize testing. Karen Barton, lead Principal Research Scientist for Power of U, McGraw-Hill, obtained her Ph.D. in Educational Research and Measurement from the University of South Carolina preceding Barton achieved her M.S. in Special Education at Longwood College. Offering unique and extensive research abilities, she consults often regarding education-based research. Barton’s co-collaborator, Daniel Koretz is an expert on educational assessment and the impact of high-stakes testing. His research has includes the assessment of students with disabilities. Koretz obtained a doctorate is in developmental psychology from Cornell University. Koretz maintains fifteen national affiliations with educational associations and forty, globally referenced publications. Prudent to my research, by utilizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and policies pertaining to students’ Individualized Education Program (IEP) these two authors and their publication assists in supplementing validity to this essay as these sources along with additional methodically integrated

The article “High-Stakes Testing and Students With Disabilities” discusses how the exams effect the special education population. Only students with severe cognitive disabilities get the chance to take alternative assessments while the rest of the special education population takes the same exam as the rest of the class. According to the article, there has been an increase in levels of performance by special needs students in high-stakes testing. On the other hand, students with disabilities have a huge challenge achieving proficient levels and their score effect how the school’s overall scores look. All students tend to stress about the exam but special needs students tend to stress more about their scores and also while they are taking the exam.

The article discusses how teachers are discovering that the No Child Left Behind idea is flawed, developmentally unfitting, lacking funding, and leaving more students, educators, and schools behind before the bill was passed. Later the article presents a short history about educational testing, investigates the argument of teaching to the test, and focuses on subgroups of school populations that are negatively affected by No Child Left Behind bill, distinctively students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, minorities, second-language learners, and students with special needs.

As a graduate student in a doctoral program, I have a fair share of standardized testing experience. Never have I been exceptionally great on standardized tests but have always willed myself to reach whatever benchmark I was challenged to accomplish. Coming from a home where Spanish was the first language and my parents barely had more than a middle-school level education, I had to discover ways to overcome academic and testing difficulties. Statistically, it is well documented that many of our country’s diverse learners have trouble positively representing themselves on standardized tests for a plethora of reasons; I can attest to this from first hand experience. From language barriers that cause deficiencies in vocabulary development to deficient levels of formal education in the homes, the barriers often compound to enormous heights for children from low-socioeconomic statuses and/or those where English is a second language within the home. Regardless of these facts, testing will continuously remain to be an accountability system that is vital in education. Although, in education we often fall short by using tests and data as the ultimate answer when it can be used for so much more. Through technology and assessment, the ability to pinpoint every single deficiency that student’s have is completely possible. Rather than using testing as the answer, educators must become better at understanding how to use testing as a tool. Furthermore, when stronger testing platforms and protocols can be created and implemented, the more our educational

In today’s educational environment, all students expect to receive the same level of instruction from schools and all students must meet the same set of standards. Expectations for students with learning disabilities are the same as students without any learning difficulties. It is now unacceptable for schools or teachers to expect less from one segment of students because they have physical disabilities, learning disabilities, discipline problems, or come from poor backgrounds. Standardize testing has resulted in making every student count as much as their peers and the most positive impact has been seen with the lowest ability students. Schools have developed new approaches to reach these previously underserved students while