High Stakes Testing Case Study

In recent years, legislative mandates, like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), have required students to participate in the same assessments that general education students are taking. Although these new, controversial mandates resonated with a lot of people, critics argue that they cause more harm than good. According to Inclusion: The Pros and Cons—A Critical Review, Carl Savich states that the federal legislation on inclusion took the attention away from the general and advanced students with “a concomitant lowering of standards” (Savich 1). However, supporters of these new mandates state that the pros vastly outweigh the cons. According to Assessment and Accommodations, Stephen Luke states that inclusion

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

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.

To start, I would like to give examples of how this test is actually affecting the students. As the time for testing comes near, students come into the high school CST office daily talking about how anxious they are about having to participate in the test, even with testing accommodations put in place. One specific student, Ashley’, has been coming in regularly talking about how nervous she is about the test this year because last year her parents opted her out. This year, the school district has informed her not to do this and she knows that there is no possible way she will pass because he is in all special education (SE) classes. When he was informed that he did not have to pass and try his best because through her IEP she will be exempt from passing, she expressed that she is still upset about it. She feels that she has to do well on the test to prove that she is not dumb. She says that thinking about taking the test makes her sick to his stomach and she wants to skip those school days when the test is being administered. Just from speaking with her, it is easy to see that the scores she feels she will receive on this test are affecting her self-esteem. She does not understand why she has to take the test if she is exempt from passing. Ashley is not the only one to express concerns about taking the test.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Education keeps evolving through time. However, it has been stagnant lately. We are in the period where high-stakes tests are one of the largest aspects in education. It has been like that for a few decades now. A large group of people seem to think that this is the perfect time for change. There are a lot of arguments going around opposing the implementation of high-stakes testing and vice versa. While doing the synthesis paper and proposal, I have noticed that most sources tend to talk about the collateral damage of high-stakes testing instead of its perks. As a result, I decided to interview an admissions officer, because I needed to hear from someone that should support the use of high-stakes testing. I needed to be able to understand both

If asked, most people would agree that our nation is an adaptable nation. Over the years, the United States has adjusted to account for groups of people with a lack of rights such as colored minorities, females , and homosexuals. This country has tailored laws and altered how to operate economically and globally. As I do more research, I become increasingly frustrated with the state of the United States. My frustration is a byproduct of the failure in the educational system to progress and acclimatize just as the other areas of the country has progressed. In fact, it has contradicted any sense of adaptability and progression, instead it has regressed. Testing as means of evaluation, from the first intelligent quotient to the stress of today's ACT, has been on a major upswing. The emphasis on measuring students mostly, almost exclusively, through testing cripples students and the country as a whole.

”). In the article the author states, “She couldn't get access to computers at school to do homework…” (“Sorry, I'm Not Taking This Test”). Many also argue that the test is socially biased, and punishes schools that perform poorly (High-Stakes Testing). Due to this method, school districts are forced to compete to perform better than one another to achieve the best grant, as a result a great deal of pressure is placed on teachers to prepare their students for the tests (“How No Child Left Behind Affects Your Child”).

What if the determining factor of whether or not you would be successful or a failure in life was solely based on the results of one test. Regardless of all the progress you have accomplished over your life, it all comes down to this big moment, the big test! That is the reality many students face annually due to high-stakes testing. High-stakes testing is the use of a summative test or an assessment to make decisions that are of prominent educational, financial, or social impact (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2013). Decisions such as graduation/grade promotion, school/state funding, or even job placement or termination.

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