Current testing and accountability systems have been molded by a variety of political and other pressures, resulting in a flurry of policymaking both at the federal level and in the states. Understanding the multiple levels of the policymaking process and the impact of local implementation on testing and accountability helps identify points of influence and ways to align local district and classroom interventions for secondary-level students with disabilities with the intent of statewide testing and accountability systems. This article provides a broad view of policymaking in relation to state and local district testing and accountability, and concludes by identifying continuing policy issues and strategies for local implementation of standards-based secondary education that aligns with the intent of current testing and accountability policies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allington, R.L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992). Unintended effects of educational reform in New York. Educational Policy, 6(4), 397-414.
2.
Cohen, D.K., & Spillane, J. (1993). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. In S.H. Furhman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. (pp. 35-95) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Disability Rights Advocates. (2001). Do no harm - High-stakes testing and students with learning disabilities . Oakland, CA: Author.
4.
Education Commission of the States. (1999). Education accountability systems in 50 states. Denver, CO: Author.
5.
Glatthom, A.A. (1998). Planning and organizing for curriculum renewal . In S.J. Gross (Ed.), ASCD curriculum handbook (pp. 1-53). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
6.
Krentz, J., Thurlow, M., & Callender, S. (2000). Accountability systems and counting students with disabilities (Technical Report 29). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes .
7.
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2001 ). Leadership for student learning: Recognizing the state's role in public education: School leadership for the 21 st century initiative: A report of the task force on state leadership. Washington, DC: Author.
8.
Massell, D., Kirst, M., & Hoppe, M. (1997). Persistence and change: Standards-based reform in nine states (CPRE Research Report). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
9.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (2001). NASBE state profiles: State education governance at a glance. Alexandria, VA: Author . Available at http://www.nasbe.org/govmatrix.html
10.
National Education Association. (2001). An overview of NEA's tools for auditing standards-based education. [Brochure] . Washington, DC: Author .
11.
National Research Council (1999). Testing, teaching and learning: A guide for states and school districts. Washington, DC: Author.
12.
New York State Education Department. (2001 ). Report to the Board of Regents on special education data . Albany, NY: Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities.
13.
Olson L. (2000, January 19). New thinking on what makes a leader . Education Week, 19(9), 1-8. Retrieved January 10, 2002 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=19lead.h19.
14.
Olson, L. (2000, January 24). States adjust high-stakes testing plans. Education Week, 20(19), 1, 18, 19. Retrieved January 10, 2002 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=19lead.h20.
15.
Olson, J.F., Jones, I., & Bond, L. (2001). State student assessment programs annual survey: Summary report. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
16.
Quenemoen, R., Lehr, C.A., Thurlow, M., Thompson, S.J., & Bolt, S. (2000). Social promotion and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges in developing state policies (Synthesis Report 34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
17.
Rubin, H.G. (2001, Sept 27). "Mass. School officials mull appeals for exit test." Education Daily, 34 (185), pp. 2, 4.
18.
Shriner, J.G., & DeStefano, L. (2001). Curriculum access and state assessment for students with disabilities: A research update. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Council for Exceptional Children, Kansas City, MO.
19.
Thompson, S.J., Thurlow, M.L., Quenemoen, R., Esler, A., & Whetstone, P. (2001). Addressing standards and assessments on state IEP forms (Synthesis Report 31). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes .
20.
Thompson, S.J., Thurlow, M.L., & Whetstone, P. (2001). Recommendations for addressing standards and IEPs on state and district IEP forms (Policy Directions 10). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
21.
Thurlow, M.L., & Esler, A. (2000). Appeals processes for students who fail graduation exams: How do they apply to student with disabilities? (Synthesis Report #36) . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota , National Center on Educational Outcomes.
22.
Thurlow, M.L., & Weiner, D.J. (2000). Non-approved accommodations : Recommendations for use and reporting (Policy Directions No. 11). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
23.
Wilson, L.L. (1999, May). Targeting student learning refocuses the policy process. Retrieved September 24, 2001 from http://www.nsba.org/nepn/newsletter/599.htm.
24.
Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., & Linn, D. (1999). NGA Brief: Including students with disabilities in statewide assessments and accountability systems. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association.
25.
Ziebarth, T. (2000). Models of state education governance. ECS state notes/governance. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Available at http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/13/31/1331.htm .
