1

High-stakes standardized testing in K-12 public schools across the country is often at

the forefront of educational journals, conferences, and news outlets. The inclusion of students

with disabilities in high-stakes standardized testing is one of the most controversial topics in

testing. It was not that long ago that congressmen and congresswomen debated whether

students with disabilities should be included in the attendance discussion. In 1971 only 40% of

children with disabilities received a public education (Pullin, 2005). All but one state had laws

that exempted children with disabilities from school attendance requirements. By 1975,

Congress had determined that more than 1 million students with disabilities were not receiving

a public education. New policies and initiatives were designed to provide children with

disabilities an education in the same settings and classrooms as their nondisabled peers. Public

schools would educate students with disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate as outlined

in their individualized education program (IEP).

The Individual with Disabilities Education Act

Section 1462 (b) (2)

(vii) preparing children with disabilities to participate in statewide assessments (with or

without accommodations) and alternate assessments, as appropriate, and to ensure that

all children with disabilities are a part of all accountability systems under the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 [20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.];

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act

(A) In General-Each state shall demonstrate that the State educational agency, in

consultation with local educational agencies, has implemented a set of high-quality

student academic assessments in mathematics, reading or language arts, and science.

The State retains the right to implement such assessments in any other subject
 2

chosen by the state.

(B) Requirements-The assessments under subparagraph (A) shall ---

(i) except as provided in subparagraph (D), be ---

(II) administered to all public elementary school and secondary school

students in the State

During the 1990s, educators and parents were concerned that students with disabilities

were still falling behind and were not receiving the same educational opportunities as their

peers without disabilities. This would affect their lives socially, economically, and civically.

Nevertheless, even when the federal government drove high-stakes standardized testing to

implement education reform, little attention was given to the students with disabilities. Finally,

in 1997 Congress created policies requiring students with disabilities to be included in

education reforms and state testing programs.

By 2000-2001, nearly 9% of students enrolled in public schools received special

education services under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Compared to

30 years prior, students with disabilities were now finishing high school, and many would have

the opportunity to go to college. However, despite this growth, there was little accountability

showing that students with disabilities were given appropriate opportunities to learn the same

high academic standards as their non-disabled peers. Federal and state governments recognized

that students with disabilities were excluded from high-stakes testing. As a result, some

students with disabilities were never taught basic academic skills and concepts. The No Child

Left Behind Act of 2001 required regular testing of all students and required all schools and

districts to demonstrate adequate yearly progress on tests. In addition, testing data and results

were disaggregated to show how specific populations were doing, including students with
 3

disabilities.

IDEA, Title II of ADA, and Section 504 required states and school districts to include

students with disabilities in district-wide and statewide assessments with appropriate and

reasonable accommodations. The most recent provision of IDEA also allows alternate

assessment systems. The decision and responsibility for determining participation in alternate

assessments defer to the IEP team. However, while the decision is individualized, the power of

the IEP team is making the decision that has led to difficulties associated with data collected in

high-stakes standardized testing programs (Minnema et al., 2004).

In support of educators and parents who believe that participation in high-stakes

standardized testing is critical to the education of their children with disabilities, the National

Center for Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has researched and described several reasons to

support testing students with disabilities. Participating in high-stakes standardized testing

would:

● Paint an accurate picture of educational achievement by students with disabilities

● Allow students with disabilities to benefit from educational reforms

● Allow accurate comparison of schools, districts, or states

● Avoid inappropriate grade retention of students with disabilities and inappropriate

referrals

● Promote high expectations of students with disabilities

● Promote students with disabilities access to the general curriculum

● Meet the legal requirements outlined in IDEA, ADA, and NCLB

However, test-driven education reform has presented educators with considerable challenges.

No matter which side of the aisle educators and parents fall on, there are significant problems
 4

with the test data from high-stakes standardized tests. There is limited research to inform the

implementation of high-stakes standardized testing of students with disabilities. As a result, the

amount of limited research has led to controversies over the participation of students with

disabilities in high-stakes standardized testing. Concerns over the trauma and demoralization

of students with disabilities, especially those with significant and complex disabilities, as well

as the loss of individualized goals, “teaching to the test” have left some educators and parents

questioning if participation in assessments is providing their students with free and appropriate

education.

IDEA (1975/2004) ensures that students with disabilities receive an appropriate

education that their IEP defines. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) from 1990 banned discrimination based on a person's

disability. Additionally, the acts require access to an appropriate education, including

reasonable accommodations for those students with disabilities participating in testing

programs. This includes tests being offered “in a place and manner accessible to persons with

disabilities or offer alternative accessible arrangements for such individuals.” (42 U.S.C.

12189; 29 C.F.R. 36.309). The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) has provided local

education agencies (LEAs) with the authority to use a nationally recognized assessment in

place of the state assessment if the state has approved it. States may also choose to pilot an

innovative assessment program (Yell, 2019). With assistance from Congress, federal spending

has significantly increased, so districts and schools can provide students with disabilities with

appropriate and reasonable accommodations and alternative assessments.

Even within a particular disability type, there is a considerable range in the severity of

the disability, leading to some students receiving multiple arrangements and accommodations.
 5

There is a threat to the validity and reliability of the scores and inferences being made.

Therefore, the accommodations must focus clearly on the content that is being measured. For

instance, reading aloud the mathematics test will likely do little to diminish the validity of the

students’ achievement. Still, the reading aloud of a reading test might very well lessen the

validity of the students’ achievement. Research on the effects of accommodations is limited

and mixed. For example, Koretz and Barton (2004) argued that accommodations are used too

extensively and undermine the validity of predictive testing for college admissions.

On the other hand, Fuchs and Fuchs (1999) found many instances in which

accommodations have no impact on the validity of a test score. There is considerable difficulty

with researching the validity of accommodated test administrations with no clear criteria or

evidence for comparison. Therefore, doubts have been raised about the disaggregated data No

Child Left Behind required from high-stakes standardized test administrations.

An alternate approach has been recommended for students with cognitive disabilities

who cannot participate in high-stakes standardized testing. Alternate assessments should be

used only when students with disabilities cannot participate in testing, even with

accommodations. Alternate assessments can be designed in several forms: portfolios of student

work, performance assessments, checklists, or traditional paper-pencil tests filled out by

teachers in a one-on-one student assessment. Of these forms, the most used is the portfolio.

The portfolio assessment is easily linked to grade-level standard norms with the same

descriptors and goals as general high-stakes standardized assessments. One popular,

controversial alternate assessment is the “out-of-level” assessment. This assessment is often

based on alternate standards and fulfills the U.S. Department of Education (USDE)

requirement of calculating adequate yearly progress (AYP). The expectation is that no more
 6

than 9 % of students with disabilities will participate in assessments that use alternate

standards. However, reports show that out-of-level assessments are being utilized more now

than before the USDE limited its use. Although the percentage of students participating in

out-of-level assessments has increased, the expectation should not be so much that only a

certain percentage can test, but rather ensuring that students can engage with the test they are

being given. Going several grade levels below may be necessary for some students with

disabilities but staying as close to grade-level content as possible should be the goal. Allowing

flexibility with the percentage of students who participate in out-of-level assessments will

alleviate the difficulties facing IEP team members when making assessment participation

decisions.

Like high-stakes standardized assessments, alternate assessments should follow the

same standards for technical quality, including reliability and validity. Quenemoen et al.,

(2003) researched the significant problems with setting the standards and issues regarding

validity and reliability with alternate assessments. The first problem is how to determine the

content domains. To ensure that students with disabilities are exposed to high-performance

standards and the general curriculum, assessments that are purely functional skills should be

avoided. Not only are these assessments inconsistent with the goals of No Child Left Behind,

but they are also limiting opportunities for students with disabilities to engage in core

academic content and reach their full potential.

Another problem with alternate assessments arises when states attempt to bundle

alternate assessment results with standard assessment results. Some states scale the results so

that they have very similar values, and other states scale the results so they are at the lower end

of the spectrum and standard assessments are at the higher end of the spectrum. The latter
 7

approach is known as “expanded scaling” and leads to the standard categories as “advanced,”

“proficient,” “needs improvement,” and “warning.” Within the warning category are three

subcategories to be used as score levels on alternate assessments (“awareness,” “emerging,”

and “progressing”). Trying to link scores on two very different assessments results in

numerous validity problems, especially when the covered content is statistically significant.

Instead of this approach, another approach to be considered is partial testing. Modifying

current high-stakes standardized assessments so that a student would complete three or four of

the nine required tasks “would decrease the duration of the test and still give students an

opportunity to both decode and encode at a much slower rate…learning disabled students can

understand the concepts being covered, but not within the time frame allowed for general

education student [s]” (Meek, 2006). Likewise, some students with disabilities are stronger in a

particular subject than others. Giving a student with disabilities the high-stakes standardized

test only in the subject that they can earn a decent score in and then assessing their progress in

other subjects by other means will improve how the data collected measures the students’

growth and achievement. Implementing options such as these would allow most students, both

with and without disabilities, to participate in and be tested with high-stakes standardized tests

without using alternative assessments. “Measuring achievement need not mean that all students

must be tested exactly in the same way. Such policies have developed without giving due

consideration either to the emotional impact of the process or the lack of validity of the results”

(Meek, 2006).

Consideration must also be given to the time spent preparing and implementing

standardized tests and how much of that time is taken away from the services outlined in the

IEPs for students with disabilities. As Berg (2016) reported, “schools are almost always
 8

short-staffed when it comes to having enough test administrators and special education

teachers are often required to administer standardized tests…The odds are that your child’s

special education teacher will be involved in testing and will not teach their normal schedule

during testing times. Special education teachers can be tied up for several hours per day for

several weeks administering standardized tests throughout the school year.” It falls on parents

to know what is written in their student’s IEP and to make sure that they are receiving

consistent services that they are entitled to. Not only that, but if the student is participating in

high-stakes standardized testing, the IEP will prescribe and detail if any accommodations are

required. While students are expected to miss two to three hours a day to participate in testing,

it is not the norm for services to be cut. Depending upon the disability of the student, parents

will need to determine what is an acceptable amount of lost instructional time, especially if the

student is not participating in testing because of the severity of their disability. Berg (2016)

states a widely held belief that high-stakes standardized testing only takes place at the end of

the school year for one week. This is not true. Many districts implement benchmark testing at

the start of the school year and continue with formative assessments throughout the school

year. Many of these assessments occur when the special education teacher usually teaches

their students. Therefore, if parents of a student with special needs are told that the student did

not receive instruction or services due to test scheduling conflicts, it is recommended to ask

when the missed time and services will be made up and to keep track of the days and times

services was cut. Although advocating for their student’s education can cause discomfort for

parents, it is a necessity. Under IDEA, if a student’s accessible and appropriate public

education has been violated, compensatory makeup time must be awarded. When students

miss several days or even weeks because of high-stakes standardized testing, such a lengthy
 9

amount of missed time may negatively impact the students' achievement of the IEP goals.

School and district leaders are responsible for implementing high-stakes standardized testing

that minimally disrupts the school day and instructional time. Testing plays a vital role in our

K-12 public schools, but it should not be at the cost of our students.
 10

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Original Text). (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.eeoc.gov/americans-disabilities-act-1990-original-text

Berg, D. (2016, August). Protecting Your Child's IEP from the Nation's Testing Craze.  EP

Magazine, 38-40.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn

Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1999, November). Fair and unfair testing accommodations. The School

Administrator, 56(10), 24–30

Home. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (2021, November 04). Retrieved from

http://idea.ed.gov/

Koretz, D., & Barton, K. (2003–2004). Assessing students with disabilities: Issues and

evidence. Educational Assessment, 9(1&2), 29–60

Meek, C. (2006, December). From the Inside Out: A Look at Testing Special Education

Students. Phi Delta Kappan, 293-297.

Minnema, J., Thurlow, M., & Warren, S.H. (2004). Understanding out-of-level testing in

local schools: A first case study of policy implementation and effects (Out-of-Level

Testing Project 11). Minneapolis: the University of Minnesota, National Center on

Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 1, 2005, from http://education. umn.edu/

NCEO/OnlinePubs/OOLT11.ht

National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://nceo.info/

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 - ed. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.pdf
 11

Quenemoen, R., Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2003). Measuring academic achievement

of students with significant cognitive disabilities: Building understanding of alternate

assessment scoring criteria (Synthesis Report 50). Minneapolis: the University of

Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from

http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis50.html

Rehabilitation Act. (1973). 20 U.S.C. 794.

Yell, M. L. (2019). The Law and Special Education. New York, NY: Pearson.