Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

US Policies Supporting Inclusive Assessments for Students with Disabilities: A 60-Year History

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Accessible Instruction and Testing Practices

Abstract

Policies over the past 60 years promoting access to inclusive instruction and assessment of students with disabilities (SWDs) can be described as an ever-evolving set of conventions designed to promote fairness, shaped by the interacting principles of equity and excellence (Skirtic, 1991). The emphasis on equity of educational opportunity has promoted increased inclusion of SWDs in state assessments and has encouraged increasing emphasis on holding these students to the same high achievement standards as for all students. While the history of inclusive assessment has witnessed many advances in accessibility, the innovations in testing policies and supports have been less successful in promoting equity of educational benefit for SWDs. The present chapter traces key policy milestones in the legislative journey toward greater equity and excellence through a discussion of disability laws and regulation and highlights the need for a greater emphasis on fairness through equity of opportunity to learn.

Note: the views expressed in this chapter are solely those of the author in her private capacity. No official support or endorsement by the US Department of Education is intended nor should it be inferred.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term “universal design for learning” means a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice that (A) provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; (B) reduces barriers in instruction; provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges; and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient (Section 8101(51) of the ESEA; Section 103 of the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1003).

  2. 2.

    See US Department of Education, OSEP, 2003, Letter to Givens.

References

  • American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (2014). Standards for edu- cational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading. NCEE 2016–4000. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browder, D., Wakeman, S., & Flowers, C. (2009). Which came first, the curriculum or the assessment? In W. D. Shafer & R. W. Lissitz (Eds.), Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: Policy, practice, and potential. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browder, D., Wakeman, S., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browder, D. M., Wood, L., Thompson, J., & Ribuffo, C. (2014). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities. CEEDAR Document NO. IC-3. CEEDAR Center. Retrieved on August, 31, 2015. Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. (1954).

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, L. (2009, October 22). Personal communication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing, J. E., & Demchak, M. (1996). First Steps: Determining individual abilities and how best to support students. In J. E. Downing (Ed.), Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms: Practical strategies for teachers (pp. 35–61). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, A. (2010). Keeping the promise to all america’s children. Remarks made to the council for exceptional children, April 21, Arlington, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, S. N., Kettler, R. J., Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., Compton, E., McGrath, D., … Roach, A. T. (2010). Effects of using modified items to test students with persistent academic difficulties. Exceptional Children., 76(4), 475–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, S. N., Kurz, A., Beddow, P., & Frey, J. (2009). Cognitive load theory: Instruction-based research with applications for designing tests. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Boston, MA. February 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2004). Determining adequate yearly progress from kindergarten through grade 6 with curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Instruction, 29(4), 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, A. L., Noell, J., & Plisko, V. W. (1988). Lessons from the wall chart. Educational evaluation and policy analysis., 10(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hehir, T. (2005). New directions in special education: eliminating ableism in policy and practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearns, J. F., Towles-Reeves, E., Kleinert, H. L., & Kleinter, J. (2009). Who are the children who take alternate achievement standards assessments? In W. D. Schafer & R. W. Lissitz (Eds.), Alternate Assessments Based on Alternate Achievement Standards: Policy, Practice, and Potential. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, P. D. (1992). Inclusion and adaptation in assessment of special needs students in Arizona. In M. L. Thurlow & J. E. Yesseldyke (Eds.), Can “all” ever really mean “all” in defining and assessing student outcomes? (Synthesis report No. 5). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2016). 2015–16 high school assessment accommodations policies: An analysis of ACT, SAT, PARCC, and Smarter Balanced (NCEO Report 403). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, R. L. (1994). Performance assessment: Policy promises and technical measurement standards. Educational Researcher, 23(9), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrew, K. S., Thurlow, M. L., Shriner, J. G., & Spiegel, A. N. (1992). Inclusion of students with disabilities in national and state data-collection programs. (Technical Report 2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mislevy, R. M. (2015). Resolving the paradox of rich performance tasks. Paper presented at the Fifteenth Annual Maryland Conference: Test Fairness in the New Generation of Large- scale Assessment October 30, The University of Maryland at College Park.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Education. (1998). Goals 2000: Reforming education to improve student achievement. Washington DC: National Academy of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A. M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., & Wei, X. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). NCSER 2011–3005. National Center for Special Education Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, S. E. (1994). High stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93–120. Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, Inc.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, S. E. (2002). Legal issues affecting special populations in large-scale assessment programs. In G. Tindal & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all students: Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quenemoen, R. (2009). The long and winding road of alternate assessments: Where we started, where we are now, and the road ahead. In W. D. Schafer & R. W. Lissitz (Eds.), Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: Policy, practice, and potential. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, C., & Osborne, A. (Eds.). (2008). Essential concepts and school-based cases in special education law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, G. A. (2011). Higher education and disability: Improved federal enforcement needed to better protect students’ rights to testing accommodations (GAO-12-40, Report to Congressional Requesters). Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shriner, J., & Thurlow, M. L. (1993). State special education outcomes: A report on state Activities at the end of the century. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M, Karasoff, P., & Smith, A. (1991). Effective practices for inclusion Programs: A technical assistance planning guide. (unpublished paper supported by U.S. Department of Education Cooperative Agreements #GOO87C3056–91 and #GOO87C3058–91).

    Google Scholar 

  • Skirtic, T. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stecker, P. M. (2005). Monitoring student progress in individualized educational programs using curriculum-based measurement. In U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education: IDEAS that Work: Toolkit on teaching and assessing students with disabilities. National Center on Student Progress Monitoring.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (P.L. 89–10).

    Google Scholar 

  • The White House. (1990). National educational goals, Office of the Press Secretary. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2000). State alternate assessments: Status as IDEA alternate assessment requirements take effect (Synthesis report 35). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurlow, M. L., Seyfarth, A., Scott, D. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1997). State assessment policies on participation and accommodations for students with disabilities: 1997 update (Synthesis report No. 29). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurlow, M. L., & Yesseldyke, J. E. (1993). Can “all” ever really mean “all” in defining and assessing student outcomes? (Synthesis Report No.5). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindal, G. (2009). Reflections on the Alternate Assessment in Oregon. In W. D. Shafer & R. W. Lissitz (Eds.), Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: Policy, practice, and potential. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (1993). The reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act, executive summary, 1993. U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Elementary and secondary education. Guidance on standards, assessments and accountability. Retrieved Oct 2, 2009 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/standardsassessment/guidance_pg4.html#disabilities3.

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Standards and assessments non-regulatory guidance March 10, 2003. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Secretary spellings announces new flexibility for states raising achievement for students with disabilities, May 10, 2005. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Peer review of state assessment systems: Non-regulatory guidance for states for meeting requirements of the elementary and secondary education act of 1965, as amended. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The condition of education 2016 (NCES 2016–144), Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2013-14.asp.

  • U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (2003). Letter to givens. Retrieved August 24, 2016 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2003–1/given020403iep1q2003.pdf. Washington, DC: Author.

  • U.S. Department of Justice. (2015). Testing accommodations. Washington, DC: author. Retrieved from: http://www.ada.gov/regs2014/testing_accommodations.html.

  • Wallace, T., Ticha, R., & Gustafson, K. (2008). Study of General Outcome Measurement (GOMs) in reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Year 1. RIPM Technical Report #27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M. L., McGrew, K. S., & Shriner, G. J. (1994). Recommendations for making decisions about the participation of students with disabilities in statewide assessment programs: A report on a working conference to develop guidelines for statewide assessments and students with disabilities (Synthesis report 15). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zigmond, N., & Kloo, A. (2009). The ‘two percent students’: Considerations and consequences of eligibility decisions. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(4), 478–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Washington, DC, USA

    Susan C. Weigert

Authors
  1. Susan C. Weigert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan C. Weigert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

    Stephen N. Elliott

  2. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA

    Ryan J. Kettler

  3. Accessible Hope, LLC, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

    Peter A. Beddow

  4. Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

    Alexander Kurz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Weigert, S.C. (2018). US Policies Supporting Inclusive Assessments for Students with Disabilities: A 60-Year History. In: Elliott, S., Kettler, R., Beddow, P., Kurz, A. (eds) Handbook of Accessible Instruction and Testing Practices. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71126-3_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation