Special Needs Students High Stakes

Special Needs Students High Stakes Testing and NCLB Assessment Models for Special Needs Students The White House calls it, "the most sweeping reform of federal education policy in a generation," and though parents, teachers, and students can clearly see how the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002 changed education, they do not all agree that the change has been positive. Signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002, NCLB contains several measures aimed at changing the face of public education.

Among them are a new standard of flexibility with education funds, the implementation of school choice, and a focus on research-based teaching methods. But most controversially, the act imposed an accountability system grounded in achievement testing ("Fact Sheet"). Often contested in educational circles, achievement-based testing as assessment is often heralded as inefficient even for students on normal tracts. For special education students, however, achievement-based testing is likely to give an inaccurate portrait of performance.

Through an exploration of NCLB's assessment model, a critique of high-stakes testing, and an explanation of special education students' misrepresentation using achievement-based testing, the NCLB assessment model can be defined as inadequate for special education students, implying that changes must be made to the model in order to obtain accurate information. According to the White House, NCLB's assessment model was developed in order to increase school accountability.

Accountability was in need of reform, according to NCLB, because billions of dollars spent in educational improvement had not reduced differences between advantaged and disadvantaged students' performance. Thus, NCLB created a high-stakes testing achievement model in order to assess schools' progress. The results from said tests would allow parents to decide whether or not they would keep the child in their current school or exercise their school choice option, in addition to determining the level of funding and "corrective actions" that the school would receive ("Fact Sheet").

Despite the fact the NCLB has decided to use high-stakes testing in its assessment model, many educators argue that this type of assessment is not an adequate marker of student learning (Marlow 2). Just one year before NCLB was signed into law, Marlow found many problems with high-stakes testing. In fact, Marlow argues that high-stakes testing is implemented more for the benefit of the nation than the benefit of the students. High-stakes testing produces numbers that allow "the nation [to remain] competitive among the different countries of the world" (1).

In class, however, Marlow states that many students are failing to complete homework; thus, he argues that portfolios may be a better way to judge student achievement. Further, Marlow notes several disadvantages in high-stakes testing.

These include the fact that testing implies one examination to be of more worth than daily work in school, invalid test development, areas not measured by the test, the inability of the test to carry to all strengths and learning types, and the fact that these tests may not reveal what students have actually learned (2-3).

These disadvantages cast doubt on the choice of high-stakes test as an assessment model for any student; they certainly invite parents, teachers, and students to question why a bill concerned with educational reform chose the same tried and untrue method of assessment. While some suggest that high-stakes testing is an inadequate way of measuring the academic achievement and learning of most students, many also agree that high-stakes testing has severe disadvantages for special education students.

Kymes points out that high-stakes testing may be a discriminatory assessment method for special needs students, placing an "unfair burden" on these students. The scholar argues that testing plans cannot be created for each and every student, and even when they can, these testing plans are not always put into practice (Kymes). In addition, Ralabate notes the importance of finding alternate testing methods that allow students with disabilities to perform to their highest ability.

Determining that high-stakes testing is not a correct method of assessment for special needs students, however, is just half of the task at hand. In fact, significant information exists to argue that students with disabilities, in addition to schools, can be seriously harmed by these assessment methods. First, Kymes notes that special needs students who are assessed using a high-stakes testing method may feel like failures, suffer from low self-esteem and other emotional health problems, and even drop out of school.

Instead of focusing on leaving no child behind, therefore, this type of testing may actually encourage students to leave themselves behind -- for good. Second, Kymes also writes that students "often feel personally responsible for their district's failure to receive...awards" because such awards are based on test scores. Similarly, as test scores determine what schools are penalized and which are rewarded, schools with high populations of special education students may be the unfair recipients of such penalties.

This could lead schools to encourage special needs students to be absent on testing days or to move to other schools, which would have a similar detrimental affect on them. In conclusion, the NCLB Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush in order.