Educating One and All Students with Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform (1997) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pages 1-10
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
This movement seeks to improve educational quality by setting high content standards that define the knowledge and skills that teachers should teach and students should learn, and by holding educators and students accountable for ambitious performance standards that set the expectations for proficiency. The Committee on Goals 2000 and the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities was established to consider the implications of standards-based reforms for a group of students that is quite heterogeneous those with disabilities.
|
From page 2... ...
Our charge was specific and limited; since the evaluation of these policies themselves was not part of the charge, the committee accepted as given, without necessarily endorsing, the defining elements of the two policy frameworks: the standardsbased approach to educational reform and current special education policy. In conducting its analysis, the committee was constrained by the nature of the policies we were studying and by the available data.
|
From page 3... ...
For example, technical hurdles have yet to be overcome in many alternative types of assessments, which some states are using in conjunction with or instead of conventional multiple-choice testing. The public strongly supports common standards as a strategy for improving student performance, but the consensus breaks down over such details as the specific content to be taught.
|
From page 4... ...
However, more that 90 percent of those who qualify for special education fall into one of just four categories of disability: speech or language impairment, serious emotional disturbance, mental retardation, and specific learning disability; indeed, specific learning disabilities alone account for more than half of all eligible students. As a result, meaningful discussion of the participation of students with disabilities in common standards and assessments cannot occur without attention to the varied characteristics of this large group of students.
|
From page 5... ...
The content standards developed thus far by states focus mainly on academic content in language arts, mathematics, science, and other core academic subjects; to date, vocational and workplace skills have received far less emphasis. A1though these academic goals are relevant for many students with disabilities, questions arise about whether the content and performance levels embodied in these academic state standards are useful and realistic learning goals for some students with disabilities, and whether the instructional time required to help these students progress toward standards would take valuable time away from teaching more relevant skills.
|
From page 6... ...
They are the primary advocates for their children' s rights and crucial participants in educational decision making through the IEP process; this responsibility also means that parents have come to bear the primary burden of enforcement. Evidence indicates that the IEP process has not worked well for all parents, particularly minority and economically disadvantaged ones.
|
From page 7... ...
One important issue is to ensure that assessments can accurately measure performance at the low end of the scale, particularly for assessment items that are difficult. Because the performance standard representing the lowest level of achievement is set relatively high in many state assessments, we lack meaningful data about the overall progress of students who fall below that standard.
|
From page 8... ...
Considerable uncertainty exists about the resource levels that will be needed to support standards-based reforms. These policies are likely to entail additional costs for developing assessments, acquiring technology, implementing new governance models, and increasing through research our understanding of the relationship between curricular strategies and student learning.
|
From page 9... ...
Recommendation 4. States and localities should revise policies that discourage maximum participation of students with disabilities in the common accountability system and provide incentives to encourage widespread participation.
|
From page 10... ...
Areas needing particular attention include research on the school experiences of students with disabilities, the potential of computer-based technologies, how local decisions are made about students' curricular opportunities, alternative student credentials, and the relationship between testing accommodations and validity. As with any worthwhile undertaking, implementing these recommendations will require effort and a willingness to change.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.