ERIC EJ724876: Low Performance on High-Stakes Test Drives Special Education Referrals: A Texas Survey

2004·0.04 MB·English

by  ERIC

Low Performance on High-Stakes
Test Drives Special Education Referrals:
A Texas Survey
by Cheryl Fielding
“The Texas Assessment of Academic Agency 2000a; Texas Legislature Online
Skills (TAAS) is a classic example of the 2001). A recent review of the TAC revealed
high-stakes test” (Gordon and Reese 1997, that students receiving special education ser-
347). Campus and district ratings, student vices may be administered an alternative as-
graduation, and accreditation investiga- sessment known as the State-Developed Al-
tions are tied to this test (Texas Legislature ternative Assessment (SDAA), or they may
Online 2001). Beginning with the 2002–03 be exempt from the assessment altogether.
school year, this test was renamed the Texas If it is determined that it is appropriate
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills for students receiving special education ser-
(TAKS) (Texas Education Agency 2003). vices to participate in the regular TAKS test,
Along with the new name came even consideration must be given to appropri-
higher stakes. Third graders who did not ate testing modifications and accommoda-
pass the reading section of the TAKS were tions (IDEA Practices 1997). A United States
required by state statute to be retained Department of Education memorandum
(Texas Education Agency 2001). There are, from Michael Cohen, Assistant Secretary
however, exceptions to this rule. One of for Elementary and Secondary Education
those exceptions applies to students receiv- and Judith E. Heumann, Assistant Secre-
ing special education services (Texas Edu- tary for Special Education and Rehabilita-
cation Agency 2003; Texas Legislature tive Services to Chief State School Officers,
Online 2001). indicated that neither a state education
The Individuals with Disabilities Edu- agency nor a local education agency can
cation Act (IDEA) requires that states de- limit the authority of the student’s special
velop guidelines for the appropriate par- education committee to select individual
ticipation of children receiving special accommodations and modifications in ad-
education services in state and district- ministration needed for a child with a dis-
wide assessments and alternate assess- ability to participate in statewide assess-
ments (IDEA Practices 1997). According to ments (Cohen and Heumann 2001).
the Texas Education Code (TEC), the Texas Examples of accommodations and modifi-
State Board of Education (SBOE) and the cations might include reading selected test
Commissioner of Education are assigned items orally to students, administering the
this specific rule-making authority. Their test individually or in a smaller group, and
rules are codified under the Texas Admin- allowing students access to a word proces-
istrative Code (TAC) (Texas Education sor. The purpose of these accommodations
The Educational Forum • Volume 68 • Winter 2004
126
RESEARCH
IN PRACTICE
and modifications is to protect students from BASIS FOR INQUIRY
being penalized because of their disabilities All students, particularly those who
(Shriner 2000). are lower performing, may not be included
In a Maryland study, Ysseldyke, in the TAKS test. This can contribute to the
Thurlow, Bielinski, House, Moody, and elevation of campus and district ratings.
Haigh (2001) found that 82 percent of stu- While scores from the SDAA are aggregated
dents receiving special education services into these overall ratings (Texas Legislature
had some form of testing accommodations Online 2001), results could be manipulated
listed on their individual education plans. by lowering the SDAA test levels adminis-
They noted that the accommodations and tered. Because of the high stakes associated
modifications provided during an assess- with the TAKS and the role of the educational
ment should be matched to those incorpo- diagnostician in the decision-making process,
rated into classroom instruction. However, educational diagnosticians have felt pressure
this is not mandated. In Texas, the student’s from administrators and teachers to recom-
individual special education admission, re- mend that students qualify for special edu-
view, and dismissal (ARD) committee is re- cation services. Additionally, because educa-
sponsible for making these decisions (Texas tional diagnosticians conduct evaluations of
Legislature Online 2001). However, if a stu- students referred to special education, they
dent does not qualify to receive special edu- are in a position to reflect upon the most com-
cation services, testing modifications, and ac- mon factors driving initial referrals.
commodations, the SDAA test, or an This article is based on a survey of edu-
exemption from the TAKS test, are not op- cational diagnosticians working in Texas for
tions via the special education route. the 2001–02 school year. The Executive Board
The IDEA and the TAC also give author- of the Texas Educational Diagnosticians’ As-
ity to the ARD committee to make the initial sociation (TEDA) developed the comprehen-
determination as to which students qualify sive survey that contained over 50 items.
for special education services (IDEA Practices Only three items were related specifically to
1997; Texas Education Agency 2000b). Deter- the TAAS test. The general purpose of the
minations are based on assessment data that survey was to assist the TEDA leadership in
must comply with a number of federal and developing a legislative agenda. A total of
state criteria and procedures. In Texas, the 3,210 surveys were mailed during the spring
educational diagnostician is considered the semester of 2002 to educational diagnosti-
assessment specialist whose expertise is re- cians (both TEDA and non-TEDA members).
lied upon heavily in the decision-making A total of 1,049 surveys were returned. Re-
process (Fielding and Overton 2000). Mem- sults of all survey items were reported in
bers of the ARD committee work in a collabo- TEDA’s state journal, The DiaLog (Fielding
rative manner to reach consensus. If consen- 2002a; Fielding 2002b). According to Gay and
sus cannot be reached, a number of Airasian (2000), the number of respondents
procedural safeguards are in place for reso- required for the generalization of survey re-
lution (IDEA Practices 1997). sults to a population size of 3,500 is 346.
The TEDA was founded in 1973 and has
remained an active organization. It is gov-
Cheryl Fielding is Assistant Professor and
Educational Diagnostician Program Coordi- erned by an executive board of eight officers
nator at the University of Texas–Pan that are elected by the general membership
American. She is a former special educa- during an annual business meeting held in
tion teacher and educational diagnostician. conjunction with the state conference. In
The Educational Forum • Volume 68 • Winter 2004
127
FIELDING
December 2001, the TEDA membership TAAS scores.” The following statement was
was 1,310. included at the end of the survey: “Please feel
free to write any additional information you
SURVEY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE TAAS would like to share with us on the back.”
Educational diagnosticians were asked
to approximate the percentage of initial re- EDUCATIONAL DIAGNOSTICIANS’ PERSPECTIVES
ferrals to special education that were driven A total of 866 educational diagnosticians
primarily by low performance on TAAS and responding to the survey approximated the
to explain the basis for their answers. Second, percentage of initial referrals to special edu-
they were asked to rate the level of pressure cation that are driven primarily by low per-
they felt they received from administrators formance on the TAAS test. Over 78 percent
to recommend that students who failed the (677) felt 50 percent or more of all initial re-
TAAS test qualify for special education ser- ferrals were driven primarily by low perfor-
vices and to explain the basis for their rat- mance on TAAS (table 1).
ings. For this item, a five-point Likert-type A total of 962 educational diagnosti-
scale was used. No pressure was represented cians responding to the survey rated the
by a score of one, and extreme pressure was level of pressure perceived from adminis-
represented by a score of five. Third, educa- trators to recommend that students who
tional diagnosticians were asked to choose failed the TAAS qualify to receive special
three issues, from a list of seven, that they education services. Over 86 percent (835)
believed to be most important for the TEDA reported routinely receiving some level of
to pursue with legislators. They were asked pressure (table 2).
to rank their choices in order of priority based From the list of seven issues pertain-
on importance. One of the choices read, “ini- ing to the TEDA’s future legislative agenda,
tial referrals generated primarily due to low 348 educational diagnosticians endorsed
TABLE 1
Initial Referrals to Special Education Driven by Low Performance
Percentages of Initial Number of
Evaluations Driven Respondents Addressing Percentage of
Primarily by Low This Survey Item Respondents Addressing
Performance on TAAS Total N = 866 This Survey Item
100 95 11.0
90–99 214 24.7
80–89 99 11.4
70–79 108 12.5
60–69 40 4.6
50–59 121 14.0
40–49 17 2.0
30–39 30 3.5
20–29 47 5.4
10–19 49 5.7
0–9 46 5.3
The Educational Forum • Volume 68 • Winter 2004
128
RESEARCH
IN PRACTICE
the item regarding initial referrals gener- Teachers and administrators feel pressure to
ated by low TAAS test scores. This item increase accountability ratings. Responses sup-
received 91 first-choice endorsements, 132 porting this trend included: “My administra-
second-choice endorsements, and 125 tors are under a lot of pressure to have an
third-choice endorsements. exemplary campus.” “Our superintendent
In analyzing the explanations provided has threatened principals with their jobs if
as the basis for majority responses to these our schools and district are not recognized
items and the additional information pro- this year!” “Teachers are stressed by TAAS
vided on the back of the survey, a number of demands. Administrators also are pressured
trends regarding the TAAS to maintain and increase
test and special education passing levels. Adminis-
emerged. trators feel that special
Responsiveness in teaching
Teachers, counselors, and education is a way for
administrators openly state that is much more closely low-performing students
initial referrals are based specifi- to be exempt from TAAS
cally on the most recent TAAS associated with the moral so the school might ob-
scores. Responses supporting tain a better rating.”
and ethical realms of
this trend included: “They Both teachers and
tell you this kid will never teaching than it is with administrators pressure
pass the TAAS; they have his educational diagnosti-
notions of effective teaching.
previous scores memo- cians to recommend that
rized.” “Teachers say things students qualify to re-
like, ‘I’ve got to get him out ceive special education
of TAAS.’” “I hear so many services. Responses sup-
teachers and counselors say they want to porting this trend included: “Administrators
refer a student for testing because ‘they just don’t necessarily pressure us; teachers do.”
don’t get it.’ When I ask what ‘it’ means, I “Administrators and teachers have ex-
usually am told TAAS.” treme pressure on them regarding TAAS,
TABLE 2
Level of Pressure Routinely Received from Administrators
Level of Pressure
Routinely
Received from
Administrators to Qualify Number of
Students Who Failed TAAS Respondents Addressing Percentage of
(1 = No Pressure) This Survey Item Respondents Addressing
(5 = Extreme Pressure) Total N = 962 This Survey Item
1 127 13.2
2 216 22.5
3 225 23.4
4 185 19.2
5 209 21.7
The Educational Forum • Volume 68 • Winter 2004
129
FIELDING
and that pressure filters down to me dur- Educational diagnosticians respond to
ing referrals.” TAAS-related pressures/concerns in a variety of
Many teachers, counselors, and administra- ways. Responses supporting this trend in-
tors do not have a thorough understanding of spe- cluded: “I have been sick to the point of want-
cial education rules and regulations or evaluation ing to resign just because I know what will
procedures. Responses supporting this trend be said when I tell the administration (prin-
included: “I have a principal who seems quite cipal) and teachers a kid will not qualify. It is
disturbed when kids don’t qualify, and she a horrible feeling! I hate being put in that situ-
wants to know why.” “I really feel that re- ation.” “I explain when I begin working at a
quiring training, staff development sessions, school that I do not test shop nor qualify ev-
or mandatory hours in special education erybody they refer.” “I don’t qualify students
guidelines for administrators, counselors, unless they meet eligibility. I don’t care what
and teachers is crucial. So many ‘general edu- their TAAS scores are.”
cation’ educators do not have a true under-
standing of what the full individual evalua- HOW EXEMPT IS EXEMPLARY?
tion consists of and that it is governed by Pressure to increase campus and district
timelines.” “Educators are required to have accountability ratings appears to generate
training to understand and meet the learn- greater numbers of students labeled as hav-
ing styles of gifted/talented students. Why ing a disability than would be otherwise.
shouldn’t there be the same requirements From the data gathered in this survey, two
regarding students with disabilities?” “Over- questions arise. First, are school personnel
all, administrators need to be reminded that raising accountability ratings through special
diagnosticians do not pick and choose who education by: (a) exempting students from
qualifies. The tests are given and if all infor- the assessment; (b) administering an alternate
mation is met, then certain students will assessment at lower levels; and/or (c) pro-
qualify.” viding modifications and accommodations to
Some administrators make comments or be- students taking the regular assessment? Sec-
have in ways that are inappropriate. Responses ond, do teachers and administrators truly
supporting this trend included: “The princi- believe that if a student does not pass the
pal has personally told me to exempt as many statewide accountability assessment, he/she
tenth grade Spanish males as possible.” “If may have a disability?
you do not qualify, or rather, if the student Irons, Fielding, Klos-Franks, Grubbs, and
does not qualify, the administrator (principal) Kim (1999) reviewed 100 Texas public school
gets madder than hell and requests your campuses with exemplary ratings. Their find-
transfer.” “I have been told that special edu- ings revealed that these campuses had a
cation is not black and white, that it is gray, slightly higher percentage of students in spe-
and that I am expected to go into that gray cial education than the state average: 12.5
area and qualify.” “They should not make the percent compared to 11.6 percent. The high-
diagnostician the ‘bad guy.’ The pressure and est special education population in their
harassment demonstrated by principals and stratified random sample (taken from a total
teachers must cease.” “In some campuses, of 680) had a special education population of
they request that we retest or give additional 35.5 percent. This high percentage of students
tests.” “We are asked to further test or use receiving special education services on a cam-
method II.” “Administrators will ask me to pus with the highest accountability rating of
please keep trying to find a way to qualify exemplary should certainly raise eyebrows
him/her.” as to the ethical behavior of the profession-
The Educational Forum • Volume 68 • Winter 2004
130
RESEARCH
IN PRACTICE
als involved. Allington and McGill-Franzen the interest of the school district before
(1997, 224) interviewed school administra- that of the individual student.
tors who indicated that high-stakes testing These questions point out serious
has a definite influence on the increased ethical considerations. Clearly, pressure
identification of students with learning dis- placed on educational diagnosticians by
abilities. An administrator in their sample school personnel, particularly adminis-
made the following remark: “I think there trators, places them in a specific type of
is a lot of game playing that begins the ethical dilemma. They are required to
minute you introduce that kind of frame- make a choice between acting in the best
work [accountability]. . . . No one plays interest of the child as an advocate, and
games better than school districts and ad- promoting the perceived interests of the
ministrators.” Another comment from an school district (Helton, Ray, and
administrator was recorded as follows Biderman 2000). In a survey of 271 school
(1997, 223): psychologists and special education
teachers, Helton et al. (2000, 112) deter-
This whole family was classified. mined reactions to similar ethical dilem-
Why? Because there was a chance that mas. They reported:
the kids might fail [the high-stakes
test], and they were a low-socioeco- School professionals facing this
nomic family. That’s how you main- kind of dilemma may experience it as
tain number one [in countywide com- requiring a choice between competing
parative rankings of schools on state loyalties. They may, on the one hand,
test performance]. You have to do some seek to honor obligations prescribed by
game playing. ethical codes, professional standards,
and relevant laws while, on the other,
The second question noted earlier seek to honor employer expectations
asks whether there is an assumption and directives.
made, on behalf of public school person-
nel, that students who do not pass the The manipulation of public school ac-
statewide accountability assessment countability systems affects a number of
must have a “disability.” In other words, stakeholders. The community is misled at
are the majority of referrals to special the expense of the very students the school
education good faith referrals? A good districts are charged with serving. As seen
faith referral is one that is driven solely in the data reported here, it is clear that a
by the best interests of the student. Re- majority of educational diagnosticians in
ferring a student to special education Texas continue to face ethical dilemmas.
because of a desire to raise accountabil- Pressure on public school personnel to in-
ity ratings would not be considered a crease accountability ratings is creating
good faith referral. Destefano, Shriner, these inappropriate situations. From the
and Lloyd (2001) noted that the pressure data presented here, it is apparent that gen-
on school personnel to demonstrate eral education teachers, counselors, and ad-
higher levels of student performance has ministrators are in need of additional train-
increased over the past ten years. It ap- ing in the areas of special education rules,
pears from the results of this study that regulations, and evaluation procedures.
it has increased to the degree that it is Further, training in the area of appropriate
causing some school personnel to place ethical considerations also is warranted. It
The Educational Forum • Volume 68 • Winter 2004
131
FIELDING
is indeed unfortunate that the state ac- improve the quality of education is now
countability system that was designed to creating such negative consequences.
REFERENCES
Allington, R. L., A. McGill-Franzen, and R. Schick. 1997. How IDEA Practices. 1997. Idea ’97 laws and regulations. Wash-
administrators understand learning difficulties: A ington, D.C.: IDEA Partnerships. Available at:
qualitative analysis. Remedial and special education 18(4): www.ideapractices.org/law/index.php.
223–32. Irons, E. J., C. Fielding, L. Klos-Franks, B. Grubbs, and Y. K.
Cohen, M., and J. E. Heumann. 2001. Clarification of the Kim. 1999. Special education accountability: Truth and
role of the IEP team in selecting individual accom- consequences. The DiaLog 28(3): 7–9.
modations/modifications in administration, and al- Shriner, J. G. 2000. Legal perspectives on school outcomes
ternate assessments for state and district-wide as- assessment for students with disabilities. Journal of Spe-
sessments of student achievement. Washington, cial Education 33(4): 232–39.
D.C.: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Texas Education Agency. 2000a. About TEA rules. Austin,
Services, Office of Elementary and Secondary Edu- Tex.: Office of Accountability Reporting and Research.
cation, United States Department of Education Available at: www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/homeabout
Memorandum. 12 January: 4. rules.html.
Destefano, L., J. G. Shriner, and C. A. Lloyd. 2001. Teacher Texas Education Agency. 2000b. Texas Administrative Code
decision making in participation of students with dis- (TAC), Title 19, Part II, Chapter 89. Adaptations for
abilities in large-scale assessment. Exceptional Children special populations. Austin, Tex. Available at:
68(1): 7–22. www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter089/ch089d.html.
Fielding, C. 2002a. Statewide survey results: Part I of II. The Texas Education Agency. 2001. Texas Administrative Code
DiaLog 31(3): 8–12. (TAC), Title 19, Part II, Chapter 101. Assessment. Aus-
Fielding, C. 2002b. Statewide survey results: Qualitative tin, Tex. Available at: www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chap-
items—Part II of II. The DiaLog 32(1): 8–16. ter101/ch101a.html.
Fielding, C., and T. Overton. 2000. Educational diagnosti- Texas Education Agency. 2003. Welcome to the student as-
cians and licensed specialists in school psychology: A sessment division. Austin, Tex. Available at:
collaborative effort. The DiaLog 30(1): 2–6. www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/.
Gay, L. R., and P. W. Airasian. 2000. Educational research: Com- Texas Legislature Online. 2001. The Texas statutes. Austin,
petencies for analysis and application, 6th ed. Upper Tex. Available at: www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/
Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. statutes.html.
Gordon, S. P., and M. Reese. 1997. High-stakes testing: Worth Ysseldyke, J., M. Thurlow, J. Bielinski, A. House, M. Moody,
the price? Journal of School Leadership 7(4): 345–68. and J. Haigh. 2001. The relationship between instruc-
Helton, G. B., B. A. Ray, and M. D. Biderman. 2000. Responses tional and assessment accommodations in an inclusive
of school psychologists and special education teach- state accountability system. Journal of Learning Disabili-
ers to administrative pressures to practice unethically: ties 34(3): 212–20.
A national survey. Special Services in the Schools 16(1–
2): 111–34.
© Kappa Delta Pi
The Educational Forum • Volume 68 • Winter 2004
132