ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVES AND DISABILITIES
1
Accountability Initiatives and the Impacts of High-Stakes Testing on Students with
Disabilities
Jennifer L. Marshall
EDUC 703
School of Education, Liberty University
03/05/2021
Author Note
Jennifer L. Marshall
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer L. Marshall
Email: [email protected]
ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVES AND DISABILITIES
2
Abstract
The beginning of the ever-evolving accountability initiatives to improve American schools'
performance started in 1965 with The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). There
have been several revisions of the policy over the years. This analysis of the accountability
movement will focus on how these initiatives have impacted students with disabilities and their
high-stakes testing performance. After more than 50 years, performance gaps between
subgroups of students continue to remain significant. Accountability legislation that came with
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1997 (IDEA), No Child Left Behind Act 2001
(NCLB), and the latest Every Child Succeeds Act 2015 (ESSA) have changed schools
accountability systems and standards-based learning for all students, including those with special
education needs. Since the implementation of NCLB, legislation has shifted the focus of teaching
and learning. Accountability movements have changed the way students with disabilities
compare to their same-age peers in academics. High-stakes testing has created challenges for
most educators and stakeholders. Pressure has increased for schools to become more competitive
and reach Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Testing in areas of English Language Arts and Math
provide proficiency rates for all students, including those with disabilities. These rates are often
skewed due to the breakdown of subgroups.
Keywords: Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA),
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Free and
Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), students with
disabilities, high-stakes testing.
ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVES AND DISABILITIES
3
Accountability Initiatives and the Impacts of High-Stakes Testing on Students with
Disabilities
A number of significant events have taken place over the years that have shaped students'
educational experiences with disabilities. In the early 20th century, publicly funded education
changed the opportunities provided for equal access for all. In 1954, Brown v. Board of
Education denied the idea that giving exposure to the same curriculum was fair and equal. The
shift towards measuring outcomes of student performance became the forefront of many political
campaigns. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 required very little
academic accountability. It wasn't until Ronald Regan took into account A Nation at Risk report
that the nation began to look at state standards, improved instruction, and significant curriculum
reforms. With each educational reform, standardized testing would start to be used to determine
which schools "succeeded" or "failed." This shift toward measuring educational outcomes has
progressed to the most current educational policy, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),
signed into law by President Obama in 2015. Critics of such acts feel that the requirements are
too strict, and supporters think that it would prepare all students for success. The implications of
accountability movements and high-stakes testing have had a significant impact on students with
disabilities.
Summary and Context
Legislation regarding high-stakes testing has had a substantial impact on school systems
throughout the United States. The ESEA would prove to send education into a culture of high-
stakes testing movements. The intention was to tackle the issues of poverty, training, and better
schools for American children. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act was passed in
1975 as special education law that was promised to make the high-stakes testing more equitable
ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVES AND DISABILITIES
4
for students with disabilities. The new legislation afforded students with disabilities a free and
appropriate public education (FAPE). The purpose of FAPE was to ensure that students with
disabilities receive the same benefits as their peers, making receiving an education more just and
equitable. ESEA was reauthorized in 1997 and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Act
(IDEA). One requirement of IDEA was that all students must participate in state and district-
wide reading and math assessments (Browder & Cooper Duffy, 2003). The legislation of IDEA
and NCLB allowed for alternate assessments for students with significant disabilities. However,
the allowed amount of students taking an alternate assessment was low, depending on factors
about the school. Furthermore, only 2% of proficient scores of students who are held to
modified standards may be included in AYP calculations (McLaughlin, 2010). The law was
reauthorized in 2004 to include changes that aligned more closely with No Child Left Behind
(NCLB). NCLB prescribed assessment and accountability provisions to bring attention to
underperforming schools and students (Lohman, 2010). Attention shifted to how well students
with disabilities performed in the general education setting, being exposed to the same
curriculum. Through NCLB, all public schools receiving federal funding were mandated to
administer standardized testing annually to all students, including those with disabilities. It also
required that schools receiving Title I funding make adequate yearly progress (AYP) on the
standardized tests. Under NCLB, turning around low-achieving schools and districts became the
focus role. NCLB required that states identify all Title I schools that "fail," which triggered a
series of actions necessary to go to that school around. Incorporating strategies for targeted
subgroups, including those with disabilities, became a top priority. Smith (2020) points out that,
over time, failing schools' measures were too punitive and harmed the students in need the most.
ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVES AND DISABILITIES
5
When ESEA was due for reauthorization again in 2007, the federal governments' role in
education became apparent, and after many proposed versions, the ESSA was born under
President Barack Obama's leadership. The passing or failing of a school was now in the hands of
the individual states. The subgroups focused on were determined by test scores. The NCLB act
was replaced, and ESSA became the primary federal law authorizing federal spending for K-12
schools in the United States (Darrow, 2016). Under ESSA, high-stakes testing no longer the say-
all for school performance. Factors such as attendance, school climate, and access to advanced
classes would be used in measuring school performance (Adler-Greene, 2019).
For many years, using high-stakes testing to measure students with disabilities
performance put a strain on school districts and special educators. IDEA and NCLB changed
conceptions about special education. Both laws frustrated exceptional education professionals
resulting in pressure to perform competitively with their general education teachers. As special
educators tried to implement these laws' various provisions and expectations, professionals began
second-guessing their training in FAPE. FAPE guarantees a "free and appropriate" public
education for students to learn in their least restrictive environment (LRE). Many claims are
made that students educated in the general education classroom with the same learning
expectations as their peers can increase their academic achievement based on grade-level content
standards. Accessing the general education curriculum was not always available to students with
disabilities due to the constant divide between what general education and special education
teachers believed students with disabilities knew and could do regardless of their disability.
Through the revisions and reauthorizations of laws, students with disabilities were
expected to learn at the same improvement rate as their peers. The tension was rising in
education. The shift during these times towards standards-based curriculums impacted how
ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVES AND DISABILITIES
6
Individual Education Plans (IEP's) were written. Each child eligible for special education
services received an individually written plan that addressed their particular needs. However, the
IEP addressed how the individual student will work towards meeting state-determined standards
(McLaughlin, 2010). The assumption that all students with disabilities would benefit from the
same educational outcomes is lofty. IEP teams were tasked with determining what resources the
individual students need to reach the states' results.
Critical Analysis
The ESSA law has seemed to loosen the expectations that special education students were
to meet outcomes at the same rates as their non-disabled peers (Chenoweth, 2016). It seems to
encourage schools to raise achievement levels without the pressures of NCLB. Continued high-
stakes testing and accountability implications include ensuring that general and special education
educators know how to implement student success accommodations. The ESSA requires states
to develop plans to reduce bullying, which typically impacts students with disabilities
disproportionately (Darrow, 2016).
Supporters of the latest accountability movement through ESSA state that preparing
students for college and vocational programs is essential. However, a state is expected to go
above and beyond the standards provided to schools. Providing a well-rounded education has
become the expectation. This expectation includes providing counseling services, social-
emotional learning, and music and art education (Adler-Greene, 2019). The continued stress
remains of trying to implement standards-based IEP's, provide grade-level instruction on the
subject matter while also addressing students' individuality can quickly confuse the goals of
education for all.
ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVES AND DISABILITIES
7
There is often a sense of unfairness when it comes to measuring the progress of students
with disabilities. Students may never show proficiency on a standardized test but could
significantly increase overall growth on their IEP goals. Measuring progress on high-stakes
testing seems unfair. Equity in education appears to be the question many are asking now. To
accurately determine post-secondary outcomes, systems should reflect on equitable access to the
curriculum, and qualified teachers should be addressed. The fact is, requiring each student with a
disability to meet the same standards is inequitable.
The word equity is used a number of times in the bible. For example, in Psalms 99:4,
"The king's strength also loveth judgment; thou dost establish equity, thou executes judgment
and righteousness in Jacob" (King James Bible, 2021). Doing what is just and right for all is
equity. Another example is found in Samuel 8:15, which says "So David reigned over all Isreal.
And David administered justice and equity to all his people" (King James Bible, 2021). Equity is
a vital part of biblical justice. Although there is never an exact definition of equity in the bible,
the primary Hebrew word for equity brings forth the ideas of levelness, fairness, and truth. When
educators can look at what the law intends for them to do, only then can fairness and equity be
implemented in education.
Conclusion
Accountability is essential. Educators have to ensure that their students are learning.
High-stakes testing for students with disabilities needs to be about equity. As long as they have
the same opportunities as their non-disabled peers to receive education from qualified educators,
the playing field is level. As long as students with disabilities have access to the standards,
understanding that they will require differentiation and accommodations to learn the same
material as non-disabled peers, the playing field can be level. Without equity and fairness,
ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVES AND DISABILITIES
8
students with disabilities will always remain at a disadvantage when taking high-stakes testing.
Lawmakers, states, districts, and educators need to realize that faith needs to be put back into
educators and supportive administrators. High-stakes testing puts an incredible amount of
pressure on all students, families, educators, and administration. If we can loosen the reigns a bit,
we may have healthier students who do not learn throughout the year to take a test.
ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVES AND DISABILITIES
9
References
Adler-Greene, L. (2019). Every Student Succeeds Act: Are schools making sure every student
succeeds? Touro Law Review, 35(1), 11-23.
Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe
disabilities and the requirement for accountability in No Child Left Behind. The Journal
of Special Education, 37(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669030370030501
Chenoweth, K. (2016, May). ESSA offers changes that can continue learning gains. Phi Delta
Kappan, 97(8), 38. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A458871058/BIC?
u=vic_liberty&sid=BIC&xid=5c1f49dc
Darrow, A.-A. (2016). The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): What it means for students with
disabilities and music educators. General Music Today, 30(1), 41–44.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371316658327
Mclaughlin, M. J. (2010). Evolving Interpretations of Educational Equity and Students with
Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 265–278.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600302
Smith, S. J. (2020). Windows into the history and philosophy of education. Kendall Hunt.
