Children are generally tested in one-to-one situations with various school professionals (e.g., school psychologist, an occupational therapist, a speech and language therapist) on tests that can be individually adapted to match the child's level.
Stakeholder views are a critical part of the evaluation of the policy assumptions implicit in any testing program.
The point is made that much of the current practice in the validation of high stakes testing programs, including high school graduation tests, is seriously flawed because only a part of the interpretive argument is evaluated.
Many school systems have therefore not established meaningful educational goals for children who, it is now clear, can achieve at higher levels than society has historically assumed.
Changes in the new law also aim to improve reporting to parents and teachers of students with disabilities (and the students themselves) with respect to the progress they are making toward achievement of these goals.
Cronbach has made the point that for validity arguments to be convincing to diverse audiences, they need to be based on assumptions that are credible to these audiences.
The interpretations and uses of high stakes test scores rely on a number of policy assumptions about what should be taught in schools, and more specifically, about the content standards and performance standards that should be applied to students and schools.
We draw on this earlier report throughout this chapter.
The 1997 amendments to the IDEA include several new or expanded assessment provisions likely to increase dramatically the participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments.
By law the IEP also serves as a device for monitoring a student's progress.