Assessment of Students with Disabilities in Kentucky

Abstract

Recent education reforms have spurred efforts to increase the inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments. These efforts are hindered, however, by a lack of experience and relevant research. This study explored the inclusion of students with disabilities in KentuckyOs KIRIS assessment, which is arguably the most inclusive statewide assessment in the nation. The study found that Kentucky has managed to include the large majority of identified students with disabilities in its main assessment. In Kentucky as nationwide, the majority of these students have cognitive impairmentsNin particular, learning disabilities. Students with discrete physical impairments, such as visual disabilities, have been the focus of much of the discussion, are relatively few, and had little effect on the results reported in this study. Unlike some other research, this study found no evidence that test items discriminated less well for students with disabilities. It also found very little evidence of differential item functioning (DIF) for students assessed without accommodations. Only a minority of students with disabilities, howeverNabout 20% in the fourth gradeNwere assessed without accommodations. The high frequency of some accommodations raises questions about the appropriateness of their use, In addition, the scores of students with some accommodations were implausibly high, and DIF was common and often large for students assessed with accommodations. Additional research is neededNfor example, research on the uses and effects of accommodations and on the validity of scores obtained by students with disabilities. Until very recently, many students with disabilities were routinely excluded from large-scale assessments. For example, guidelines pertaining to the exclusion of students with disabilities from statewide assessments differ from one state to another, and the estimated rate of participation of students with disabilities varies markedly across states and is often low (Erickson, Thurlow, & Thor, 1995; McGrew, Thurlow, Shriner, & Spiegel, 1992; Shriner & Thurlow, 1992). In addition, decisions about whether to include students with disabilities are often made by local school personnel, such as the team responsible for studentsO Individualized Education Plans, or IEPs (Erickson & Thurlow, 1996), and this introduces additional variation in patterns of inclusion. In many cases, educators face