A Comparison of State Assessment Systems in Kentucky and Maryland with a Focus on the Participation of Students with Disabilities. State Assessment Series: Maryland/Kentucky Report 1.

Autor/inn/en	Ysseldyke, Jim; Thurlow, Martha; Erickson, Ron; Gabrys, Robert; Haigh, John; Trimble, Scott; Gong, Brian
Institution	Maryland State Dept. of Education, Baltimore.; National Center on Educational Outcomes, Minneapolis, MN.
Titel	A Comparison of State Assessment Systems in Kentucky and Maryland with a Focus on the Participation of Students with Disabilities. State Assessment Series: Maryland/Kentucky Report 1.
Quelle	(1996), (96 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Academic Standards; Accountability; Disabilities; Educational Assessment; Educational Testing; Elementary Secondary Education; Evaluation Methods; Models; Outcomes of Education; Program Costs; State Programs; Student Evaluation; Student Participation; Test Use; Testing Accommodations; Kentucky; Maryland + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Verantwortung; Handicap; Behinderung; Education; assessment; Bewertungssystem; Analogiemodell; Lernleistung; Schulerfolg; Regierungsprogramm; Schulnote; Studentische Bewertung; Schülermitarbeit; Schülermitwirkung; Studentische Mitbestimmung; Testanwendung; Testing process; Accessibility (for disabled); Accessibility; Disabled person; Testdurchführung; Testen; Barrierefreiheit; Zugänglichkeit; Behinderter
Abstract	This report describes and compares the inclusive assessment and accountability systems of Maryland and Kentucky, with a focus on components, scoring methods, reporting practices, data use, participation of students with disabilities, testing accommodations, and implementation considerations (including cost and training issues). Maryland and Kentucky practices are then contrasted to those used in other states. Results of the study indicate that both states have multiple forms of assessment and explicit procedures for deciding who participates in the various assessments. In both Maryland and Kentucky, schools are held accountable for improved student performance. In Maryland, schools are expected to show progress toward state-defined long-term goals. In Kentucky, schools are expected to improve over baseline performance. Both states and most others permit accommodations in assessments. However, Maryland and Kentucky are among the very few states that have an alternate assessment system that permits participation by students with severe disabilities. The report concludes that the assessment and accountability systems used in Kentucky and Maryland serve as good models for other states. Appendices include samples of released items and scoring guides from the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program and from the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System. (Contains 12 references.) (CR)
Anmerkungen	National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota, 350 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455; telephone: 612-624-8561; fax: 612-624-0879; World Wide Web: http://www.coled. umn.edu/NCEO (document may be copied without charge, additional print copies, $10).
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC