Abstract
In Korea, the effort to include students with disabilities in the educational accountability system has just begun. This paper reviews how Korean students with disabilities have been tested using the National Assessment of Educational Achievement (NAEA) and what issues have emerged as a result of the testing. Analysis of the 2009 and 2010 NAEA data reveals that only a small proportion of students with disabilities participated in these tests and that those who did participate showed low academic achievement compared with general education students. In addition, even though alternate assessments are conducted by special education teachers to assess the academic performance of students with disabilities, national academic assessments in Korea do not include a system for alternate assessment. Based on findings of the analysis, several suggestions are made for improvement in Korea’s educational accountability system for students with disabilities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahn, S., Kim, D., Kim, H., Shin, H., & Ryu, J. (2009). A study on evaluation of special education-lists of core performance perceived by special educators. Ansan: Korea National Institute for Special Education.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010). National assessment program—literacy and numeracy achievement in reading, writing, language conventions and numeracy: National report for 2010. Available from http://www.nap.edu.au/_Documents/National%20Report/NAPLAN_2010_National_Report.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2011). Special education services: A manual of policies, procedures and guidelines. Available from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/specialed/special_ed_policy_manual.pdf
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2010). PCAP-2010: Report on the Pan-Canadian assessment of mathematics, science, and reading. Toronto, Ontario: Author.
Crawford, L., Almond, Pl., Tindal, G., & Hollenbeck, K. (2002). Teacher perspectives on inclusion of students with disabilities in high-stakes assessments. Special Services in the Schools, 18(102), 95–118.
Elliott, S. N., Davies, M., & Kettler, R. J. (2012). Australian students with disabilities accessing NAPLAN: Lessons from a decade of inclusive assessment in the United States. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(1), 7–19.
Finnish National Board of Education. (2004). Amendments and additions to the national core curriculum for basic education. Available from http://www.oph.fi/download/132551_amendments_and_additions_to_national_core_curriculum_basic_education.pdf
IDEA. (2004). Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Korea National Institute for Special Education. (2011). Nation-wide survey on special education. Asan: Korea National Institute for Special Education.
Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (August 25, 2008). Third five-year plan for the special education reform. Seoul: Author.
Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2011). Special education annual report. Seoul: Author.
Lee, M., Kang, Y., Kim, H., Ahn, S., Ryu, J., Lee, Y., et al. (2010). A study on development of instruments for surveying current status in the educational outcomes of students with disabilities. Ansan: Korea National Institute for Special Education.
Lemons, C. J., Kloo, A., Zigmond, N., Fulmer, D., & Lupp, L. (2012). Implementing an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards: When policy meets practice. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(1), 67–79.
National Center For Education Development Research Chinese National Commission for UNESCO. (2008). National report on mid-term assessment of education for all in China. The Report by the Drafting Group of National Center for Education Development Research (NCEDR) of China.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
O’Connor, J. (2009). Students with disabilities can meet accountability standards: A road map for school leaders. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Education.
Pang, Y., & Richey, D. (2006). The development of special education in China. International Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 77–86.
Price, L. M., Hodgson, J. R., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2011). Characteristics of States’ alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in 2010–2011. National Center on Educational Outcomes Synthesis Report 85.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2007). Assessment in special and inclusive education (10th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
U. K. Department of Education. (2011). A guide to the law for school governors: Chapter 7: Children with SEN and other vulnerable children. http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/governance/guidetothelaw/b0065507/gttl/vulnerable-children.
U. S. Department of Education. (2005). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
U. S. Department of Education. (2007). 34 CFR parts 200 and 300: Title I-improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; final regulations. Federal Resister, 72(67), 17748–17781.
Wei, X. (2010). Are more stringent NCLB state accountability systems associated with better student outcomes? An analysis of NAEP results across states. Educational Policy, 25(1), 1–41.
Wei, X. (2012). Does NCLB improve the achievement of students with disabilities? A regression discontinuity design. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5, 18–42.
Weigert, S. C. (2012). Aligning and inventing practices to achieve inclusive assessment policies: A decade of work toward optimal access for US students with disabilities 2001–2011. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(10), 21–36.
Ysseldyke, J., & Thurlow, M. (1994). Guidelines for inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments (Policy Directions No. 1). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.
Zigmond, N., & Kloo, A. (2009). The “two percent students”: Considerations and consequences of eligibility decisions. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(4), 478–495.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the grant from the Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST-2011057-0).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Choi, J., Lee, D. & Jung, E. Including students with disabilities in national academic assessments in Korea. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 13, 741–756 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-012-9233-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-012-9233-x