Implications of Minimum Competency Standards and Testing for Handicapped Students

Safer, Nancy

doi:10.1177/001440298004600409

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, appropriate alternatives for those students who have little chance for success and a consideration of the special remedial assistance school officials will provide for handicapped students who fail the MCT are at the heart of the least restrictive environment provisions and the protection in evaluation provisions of the "bill of rights" for handicapped individuals (Ross 8c Weintraub, 1980). Similarly, Safer (1980) argued that MCT had serious implications for the opportunties handicapped students are afforded relative to future job placements; she argued that "students who do not receive high school diplomas may be severely penalized in the job market" (p. 289). An assumption underlying Safer's argument is that handicapped young adults should have an opportunity to complete their education, graduate, and receive a diploma signifying the achievement.…”

Section: Minimum Competency Testing and Handicapped Studentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Mathematics Competence of Learning Disabled Adolescents

et al. 1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Minimum competency testing is currently a reality in American education; the practice presents a number of problems for regular class and handicapped students. In this research, the mathematics performance of learning disabled (LD) students and their nondisabled peers on the Florida State Student Assessment Test-II (SSAT-II) was evaluated, and employers' opinions about the importance of mathematical skills assessed on the SSAT-II were analyzed. It was reasoned that information such as this would provide valuable benchmarks for use in planning, organizing, and implementing educational programs for high school students. Skill performance and mastery scores were tabulated and compared for adolescents classified as learning disabled and their regular class peers; the relative importance of various skills to employers was also tabulated and compared. Strengths and weaknesses in basic math competencies were identified and relations among these skill performances and employer opinions were identified. In general, LD students performed better on skills requiring literal use of numbers and worse on skills requiring application of mathematical knowledge. Employers' ratings of the extent to which various skills were required in the world of work supported the importance of competence in these basic skills.

show abstract

Section: Minimum Competency Testing and Handicapped Studentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Mathematics Competence of Learning Disabled Adolescents

et al. 1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Remediation was provided for those students who failed the MCT While there was significant improvement among the LD (78% passed) and other students (73% passed) groups, EMR students did not make any significant improvement. Safer (1980) reported the results for high school juniors who took Florida's minimum competency test in October, 1977. The percentages of students by handicapping condition passing the two subtests are shown in Table 3.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of Special Education Students on a Minimal Competency Test

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the 1986-87 school year 4,299 handicapped students were given New Jersey's competency test. The test measures academic achievement in reading, mathematics, and writing. Twelve percent of these students passed the test. There was a variance across the student classifications; the math subtest was particularly difficult for the students. Educational implications are discussed.Efforts to improve the quality of public education in the United States have included the development of minimal competency tests (MCTs) to ensure that students attain an acceptable level of academic achievement. Nineteen states require students to pass an MCT before granting a high school diploma (Education Commission of the States, 1985). In another three states, the administration of an MCT is a local option.Only recently have state and local policy makers given consideration to the impact of competency testing requirements onthe 4,300,000 handicapped students attending public schools. Early studies found an absence of uniform policy among the states on this matter (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1979;Smith & Jenkins, 1980). In a more recent survey, the Education Commission of the States (1985) obtained information from 40 state education departments about their policy on competency testing for handicapped students. Table 1 indicates the various state policies. Eight states require handicapped students to pass a standard MCT in order to receive a diploma; 21 states enable handicapped students to obtain a diploma upon satisfying their IEP requirements; 1 state has developed differential tests for handicapped students; 5 states defer the decision regarding the competency testing of handicapped students to the local school district; and 5 states are in the process of formulating policies.

show abstract