The Hidden Inequity: How Standardised Testing Undermines Special Education
The recent article from “The 74” titled “Researchers: Higher Special Education Funding Not Tied to Better Outcomes” presents a compelling analysis of how increased spending on special education has not consistently translated into improved student performance. The article underscores a significant disparity between the funds allocated to special education and the literacy outcomes for students with disabilities, suggesting that so-called ‘evidence-based reading instruction’ could be the key to better results. However, this analysis neglects a crucial factor that profoundly impacts these outcomes: the systemic failure of standardised testing corporations to honour the accommodations stipulated in students’ Individualised Education Programmes (IEPs). This failure creates a substantial and often overlooked barrier for students with disabilities, severely disadvantaging them during standardised assessments.
Whilst “The 74” rightly brings attention to funding inefficiencies within special education, it falls short by not addressing the role that standardised testing plays in perpetuating educational inequities. The inconsistent application of IEP accommodations during these assessments skews the results, giving a false impression of student ability and the effectiveness of special education funding. Today’s article will explore how these testing practices contribute to the very disparities that “The 74” aims to highlight, arguing that any serious discussion about special education outcomes must include a critical examination of the testing environment and the role played by the big corporate testing companies.
Classroom Support vs. Testing Realities
In the classroom, students with disabilities often find a supportive environment where their IEPs are honoured with fidelity. Teachers, guided by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), provide accommodations that are tailored to each student’s unique needs, ensuring they can access the curriculum on an equal footing with their peers. These accommodations might include extended time for assignments, the use of reference materials, the use of assistive technology, or the presence of a paraprofessional to provide additional support. The goal is to create an inclusive learning environment where every student has the opportunity to succeed.
However, this supportive atmosphere often dissolves when it comes to standardised testing. Unlike public schools, corporations such as Pearson, the College Board, and Curriculum Associates are not bound by IDEA. This means they are not required to offer the accommodations that students rely on in their daily classroom activities. Whilst some testing companies, like the College Board, do offer a path to securing accommodations, this process is notoriously arduous. It typically requires extensive medical documentation, including a formal diagnosis and notes from doctors. This requirement is problematic because an IEP, which establishes a student’s eligibility for special education services, is not the same as a medical diagnosis. The bureaucratic hurdles to obtaining accommodations during standardised tests often leave students with disabilities at a significant disadvantage (especially when parents speak a language other than Standard English).
This inconsistency between classroom support and testing realities has profound implications for students’ performance. When accommodations are ignored or inadequately implemented during standardised testing, the results do not accurately reflect the abilities or progress of students with disabilities. Instead, these skewed results can reinforce negative stereotypes, suggesting that special education is ineffective, and further entrench the inequities that these students face. The disconnect between classroom practices and testing conditions undermines the integrity of the data used to evaluate educational outcomes, perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage for students who are already vulnerable.
The Insidious Role of Standardised Testing Corporations
The role of standardised testing corporations like Pearson, the College Board, and Curriculum Associates in today’s educational landscape is both pervasive and deeply troubling. These corporations have successfully positioned themselves as the gatekeepers of academic assessment, wielding immense power over how students are evaluated. Their influence is rooted in a broader capitalist tendency towards monopoly, where a few powerful entities dominate the market, often at the expense of individual needs and localised control. These corporations have not only captured the testing industry but have also gained significant sway over government agencies, ensuring that their interests are protected and their methods remain unchallenged.
One of the primary ways these corporations maintain their dominance is through the standardisation of testing. By prioritising uniformity over individualised support, they ensure that their tests can be administered at scale, maximising efficiency and profit. However, this focus on standardisation comes with severe consequences for students with disabilities. The standardised nature of these tests often disregards the unique needs of students who require accommodations, creating an environment where their abilities are not accurately measured. The financial incentives for these corporations are clear: offering a one-size-fits-all testing model is far more profitable than developing assessments that cater to diverse learning needs.
The financial gains these corporations rake in each academic year are staggering, especially considering many of them operate under the guise of non-profit status. The College Board, for instance, reported over a billion dollars in revenue in recent years, much of which comes from the fees associated with administering standardised tests like the SAT and Advanced Placement exams. Pearson, a global behemoth in the education sector, similarly benefits from the widespread adoption of its tests, reaping profits from contracts with school districts, states, and even entire countries. These vast sums of money make these corporations formidable opponents for parents who are simply trying to secure the accommodations their children are legally entitled to.
The takeover of testing by these corporations has a historical context that is often overlooked. Before their rise to prominence, assessments were primarily handled at the local level, with curriculum-based measures tailored to the specific needs of students and communities. The shift towards standardised testing was driven by a desire to create a uniform system of assessment, one that could ostensibly compare students across different regions and backgrounds. However, this move towards standardisation has troubling roots in the eugenics movement, which sought to categorise and rank individuals based on perceived intelligence and ability. By reducing students to a set of numbers on a standardised test, these corporations perpetuate a legacy of discrimination and exclusion, particularly for those who require accommodations to level the playing field.
The practices of these corporations, prioritising profit and standardisation over the needs of individual students, have profound implications for educational equity. By disregarding the accommodations required by students with IEPs, they not only undermine the integrity of the testing process but also perpetuate a system that is fundamentally unequal. The regulatory capture of government agencies by these corporations ensures that their methods remain entrenched, leaving parents and educators with little recourse. This systemic issue requires urgent attention, as the current model of standardised testing continues to fail the very students it purports to assess, reinforcing barriers to success for those who are most vulnerable.
Neoliberal Influences and Their Impact
The neoliberal agenda within educational reform is fundamentally driven by ‘market forces’ that prioritise profit over the public good. At its core, this agenda seeks to dismantle free public schooling in the United States by promoting ‘market-driven solutions’ that are, in reality, thinly veiled attempts to loot the public purse. The mass transfer of wealth from public coffers to the accounts of massive corporations like Pearson and the College Board is a hallmark of this approach. Neoliberal outlets such as “The 74” often play a crucial role in advancing this agenda by presenting stories that manipulate facts and employ lies of omission to sow distrust in public education.
In the case of special education, these narratives conveniently ignore systemic issues like the failure of standardised testing corporations to accommodate students with disabilities, focusing instead on funding inefficiencies and the supposed inadequacies of public schools. By highlighting perceived problems whilst omitting critical context, these stories create a distorted picture of the challenges faced by students with disabilities. This misrepresentation then becomes “proof” that public schools are failing, with the implicit suggestion that the solution lies in the hands of private, corporate entities.
This strategy is eerily reminiscent of the tactics described in “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” where economic policies are manipulated to benefit a select few at the expense of the many. Here, the unsuspecting populace is led to believe that the public school system is inherently flawed, making it easier to justify the increasing privatisation of education. Testing corporations benefit immensely from maintaining this status quo, as they continue to receive lucrative contracts and exert influence over educational policies. Meanwhile, the real issues—such as the lack of proper accommodations for students with disabilities during testing—are left unaddressed, further entrenching inequities in the education system. The neoliberal agenda, therefore, not only undermines the principles of free public education but also perpetuates a cycle of disadvantage for the most vulnerable students.
The Consequences of Ignoring IEPs During Testing
The failure to honour IEPs during standardised testing has far-reaching consequences that extend beyond the immediate disadvantage to students with disabilities. When accommodations are ignored or inadequately implemented, the resulting test scores do not accurately reflect the students’ true abilities. Instead, these skewed results reinforce harmful stereotypes that depict students with disabilities as inherently less capable, perpetuating a narrative that these students are failing to meet academic standards. This misrepresentation not only undermines the confidence of these students but also feeds into a broader narrative that special education funding is ineffective, suggesting that the resources allocated to support these students are being wasted.
This inaccurate portrayal of special education funding serves the interests of those who seek to undermine public education. By presenting special education as a failed endeavour, it becomes easier to argue for reduced funding and increased privatisation, further entrenching the inequities that these students face. Moreover, these flawed test results can have serious long-term consequences for students with disabilities. Colleges and universities often rely on standardised test scores as part of their admissions process, meaning that students whose IEPs were not honoured during testing may be unfairly penalised in their pursuit of higher education.
Parents, aware of these issues, may choose to opt their children out of standardised testing altogether. However, this decision comes with its own set of penalties, as it can limit their children’s future educational opportunities. The dilemma parents face—choosing between subjecting their children to unfair testing conditions or risking future penalties—highlights the systemic failure to accommodate students with disabilities and the broader consequences of this failure. The current model of standardised testing not only fails to measure students’ true potential but also perpetuates a cycle of disadvantage that undermines the very purpose of special education programmes.
Final thoughts …
The systemic failure of standardised testing corporations to honour IEP accommodations is a profound injustice that must be addressed if we are to have any meaningful discussion about special education outcomes. The monopolies created by corporations like Pearson, the College Board, and Curriculum Associates are at the root of this problem, not the students who are unfairly penalised by a system designed to prioritise profit over equity. These corporations, driven by financial incentives, have constructed a testing environment that ignores the needs of the most vulnerable students, perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage that undermines both the integrity of the testing process and the effectiveness of special education programmes.
It is imperative that policymakers, educators, and advocates recognise the role these monopolies play in perpetuating educational inequities. We must push for reforms that ensure all students, regardless of their disabilities, are given a fair chance to demonstrate their abilities in a testing environment that honours their individual needs. Only by addressing these systemic issues can we begin to create a truly equitable education system that serves all students, not just those who fit neatly into a standardised mould.