This literature review examines the disparities in standardized testing for students with cognitive learning disabilities and those new to the English language, emphasizing the need for modified tests to address the achievement gap. It explores federal laws affecting state testing, eligibility for alternative assessments, and the impact of testing requirements on funding for schools. The findings suggest a connection between these laws, testing practices, and the persistent achievement gap, advocating for more inclusive testing methods.

1. Action Research Proposal: Literature Review
Disparities in Standardized Testing
American College of Education
RES5153 Research Methods
By J’Nai Whitehead, MSHRM
Dr. Harold Fisher
Due April 23rd, 2023

2. 1
Introduction
Standardized tests are not one-size fits and a modified test should be administered to
sub-groups of students with cognitive learning disabilities or who are new to the English
language. The focus of this literature review will be to identify research to provide a solution to
the profound achievement gap in groups previously mentioned by administering a modified test
to students that are identified by the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team (South
Carolina Department of Education et al., 2017). I believe the root of the disparities shown in test
scores is a direct result of SPED/ELL students’ requirements to take the same state tests as other
students. The following questions have been revised to help research the impact that a modified
test will have on the overall student data, including the significant achievement gap.
1. Will the achievement gap improve among students if modified tests are administered?
2. Why would the administration of a modified test in all subjects impact the overall test
scores in the Richland TWO school district?
3. How will the administration of a modified test in all subjects improve the achievement
gap among students with learning disabilities versus those of the general population?
From the research questions, I formulated some keywords to use when searching for
relevant literature. For example, I used the following phrases and keywords to render multiple
results; the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB and English Language Learners, state testing
mandates, achievement gap, test data results, modified tests for SPED, alternative tests for
sub-groups in public schools, and improving test scores overall. By utilizing scholarly sources,
peer-reviewed articles, and grey literature, I found some common themes recycled throughout
the different research articles.

3. 2
Literature Review
Conducting a literature review will allow me to find research that has been written on my
chosen topic by other people (American College of Education, 2022). Some of the common
themes that I found throughout the literature were; the federal laws tied to state testing in public
schools, how students qualify to take a modified state test, current modified/alternate tests,
effects that modified tests have on the achievement gap, ways that a modified test will affect
overall test scores, and strategies to support sub-groups or marginalized students to succeed with
the requirement of taking the same test as other students.
Federal Laws Tied to Tests in Public Schools
The majority of the articles in this review referenced the history of state testing in public
schools. The articles discuss the pros and cons of standardized testing. A common pattern
throughout each article briefly describes how testing is tied to the funds received by schools from
the government. The connection that I found for the purpose of my action research was outlined
in the 2015 legislation, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This legislation reauthorized
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and was an amendment to the No
Child Left Behind Act in 2002 (NCLB). I found that the ESEA of 1965 was the first law that
would provide funding to K-12 public schools, but it was the NCLB Act in 2002 that tied that
funding to state testing. The main goal of the NCLB Act was to close the achievement gaps in
test scores of different groups/sub-groups of students while at the same time raising the
achievement for all (Chudowsky, N., et al., 2009). However, it is the ESSA of 2015 that only
allows for 1% of students with disabilities to take an alternative or modified test. I found that
under the ESSA, alternative tests are for students that have a significant cognitive disability only
(Brenner, D., 2016). The Bilingual Education Act or the Title VII of the ESEA was enacted in

4. 3
1968. This act authorized money to educate students with other language backgrounds.
Although, neither law provides states and school districts with clear directions on how to do so
(Tran, T., 2009). The articles found on the ESSA, mention that this Act allows for schools and
districts to have more autonomy when it comes to testing, yet is more strict on the eligibility
criteria for alternative testing.
Eligibility for Alternate Testing
The majority of the research papers that I uncovered mentioned students ‘qualifying’ or
‘meeting eligibility requirements', for alternative testing. In South Carolina, The Department of
Education Office of Special Education (2017) states that students must meet all of the criteria to
test under the Alternative Assessment on Alternative Achievement Standards (AA-AAS). Every
article that I found on modified testing mentioned students must have a significant cognitive
learning disability and have deficits that cause them to function well below grade-level
expectations. Articles that were directly related to public schools in South Carolina mentioned
that students must first qualify through the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team
(including their parents). After reading the Guidance for IEP Teams on Determining
Participation in South Carolina Alternate Assessments (2017), I found that students participating
in the AA-AAS, means that they will not be eligible to receive a high school diploma. After
uncovering this information, I researched if there were other tests available for those that do not
fall into the 1% of students with disabilities and are on track to receive a high school diploma.
So, the next question became, is there another test for students that are participating in the
curriculum standards to receive a High School Diploma, but are still functioning far below their
grade-level peers?

5. 4
Modified or Alternative Testing
While conducting research on modified state testing, I found that an alternative test
already exists in the state of South Carolina. The SC-Alt, is an alternative test for students that
have been excluded from taking the general state test, the SC Ready Assessment, which is
administered in the Spring (South Carolina Department of Education, 2017). Students that meet
the criteria for this test are not eligible for a high school diploma. Therefore, I needed to research
other assessments that are available for students functioning higher than the eligible 1% but are
far below grade-level peers. For example, the state of Texas has both an alternative assessment
and a modified version of the assessment that is administered in the Spring. In 2012 the state of
Texas implemented the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) test,
replacing the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). Under this program, there
were three initial tests available; STAAR Alt, for SPED students with profound disabilities, the
STAAR M (modified) for students with an IEP who receive modifications and accommodations
in the classroom, and STAAR test for non-SPED students. In 2015, the STAAR M was
eliminated, leaving the STAAR Alt as the only other option for SPED students in the state of
Texas (Dakroub, M., et al., 2020, p. 4). The state of South Carolina does not have another
modified assessment besides the SC-Alt.
My purpose for this literature review included finding alternative testing options for
non-English speaking students. The articles that I found reverberated my thoughts about the
profound achievement gap shown between sub-groups like SPED and ELLs and other students
due to the requirement to take the same assessment. In the state of Texas, ELLs are tested on
their grade level but are provided with assessments in Spanish. This would be beneficial if South
Carolina offered this option for non-English speakers. Doing so would directly affect the

6. 5
achievement gap due to the language barrier. I then began to search for literature on the effects
that modified tests had/has on the achievement gap between SPED and non-SPED students.
Effect on the Achievement Gap
The literature that I found in regard to the achievement gap in test scores, shared the same
findings. There is a significant achievement gap shown in test scores between sub-groups of
SPED and ELLs and those students of the general education population. The literature shared my
sentiment about possibly separating the test data in order to have a more accurate account of
student achievement. The research found that the achievement gap can begin to narrow when the
lower-performing sub-group's scores increase and the higher-performing groups decrease or vice
versa. Another scenario where the achievement gap can narrow is if the lower-performing
sub-groups scores increase while the higher-performing group’s scores stay the same or vice
versa.
Overall Test Scores
The literature that I found on the achievement gap in relation to test scores all referred to
the previously mentioned law's requirements for state reporting. For example, the NCLB Act
required states to report student achievement by either basic, proficient, or advanced. Those
students that did not meet their state’s basic level for achievement were considered “below
basic”. The amount of students performing at or above the state’s outlined basic proficiency
determines funding (Title I) for their school. If too many students performed below the outlined
basic proficiency, then this determined if their school was “failing” and would require the state to
intervene by providing a mandatory curriculum and interventions for the school to follow.

7. 6
Conclusion
The research found in this literature review makes a connection between the state laws
that affect how state tests are administered. This is important because in the public school system
teacher pay, supplies, books, and schools are all funded through the money that is provided by
these laws. The tests determine whether a school is considered to be failing or passing. If failing,
then the school can be required to use a state-led curriculum and other interventions until
achievement levels are considered to be above the state's minimum basic level for achievement.
The literature review led me to believe that if the tests are the main focus of funding, then the
state of South Carolina needs to spend a great deal on presenting the test data more accurately.
The state of South Carolina can do this by providing a modified test for students that function at
a higher academic capacity than the 1% that are eligible for SPED but are still significantly lower
than their grade-level peers. The research has shown that other states like Texas have found ways
to accommodate these students with the STAAR M assessment. Although it was later eliminated,
the three assessments allowed for data to be more accurately reviewed and the achievement gap
to be more defined. The themes found throughout this literature review showed a connection
between the laws, the testing, eligibility for alternative testing, achievement gaps shown in the
test results, and test scores.

8. 7
References
American College of Education. (2021). RES5153 Research Methods: Module 2 [Part 4
presentation]. Reviewing the Literature. Canvas.
https://ace.instructure.com/courses/1898932/external_tools/118428
Brenner, D. (2016). Rural Educator Policy Brief: Rural Education and the Every Student
Succeeds Act. Rural Educator, 37(2), 23–27.
Chudowsky, N., Chudowsky, V., & Kober, N. (2009). State Test Score Trends through 2007-08,
Part 3: Are Achievement Gaps Closing and Is Achievement Rising for All? ().Center on
Education Policy. Retrieved from ERIC
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/ace.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/reports/s
tate-test-score-trends-through-2007-08-part-3/docview/61809021/se-2
Dakroub, M., Hendricks, R., & Hammonds, C. (2020). An Evaluation of Assessment Equity for
Special Education Students in Texas. Educational Research Quarterly, 44(2), 28–47.
Nolen, J. L. and Duignan, . Brian (2023, March 20). No Child Left Behind. Encyclopedia
Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/No-Child-Left-Behind-Act
South Carolina Department of Education, Department of Assessment, & Office of Special
Education Services. (2017, Dec). Guidance for IEP Teams on Determining Participation

9. 8
in South Carolina Alternate Assessments.
https://ed.sc.gov/tests/tests-files/sc-alt/guidance-for-iep-teams-on-determining-participati
on-in-south-carolina-alternate-assessments/
Tran, T. H. (2009). English Language Learners and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. In
Online Submission. Online Submission.