LEADER 04195nam a22005175i 4500
001 811498
003 TR_AnAIT
005 20260131005640
007 cr nn 008mamaa
008 120103s2012 ne | s |||| 0|eng d
020 |a9789400729353|9978-94-007-2935-3
024 7 |a10.1007/978-94-007-2935-3|2doi
041 |aeng
049 |aTürk Tarih Kurumu Kütüphanesi
050 4|aLC71-188
072 7|aJNF|2bicssc
072 7|aEDU034000|2bisacsh
072 7|aJNF|2thema
082 04|a379|223
090 |aDK/12757
100 1 |aCumming, J. Joy.|eauthor.|4aut|4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut
245 10|aValuing Students with Impairment|h[electronic resource] :|bInternational comparisons of practice in educational accountability /|cby J. Joy Cumming.
250 |a1st ed. 2012.
264 1|aDordrecht :|bSpringer Netherlands :|bImprint: Springer,|c2012.
300 |aVIII, 95 p.|bonline resource.
336 |atext|btxt|2rdacontent
337 |acomputer|bc|2rdamedia
338 |aonline resource|bcr|2rdacarrier
347 |atext file|bPDF|2rda
490 1 |aSpringerBriefs in Education,|x2211-193X
505 0 |aChapter 1 Towards Equitable Provision of Education for Students with Disability in Education -- Chapter 2 Educational Reform and Educational Accountability Legislation And Policy in the U.S., England and Australia -- Chapter 3 Educational Provision, Equity and Educational Accountability for Students with Disability: Intentions and Practice -- Chapter 4 Constructing the Identity of Students with Disability in Accountability Legislation and Policy -- Chapter 5 Developing an Equitable Accountability System for Students with Impairment.
520 |aIn this book, the author Joy Cumming draws on knowledge of law, assessment and measurement to provide an original analysis of the inclusion of students with impairment in educational accountability assessments in the U.S., England and Australia. Equitable education of students with impairment is worldwide policy. Educational accountability for improvement of educational outcomes is also a worldwide phenomenon. The U.S., England and Australia are well placed economically and politically to pursue best educational practice for students with impairment and well advanced in both provision and educational accountability systems. Examining these three systems enables an analysis of possible optimal practices to guide other countries. The book identifies three models of impairment in place in legislation, policy and enacted practice for educational accountability with students with impairment. Intentions of legislation and policy reflect a social model of impairment—while an individual has an impairment, social practice creates the barrier that leads to a disability. In implementation, legislation and policy rely on a medical model of disability—categorizing disability in medical or specialist terms. In educational accountability practices, it is argued in this book, a third model of disability is created—a psychometric model, with impairment constructed through overemphasis on standardization of assessment processes. Eight explicit and implicit assumptions that underpin the ways students with impairment are valued in educational accountability are identified and discussed. Three recommendations are made to promote equitable inclusive educational accountability practices for students with impairment, to inform future policy and practice in all countries.
650 0|aEducation and state.
650 0|aEducational tests and measurements.
650 0|aInternational education .
650 0|aComparative education.
650 14|aEducational Policy and Politics.
650 24|aAssessment and Testing.
650 24|aInternational and Comparative Education.
710 2 |aSpringerLink (Online service)
773 0 |tSpringer Nature eBook
776 08|iPrinted edition:|z9789400729346
776 08|iPrinted edition:|z9789400729360
830 0|aSpringerBriefs in Education,|x2211-193X
856 40|uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2935-3
912 |aZDB-2-SHU
912 |aZDB-2-SXED
950 |aHumanities, Social Sciences and Law (SpringerNature-11648)
950 |aEducation (R0) (SpringerNature-43721)