Early studies on standardized achievement tests among learning-disabled children suggest that with regard to standardized achievement tests, learning-disabled students typically exhibit "cognitive and affective deficits" on certain test-taking aspects (Scruggs 267). These deficits may be alleviated in part through training and education for test takers and administrators (Scruggs, 1986). While deficits exist many in the educational community still believe standardized achievement testing is an important and vital function of education (Scruggs, 1986). Still other measures are necessary to fully understand the abilities of learning disabled students and to improve their test taking skills, attitudes toward tests and ability to take tests as accurately as possible (Scruggs, 1986).

The Council for Learning Disabilities and National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) (2004) recently teamed together to evaluate state and district wide assessments of learning outcomes in learning disabled students. Their reports suggest that while educational institutions may use standardized assessments to achieve high academic standards for stude

Alper, Mull & Sitlington (2001) suggest that learning disabilities be properly diagnosed in order to administer appropriate assessment methods. Such diagnosis may include "intake screening, diagnosis of a learning disability, documentation of the disability and referral to other agencies for testing" (p. 97).

In addition instructors and educational institutions should validated each standardized assessment for its intended use, meaning what validates a test for one purpose may not provide relevance or validity for another purpose (Council Learning Disabilities, 2004). Ongoing evaluation should also be implemented for intended and unintended consequences of testing (Council Learning Disabilities, 2004). Students who fail at high stakes test should be provided opportunities for "meaningful remediation" which may include development of the literacy skills necessary to succeed in standardized assessments, and appropriate attention must be given to students with disabilities to reflect "the intended construct rather than the students disabilities" (Council Learning Disabilities, p. 67).

Multiple factors including imposition of time limits can affect student expectations and their ability to perform well or poorly on such tests. Standardized testing situations often represent "arbitrary and highly constrained social environments" that put learning disabled students at a disadvantage (McDermott, p. 281). As such educational institutions must look into reform and adaptive measures to ensure that students with learning disabilities are accurately assessed so they are provided with fair and equal opportunities with respect to learning and education.

Many states use standardized assessments as a requirement for high school graduation (Thurlow, Wiley & Beilinski, 2002; Council Learning Disabilities, 2004). Standardized assessments do however have the potential to harm learning disabled students when administered improperly or when educational facilities lack the resources to administer tests correctly or administer tests with improper reliability and validity protocols for assessing learning disabled outcomes (Council Learning Disabilities, 2004).

The extent to which standardized tests can accurately measure the abilities of students with behavioral learning disabilities such as attention hyperactivity deficit are not yet fully understood (Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1999). Many use the Connors Rating Scale to assess behavioral problems on various dimensions of behavior, but this tests is considered overly subjective and "difficult to verify with any type of objective evidence" (Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, p. 163). Despite this tests remains the most commonly used as no other tests are available to accurately assess behavioral problems and learning. This also suggests a need for further exploration into this area and development of measures to more accurately assess student achievement among learning disabled students with behavioral disorders.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Spear-Swerling Sternberg, Learning Disabilities, Disabilities NJCLD, Basic Skills, Disabled Students, LSAT GRE, Grigorenko Sternberg, Conclusions Standardized, Schlute Kratochwill, Schulte Kratochwill, learning disabilities, learning disabled, disabled students, learning disabled students, council learning disabilities, council learning, students learning disabilities, students learning, standardized tests, spear-swerling sternberg, standardized testing, disabilities 2004, learning disabilities 2004, sternberg 1999, spear-swerling sternberg 1999,
Approximate Word count = 2094
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)