How State Policies and Practices for Alternate Assessment Impact: Who Is Included in NAEP State Assessments.
• States have taken a variety of approaches in the development of their alternate assessments and the policies and procedures that support them. This has resulted not only in alternate assessments that differ from state to state in their characteristics, but also in variations in the characteristics and percentages of students who are targeted for participation in the alternate assessments from one state to the next.
Testing Students with Disabilities: Practical Strategies for Complying with District and State Requirements
Preface About the Authors 1. Why Students with Disabilities Should Be in District and Statewide Accountability Systems 2. Deciding Whether a Student Should Take the District or State Test 3. Assessment Accommodations: Who Is Eligible? For What 4. Accommodations to Consider 5. The Ultimate Accommodation: An Alternate Assessment 6. Reporting Accountability and Assessment Results 7. Rethinking the IEP 8. Collaboration for Success in Testing Students With Disabilities 9. Gaining Support From Above: What Needs to Happen? 10. Involving Parents in Testing Decisions 11. Implementation: Where Reality Hits the Road Resources: Reproducible Forms Resources: Staff Development Resources: Technical Assistance and Dissemination Networks
Factors Likely to Influence Tort Litigation in the European Union
As the European Union moves towards harmonization in a variety of business, political, and regulatory settings, an opportunity exists to influence the form of tort liability found in these nations. The opportunity should not be missed, with rising concern that U.S. influences will set into motion costly litigiousness, particularly as EU member nations pull back on the level of social programmes available to cover costs typically included in tort claims. To assist policymakers in their deliberations about European Union tort directives, this paper provides discussion of the frequently cited key differences between the U.S. tort systems and what is found in most EU member nations. The discussion is focused on available evidence regarding the influences of these differences as well as important areas of future research. The most important areas seem to be (1) the need to enforce European Law when no defined regulatory body exists for this purpose; (2) the connection between government social programmes and the need for tort liability compensation; (3) and the influence of rules governing payment of legal costs and lawyer fees.