Setting Learning Expectations for Students with Disabilities. (Mini-Series)

Abstract. The authors begin with a discussion of the balanced model of accountability proposed by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education in 1995 and its implications for the evaluation of student progress. This model suggests the need for an education system that balances (a) rights, inputs, and processes with (b) system standards and results, and (c) individual student learning. The authors emphasize the critical role of expectations and discuss two refinements of the current IEP process to sharpen the focus on student achievement. Whereas several models of evaluating individual student progress are discussed in this issue, the primary emphasis of this article is the elaboration of a model to assist special educators in the assessment of instruction practices and curricula. The authors discuss the need for both special and general education teachers to have access to practical and trustworthy information regarding educational tools and practices. Specific guidelines for the evaluati on of educational practices are discussed as well as the need for additional professional development to assist educators with the implementation of such a model. The passage of Public Law 94-142 in 1975 provided children with disabilities the right to a free and appropriate public education. During the early years of its enactment, primary emphasis was placed on the provision of services to students who in the past often had been denied access to an education. To insure the provision of adequate services to students with disabilities, the law required providers to develop an individualized educational plan (IEP) based on the student's disability, individual level of functioning, and desired education outcomes. Adherence to the law, however, was likely to be monitored by census data, compliance with due process procedures, and clerical record keeping (forms) related to various requirements within the law. Recent years, however, have seen an increasing concern regarding the quality of outcomes for those students served under IDEA (Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Kozleski, & Reschly, 1998). These growing concerns, along with the provisions contained in the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA, have insured that students with disabilities will not be left out of the national debate regarding accountability for educational outcomes. The 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) responded to concerns regarding the quality of services provided to special education students by including elements that addressed access to the general education curriculum along with accountability and public reporting of outcomes. While keeping in place original requirements that assured handicapped students access to a "free appropriate public education," the reauthorization added requirements designed to address the quality of outcomes for these students. These requirements mandate the inclusion of students with disabilities in general state and district-wide assessments, with appropriate accommodations when needed, or the provision of alternate assessments for those students who are not able to participate in the state or district-wide assessments. Prior to the reauthorization of IDEA, a variety of advocacy groups bad begun to address issues related to the relationship between special education and the movement to achieve quality educational outcomes for all students. For instance, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education developed a balanced model of accountability, a model of which appears in Figure 1. This model suggests the need to build a system of public education that balances (a) rights, inputs, and processes with (b) system standards and results, and (c) individual student learning. To achieve this balance while adhering to the requirements of IDEA requires careful consideration of existing language and practices related to accountability and assessment issues when including students with disabilities in state and district-wide assessments (Ysseldyke et al. …