DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 363 044 EC 302 500

TITLE State Special Education Outcomes 1992: A Report on

State Activities in the Assessment of Educational

Outcomes for Students with Disabilities.

INSTITUTION Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis. Coll. of Education.;

National Association of State Directors of Special

Education, Alexandria, VA.; National Center on

Educational Outcomes, Minneapolis, MN.; Saint Cloud

State Univ., MN.

SPONS AGENCY Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington,

DC.

PUB DATE Mar 93

CONTRACT H159C00004

NOTE 102p.; For the 1991 edition, see ED 348 805.

AVAILABLE FROM Publications Office, NCEO, 350 Elliott Hall, 75 E.

River Rd., Minneapolis, MN 55455 ($15).

PUB TYPE Statistical Data (110) Reports

Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS *Data Collection; *Disabilities; *Educational

Assessment; Elementary Secondary Education;

Evaluation; Information Needs; National Surveys;

*Special Education; *State Programs; Student

Evaluation

ABSTRACT

This report presents the results of the second

national survey of state activities in the assessment of educational

outcomes for students with disabilities. The report does not contain

actual outcomes data on stue.ents with disabilities. Survey results

are based on responses from 47 state directors of special education

and are presented in the following areas: federally reported data on

participation rates and exit data extensions; state assessments of

outcomes; inclusion of students with disabilities in state

assessments; state needs; practices, programs, and plans related to

outcomes assessment; state highlights for Arizona, Kentucky,

Michigan, and Utah; and state activities in selected outcomes areas.

The survey found that: (1) few state-level special education data

collection efforts, other than post-school status studies, yield

outcomes data on students with disabilities; (2) state-level outcomes

information is generated most often from large-scale general

education assessments in which students with mild disabilities may

participate, but the extent to which they participate is uncertain in

most states; (3) compared to the 1991 survey, more states are now

capable of reporting information on students with disabilities; and

(4) despite state-level guidelines on who may be excluded from

assessments and how to make testing accommodations for students with

disabilities, variations in participation suggest that there is

inconsistent implementation of the criteria. ODD)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document. ***********************************************************************
DIDIARTMENT OF EDUCATION

011Ic ei Educational ROSSOtCh end IMONOMIVInt EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERC) GYT<Ps document has been reproduced as

received from the person or orpermahon

originating

0 Minor ciNopes have been mode to improve

reproduchon Quality.

Points ot vow or opinions stated in this CSOCu moat do not ..cessaray repreeent OMAN

OERI position or poacy.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
State

Special Education

Outcomes

1992

40),

National Center

on Educational Outcomes

College of Education

University of Minnesota

in collaboration with

St. Cloud State University and

National Association of State

Directors of Special Education

Supported by the

Office of Special Education Progams

U S. Department of Education

A Report on

State Activities in

the Assessment o

Educational Outcomes

or Students with

Disabilities

e 3 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
March 1993

NCEO Core Staff:

Robert H. Bruininks

Cheri J. Gilman

Patricia J. Grafstrom

Kevin S. McGrew

Dorene L. Scott

James G. Shriner

Gail E. Spande

Martha L. Thurlow,

assistant director

James E. Ysseldyke,

director

The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) was

established in October, 1990 to

work with state departments of

education, national policymaking groups, and others to

facilitate and enrich the development and use of indicators of

educational outcomes for

students with disabilities. It is

believed that responsible use of

such indicators will enable

students with disabilities to

achieve better results from their

educational experiences. The

Center represents a collaborative

effort of the University of

Minnesota, the National

Association of State Directors of

Special Educcion, and St. Cloud

State University.

The Center is supported through

a cooperative agreement with the

U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Special Education

Programs (H159C00004).

Opinions or points of view do

not necessarily represent those of

the U.S. Department of Education

or Offices within it.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 4

Additional copie* of tilts

r report ntay b ordeied for-

$15,90. Pkasg write , ,

iublications

NCEO :

350 Mat Han

75 E River Road

Miniteapolisi MN 5,5455
Acknowledgments

Many people provided input on

both the content and format of

this updated survey. NCEO

especially expresses its appreciation to several individuals who

spent many hours reviewing and

updating data.

Special recognition and thanks

go to:

Office of Special

Education Programs,

U.S. Department of Education:

Lou Danielson

NCEO, Data Update:

Cheri Gilman

Made lin Tundidor

Report Design Update:

Trish Grafstrom

Thc 1991 version of this report was

prepared by James G. Shriner and

Martha L. Thurlow, with the assistance of Kristie L. Gibney, Dong-il

Kim, and Patricia Sullivan.
State Survey Respondents

ALABAMA

Julia Causey

Miriam Byers

ALASKA

Jim Rich

Bob Saverman

ARIZONA

Kathryn Lund

Joan McDonald

Julie Gasaway

ARKANSAS

Diane Sydoriak

James Boadman

CALIFORNIA

La lit Roy

COLORADO

Fred Smokoski

Don Watson

CONNECTICUT

Paul Flinter

Susan Kennedy

James Wade

DELAWARE

Martha Brooks

Chester Freed

FLORIDA

Susan Avery

Thomas Fisher

GEORGIA

Joan Jordan

Nancy Beis

Susan Tyson

Elizabeth Creech

HAWAII

Margaret Donovan*

Selvin Chin-Chance

IDAHO

Fred Balcom

Sally Tiel

ILLINOIS

Ian Tanner

John Craig

INDIANA

Robert Robertson

IOWA

Jeff Grimes

KANSAS

Ann Harrison

Jane Rhys

KENTUCKY

Preston Lewis

Judy Tabor

Linda E. Hargan*

LOUISIANA

Emilia Coulter

Rebecca Christian

MAINE

David Noble Stockford

Tim Crockett

MARYLAND

John Haigh

David Hayden

Leo Lezzer

MASSACHUSEITS

Marcia Mitthacht

Elizabeth Badger

MICHIGAN

Lucian Parshall

Sharif Shakrani

MINNESOTA

Wayne Erickson

William McMillan

MISSISSIPPI

Carolyn Black*

Cynthia Ward

MISSOURI

Sharon Rush

James Friedebach

MONTANA

Dan McCarthy

NEBRASKA

Don Anderson

Jack Gilsdorf

NEVADA

Gloria Dope'

Thomas Klein

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Harvey Harkness*

NEW JERSEY

Jeffery Osowski

NEW MEXICO

Judith Parks

Carroll Hall

NEW YORK

Carolyn Byrne

Lawrence Waite*

NORTH CAROLINA

Margaret Meany

Martha Ward

NORTH DAKOTA

Jean Newborg

OHIO

George Khonry

E. Roger Trent

OKLAHOMA

Rebbie Wale

OREGON

Patricia Almond

Jim James

Ray Rothstrom

Judy Miller

Michael Dalton

PENNSYLVANIA

Mary Izzo

James Hertzog

RHODE ISLAND

Ina Woolman

SOUTH CAROLINA

Elizabeth Jones

Beth Lowman*

SOUTH DAKOTA

Deb Barnett

Gary Skogland

TENNESSEE

Pegan StePt

TEXAS

Rebecca Martinez

Jenny Kile

Janette Lawlis

Laurelyn Carlisle

Bob Barker

Ron DiOrio

Keith Cruse

UTAH

Steve Kukic

Les Haley

David Nelson

6

VERMONT

Pat Johnson

Tim Flynn

Lisa Mazzitelli

VIRGINIA

William Helton*

Kent Dickey"

Lissa Power-Cluver*

WASHINGTON

Douglas Gill

Gordon Ensign

WEST VIRGINIA

Nancy Thabet

WISCONSIN

Sandra Berndt

Nancy Scott

WYOMING

E. Steere

Jim Lendino

AMERICAN SAMOA

Jane French

BUREAU OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS

Goodwin Cobb III

DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

Doris Woodson

GUAM

Elaine Eclavea

Larry Kasperbaum

MARIANA ISLANDS

Stephen Fuqua

MARSHALL ISLANDS

Asmon Langidrik*

PALA U

Peter Elechuus*

PUERTO RICO

Cesar Vazquez

onia Rosario

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

Priscilla Stridiron*

Responses based on 1991 survey.
Executive Summary

This report presents the results of

the second national survey of

state activities in the assessment

of educational outcomes for

students with disabilities. NCEO

mailed surveys to both state

directors of special education and

state assessment personnel in the

fifty states and in nine unique

states receiving special education

funds (e.g., Puerto Rico, Guam).

The survey results include the

following areas:

federally-reported data

assessments of outcomes

inclusion of students with

disabilities in state assessments

state needs

practices, programs, and plans

related to outcomes

state highlights

state activities in selected

outcomes areas.

Major Findings

Several major findings emerge in the information presented in

this report. With a few exceptions, the major 1992 findings are

similar to the 1991 survey findings. Among these findings are:

Participation and exit data continue to be a major part of

states' data collection efforts.

Few state-level special education data collection efforts,

other than post-school status studies, yield outcomes data

on students with disabilities.

State-level outcomes information is generated most often

from large-scale general education assessments in which

students with mild disabilities may participate, but the

extent to which they participate is uncertain in most states.

In comparison to 1991, there is a large number of states with

accessible achievement data on students with disabilities.

That is, more states are now capable of reporting information on students with disabilities.

II Despite state-level guidelines on who may be excluded from

assessments and low to make testing accommodations for

students with disabilities, variations in participation suggest

that there is inconsistent implementation of the criteria.

Despite the struggles states are undergoing in collecting

outcomes based information, several states are exploring

ways to adapt outcomes-based education systems.

This report does not contain actual outcomes uata on students with

disabi;ities.
Table of Contents

Introduction 1

State Contexts 5

Table 1 Students Ages 5-17 6

Figure 1 - Students Ages 3-21 8

Federally-Reported Data 9

Table 2 - Participation Rates 10

Table 3 - Exit Data Extensions 11

.Table 4 - Uses of Participation and Exit Data 12

State Assessments of Outcomes 13

Figure 2 - Outcomes Assessment Activities 15

Table 5 - Participation in General Education Assessments 17

Table 6 Achievement Data 18

Table 7 - Vocational Skills Assessed 20

Table 8 - Post-School Status 21

Table 9 - Uses of Achievement and Post-School Status Data 22

Table 10 - Uses of Vocational Skills Data 24

Figure 3 - Regular States' Use of Collected Data 25

Figure 4 - Types of Achievement Assessments 28

Figure 5 Tests Used for Reading and Math 29

Table 11 - States Assessing Reading and Math 30

Including Students with Disabilities 33

Figure 6 - Alternative Assessments 35

Figure 7 - Alternative Achievement Assessments 36

Figure 8 - States with Accessible Achievement Data 37

Table 12 - Estimated Participation 38

Table 13 - Decision Rules for Inclusion 40

Table 14 - Decision Makers for Inclusion 42

Figure 9 States with Rules for Inclusion 44

Figure 10 - States with Testing Guidelines 45

Table 15 - Testing Accommodations Allowed by States 46

State Needs 49

Table 16 - Barriers to Outcomes Assessment 50

Table 17 State Needs for Outcomes Assessment 52

Practices, Programs, and Plans 55

Table 18 - State Practices, Programs, and Plans 56

State Highlights (four states) 59

State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas 63
Introduction

NCEO produced the first report

on state special education outcomes for 1991. Since then, states

have been engaged in many

activities, and much has happened in the areas of educational

accountability and outcomes.

Because of the rapid changes

taking place overall and within

special education, documenting

current practice related to special

education outcomes continues to

be important and the reason for

producing State Special Education Outcomes 1992.

The first report highlighted

outcomes accountability. It

noted that

states were being pushed to

look at the outcomes achieved by

students within their educational

systems

there was a clear press for

policy-relevant information

about the performance of students in our educational system

information on the outcomes of

students with disabilities was

needed as well.

Many national data bases are

unable to provide adequate data

because student° with disabilities

are excluded. dle discussions

take place on how to develop

more inclusive guidelines for

participation in national assessment programs, there continues

to be little national data on

students with disabilities. This is

true at the state level as well.

States provide the Office of

Special Education Programs with

important information on the

input, context, and process of

special education, bu ... little

information on outcomes (other

than graduation, dropout, and

other school completion information). But states are thinking

about and beginning to use

outcomes in their special education programs, as evidenced in

this report.

NCEO's Purpose

NCEO is a collaborative effort of

the National Association of State

Directors of Special Education

(NASDSE), the University of

Minnesota and Saint Cloud State

University. Part of the Center's

mission is to provide national

leadership in identifying educational outcomes for students with

disabilities and in developing

possible indicators that could be

used to monitor those important

outcomes.

The Center works with national

policy-making groups, state

departments of education, and

other groups and individuals to

promote national discussion of

educational goals and indicators

that include students with disabilities. To accomplish this,

NCEO has four major goals:

Goal 1 To promote the development of a system of indicators

for use with all students including those with disabilities.

1

Goal 2 To support and enhance

the measurement of educational outcomes and indicators

for students with disabilities.

Goal 3 To enhance the availability and use of outcomes information in decision making at

the federal and state levels.

Goal 4 To identify and develop

indicators that can be used to

make judgments about the

extent to which education

works for students with disabilities, and that can be used

to improve programs and

services.

Many activities are underway to

accomplish these goals. Besides

the state survey, the Center

examines and analyzes existing

national and state data that may

provide information on outcomes

for students with disabilities. It

works with other groups and

organizations (e.g., National

Center for Education Statistics) to

address issues related to assessment efforts already underway.

And it is developing and refining

a conceptual model of outcomes

and indicators by working with

state and national agencies,

parents and professionals.

About the State Survey

This second annual state survey

addresses the need for state

directors, policymakers and

others to collect information on

state activities in multiple

outcomes areas and to make
Introduction

changes in accountability and

assessment activities. This is

important because.local, state

and national groups are proposing new initiatives and forecasting changes that may have

significant impact on the education of students with disabilities.

The 1991 survey was completed

through telephone interviews

with state directors of special

education and/or with their

designees. The open-ended

questions encouraged state

personnel to share as much

information as possible about

their states. Survey objectives

were to:

create an ongoing tracking

system to describe the status of

state activities for assessing

educational outcomes

develop a monitoring system

of the procedures and practices

used by states when making

accommodations in assessing

students with disabilities

identify what persistent barriers and needs states have related

to outcomes assessment

find state data bases that might

be used to create a national data

base of outcomes for students

with disabilities.

For this survey, NCEO mailed

questionnaires to respondents

listing a choice of options based

on the 1991 findings. The target

group included state directors of

special education in the fifty

states plus in those unique states

referred to in this report (e.g.,

Puerto Rico, Guam). In addition,

portions of the survey were

mailed to state assessment

personnel in each state. Those

portions included sections on the

assessment of academic

achievement and on the

accommodations and adaptations

allowed for students with

disabilities.

The use of two forms of the

survey was intended to obtain as

much information as possible

from states. Most states cooperated in completing the longer

version of the survey. The remaining states received followup phone calls, faxes and offers

to complete the survey by telephone between August and

December. As a result, only two

states and three unique states

failed to respond to the questionnaire. For them, 1991 survey

information was reported.

For those states returning only

the shorter version of the survey,

1991 information was used for

major sections of the survey in

which only state directors were

to provide responses. These

major sections included information on vocational skills, participation rates, exit data, post

secondary status, barriers to

using outcomes information on a

statewide basis and new state

developments in assessment of

outcomes for students with

disabilities.

Of the 59 surveys sent to state

directors of special education, 47

# 0

(80%) were returned, representing 42 (84%) of regular states and

5 (56%) of unique states. Of the

59 surveys sent to state assessment personnel, 30 (51%) were

returned, representing 37 (74%)

of regular states and 2 (22%) of

unique states.

In the majority of cases, the 1992

survey information was completed by someone other than the

1991 telephone interview respondent. In only 34% of the states

was the respondent the same.

This resulted from turnover in

state directors' positions, the

delegation of answering the

survey to staff under the direction of the state director, and

from expanded efforts to contact

assessment personnel.

"Outcomes" Defined

The term "outcomes" has many

definitions in current educational

literature. A common meaning

describes outcomes as including

"knowledge, skills, and attitudes." Outcomes are considered

most often to cover all areas of

student development, rather than

just student status at the end of

schooling. For purposes of the

state survey, the following

definition was provided to

respondents:

Outcome = the result of interactions between individuals and

educational experiences.

Overview of State Report

Data in this document summarize responses to the mailed

2
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

surveys. The reader must be

cautioned that states have developed their own procedures,

policies, and systems that are not

easily represented in a quantitative format.

Qualitative information from

states provides a wealth of

insights into the complex nature

of assessing students with

disabilities. Some of this complexity and richness of information appears in case studies of

selected states that were

examined during 1992. Brief case

studies of Arizona, Kentucky,

Michigan, and Utah can be found

in the State Highlights section

within this report. A more detailed report of state case studies

is being prepared.

Next Steps 1993 Update

NCEO will be updating the state

survey annually to address key

issues and to document changes

in state outcomes assessment

practices.

In the first annual survey report,

many states reported plans for

sweeping changes in their current assessment systems. NCEO

will be documenting the progress

made by states toward their

outcomes related goals.

To better accommodate and

address the complexity of

comprehensive outcomes assessments, NCEO will conduct

several more in-depth case

studies of representative states in

1993. The Center hopes that by

broadening the study, it will

expand the understanding of

assessing educational outcomes

for students with disabilities.

Nine Unique States

American Samoa = Am Samoa

Bureau of Indian Affairs = BIA

District of Columbia = DC

Guam

Mariana Islands = CNMI

Marshall Islands = RMI

Palau

Puerto Rico

U.S. Virgin Islands = USVI

3
State Contexts

Student Population Receiving Special Education

Table 1

The numbers of special education

students vary in relation to the

general education student population. Table 1 shows the general

education student population

and the percentage of all students

ages 5 to 17 years served in

special education.

Figure 1

State special education student

populations vary. Figurel shows

states according to the number of

students ages 3 to 21 years served

in special education. States are

divided into three groups according to the number of special

education students served: those

having less than 50,000, those

with 50,000 to 100,000, and those

with 100,000 to 500,000 students.

I2

Nationally, special education

reported serving approximately

130,000 more children in 1991 than

in 1990. The number of special

education students in many states

reflects this trend.

5
State Contexts Table 1 Student Population Receiving Special Education

Stddent.PoPulations Ages 5-17

State

General

Education

Special

Education

% Special

Education

Alabama 727,815 86,175 11.84

Alaska 112,153 12,811 11.42

Arizona 589,504 51,415 8.72

Arkansas 434,960 42,138 9.69

California 4,963,383 427,439 8.61

Colorado 568,673 51,405 9.04

Connecticut 468,900 57,179 12.19

Delaware 99,658 12,941 12.99

Florida 1,861,538 220,046 11.82

Georgia 1,151,687 94,987 8.25

Hawaii 171,056 11,916 6.97

Idaho 220,840 19,549 8.85

Illinois 1,803,000 218,857 12.14

Indiana 956,487 104,787 10.96

Iowa 484,116 54,036 11.16

Kansas 436,250 40,828 9.36

Kentucky 630,091 71,548 11.36

Louisiana 779,161 65,127 8.36

Maine 215,516 24,858 11.53

Maryland 715,152 80,811 11.30

Massachusetts 829,119 134,016 16.16

Michigan 1,577,000 149,339 9.47

Minnesota 751,913 70,949 9.44

Mississippi 500,122 56,507 11.30

Missouri 810,450 94,816 11.70

6

13
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

State

General

Education

Special

Education

% Special

Education

Montana 151,670 15,474 10.20

Nebraska 274,141 29,637 10.81

Nevada 196,736 16,818 8.55

New Hampshire 170,642 17,220 10.09

New Jersey 1,082,561 165,620 15.30

New Mexico 299,734 33,254 11.10

New York 2,563,000 269,975 10.53

North Carolina 1,082,558 113,715 10.50

North Dakota 117,134 11,080 9.46

Ohio 1,770,000 189,297 10.70

Oklahoma 578,600 60,751 10.50

Oregon 484,950 49,974 10.30

Pennsylvania 1,667,630 192,652 11.55

Rhode Island 137,946 18,735 13.58

South Carolina 621,776 71,276 11.46

South Dakota 129,164 13,047 10.10

Tennessee 822,200 97,645 11.88

Texas 3,353,270 313,614 9.35

Utah 444,732 43,562 9.80

Vermont 96,198 10,799 11.23

Virginia 998,463 101,806 10.20

Washington 832,218 74,687 8.97

West Virginia 323,021 38,661 11.97

Wisconsin 790,901 75,424 9.54

Wyoming 98,210 9,592 9.77

Numbers for 1990-91, derived from Tables AA5, AA14, AAI6, AF5 in Fourteenth Annual Report to Conuess (U.S. Department of Education, 1992).

1 4

7
State Contexts Figure 1 Student Population Receiving Special Education

Student Populations Ages 3 - 21

CC

a

Lc)

1 0

El

.1

8
Federally-Reported Data

Special Education Participation and Exit Data

:able 2

When stw.es collect student

participation information beyond

that required in reports to the

federal government, they often

account for each student's time in

general or special education

classes. Seventy percent of

twenty-four regular states and

one unique state have these types

of data. Nineteen regular states

and no unique states have other

types of extensions of required

data (e.g., hours of service by

provider, attendance data, suspension/expulsion information,

extracurricular activities, or other

data such as time spent out of

general education). The number

of states reporting extended

participation data collection in

1992 is about the same as in 1991,

but includes more areas of data

collection.

Table 3

Most states collecting information beyond the required exit

data know more about the

circumstances surrounding

students leaving school. The

most frequently cited reasons are

to evaluate graduation and

dropout rates, and assess trends.

In addition, twelve states that

award multiple diploma types

keep track of these at the state

level for special education

students. Data on reasons for

student dropout are also

collected by twelve states.

Uses Of Data

Table 4

In addition to reporting required

information to the federal

government, sixty percent of the

states that collect extra participation and exit data use the data in

reports for state agencies, legislatures, and local and state education agencies (LEAs and SEAs).

Data are also used for accountability and program evaluation.

Other uses of participation and

exit data include individual

school report cards and fund

distribution. Participation and

exit data continue to be a major

part of states' data collection

efforts, and show potential

usefulness for purposes other

than federal and state reporting.

Currently, the Office of Special

Educatwn Programs (OSEP)

requires states to report annually on

student participation and exit data.

Participation information includes

counts of the numbers of students in

various special education categories

and placements by grade andlor age.

Exit information includes counts of

the numbers of students who exit

school by graduating, dropping out,

earning completion certificates, etc.

Some states collect information that

exceeds these OSEP requirements.

Twenty-four regular states and one

unique state have state-wide collection of extra participation information. Twenhy-four regular states and

no unique states have state-wide

collection of exit information beyond

that required by OSEP.

9
Federally-Reported Data Table 2 Participation Rates

Participation Rate Extensions

STATE

-.- ° o o

4/

-$.- ii? -.$' :.,`" 0 4... 4:1 47 '. - C' AZ.' Cb AZ' rft C./ CO

"C'" California

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Kansas

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Nebraska

New HamPshlre

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

Ohio

Oregon

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Vermont

West Virginia

Wisconsin

w omin

CNMI

10
Federally-Reported Data Table 3 Exit Data Extensions

Exit Data Extensions

STATE

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Maryland

Massachusetts

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

Ohio

Oregon

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

West Virginia

11
Federally-Reported Data Table 4 Participation and Exit Data

Uses of Participation d Exit Data beyond OSEP Requirements

e

o, -4) . .e e e e e. . -.k.. el,

-, k ,- .;?, cc; .

.a 4) < st3

., ,i) ,..e. t. k T 4'3 e 65) (.0 A? .- 4, , k

-0

- co e

ee .43 47.

STATE Participation Exit

Alaska 1 1 I 1 It

California It 1 1 1 II 1 it 1 le. et

Colorado 1 1 1 1 1 I

Connecticut / 1 1

Delaware 1 1 st

Florida / if 1 se

Georgia It

Hawaii 1 1 st

Iowa 1

Kansas / 1 ." /

Maryland 1 ,/ ,/ I 1 1

Massachusetts 1 It

Michigan se 1 I I

Nebraska I I

Nevada 1

New Hampshire 1 i 1 it of

New Jersey 1

New Mexico i 1

North Carolina s/ I 1 1

North Dakota

Ohio 1 I 1

Oregon 1 If i 1 1 i i 1 11 se 1

South Dakota 1 1 1 1

Texas / 1 1 1

Utah 1 1 1 st 1 11 1 1

Vermont 1 1 I it 1 1

Virginia st i

West Virginia i i I i 1 1 1 1

Wisconsin / 1

Wyoming 1

12

' I
State Assessments of Outcomes

Outcome Areas and Assessors

Figure 2

The primary outcome areas

covered by state assessment

activities are achievement,

vocational skills, post-school

status, and exit from school.

States that collect information in

these areas are shown in the

maps in Figure 2. These assessment activities sometimes reflect

a general education effort, a

special education effort, or a

combination of general education

and special education. Overall,

collecting achievement data at

the state level (meaning students

with disabilities are included)

ranks high with forty-two regular

states and eight of the nine

unique states.

Under vocational skills, assess:-

ments include only in-school

vocational. Post-school vocational skills assessment is captured in the post-school status

category.

Table 5

This year's survey of states

indicates that forty-one of the

regular states and eight of the

unique states collect state level

achievement data that include

students with disabilities. As

shown in Table 5, most of this

activity is conducted by general

education (thirty-one regular

states and five unique states).

Assessment of in-school vocational skills occurs in eleven

regular states and two unique

states. In seven of the regular

states and one of the unique

states, both general and special

education collect data. Information on the post-school status

experiences of former special

education students is collected in

nineteen regular states and three

unique states, mostly through

special education.

Table 6

Almost ninety percent of the

states collect achievement data.

Nearly twice as many states

collect information in the areas of

reading, math, and language arts

than in science, social studies,

and other areas (e.g., humanities,

employability).

Table 7

Table 7 identifies eleven regular

states and two unique states that

collect vocational skills information. Enrollment in vocational

education and job placement are

the most frequently collected

data, although almost as many

states collect data on type of

vocational program and employment during the school years.

Other categories mentioned by

states include student and parent

satisfaction, quality of life, and

summer jobs.

13

Assessment activities in a state may

be directed by different groups. For

descriptive purposes, the "assessor"

is defined as the primary unit or

department responsible for data

collection. In this report, the assessor

is categorized as general education,

special education, or both. Vocational education and state assessment units are considered to be part

of general education.
State Assessments of Outcomes

Table 8

All of the twenty regular states

and three unique states that

collect post-school status data

report on the employment status

of students with disabilities. Of

those, more than two thirds also

report on students' wages.

Information on enrollment in

school of special education

students is collected by nineteen

of the twenty states that collect

post-school status data. Other

categories of data collection

identified by states include

personal adjustment, marital

status, community involvement,

ability to access services, and

friendships.

Uses of Data

Table 9

Information on outcomes are

used for a variety of purposes by

either special education or general assessment personnel. This

table illustrates that most states

use collected information for

more than one purpose. Achievement data are used most frequently for reports to local school

districts and state agencies, but

are also used often for accountability, reporting to teachers and

for individual graduation requirements. Post-school status

information, when used, is most

often for evaluating programs

and reporting to various groups

(e.g., state legislature, local

school districts, etc.). Other uses

identified by a few states include

accountability, program improvement, and reports to other

groups, such as the state Developmental Disabilities Council.

Table 10

Vocational data are used for

fewer purposes overall. Most

states that collect these data use

them for program evaluations

and reports to local education

agencies. The "other" category

includes long-range planning

and reports for other state units,

such as the Department of Labor.

Figure 3

Figure 3 provides a general

summary of the primary uses of

different types of data. The most

obvious comparison is that

required data (participation and

exit) and achievement data are

used most often to produce

reports for the Office of Special

Education Programs and other

constituencies. Achievement

data, and to some extent postschool status data, are used for

program evaluation and

accountability.

Assessment of Basic Skills

Figure 4

States are using many different

kinds of instruments to assess

achievement. Most common are

norm-referenced tests used in

thirty regular states and five

unique states overall. When

examining states that have

accessible data on students with

disabilities, twenty-five regular

states and three unique states

report a high use of norm-referenced tests. Important, but not

directly evident here, is the

general shift away from the use

of norm-referenced devices

toward the use of instruments

22

developed specifically by or for a

state's education agency and

reflecting the state's curricular

emphases. So far, two regular

states report using portfolio

assessments.

Figure 5

To determine whether states

have specific test data that could

be used to form a common data

pool, it is necessary to look at

specific instruments that are

employed. Of the norm-referenced instruments utilized most

often, no single test is used by

more than a handful of states,

regardless of whether they have

accessible data on students with

disabilities. It is unlikely that

data from different states would

be merged unless first translated

to a standard measurement unit.

Then, it may be possible to

produce common data on the

achievement of special education

students.

Table 11

This table identifies the reading

and math norm-referenced tests

used by states that include

students with disabilities in their

assessments. Most frequently

used is the Stanford Achievement

Test. Seven states use more than

one norm-referenced test for

reading andmath assessment.

The "other" category refers to

specific norm-referenced state

assessment measures that were

identified by certain states (e.g.,

The Kentucky Instructional

Results Information System,

Norm-referenced Assessment

Program for Texas, etc.).

14
State Assessments of Outcomes Figure 2 Outcome Assessment Activities

Achievement and Vocational Skills

CI

HI tab

HI

SoCi

ACHIEVEMENT

El Shaded states collect state-level information

NH

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

M D

2, 3

ED Am Samoa

BIA

CNMI

ED DC

ED Guam

ED Palau

D PR

RMI

USVI

Ei Am Samoa

BIA

CNMI

El DC Ei Guam

El Palau

D PR

D RMI

D usvi

15
State Assessments of Outcomes Figure 2 Outcomes Assessment Activities

Post-School Status and Exit

HI

S:210

0 Shaded states collect state-level information

[] Am Samoa

D BIA

E:1 CNMI

[D oc

E3 Guam

Palau

PR

RMI

usvi

D Am Samoa

JJ BIA

CNMI

ED Er

ED Guam

Palau

p PR

EJ RMI

USVI

16
State Assessments of Outcomes Table 5 Participation in General Education

Participation in General Education Assessments

STATE

N. ."

s

.

0

4:. 0'/

4tp O c, °q_,_*- it 40 .9 STATE

...

.55C% , cIt

No 0c

It 4°

IAlabama New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

Alaska

Arizona - Arkansas

California

North Dakota

Ohio

Colorado Oklahoma

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Oregon

, ,

, Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Georgia . Hawaii

Idaho

' South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Illinois

Indiana

Texas

Utah :;',-,:.

Iowa Vermont

Kansas Virginia . Kentucky

Louisiana

Washington

West Virginia

Maine

Maryland

, Massachusetts , Wisconsin

Wyoming

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Am Samoa

BIA

DC

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Guam

CNMI

RMI 1 ,',':1.1

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

,

. Palau

I Puerto Rico

USVI

5

General

Education

Special

Education

Combined

17
State Assessments of Outcomes Table 6 i Achievement

Actiievement Data for Reading,.Math, Language, SCience and Social Studies

STATE

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Mississippi

Nevada

New Ham 1 shire

New Jersey

New Mexico 4

18
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

STATE ct7

.47:r err <z) New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Am Samoa

BIA

Guam

CNMI

RMI

Palau

Puerto Rico

USVI

19
State Assessments of Outcomes u Table 7 Vocational Skills

Vocational Skills Areas Assessed

Employment During Type of

School Years

Delaware

Maryland

New Mexico

Ohio

Oregon

South Dakota

Vermont

Guam

Enrollment in

Vocational Education

Delaware

Georgia

Louisiana

Maryland

Missouri

Ohio

Oregon

South Dakota

Vermont

West Virginia

Vocational Program

Delaware

Georgia

Maryland

Missouri

Ohio

Oregon

South Dakota

Vermont

West Virginia

Job Placement

Delaware

Georgia

Maryland

Ohio

Oregon

South Dakota

Vermont

West Virginia

Guam

Palau

Other

Pc)

New Mexico

Ohio

Oregon

Vermont

West Virginia

20
State Assessments of Outcomes Table 8 Post-School Status

Employment Status, Wages, Enrollment in School, Living Arrangements

STATE 05'

Arizona

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Iowa

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Nevada

New Hampshire

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

//sr inia

Guam

RMI

Palau

2J

21
State Assessments of Outcomes Table 9 Uses of Data

Uses of Achievement and Post-School Status Data

c

z ;.-? c '47- c. --0 -::.> .§7 ,- 0 . 0

-- ii , . 4' -4- -Sr -z-1, .S° ,li ,,-; qr .4 G) -4 :1 b- .! 73- -iP 4<;) 44% 0 44,1 g

e q e , s1/4 -- '1/4() ,*ct" 4) q %P -,`P 9 wi:41) 42`? ccci) cc- t- e 0

.77 Tr 4.7' e

STATE Achievement Post-School Status

Alabama I / 6, /ft / s, /

Alaska si it 1. 1 li 1.

Arizona et 0, s, / se

Arkansas / /

California I V / I / 1,, ., Connecticut I 6, / / It IP se I

Delaware / / / It / ., Florida ./ st II I 1 /11 It ae

Georgia / /1 se se 11 I / I

Hawaii st 0,1/ / ., ,,, /

Idaho ., 1 se li

Illinois I / et it

Indiana se / / / se I 0, it

Iowa / /

Kansas %, 1 I/ 1 1.,

Kentucky / / I / I it ./..,

Louisiana it ./

Maine I st I / I I( 1

Maryland / se st I I, .1

Massachusetts / of I/

Michigan / / /1. It s, if .1

Minnesota It

Mississippi lit st 1 se / 1 it

Nevada /

New Hampshire se / I I

New Jersey if / It or

22
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

_es0 0

k ,.... 0 .0 0 '... 0 .,, c? ''' 0-

<1' bs

oc:5 - cb42 o42 43' .c. .:. Q,'''' ct 'Z' W .. o itr C.- k 0 b c* o <2.) ....4. 47. 43- o o ,,.. 4? -, q 0

4. q q

45-5 s

I

_ . STATE Achievement Post-School Staius

New Mexico I 1 It 1 / 1 V/

New York 1111 / Itet

North Carolina It It It 111 it 1

North Dakota I I / 1 1 / It I / of

Ohio 1 / I I 1

Oregon / 1 it 6/ 1 it 1 / 1 st

Rhode Island 1 1

South Carolina I I III II

South Dakota /I el 1 /I

Tennessee 1 et / / /

Texas 11 1 11/11 1 1

Utah 1111 I 1 I I /1 sel

Vermont 1 1 1 1 / 1

Virginia st 1 1

Washington 1 st 1 1 / 11 /

West Virginia 1 I 1

Wisconsin / 1 1 11 It /V

Am Samoa 1 1 1

BIA 1

Guam I I I it 1

CNMI it

RMI 1 st 1 1

Palau I /

Puerto Rico /

UM / i

:4

23
State Assessment of Outcomes Table 10 Uses of Vocational Skills Data

Vocational Skills Data in Reports and Evalua,tions

Report to

State Legislature

Ohio

Oregon

Vermont

Report to LEAs

Georgia

Maryland

New Mexico

Ohio

Oregon

South Dakota

Vermont

West Virginia

Program Evaluation

Delaware

Maryland

Ohio

Oregon

South Dakota

Guam

Internal SEA Reports

Palau

Other

Delaware

South Dakota

Vermont

24
State Assessment of Outcomes Figure 3 Regular States Use of Collected Data

I.

SO States

1 Reporting

'Accountability

Program Evaluation

Student-Related

Decision Making ,

7

6

,Reporting

SO %States,

ACcouniabnity. 7

Program, EvalUation,,

-Student-Related

Decision Making

5

2

,;.

25

:ti i.uPY
State Assessment of Outcomes Figure 3 Regular States Use of Collected Data

m.-,-eaz," ::- ;::c.. .,^

; , s `s, ,isse s', n,\ k,42yzAtates ,

%-ss

Accounta bi lity ............ -5 s ,

,ss' k

55

5 5 5s ?.,

zProgratn Evaluation'

, 5..ss 5:55,55 , 5, t --` ' , p46isi on Makivisi

, SS5VSS55,5S ''; %, .

" ;S

555 ' 5 2,'S -:`20 tates

. T

't, Repotting

,

, ', -,- .: ';'4,

,

,sProgrant-' Evaluation

eelti sek 'Z'?..sy s se"

sse'e; s'%'..s " e " " (' ss:e4;<:Student- Related

Oodlaion Making 1

15

..; 4,

S 5`, 5, 5 - \,5

, , s.2,

s; ,

4

11

e e 5, ,,,e

ve.ee v

'". r

, - see ,

PEST CnEw AmLABLE
State S ecial Education Outcomes 1992

,"rslf I Ift I

-.1 :- 35
State Assessment of Outcomes Figure 41 Types of Achievement Assessments

- .

, ......-* ...N. . .:' ,:'".Z. V '';

-;:,..;'$,..;,,t,:xu:m.zzzws),kwk ,1\*zr,szx.;% -,,,, s ;;;,;;, 42

s. ..,,,,,,....,.,,m,....<...z.,...,..,..,,...:.et.....,.............:......... . A. ,,,>w".k...z.,,,xe. ........ 'Reigular'States-1-.- nique-Statimr 1

...'s A W.i:.. .<,; :::. ,s. %,%.*:....,S.:,...... ..... ; ..,% e:,..,s... ,

.,,,. :?.....4

.4?.;-ft,.....:...;,...z.-..:?,-;<;',.....x.:,:..:<c,,,,,f,,Vszt.,

:. `.-.?,,- \..s.-.....t.W,V.4.441....4.a....m;$4. .: v-v.,.. k., ',IN,

.

0

z., \ ...< sZ..: ,,,,, 6, .1 < ;A. " `. C. ss' " :' kk, Vr *>. > A

&'s1';',;. k4' z A 3 s'ss,;

< NW4("A

s' 'sV 35 fiegular,Statesgt,1 414Ue,tate<

,

."% ;Z/S v 7 :NtorwRefereacedigs,'

/

;le;;1:17),

;,; ,-;":?.;"

;::::?,

%Other, '2'

, .

....1:1,1:f> J2.

2 3 6
State Assessment of Outcomes Figure 5 Tests Used for Reading & Math

AT = California Achievement Test

CTBS = Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills

lTBS = Iowa Tests of Basic Skills

MAT = Metropolitan Achievement Test

Stanford = Stanford Achievement Test

TAPS = Tests of Achievement and Proficiency

-"Dv , IA II

'1 '111 29
State Assessment of Outcomes Table 11 States Assessing Reading & Math

Norm-referenced Tests Used to Assess Reading and Math

STATE

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Mississippi

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

CAT = California Achievement Test

CTBS = Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills

ITBS = Iowa Tests of Basic Skills

MAT = Metropolitan Achievement Test

Stanford = Stanford Achievement Test

TAPS = Tests of Achievement and Proficiency

30
STATE

State Special Education Outcomes 1992

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Am Samoa

BIA

CNM1

RMI

Puerto Rico

USW

31
Including Students With Disabilities

Participation in Achievement Assessments

Figure 6

Students with disabilities who do

not participate in general education achievement assessments

often participate in alternative

assessments. States using alternative farms of assessment are

shown in Figure 6. Typically, fhe

IEP is the focus of the alternative

assessment.

Figure 7

Figure 7 illustrates, in summary

form, the types of alternative

student achievement data that

are collected in those states that

offer alternative achievement

assessments. References to "IEP

evaluation component" reflect

some states' efforts to make

greater use of the IEP document

and annual evaluations of

whetherstudents meet IEP

objectives.

Figure 8

Although students with disabilities participate in most state-level

achievement assessments, only

thirty-five regular states and five

unique states identify special

education students in their data

sets. Figure 8 shades those states

where data are accessible for

students with disabilities who

participate in achievement

testing. Some states do not have

accessible data on students with

disabilities because they choose

not to separate students in

special education from the

general education population.

Several other states want to

identify students with disabilities

because it provides them with

achievement information on

special education students.

Table 12

States fmd it difficult to estimate

the number and percentage of

students with disabilities who

participate in statewide assessments. Estimates range from less

than ten percent to more than

ninety percent, with many states

unable to provide estimates. In

checking the percentages,

participation rates vary considerably from one state to the next.

Thirty-two states and six unique

states have an estimate for the

percentage of students with

disabilities in state achievement

assessments. Of those, forty-six

percent say that less than onefourth of students with disabilities take part in assessments.

Only sixteen percent of the states

say that more than seventy-five

percent of the students participate in assessments.

There may be confusion about

the inclusion of students with

disabilities, as evident in discrepant responses from the special

education and assessment personnel in four regular states and

33

Including students with disabilities

involves more than identifying the

numbers of students participating in

assessments. It involves considering

the available alternative assessments,

the guidelines for determining who

participates, and the allowable

testing accommodations and

adaptations.
Including Students With Disabilities

one unique state. In two replar

states, the special education

personnel estimate higher inclusion percentages than the general

assessment personnel. In two

other states and one unique state,

special education individuals

estimate lower percentages than

the assessment personnel.

Better data are needed on the

educational outcomes of students

with disabilities. A first logical

step would be to find out how

many students with disabilities

actually participate in existing

assessment systems. The next

step would be to look at the

variability in rates to determine

ways to reduce it.

Accommodations

Table/3

States use many types of decision

rules for inclusion. These rules

take into consideration the level

of service received, time in

general education, student

characteristics, and undefined

decisions made at the local level

(usually at the school level).

Almost two thirds of the states

with inclusion guidelines allow

the decision to be made at the

local level.

Approximately one third of the

states use criteria such as student

specific characteristics, level of

service received and time in

general education. Over two

thirds of the states use a combination of criteria or decision

rules. State personnel noting

"other" in their responses identified the following types of considerations in their decision rules

about inclusion: IEPs, state

laws/board rules, extent of

cognitive disability, and courses

for which the student is

mainstreamed. The emphasis on

local control is evident in the

types of decision rules used by

states.

Table 14

Responsibility for deciding

whether to include specific

students with disabilities is often

given to the IEP team. This is the

case in more than three fourths of

the states. Principals are identified as key decision makers in

twenty-four percent of the states.

An emphasis on local control is

evident in who makes decisions

about inclusion.

Figure 9

Many states have written rules

about the inclusion of students

with disabilities. The thirty-seven

states and four unique states that

have formal or written guidelines

for inclusion decisions are

shaded in Figure 9. Despite these

guidelines, questions remain

about how consistently they are

implemented in different settings. Variationf, in participation

can be attributable to whether

4 1

decision makers include or

exclude students with disabilities

in large-scale assessments.

Figure 10

Accommodations in testing

procedures often are necessary

when students with disabilities

participate in general education

assessments. State education

agencies in thirty-three regular

and two unique states publish

formal or written guidelines. In

forty-six regular and six unique

states, accommodations of some

type are allowed.

Table 15

There are four main types of

accommodations for students

with disabilities: alternate

presentation mode, alternate

response mode, flexibility of time

limits, and flexibility of setting.

Table 15 presents the types of

accommodations allowed by

states and further indicates the

types of alternate presentations

and responses allowed by each

state. Alternate presentation

modes include Braille, oral

reading, sign language, large

print materials, and other IEPdetermined modes. Alternate

response modes include the use

of computers, oral responses,

sign language, and other IEPdetermined modes. Numerous

states indicated that all of these

types of accommodations are

available upon request

34
E3 Shaded states have alternative achievement assessments NHMA RI CTNJ DE MD 4 2 American Samoa Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) District of Cclumbia (DC) Guam Palau Puerto Rico (PR) Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)

3
I . 50 Regular States

5 Zi``i. z' "

"--

` " :.3%

% '

'`,,, * 'f1 , ;.. i s,r, n'1:1..-:: . L-:::,.:.-- --. ";.:.', ,..--'-' -

..'1,. -4-z-z-',.%...-z -- z,40,--,.4.C'4V ,-- , , ,

",

2.-:,;%,"?;:.:3, 4 :... v"- ,5 4 3.. , 4., .3% z 4.34;3

4;-,-

" " 4",,, , . \ ' ` s, a 4-0:3z-.; w..`k , 9 Unique States

Tv. 57; %, *". rza e` V , Zasil

s ?;..6 '<se, Vs? . / s (

-

5

''.1.:40.f,Z);k,...1....Z.? 1.

' `.'5 Z

, "

,

A - t

< <

a

teM,,

<41

, g'Sree.t."'ht

Sze
E. Shaded states have achievement data N HMA RI CTNJ DE M D ct, HI 4 .3 L. I I.. I American Samoa Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) District of Columbia (DC) Guam Palau Puerto Rico (PR) Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) 4 6
Including Students With Disabilities Table 12 Estimated Participation

Estimated Participation of Students with\Disabilities in State Achievethent Assessmegts

STATE

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska*

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

38
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

STATE

o\o

sic

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma*

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming*

Am Samoa

BIA

DC

Guam

CNMI

RMI

Palau

Puerto Rico

USVI

This information was unavailable or students didn't participate in assessment.

39

State Special Education Outcomes 1992

STATE

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

S

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Am Samoa

BIA

DC

Guam

CNMI

RMI

Palau

Puerto Rico

USVI

0 I

41
Including Students with Disabilities i Table 14 Decision Makers for Inclusion

'Decision Makers for Inclusion in S.4. e Assessments

STATE

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New jersey

42

5 Ej Shaded states have formal/written rules NHMA RI CTNJ DE MD American Samoa Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) District of Columbia (DC) Guam Palau Puerto Rico (PR) Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) 5
. 0 71 = Formal/Written Guidelines Reported I I MA RI CTNJ DE MD American Samoa Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) District of Columbia (DC) Guam Palau Puerto Rico (PR) Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) 5 6
Including Students with Disabilities Table 15. Accommodations Allowed

Testing Accommodations Allowed by States

85 49

o

;qp. co

.14P45 o

o

e, .

) ;S:e a 4Z- 4.

b

0, ar4' 1 c2 tb

C .. ti t p - ..- 4)

ilp (*. ...? Ci. 4? c., < N.e e rt, ..) ....0 e e

4Z. V ,S5 q K" V ),

ksf) 4 ,F,- c 4

1(11 q 45 r s

STATE Accommodation Type Alternate Presentation Alternate Response

Alabama I I 1 1 1 1 1 If

Alaska 1 1 I 1 1 /

Arizona 11 4/11 1111/1 1111

Arkansas 1 1 1 1 11.111 1 1 i

California 1 1 I

Colorado 1 1 1

Connecticut I / 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1

Delaware I 1 1 1

Florida sty 11/ 11/11 1

Georgia I I 1 I 11111 1 III

Hawaii I .1 1 I 11(111 1111

Idaho 1 ,,, 1 1

Illinois 1 1 1

Indiana 1 ,,I 1 1 1 1 1 11 1

Iowa*

Kansas 1 ,/ 1 1 11111 1

Kentucky I ,,, 1 1 I ,/./ I 11/1

Louisiana -1/ 11/ 11111 1111

Maine 1 it 1 1 1/111 /IV/

Maryland 1 se i 1 1

Massachusetts se 1 i ae 1 /1/1 1 1 1

Michigan 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

Minnesota*

Mississippi 1 / 1 1 1 / / / / / /

Missouri 1 1 1 1 I 1

Montana*

Nebraska*

Nevada 1 / 1 se 1/11 11 1

New Hampshire / lie i it 1 1

New Jersey 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 it i /

4 6
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

1§,

4) .e ,=1

os, ..z. 4,

* -k- co At- .<- e 45 .? 0 Z :) 0 C

.7' N.

e a? 4 475 -S" 03 4

.s 4 e 1

e

41) e e iz) 0 . ecr STATE Accommodation Type Alternate Presentation Alternate Response

New Mexico /jilt / IIIII le 1 1 /

New York i //I it I/ /II se.,/ /

North Carolina of I / of /././., It ////

North Dakota 1 It I it / /

Ohio I lotIl I/I/I I /I se

Oklahoma 1 I I/II It /

Oregon 11/1/ 11/1/ It I( Ile Ile

Pennsylvania 1 I 1 1 J/JII I/ I of

Rhode Island / I if 1 I

South Carolina 1 / 1 1 i / I 1 I /

of I I 1

Tennessee 1111 1 1 st if

Texas /I/I 1/111 se II /

Utah 1 I

Vermont

Virginia / //se It / 1 st 1 1

Washington 1111 of 1 se of i

West Virginia 1 1 se of

Wisconsin 1 et 1 I 1111/ 1/1 of

Wyoming

Am Samoa 11/1 1 1 / 1

BIA at I 1 1

DC of 1

Guam

CNMI*

RMI*

Palau 1 1

Puerto Rico 1 1( if /

I TRW

Thane was no rsaponsa.

47
State Needs

Barriers to Outcomes Assessment and Assistance Needs

Table 16

Specific barriers to successful

assessments have been listed in

Table 16. These were identified by

either the state director of special

education or by assessment

personnel in each state. The most

prevalent barriers were related to

system-wide issues, data use, and

assessment instruments. Two

states identified additional

barriers to outcomes assessment:

shortage of funding and lack of

statewide consensus.

Table 17

States identify a range of

assistance needs, asTable 17

illustrates. Sixty percent of the

states think there is a need to

increase stakeholder awareness of

the value of outcomes information

and forty-four percent believe

technical advice is critical. The

two states having responses in the

"other" category mention funding

and the development of

assessment tools.

5

Successful state assessments of

educational outcomes for students

with disabilities are becoming more

important for tzvo reasons. One,

because educational reforms are

gaining public attention, and two,

because parents and policymakers are

asking educators to use accountability

systems that focus on the results of

education. In the process of assessing

educational outcomes, states identify

specific barriers to outcomes

assessment and a range of assistance

needs.

49
State Needs Table 16 Barriers to Outcomes Assessment

Percived Barriers to Outcomes Assessment

STATE

41). 4, 0 e

0

cg, ,0 0 so

/1 cPobfl

c, (0 c ...

;1/4:9 ,--.9 co° 4, .;7? .c. 4,

e e- 41 0

, .... ....'l

...1

4,s: C> e 45 &

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

0

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

_Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

50
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

co z

gfc. e

:4/ 4")

etr 0 gr

STATE

0 0 C

4.>

..t...;er 2*-r'' 00 :." . co '

,

Gy o '.. ca. o

c ci q''.. ? co 1 efc9 0 cf ,C" -,

czi qy -c-' cf,' cz 0

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Am Samoa

BIA

DC

Guam

CNMI

RMI

Palau

Puerto Rico

USVI

6

51

State Special Education Outcomes 1992

STATE

0

0) 4-'0 -..-- b fer

gcr A: si.

%.- .<0 ..,e 0/... . New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Am Samoa

BIA

DC

Guam

CNMI

RMI

Palau

Puerto Rico

USVI

53
Practices, Programs, and Plans

Practices, Programs, and Plans Related to Outcomes

Table 18

States are engaging in many

outcomes-related practices and

making plans for future state-level

outcomes activities. Table 18 lists

the general categories of

outcomes-related activities being

emphasized in states, according to

the responses of State Directors of

Special Education.

Most states with computer/

management information systems

have invested in data management systems to maintain

comprehensive records of special

education students' school

careers. Some of these systems

(e.g., Ohio, USVI) are being

designed to follow students after

they leave school.

States that mentioned coordination with general education often

had joint efforts between special

education and general education

when designing assessment

systems (e.g., Arkansas, BIA,

California, Georgia, Minnesota,

New Mexico). States also mentioned efforts to increase cooperation and collaboration between

special education and general

education at all levels within their

states.

Several states now have transition/follow-up/follow-along

programs. These efforts to collect

outcomes information on former

students usually start with federal

funds and often involve state

departments of education.

Almost all of the assessment/

measurement and testing

programs are aimed at collecting

better information on the achievement of students with disabilities

(e.g., California, Michigan, North

Carolina).

A few states (e.g., Arkansas,

Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana, Rhode

Island) have begun formalizing

their shift to an outcomes-oriented

focus through their state agency.

Several states incorporate

outcomes-oriented principles by

implementing initiatives such as

outcomes-based education

models, performance assessments,

performance accreditations, and

collaborative teaching methods.

Additionally, states are increasing

assessment participation, including special education in learner

outcomes, and developing state

indicators.

6 4

55

Compared to 1991, states are more

active in assessment innovations. In

all the categories but assessment!

testing programs, the number of

states reporting new initiatives is

significantly higher in 1992. The

greatest activity increase bccurs in

the area of coordination with general

education followed by substantial

increases in the use of computer/

management information systems,

transition/follow-uplfollow-along

programs, and modelslindicators.
Practices, Programs, and Plans Table 18

Practices, Firlograms and Plans of States

STATE

J-... <ES.- 0, 42

.. ft> o 4 $* :.9 <- 3

e 4.. o - -z,* -7 -J \c-

..S` .1.-_- . c- -:) 0, 42 117 tli ii," i7i. .. 4.. o

.6' $' o c o o ig 47 k`: 0

... qc

l

vs. 0

,. *-' eC Cet "*. - 0 17 0

4..) CI 0 0

C ke 0 0 ',4:- 0 \

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

6 ,)

56
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

STATE 0

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Am Samoa

BIA

DC

Guam

CNMI

R NH

Palau

Puerto Rico

USVI

57
State Highlights

Arizona . Signed into law by the Arizona

State Legislature on May 16, 1990,

the Arizona Student Assessment

Program (ASAP) exists as a

comprehensive program to improve teaching, learning and

assessing in the Arizona schools.

It consists of six components:

1) Essential skills

2) Performance-based assessment

3) Norm-referenced testing

4) District Assessment Plan

5) Essential skills completion

report

6) District and school report

cards.

The ASAP initiative emerged

from public concern about student

achievement, accountability and

assessment. It was developed to

create a new approach to curriculum and assessment that would

achieve higher standards and

more meaningful assessments of

students' knowledge and skills.

To that end, the key components

of ASAP were the essential skills

competencies and the performance-based assessments.

Arizona uses two types of assessments to measure student

achievement: norm-referenced

and performance-based assessment. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills

(ITBS) is administered at grades 4,

7, and 11. These tests provide the

state with a way to compare their

students' achievement.

Arizona is developing a set of

performance-based assessments to

test students' knowledge and

measure those skills that correspond with the essential skills

competencies. These competencies

form a state curriculum framework and consist of representative

skills across five academic

domains: reading, writing, mathematics, social studies, and

science. The skills require higherorder thinking, stress integrated

problem-solving capabilities and

define what students should

know and be able to do by the end

of 3rd, 8th, and 12th grades.

Assessments are developed

according to Department of

Education specifications and

undergo a lengthly review process

to detect gender and/or cultural

biases. A total of 201 performancebased assessments exist within the

K-12 block in the areas of reading,

mathematics and writing. These

assessments serve both accountability and instructional purposes.

Each spring, all students in grades

3, 8 and 12 are formally assessed

with one form of the performancebased assessment. Two other

parallel forms have been developed for teachers to use in each

grade for instructional planning,

instruction, or assessment.

An Arizona statute requires that

all students have the opportunity

to master the essential skills and

59

NCEO periodically visits states to

find out more about how they assess

the outcomes of students with disabilities. One goal of this activity is to

gain a better understanding of the

context in which assessments occur,

and how this forms the basis for

decisions to proceed in one way rather

than another.

During 1992, NCEO staff visited

Arizona, Kentuclay, Michigan, and

Utah. They talked to many individuals and looked at numerous documents. They found that each state

approached the assessiment of educational outcomes of students with

disabilities differently. These approaches were highlighted, along with

some of the context that influences

the direction of assessment, and

presented here.
State Highlights Arizona, Kentucky, Michigan, and Utah

participate in the performancebased assessments. Therefore,

students with disabilities who are

exempt from the norm-referenced

testing have the opportunity to be

included in the performancebased assessments. Performancebased assessments can be done

using a mediated assessment for

those students with an IEP under

the Individuals with Disabilities

Eduation Act (PL 101-476), or with

an accommodation plan under

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Act of 1973.

Formal guidelines for mediated

assessment have been established

as part of ASAP. Mediation refers

to any assistance relating to a

student's disability or special

circumstances and given to that

student by the test administrator.

Examples include flexible time

allocation, flexible setting, visual

aids, and translations of English

text. Limited English Proficiency

students who fall within the

guidelines may take the assessment with mediation. Spanish

versions of the performance-based

assessment at all three grade

levels are offered to eligible

Spanish-speaking children as

determined by their teachers.

The performance-based assessments were piloted in spring 1992

to provide baseline data of student performance and to determine the reliability and validity of

measuring the standards. A total

of 113,000 students participated,

including students with disabilities. Assessment results were

published in the summer of 1992,

with data reported by district,

school, special program, primary

language, ethnicity, and gender.

The Arizona Department of

Education requires each school

district to complete and submit a

District Assessment Plan. The

purpose of the plan is to report

how and when students will be

assessed on the essential skills

throughout the grades. Districts

are required to set mastery levels

for the essential skills in reading,

writing and mathematics and to

describe how they will report and

use the results of assessments.

Starting in spring 1993, districts

are also required to report the

percent of 3rd, 8th and 12th grade

students who achieve those levels.

Districts may use a variety of

testing options to assess the

essential skills and can include the

district's own criterion-referenced

tests or portfolio assessments, or

the state's performance-based

assessments.

Since all students are expected to

learn the essential skills, districts

must consider the needs of all

students when developing the

District Assessment Plan. District

plans must include assurance

statements that reflect the inclusion of students in Chapter 1,

vocational, bilingual, Indian,

migrant, and Special Education

programs. IEP teams also need to

continue identifying the appropriate type and level of essential

skills that students are expected to

master.

Implementation of ASAP is

intended to help develop inclusion rather than exclusion from

6

the performance-based assessment program for students with

disabilities. The Arizona Department of Education has published

the results of 67 ASAP performance assessments at the state

level, norm-referenced data at

both the state and district level,

and in 1993, ASAP assessments at

the district and school level.

Kentucky

The Kentucky Reform Act (KERA)

of 1990 forms the basis for massive change in the state's educational system. It is the result of a

lawsuit brought against Kentucky

by the Coalition for Better Education (CBE), which represents 65

school districts. The successful

1988 lawsuit finds the state's

funding mechanisms inequitable

and mandates that the educational

system be redesigned.

The cornerstone of this reform

effort has been its commitment to

a unitary system of education. In

this, special education has been

involved from the outset, especially in the mandated reform

committees (Curriculum, Governance, and Finance). The Curriculum Committee has established

six learning goals for all students,

and built a set of 75 valued outcomes related to the six goals.

These outcomes have been developed with the input of the business and educational communities, including special education.

To measure progress toward the

outcomes, an assessment system,

the Kentucky Instructional Results

60
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

and Information System (KIRIS),

has been established. Based on the

principles of outcome-based

education, KIRIS seeks to include

all students in the assessment and

accountability processes under

KERA. The KIRIS assessments

come under the direction of

content area advisory committees

with members from the Department of Education, the University

of Kentucky, and Advanced

Systems for Measurement and

Evaluation. There are three parts

to KIRIS:

Transitional items - include

multiple choice and openended probes for written

language, mathematics,

science, social studies, and

reading

III Writing portfolios include

each student's best work from

one school year

0 Performance events are

planned activities that call for

students to solve simulated,

real-life problems.

Students' results are reported in

four performance levels: novice,

apprentice, proficient, and distinguished. All students in grades 4,

8, and 12 are assessed.

For students' with disabilities who

become exempt by the action of

an Admissions and Release

Committee (ARC), there is an

alternative assessment system: the

Alternate Portfolio Assessment.

This program is for those students whose demonstrated cognitive ability and adaptive behavior

prevents completion of the regular course of study even with

program modifications. Schools

may not place more than 2% of

their population in the Alternate

Portfolio. Schools that do exceed

this percentage are monitored by

the state agency. The key concepts

of the Alternate Portfolio are:

1) Scores of students participating

in the assessment are weighted

equally with those of students

participating in the regular

assessment for the school's

accountability purposes

2) No preconceived notionexists

on what entries to the student's

portfolio must look like, providing that each entry is related

to the state's valued outcomes.

The unique part of Kentucky's

approach under KERA is the

expenditure of significant resources to assure that all students

are included in the state assessment system.

The Michigan Department of

Education collects student

achievement data through the

Michigan Educational Assessment

Program (MEAP). Students are

tested on state essential performance objectives for reading,

mathematics, and science. Reading and math are assessed in

grades 4, 7, and 10; science is

tested in grades 5, 8, and 11.

MEAP tests are criterion-referenced, standardized achievement

batteries. Results are intended to

document changes in student

achievement relative to the essential skills for each content area.

61

Data are reported at each level

and can be used by individuals,

schools, and districts. Students

with disabilities are included in

MEAP if they receive fifty-one

percent or more of their reading

or English instruction in the

mainstream setting. Local school

personnel may also exclude a

student if he or she is "too physically, mentally, or emotionally

impaired to manage in a testing

situation." Approximately ten

percent of the 1990-1991 MEAP

students are students with disabilities. The Department of

Education estimates that about

eighteen percent of students with

disabilities who were potential

participants are included in the

assessment.

Recent changes in assessment

practices for Michigan were made

by the State School Aid Act of

1991. It mandates each student to

have a portfolio containing

records of planning, academic

achievements, recognition and

accomplishments, and career and

job preparation. It also requires

the state to develop a new proficiency testing system in communication, mathematics, and science

(and perhaps others) to determine

student eligibility for a stateendorsed diploma. The State

Board of Education makes the

decision about inclusion or exclusion of students with disabilities

in the new testing program.

The Special Education Unit of

Michigan has Leen involved in

outcomes planning and evaluation since 1987. It has contracted

with the Center for Quality
State Highlights m Arizona, Kentucky, Michigan, and Utah

Special Education (CQSE) to

develop comprehensive descriptions and evaluations of student

outcomes for each disability

category. The emphasis of

Michigan's outcomes effort has

been to guide individual student

evaluation and instruction.

CQSE delineates broad learner

outcomes that are further defined

by age level performance indicators (called On-Target Abffities).

It has Exit Performance Assessrnents that evaluate a student's

progress toward specific outcomes and evaluations that profile

a learner's overall performance.

Learner profiles show each OnTarget Ability scored on a scale

from "emerging skill" to "strong

skill." These profiles serve as a

basis to transform outcomes into

objective statements to be used for

IEP planning. Student profiles

that show some percentage of

objectives met may be aggregated

for school district or state reports.

Using Special Education outcomes

materials is optional. But, the

Outcomes Training Project.

provides a major effort in professional development. Over 9000

professionals have been trained to

use CQSE materials.

'Utah

In 1990, Utah replaced its fifteenyear-old assessment program

with the Statewide Testing Program. This program developed in

response to concerns about school

accountability for student achievement and interest in a system that

allowed for quantifiable

comparisions of student achievement. The state legislature mandated an annual statewide testing

program that uses a norm-referenced achievement test. The

Stanford 8 was chosen to assess all

students in grades 5, 8 and 11.

The Statewide Testing Program

uses NAEP exclusion criteria,

making students exempt from

testing if they: (1) are in the

mainstream setting less than 50%

of the school day, (2) meet Limited English Proficiency criteria,

or (3) meet emergency exclusion

criteria. The Department of

Education provides Braille and

large print editions of the Stanford

8 as part of the program. It

encourages staff to make other

accommodations as necessary to

obtain information about the

student, but those results are not

included in the school profile.

The department does not monitor

exclusion per se, but publishes

both the results of the test and the

participation rates. An estimated

97% of the student population in

grades five and eight and 92% in

grade eleven participate in the

statewide test. The state-mandated testing gives a school by

school and district by district

comparison of academic achievement scores of students.

Utah also has a separate assessment program known as the Core

Assessment Program (CAP). This

voluntary program supports

classroom instruction; it is not an

accountability system. CAP

consists of a series of criterionreferenced tests (CRTs) that are

62

designed to test concepts in

Utah's Core Curriculum.

Neither CAP nor the Core Curriculum are mandated, but both

result from State Board of Education graduation requirements

established in 1984. Those requirements demand that all

students master certain elements

of the Core Curriculum, including

students with disabilities unless

they are exempted or modified by

an IEP (on a case by case basis).

Districts must assess student

performance on the Core Curriculum through a criterion measure

of their choice, however most

districts use some piece of the

Core Assessment Program. Information about student performance is provided at the individual, school, district, and state

levels. Data are not disaggregated

for special education populations.

Schools are not required but are

strongly encouraged to share CAP

information with parents.

Additionally, Utah has been

developing performance assessments with a model that uses

eight evaluative criteria and

considers the needs of districts

and teachers. The first phase of

assessments, scheduled for implementation in 1993, includes math,

science and social studies. It

consists of four exercises per

grade level for teachers to use and

one cumulative exercise per grade

level for districts to conduct a

district-level assessment. Possible

expansion of the model into other

curriculum areas depends on how

well it works in the first phase.
State Activities in

Selected Outcomes Areas

71
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

ALABAMA

ALASKA

ARIZONA

Alabama collects information using the Integrated Reading and Writing Assessment for Grade

Two, the Basic Competency Tests (BCT) (grades 3,

6, & 9), the Stanford Achievement Test (grades 4

& 8), the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (grades

4 & 8), the Alabama Direct Assessment of Writing:

Grade Five, the Alabama Direct Assessment of

Writing: Grade Seven, the Algebra I End-of-Course

Test, and the Alabama High School Graduation

Examination (AHSGE). All are part of a general

education effort. All assessments are administered twice (fall and spring) in grades 11 and 12

(students first take the examination in the fall of

the 11th grade; those failing have additional

opportunities to pass as they proceed in

school). The decision to include a student with

disabilities is made by the student's IEP committee. Test accommodations, if needed, are

available.

Alaska started collecteng information in 1989

using the Iowa Test of Basic Skills in grades 4, 6,

and 8. All areas in the test are used, which

includes reading (including vocabulary),

language (including spelling) and math. All

achievement data are collected annually (in

designated grades) through a general education

effort. All students with disabilities participate

in the assessment, unless the IEP states that this

measurement is inappropriate for the child. The

collected information is presented in an annual

report and used to provide the state department with basic information on school districts.

In addition, the information is also reported to

parents and used for accountability purposes.

For 10 years, Arizona has been collecting

information on reading, math, and language

arts using the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and the

Tests of Achievement and Proficiency. Administration of these instruments is required once a

year in grades 2-11, and optional in grades 1

and 12. All students with disabilities participate

to the extent recommended by the IEP team.

The tests are administered locally. A contractor

scores the locally administered tests and

submits reports to the local units and state unit.

The information is thus used to produce both

state and local reports.

Alabama collects employment information on

special education students who have been

placed in jobs by vocational education programs. Data are gathered by local units, using

state-developed follow-up questionnaires, and

are reported to the state. This type of information has been gathered for about 10 years,

mostly on students considered to have mild

disabilities. Reports are sent to local education

agencies and to the legislature where the

information is used for funding requirements

and related decisions.

Arizona temporarily collects information on

unemployment, emrollment in school, and

living arrangements for all special education

students as part of a Federal Grant. Multiple

sources, including teachers, parents, and

students are used in the information-gathering

effort. The information that is collected is used

for program evaluation.

64
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

Vocational Skills Functional Livin Attitudes and As irations

Data located elsewhere for summary

purposes.

65

Alabama collects data on vocational

interest, aptitude, and aspirations using

the Differential Aptitude Tests with Career

Interest Inventory. This information is

collected in the 9th grade through a

general education effort. The decision

whether to include a student with

disabilities is made by the student's IEP

committee. Limited test accommodations are available. If the assessment is

deetned inappropriate, an individual

vocational evaluation is available

through Vocational Rehabilitation.
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State

"11101111110, ..1111

Academic Achievement Post-School Status

ARKANSAS

CALIFORNIA

COLORADO

Arkansas collects information using both the

state-developed Minimum Petforrnance Tests

(grades 3, 6, 8) and the Stanford Achievement

Ta,ts (gradeS 5, 7, 10). State-developed test

information is collected on reading achievement

in grades 3, 6, and 8, on math achievement in

grade 3, and on language arts, social studies,

and science in grades 6 and 8. The test is used in

grades 3 and 6 to formulate an academic

improvement plan, and in grade 8 to determine

promotion to 9th grade. With the Stanford,

information is collected on reading (including

word knowledge and word analysis), math,

language (including spelling), science, and

social studies in grades 5, 7, and 10. All achievement information is collected once during the

designated grades through a general education

effort that started in approximately 1983. All

students with disabilities participate in the

state-developed tests "if applicable." Only those

students with disabilities who are receiving

resource level help are included in the Stanford

testing (i.e., those in self-contained classes are

excluded). Generally, participation in the

testing program is left to the discretion of the

students, parent, and/or district. Arkansas also

sends the data to an outside contractor, who

returns a report to the state. The Metropolitan is

used internally to assess school district performance and is included in state reports.

California used the California Assessment

Program (CAP) since the mid 1970s to collect

information on reading comprehension, math

calculation, spelling, and written language in

grades 3, 6, 8, and 12. These data were collected

annually (in the designated grades). The

system has been suspended and a new approach was pilot-tested during 1991-92. In the

former system, local schools administer group

tests that are sent to the state. Information on

the new system was not provided.

Since 1984, Colorado has annually collected

data on placements after preschool for all

students with disabilities. Data are collected by

the University of Colorado on placements after

preschool (grades K-12) in comparison to

children without preschool

experience.Variables range from language

scores to educational costs. The data are used

for planning, particularly related to PI. 99-457.

7

66
State S ecial Education Outcomes 1992

Vocational Skills Functional Livin Attitudes and As !rations

7:1)

67
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State

CONNECTICUT

DELAWARE

FLOR:DA

Academic Achievement Post-School Status

Connecticut collects achievement information

in math, language arts, and writing in grades 4,

6, and 8 using the state criterion-referenced

Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT). This locally

implemented general education effort is managed, scored, and reported at the state level.

The CMT has been given annually since 1985.

Students with disabilities have participated

since 1989-90. While any student with a

disability may participate, 60-75% of those who

do are students with mild disabilities (LD,

SED). CMTdata are used for: (1) reporting to

the state, (2) reporting to districts, (3) reporting

to parents, (4) program evaluation, (5) assessing

students' basic skills and need for remedial

help, (6) accountability and equity issues, and

(7) assessing special education outcomes.

For academic achievement, Delaware's*general

education unit collects math, reading, and

language arts data in grades 3, 6, 8, and 11

using the Stanford Achievement Test for all

students, unless exempt by IEP or a local level

decision. Contractors annually collect data in

the districts and submit it to the state where it

gets reported back to schools, districts, Chapter

1, and parents. In addition, the information is

used for accountability purposes. The special

education unit also collects grades in all course

work for all secondary-level students. Districts

submit transcripts to the state from 9th grade

and the year of exit. The state uses the information for decisions about transition.

Florida uses a state criterion-referenced high

school graduation test to measure minimum

student performance standards in communications and mathematics for all 11th grade

students. It has a norm-referenced test for all

students in grade 10. Students with disabilities

are not required to participate. Score reports are

provided and national comparison data included for those students who took the test

under standardized conditions. A new writing

performance test is being given in grades 4, 8,

and 10. Although participation has not yet

been determined, student responses will be

holistically scored according to a specified

rubric. Districts administer the tests and the

state provides scoring and reporting services.

All programs generate student, school, district,

and state level information.

7

Delaware has two postsecondary status grants:

1) to develop a transition model, and 2) to

develop a follow-along tracking system from

9th grade through 2-3 years post school. The

special education unit collects district information on employment, wages, living arrangements, and school enrollment for all special

education students in 9th grade and the year of

exit. Districts collect and submit data to the

state. Started in 1989, the follow-up grant

annually conducts telephone interviews for all

disability groups. This enables cross-file access

and tracking of individual students. The state

uses the information for long range planning

and for evaluation of program effectiveness.

The Florida Education Training and Placement

Information Program (FETPIP) and OSEP grant

personnel are using multiple sources to collect

information on the type of employment (military, private sector, or civil service), quarterly

wages, and post-secondary education of

graduating special education students (1-2

years post-school). Information is collected

locally and reported to the state. The state uses

the data to report back to the districts. The

program has been operating since 1989.

68
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

Vocational Skills

The special education unit annually

collects for the state: grades in vocational courses, types of support needed

for employment, and types of work

experience students had in school. For

several years, the data have been

collected through transcripts and exit

interview forms for all students with

disabilities in grades 9 and 12, and on

exit information forms for all students in

grade 12. The data are used for: deciding long-term planning for adult

services, providing feedback to the

districts, evaluating program quality

and effectiveness, and making program

changes.

The Division 0' Vocational Adult and

Community Education annually collects

data on vocational program enrollment,

completion, and placement of grades 7-

12 and post-school students within one

year of program cvmpletion. Forms

indicate who completes programs and

who gains marketable skills. The data

have been collected locally since 1986

and reported to the state where it is

used to: report to the districts, match

individuals to employment, mcnitor

enrollment in community colleges and

universities, report an analysis to the

State Board of Vocational Education,

legislatLre and other agencies, and

evaluate tite program. A 1992 bill, 1-113

167, will help study the progress of

disabled students in these programs.

Functional Livim Attitudes and Aspirations

7

Information located elsewhere for

summary purposes.

69
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State

GEORGIA

HAWAII

Academic Achievement Post-School Status

Georgia collects information once a year on

reading, math, writing, science, social studies,

work study skills, and school readiness. A new

statewide testing program is using state criterion-referenced tests: the (1991-92) Georgia

Curriculum-Based Assessments in grades 3,5, and

8 (for science, social studies, language arts,

reading, mathematics, and writing) and the

Georgia Basic Skills Test (GBST) in grade 10 (for

reading, mathematics, and writing). Two normreferenced tests are used: the Iowa Test of Basic

Skills (ITBS) for all students in grades 3, 5, and 8

(for reading and mathematics) and the Test of

Achievement and Proficiency (TAP) in grade 11

(on a matrix sampling in reading, mathematics,

written expression, science, and social studies).

For school readiness assessment, Georgia uses

the state-developed Georgia Kindergarten Test.

For all assessments, students with disabilities

are included "unless excluded," which according to written guidelines should only occur

when "the nature or severity of an individual's

handicapping condition may require exclusion

from the testing program." For all types of

assessment, the local district collects the data

and reports them to the state. The state uses the

information to: (1) report to the legislature, (2)

report to local units, (3) allocate remedial

education funds, and (4) conduct instructional

planning. The GBST also is used to determine

eligibility for graduation.

For more than 10 years, Hawaii has used the

Stanford Achievement Test to annually collect

data on reading, math, and language in grades

3, 6, 8, and 10. Since 1983, it has used the Hawaii

State Test of Essential Cornpetencies annually for

grades 10 and 11, and twice a year for grade 12.

These data are collected from all students,

including students with disabilities (unless

exempted under state-developed guidelines). A

local contractor gives the tests and reports the

data to the State Education Agency, where they

are reported to the legislature and the local

education agencies. The information helps to

make curriculum improvements and to determine eligibility for graduation. Students with

disabilities who pass the test receive a certificate. Those who do not pass, but meet their IEP

goals, receive a 'Program Certificate." A new

option gives a "Course Completion Certificate"

as a graduation certificate.

The Psychoeducational Network of Georgia

collects information on students with emotional disorders (ED) one year following high

school. Using a state-developed questionnaire, information is collected on employment, post-secondary schooling, military

service, and support services received by

these students. The information has been

collected and reported to the state education

agency since 1982. mae state uses the information for program planning.

70
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

Vocational Skills Functional Livina Attitudes and As irations

Measurable goals and accountability

measures for special populations will be

developed in conjunction with the

standards described in 115 of the Carl D.

Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology

Education Act of 1990. This will be fully

implemented during the 1992-93 school

year. Monitoring the annual evaluation

by local recipients ensures that the

programs meet these goals.

7;)

Hawaii has an evaluation section in

their state office that collects a

"General Graduation Satisfaction"

rating (satisfaction with public

education) from all students. In the

fall of 1990, Hawaii used the

Northwest Regional Education Lab

(a consulting firm) to produce a

report about special education. The

report included interviews with

stakeholders about their concerns,

problems, issues in special education, and satisfaction with programs. State board members,

district and state people, teachers,

principals, parents and students in

special education were interviewed. This was a one-time

evaluation project that might be

repeated occasionally.

71
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State

IDAHO

Academic Achievement Post-School Status

ILLINOIS

INDIANA

Idaho's Division of Instruction testing program

has a norm-referenced test with direct writing

samples. Since 1986, the Test of Achievement and

Proficiency has been given to all 11th graders

annually in reading, math, science, soc'il

studies, writing, problem-solving, and performance information. The locally collected data

are submitted to the state for analysis and

reporting to local districts and the legislature.

Additionally, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS)

has been used annually since 1985 to test

reading, math, science, and social studies for all

6th and 8th graders. A contractor collects the

data, submits them to the Division of Instruction, and reports to local districts and the

legislature. For 10 years, writing samples have

been collected from all students and submitted

to the state for scoring and reporting. Students

with disabilities participate unless they are

exempted by their school principal and teacher.

Districts are free to use the state recommended

tests or they may choose to use other tests.

The Illinois Goal Assessment Program tests for

mathematics, writing, and reading in grades 3,

6, 8, and 10, and for science and social studies

in grades 4, 7, and 11. The State Board of

Education develops the tests to determine how

schools are meeting goals for learning. Legislation (HB1890), adopted in 1992, says that

exemption from participation shall be made

only on an individual student basis as determined by the pupil's individualized program.

The state reports results to schools, school

districts, students, parents, and the legislature.

Indiana collects information on math and

English/language arts using the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP).

This general education data collection effort

only tests those students with disabilities who

are integrated for math and language arts.

Since 1986, testing has been conducted annually in grades 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 11 by local

districts that report results to the state. These

results identify students needing remediat;on

through summer school. (The first time a

student does not pass, that student is directed

to attend summer school. The second time, the

student is retained in grade.) Also, the assessment is one of four factors considered in

outcome-based accreditation for schools.

Idaho has been involved in postsecondary

projects since 1988. The current longitudinal

transition tracking program is conducted by

the University of Idaho and the spedal

education section of the Idaho Department of

Education. The state uses a locally developed

questionnaire once every year to assess

students' satisfaction with school programs,

employment status, residential placements,

accessibility to community services, and

social involvements. Students with disabilities are contacted prior to their graduation

and thereafter are contacted once a year for

three years. Sixty-six percent of the districts

participate. The information is being used to

report back to the local education agencies

and the legislature, and to conduct program

evaluations.

Indiana collects information on the numbers

of students who are pursuing higher education or post-secondary education/training.

This information is collected along with exit

data using the state form from the Division of

Informational Systems (general education).

Data are collected on all students before

leaving high school, but students with

disabilities are not separated from the total.

(Data are separated only by ethnicity and

gender.) Since 1975, the information has been

reported to the state annually and used for

monitoring accreditation.

72
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

73
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

IOWA Iowa uses a state-developed questionnaire to

get data on students with learning disabilities, behavioral disabilities, and mild mental

disorders (not low incidence disabilities).

This special education effort contracts with

area professional education agency staff to

interview students during summer months.

Since 1986, information has been collected on

former students one, three, and five years

post school. The data become a measure of

product effectiveness for the state, and have

implications for practice and policy.

KANSAS

KENTUCKY

LOUISIANA

Kansas collects information on reading and

math for all students in special education,

unless excluded by their IEPs. A state math test

is given to all students in grades 3, 8, and 10.

This information is reported to the state legislature and the state, and is used for accreditation

purposes. In 1993, tests in communication

(language arts), social skills, and science will be

given state-wide in the same grades.

Kentucky collects data in grades 4, 8, and 12

within three components: 1) transition items/

tasks (multiple choice, open-ended, and writing

prompts); 2) performance events; and 3) writing

portfolios. The transition component covers

mathematics, science, social science, and

writing. The performance component covers

writing, but will be expanded to include

mathematics. All special education students,

except those with severe disabilities, participate

in the regular education assessment. Future

tests will include those students with severe/

profound disabilities via an alternate portfolio.

In Louisiana, all students with disabilities

pursuing a high school diploma in regular

education take part in the assessments. In

grades 3, 5, 7, and high school, the Louisiana

Educational Assessment Program is used annually

to assess language arts and math. The 7th

graders are also assessed in written composition and high schoolers are tested in science and

social studies. Collected since 1988, the data are

used by ;he LEA and state to ensure student

masteryo grade level skills. Students with

disabilities in grades 4, 6, and 9 are assessed

annually using the California Achievement Test

(CAT), although students using test modifications are excluded from state performance

summaries. CAT data are used to compare state

performance with national norms.

74
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

Kentucky's accountability assessment

has a noncognitive component with one

indicator being "successful transition to

adult life." A successful graduate is: 1)

enrolled as a full-time postsecondary

school student; 2) employed at least 30

hours per week ("non-temporary"); 3)

an active member of the United States

military; or 4) any combination of the

above adding up to at least 30 hours

per week. School districts now track

graduates to determine who makes a

successful transition to adult life.

Louisiana collects information on the

vocational education enrollment of all

students with disabilities unless exempted. This combined general and

special education effort for assessing

students enrolled in vocational courses

will be implemented for the first time in

the 1992-93 school year. The information generated from this effort will be

used as required by Federal regulations.
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State

MAINE

Academic Achievement Post-School Status

MARYLAND

MASSACHUSETTS

MICHIGAN

Maine has developed a test for student achievement in reading, math, writing, social studies,

science, and the humanities. All students in

grades 4, 8, and 11 have been tested yearly

since 1985, including those with disabilities.

After schools submit the data to the state, a

contractor scores the tests. The state reports the

information back to the schools and includes

directions for how it should be shared with

parents. The information also helps plan staff

development and school improvement.

Maryland has developed functional tests for

grades 9-12 in reading, math, writing, and

citizenship. Since the early 1980's, all achievement data have been collected twice per year

through general education. All students with

disabilities pursuing high school diplomas

participate. The test results provide basic

information on school districts to the state

department, and help local schools determine

eligibility for graduation.

Massachusetts collects information biannually

through general education in grades 4, 8, and

12. The state-developed Massachusetts Education

Assessment Program (MEAP) uses both multiple

choice and open-ended questions and includes

sections on reading, math, language arts

(including a writing sample), social studies,

and science. Students with disabilities participate, unless exempted through their IEPs.

Scores for students receiving more then 25%

special education services outside of the regular

classroom are not included in scores reported

to school districts and individual student scores

are not provided. The state reports MEAP

results to school districts and the legislature.

Michigan collects information annually on

reading and math in grades 4, 7, and 10 and on

science in grades 5, 8, and 11. For 15 years, the

state-developed Michigan Educational Assessment

Program (MEAP) has been used by the state to

report back to districts, state boards, and parents.

Usually students with mild or sensory disabilities are

included, but participation is locally determined. By

1994, students must pass proficiency tests in

reading, math, and science in order to receive high

school diplomas with State Endorsement. Special

education students may be exempt by using approved alternative testing accommodations that meet

the individual needs of the student.

Maryland annually collects data on all

graduates, one year post school, using the

Statewide High School Graduate Follow-up

System. For 20 years, this program has

combined efforts of the state, general, vocational, and special education units. A mail

questionnaire collects data on attendance at

postsecondary schools, employment, and

income. The data are used for reports to the

local education agencies and the legislature.

The Special Education Unit of Massachusetts

uses the Exit Fact Data Report Sheets to collect

information on all special education students,

ages 14-22. (Data are collected on the number

of students going to college, the number

going to other post-secondary educational

opportunities, and the number employed in

regular and supported work places.) The

local agencies have reported to the state

annually, since 1985.

In Michigan, local districts conduct telephone

follow-up interviews of students with

disabilities (or with parent if necessary) one

year after the student has left school. This

special education effort includes all students

with disabilities and seeks data on marital

status, transportation, living arrangements,

recreational functioning, voting, driver's

license, employment, income, and happiness.

The information has been collected annually

since 1984, and is still being revised. The data

are collected locally and used in a statewide

report and district reports to help make

decisions about programs at the local level.

76 8 4
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

With the Division of Career and Technology Education, Maryland has

annually collected data on the vocational programs and services received

by students with disabilities over grade

8. For 10 years, local districts have used

it to evaluate programs, compare

handicapped with the nonhandicapped

populations, and prepare state and

federal government reports.

Data located elsewhere for summary

purposes.

Maine collects information on the

attitudes and future plans of

students through questions that are

included with tests.

Since 1984, Maryland has annually

collected data on parent and

teacher attitudes/satisfaction with

programs for students with disabilities at all grade levels. Special

education randomly samples 1/3

of the districts using state-developed questionnaires. The state

reports back to the local agencies

and the federal government.

77
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

MINNESOTA

MISSISSIPPI

MISSOURI

MONTANA

NEBRASKA

IL NEVADA

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mississippi uses the Stanford Achievement Test in

grades 3, 5, and 8. This annual assessment effort

started in 1985 and includes all children, though

students with severe disabilities usually do not

participate. The general education administration collects the data, profiles districts, and

determines services eligibility in local schools.

Additionally, since the late 1970s, coursework

grades have been collected on a case by case

basis for all students with disabilities at all age/

grade levels by teams of state department

employees who determine eligibility for service.

Nevada collects information using the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills in grades 3, 6, and 9.

Reading, math, and language are assessed

through a special education effort. All students

participate unless they are exempt.

New Hampshire uses the California Achievement

Test (CAT) annually in grades 4, 8, and 10 (for

reading, math, language, social studies, and

science). Since 1985, data have been jointly

collected by general and special education. All

students mainstreamed for at least 50% of the

time participate, unless the IEP team and

parents feel it is inappropriate. The data appear

in an annual state report and provide the SEA

with basic information on school districts.

A state-developed questionnaire collects data

on employment status and location, wages,

and post-secondary schooling for students in

all disability groups. The Department of

Vocational Education collects the data in

grade 12 and one year after exiting school.

Each school must report every five years for

federal reporting and the Perkins Reports.

Nebraska collects information on skills,

independence, leisure and social activities,

satisfaction, vocational success, and income.

Since 1988, these data have been collected

annually using surveys and interviews with

all students with mild or moderate retardation who exit programs.

Nevada annually (since 1990) collects information using parent, student, and teacher

telephone interviews for a sample of students

ftom all disability groups during their senior

year, and one and two years post high school.

New Hampshire collects information on

employment status, relevance of vocational

training, wages, hours per week employed,

and work performance ratings. These data

are collected annually (since 1982) on all

students with disabilities who are in vocational education programs. A vocational

education effort compiles and reports

data to local agencies.

78 86
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

Vocational Skills Functional Livinci Attitudes and As irations

Missouri collects data on state-developed forms for all students in grade 11

by local agencies and reported to the

SEA. They have been annually collected

for 10 years and used to report to local

districts and the legislature.

Data located elsewhere for summary

purposes.

Data located elsewhere for summary

purposes.

79
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State

NEW JERSEY

Academic Achievement Post-Schooi Status

NEW MEXICO

NEW YORK

New Jersey uses the state-developed High

School Proficiency Test (HSPT) in the 11th grade.

The HSPT annually collects information in

math, reading, and writing through a general

education effort that started in 1986. All students participate unless exempted due to

adverse effects of the testing situation and/or

because the goals and objectives in the IEP do

not address the HSPT proficiencies. The tests

are sent to the state agency where results are

reported back to the local districts. Local

districts use the HSPT to determine graduation

eligibility for individual students.

New Mexico collects data annually using the

New Mexico Reading Assessment, Achievement

Assessment (Reading, Language Arts, Math,

Science, Social Studies), and Direct Writing

Assessment. Since 1986, the reading test has been

given in grades 1 and 2, the achievement in

grades 3, 5, and 8, and the portfolio writing in

grades 4 and 6 (competency-based test). All

students participate, unless exempted (determined by IEP team), and scores go to the state

board for accountability purposes. The High

School Competency Exam (HSCE) i5 given to all

students, unless exempted by an IEP team, in

grades 10, 11, and 12 to determine diploma

awards. The HSCE has been given annually

since 1986 (with one extra administration for

seniors each Fall). Both types of tests are given

by the local districts and sent to a contractor

who forwards the information to the state.

Since 1965, New York annually collects information with the Pupi/ Evaluation Program Test

(PEPT). Through general education, all children

in grades 3 and 6 participate in the math and

reading subtests, and all students in grade 5

participate in the writing subtest. Local districts

report the scores to the state department where

the information helps determine which students need remediation and compares students

with disabilities to nondisabled students. The

Regents Competency Tests (RCTs) are administered to secondary level students with handicapping conditions, unless exempted, in

mathematics, science, reading, writing, global

studies and U.S. history and government.

These tests have been given annually since

1979-1980 with the results helping students'

decisions regarding graduation requirements.

New Mexico collects information on employment status and placement through teacher

and employer surveys/interviews. This

general education effort collects information

on employment status fcr all students (no

exception), but only students with mild

disabilities are included in the collection

efforts for job placement. All vocational

education information is used to report to the

LEAs.

80
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

Vocational Skills Functional Livinq Attitudes and As irations

81
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

NORTH

CAROLINA

NORTH

DAKOTA

North Carolina has changed its testing program. End-of-grade tests are being developed

for grades 3-8, and some end-of-course tests are

developed in several areas for grades 9-12. The

tests are multiple choice and open-ended and

are based on the North Carolina Standard

Courses of Study. These state tests replace the

California Achievement Test (CAT).

North Dakota collects information using the

reading, math, language, word analysis, study

skills, spelling, science, and social studies

portions of the Comprehensive Tests of Basic

Skills, Fourth Edition (CTBS/4). The CTBS has

been given annually since 1990 in grades 3, 6, 8,

and 11 to all general education students who

are able to read. Local districts administer the

test and report the results to the state for policy

making. In April of 1991, the North Dakota

legislature passed a bill mandating that schools

implement performance-based testing.

OHIO Ohio uses commercially prepared and statedeveloped proficiency tests. Since 1989, school

districts have selected commercially prepared

tests from an approved state list. These tests are

given to all children, if appropriate (the IEP

determines), annually in grades 4, 6, and 8 in

the areas of reading, mathematics, and language. Districts report the data to the state

where it is compiled and reported to the public

and the local districts. The four-part, statedeveloped tests are given twice a year to all

students unless exempted, beginning in grade

9, until passed. Seniors who pass all parts of the

9th grade proficiency test by January 1, 1994,

take the 12th grade test. Local districts collect

and report the information to the state.

OKLAHOMA

OREGON Since 1987, Oregon has had an assessment in

reading, math, written expression, and language arts for grades 3, 5, 8, and 11 that includes students with disabilities, sometimes

under modified conditions. Achievement data

in reading and math are collected annually

through a general education effort, reported in

the state's annual assessment report, and used

to compare districts of similar socio-economic

characteristics.

For the past ten years, the Vocational Education Department has annually interviewed

students for employment, postsecondary

education, and school satisfaction information. It is collected only for those enrolled in

vocational education. The state receives the

data from the local units and gives feedback

to local and state education agencies.

North Dakota collects information on

postsecondary experiences using a follow-up

survey or interview. A special education

effort collects information on all special

education students one year after exiting

high school. Beginning in 1990, state trained

people have been collecting the data from the

local districts. The information is used for

program improvements.

Since 1988, Oregon has been annually

collecting data on the last year of school and

two years post school. The school component

uses computer-assisted questionnaires given

to teachers, parents, and students through a

University of Oregon effort. The out-ofschool data are collected by computerized

telephone interviews. Students from all

disability categories are included and the

information is used for: (1) providing data for

state level policy, and (2) providing data for

local community program improvement.

82
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

Oregon collects data on employment

status, enrollment in and type of vocational education, and job placement of

all students with disabilities. Through a

special education and University of

Oregon effort, the data are collected

from teachers, parents, students, document reviews, and the Oregon FollowAlong Study. They are in reports to the

state legislature and to LEAs. They also

are used to generate internal SEA

reports and to evaluate SEA programs.

Data located elsewhere for summary

purposes.

9 i

OTHER AREAS: Ohio collects and

evaluates data about 1EP goals

achieved by the instructional area

for students in the Chapter 1 (89-

313) program. Progress is rated on

a three point scale: little/no improvement, moderate improvement, and much improvement.

The information is collected using a

state-developed form, for all

disability groups, ages 3-21.

Through a special education effort,

state supported and state operated

agencies have been reporting the

information to the state for more

than 10 years.

83
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

PENNSYLVANIA

RHODE ISLAND

SOUTH

CAROLINA

Pennsylvania collects general education information annually using the state-developed

competency test, TELLS, in grades 3, 5, and 8

for reading, math, and writing. This assessment

effort started in 1986 with locally-selected and

administered commercial achievement tests

also being used. Students with mild disabilities

(usually EMR, LD, SED) participate in the

assessment. The collected information is

reported to the state, and used to evaluate local

districts and provide them with feedback

regarding individual student status.

Rhode Island collects achievement information

in reading, math, and language arts, using The

Metropolitan Achievement Test. All students in

grades 3, 6, 8, and 10 participate in these

assessments unless individually exempted.

LEAs submit scores to the state agency. These

general education assessments have been

operating since 1983 with data being used for

feedback to LEAs and program evaluation.

South Carolina collects information in reading,

language/English, and mathematics using the

Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 8th edition) ii

grades 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11. Information also is

obtained through the Basic Skills Assessment

Program (BSAP): reading and math tests in

grades 1 and 2; reading, math, and science tests

in grade 3; reading, math, science, and writing

tests in grades 6 and 8; and reading, math and

writing subtests at the exit examination level.

The Exit Examination is given to all students in

the 10th grade. Students in the 11th and 12th

grades take any subtest(s) that they have not

previously passed. All data are collected

annually in the spring with 12th graders taking

the exit examination in the fall. All students

with disabilities participate unless they have

IEPs that specifically state that the testing

program is inappropriate. The collected information is reported to the state legislature, local

school districts, students, and parents. The data

are used to place students into the next grade

and for incentive programs. Students must pass

all three subtests of the Exit Examination in

order to receive a South Carolina High School

Diploma. Both testing programs are currently

being examined for revision.

84
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

SOUTH DAKOTA

TENNESSEE

TEXAS

South Dakota collects achievement data in

reading, mathematics, language, social science,

and science. The local general education units

administer the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT)

for grades 4, 8, and 11 and forward it to a

contractor who compiles results for the state

and local agencies. All students participate

unless exempted by school officials. Collected

since 1983, achievement data are used by the

state to give feedback to LEAs and to improve

the program. Information can be shared with

parents and Chapter I programs may use the

data for program evaluation. The SEA is using

the data in school accountability efforts for the

first time during 1992-93.

Tennessee uses the Tennessee Comprehensive

Assessment Program (T-CAP) in grades 2-8 and

10 (optional in grades 1, 11, and 12). Areas

include: reading, language, math, science, social

studies, and study skills. Started in 1989, this

general education program includes all students

with disabilities, unless the multi-disciplinary

team decides it is inappropriate. Results help to

monitor student improvement and determine

whether students obtain a regular diploma. The

state also administers the Tennessee Proficiency

Test twice per year in grades 9-12 for English,

reading, spelling, and math. It is not known

when this general education assessment started,

but all students with disabilities participate and

there are no exemption guidelines.

Texas collects information on reading, writing,

and math achievement using a state-developed

criterion-referenced test (CRT), the Texas

Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). This

general education effort includes all students,

with special education scores disaggregated

from other scores. An April 1992 Student

Assessment Transition Plan requires CRT

testing annually in grades 4, 8, and 10 (exit).

Students failing tile exit level test may retest in

grades 11 and 12. With results, the state develops district report cards and districts evaluate

student achievement. The state Norm-referenced

Assessment Program for Texas (NAPT) is required

in grades 3-11 for reading and mathematics. All

students are mandated by law to participate in

the NART or CRT testing, unless granted a

special education exemption by an admission,

review, or dismissal committee.

Texas conducts a survey of special education

students in transition that includes the

following: service needs of students with

disabilities, placement at graduation, and

outcomes of in-school and post-school

students. A new system is being developed

to report data in conjunction with the current

statewide data management system.

86
State S ecial Education Outcomes 1992

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

South Dakota collects information on

employment status, enrollment in

vocational educadon, type of vocational

program, and job placement of all

students with disabilities. The data,

collected through a joint special education and South Dakota Department of

Labor effort, are obtained from teachers

and students. The information is used to

report to the LEAs, SEAs, and the

Department of Labor.

Texas collects data using The Special

Education Outcomes Study. Developmental quotients of a sample of

approximately 1,000 special education

students (in all 9 disability areas) are

collected using developmental or

adaptive behavior assessments such as

the Vineland and Adaptive Behavior

Scales. Scores are from grade 12

assessments (or within past two years).

The data, collected locally in 1990

when the study began, are reported to

the state. The information will be

included in the overall profiles of the

sample students and eventually be

used to compare student outcomes

with types of programs, types of

disabilities, and adaptdve behavior

skills of students exiting high school.

87 4
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State

UTAH

Academic Achievement Post-School Status

VERMONT

VIRGINIA

WASHINGTON

Utah collects information on reading, math,

written expression, social studies, and science

using the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT). This

general education effort, begun in 1990, includes all students at all grade levels, except for

those students with multiple handicaps and

severe or profound disabilities. The information

helps &termine how students are doing

statewide. Utah is in the process of developing

a criterion-referenced assessment for reading,

math, art, music, vocational education, and

functional adaptive behavior skills.

Vermont uses Portfolio Assessments in grades 4

and 8. T'he areas tested are math and writing,

which are collected annually through a collaborative general and special education effort.

Started in 1991, this assessment effort includes

all students with disabilities. The information is

reported to the state and used to determine

school-wide performance, needed curriculum

changes, needed resources, and overall improvement of the "Vermont Landscape" of

which all students are a part.

Virginia collects information on reading,

mathematics, and written expression through

its Literacy Testing Program. Begun in 1989,

this program is implemented at grade 6 and is

basically a criterion-referenced system administered by the general education unit. Students

may be exempted by local decisions. Data are

also obtained through norm-referenced testing

(Iowa Test of Basic Skills grades 4 and 8; Tests of

Achievement and Proficiency, grade 11). Local

districts administer all tests and report to the

state. Information is used for feedback to the

schools and overall program improvement.

Washington 7ollects information on reading

and mathematics using the Metropolitan

Achievement Test (MAT) in grades 4, 8, and 11.

All students with disabilities may participate at

the discretion of parents and teachers. All

achievement data are collected annually

through the Assessment Unit. Contractors with

the test publishers compile the data and seld

them to the state, where they are used in

budget planning, state reports, and feedback to

the local units. This general education effort is

approximately 10 years old. Wzshington is

currently in the proc.,!ss of changing achievement tests.

Since 1988, Vermont has annually used a

post-secondary questionnaire to collect data

about employment, education, living arrangements, friendships, decision making,

wages, and school satisfaction on a sample of

students with disabilities who exit school.

Joint efforts of the Department of Education,

University of Vermont, Local Education

Agencies, and State Education Agency

compile the data into a statewide database to

modify programs and increase opportunities.

Virginia collects information on the post

secondary education and successful employment of all students with disabilities who

graduate from school or drop out by contacting them within one year of exiting school.

This information is collected by the Department of Rehabilitation, Department of

Mental Health/Mental Retardation, and the

Employment Commission. First piloted in

1989, the official data collection began in

1990 and is done annually. These data are

used to determine outcome indicators.

88
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

WEST VIRGINIA

WISCONSIN

WYOMINC

41.

AMERICAN

SAMOA

(Am Samoa)

West Virginia collects information on reading,

math, language arts, science, and social studies

for all students with disabilities unless they are

exempt. A criterion-referenced test, as well as

the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, is used to

assess achievement. General education collects

the data for use in reports to the state and to the

LEAs, and for accountability purposes.

Wisconsin collects data on reading comprehension using a state-developed criterion-referenced test. Since 1989, this general education

effort has been given annually to all students,

unless exempted, in grade 3. Local schools

administer the test and report the data to the

state. The state reports results to the legislature

and the local districts, where it could be used

for individual student reports. Beginning in

1992-93 on a voluntary basis and 1993-94 on a

mandatory basis, Wisconsin districts will give

knowledge tests to 8th and 10th grade students

using the ACT 8th grade EXPLORE and 10th

grade PLAN. These test mathematics, reading,

English, and science and ask for a writing

sample with two prompts per grade level.

The Bureau for Vocational Education in

Wisconsin gathers post high school data for a

sample of students from one fifth of the

school districts in the state. Responding to

Perkins requirements, Wisconsin will develop a new data collection plan to be

applied on a yearly basis. The variables

include dropout rates, attendance, retention

in grade, graduation rates, number of suspensions and expulsions, percentage of

pupils in extracurricular and community

activities and advanced placement courses,

percent of graduates enrolled in

postsecondary education programs, and

percentage of graduates entering the work

force.

American Samoa collects information using the

Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) (for grades 4, 6,

8, 10, 12) and a minimum competency test (for

grades 9-12). Both tests provide information on

reading, language arts, math, science, and social

studies. The SAT is administered annually

through a general education effort. The minimum competency test has been used since 1986;

it is unknown when use of the SAT began. All

mainstreamed students with disabilities participate in the assessments; students who are in

self-contained classrooms do not. Both the tests

are used for local district evaluations. The SAT

is used to determine system progress and the

minimum competency test is used to determine

eligibility for graduation. Curriculum referenced tests are being developed locally in all

five major subject areas and in Samoan Language Arts.

90
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

West Virginia collects information on

enrollment in vocational education and

on the type of vocational program for

all students (no exceptions). These data

are gathered through the department of

vocational education and are used to

report to both local and state education

agencies.

9 7

91
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

BUREAU OF

INDIAN AFFAIRS

(BIA)

MARIANA

ISLANDS

(CNMI)

DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

(DC)

The BIA collects information using a variety of

assessments. For math, reading, language, and

social studies, it uses subtests of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills for students identified as

learning disabled, speech impaired, and other

health impaired in grades 1-12. Information has

been collected annually through a general

education effort for more than 10 years. Local

units report to the test publisher, who repoi zs to

the schools and the state education agency.

Results from the academic achievement tests

are used to modify curriculum, train staff and

provide technical assistance to local schools.

Local districts may also choose to use the

educational assessments used in their state.

The CNMI uses the California Achievement Test

(CAT) to collect data on reading and math in

grades 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11. This general education

assessment only includes students with disabilities who are not identified (e.g., students with

learning disabilities). Students with other types

of disabilities participate occasionally, when

special efforts successfully get them in the

assessment. Achievement data have been

collected every other year since 1983-1984.

Schools administer the tests and send them to

the state agency where the raw scores are

pulled from the test protocols, summarized,

and used to evaluate student progress.

Since 1989, the District of Columbia has collected data on stakeholder satisfaction with

educational and related programs. This special

education effort uses telephone interviews for

all students with disabilities (from 3-21 years),

their parents, and either an interview or questionnaire with their teachers. The state collects

the data during site compliance monitoring

visits and uses it to produce an analysis report

for program directors and assistant superintendents.

92
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

-estate Academic Achievement Post-School Status

GUAM

PALAU

PUERTO RICO

Guam collects information on reading, mathematics, and writing. A state-developed criterion-referenced test, the Life and School Survival

Skills Test (BLSST), is given to all non-exempt

students during the odd years in elementary

school and every year during high school. The

BLSST has been administered twice per year

since 1986, through a general and special

education effort. The Brigance (pre and post) has

been given twice per year to all students in the

elementary grades since 1989. The local districts

administer both tests and send the data to the

state to be aggregated. Local schools use the

state report for instructional planning, decisionmaking for students, and program evaluation.

Pa lan collects data on reading, math, science,

and social studies using a criterion-referenced

test developed with WRRC assistance. All

students participate during grade 8 or when

deemed ready. Since 1980, all achievement data

have been collected annually through a general

education effort at identified sites. Test results

go to the Superintendent of Education and are

reported to local districts for use in high school

placement decisions.

Puerto Rico collects information using the

norm-referenced test, APRENDA, which was

developed with the assistance of The Psychological Corporation. The reading comprehension and language (writing) subtests are given

in grades 1-12, math in grades 1-9, and basic

skills in grades K-2. The tests have been given

to all students with disabilities, if integrated,

annually since 1990. The tests are administered

locally and sent to the Data Center at the

Department of Education to be used for islandwide comparisons, individual student decisions, and IEP preparation and revisions.

9 9

Guam is in the process of collecting data on

living arrangements for all disability groups.

This special education effort collects information using telephone and mail interviews

one, two, and three years after graduation.

This information has been collected annually

since 1989 by the state agency to facilitate

transition planning.

Palau collects information on postsecondary

status using the Transition Team Program

case notes. This post-exit information has

been gathered continuously through a special

education effort since 1989 for all students

who were enrolled in the transition program.

Data are used to evaluate students' status

and former programs.

94
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

Guam collects information on employmentduring school years and job

placement for all students. This information is collected through a special

education effort that uses teachers,

students, parents, employers, and

document reviews as sources of information for program evaluation.

Palau collects information on work

placement for all students enrolled in

the transition program. These data have

been collected since 1988 by the Transition Team using individual case studies

for students in grade 8 and above.

Reports are filed on students with the

SEA. The SEA tracks what happens to

students, concentrating on those who do

not attend an academic high school.

Data located elsewhere for summary

purposes.

95
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

MARSHALL

ISLANDS

(RMI)

U.S. VIRGIN

ISLANDS

(USVI)

The RMI collects information on reading and

math using the Wide Range Achievement Test

(WRAT). Since 1972 this special education effort

has been administered twice each year (pre and

post). Students identified as learning disabled

in grades 1-8 participate. Local schools (diagnostician) report the information to the state

agency where it is reported back to the schools

and parents. Children in the special education

early childhood program (ages 3-5), are assessed using a profile checklist in the areas of

reading and math. This testing began in 1990

and is given annually by consultants who

report the results to the state where the information is shared with the schools and parents.

The USVI has conducted assessment, through

the general education unit, annually since the

1960s. The Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT)

tests students in grades 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11,

including those with mild disabilities, in math,

language skills, reading, and general concepts.

Students with disabilities participate in the

testing if permitted by their school principal.

The data are collected, analyzed, and reported

by the Test Research and Evaluation Department staff. The state uses the information for

program planning, improving teachers' skills,

and for general accountability.

1 1

The WI collects information on post-school

employment. This special education effort

uses an interview to collect employment,

wages, and living arrangement data on

students identified as learning disabled and

mentally retarded. The state agency collects

the information one time per year to evaluate

the status of individual students.

96
State Special Education Outcomes 1992

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

The RMI collects information on selfhelp, adaptive behavior, and developmental motor skills for all students ages

3-21. Diagnosticians and teachers collect

this information through observations

with rating scales. This special education effort began more than 10 years

ago and is done continuously. The

information is used for individual child

planning.

97