ED 440 507

AUTHOR

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATE

NOTE

CONTRACT

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICE

DESCRIFIRS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 307 796

Thompson, Sandra; Thurlow, Martha

State Special Education Outcomes, 1999: A Report on State

Activities at the End of the Century.

National Center on Educational Outcomes, Minneapolis, MN.;

Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.;

National Association of State Directors of Special

Education, Alexandria, VA.

Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC.

1999-12-00

49p.; Research assistant was Stacy Callender.

H159C50004

NCEO Publications Office, 350 Elliott Hall, 75 E. River

Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455 ($15). Tel: 612-624-8561; Fax:

612-624-0879; Web site: http://www.coled.umn.edu/nceo ($15).

Numerical/Quantitative Data (110) Reports Research

(143)

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.

1,z;ademic Standards; Accountability; wAlternative;isses2:dent;

Compliance (Legal); Data Collection; *Disabilities;

*Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational

Trends; Elementary Secondary Education; National Surveys;

*Outcomes of Education; *Special Education; State

Departments of Education; *Student Participation

*Individuals with Disabilities Educ Act Amend 1997

This analysis of a survey of state directors of special

education concerning special education outcomes highlights the following

findings: (1) more students with disabilities are participating in statewide

testing and states are better at documenting actual numbers participating;

(2) high stakes attached to school or district performance and lack of

exposure of students with disabilities to test content are factors that

inhibit greater participation of students with disabilities; (3) most states

are in the process of developing alternate assessments; (4) test results are

used primarily for guiding statewide policy decisions, decisions to reform

schools, and decisions about individual students; (5) strategies used most

often by states to meet the assessment provisions of the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act 1997 (IDEA) are training and the dissemination of

written policies; (6) state special education involvement in standards-based

reform is highest for practices directly related to students with

disabilities, such as aggregating results of alternate assessments with

general assessment results; (7) lack of resources and inadequate assessments

are seen as the greatest barriers to obtaining educational accountability

information on students with disabilities; and (8) best practice information

continues to lead the list of preferred technical assistance. Extensive data

tables are included. Appendices provide additional information on state

efforts to meet IDEA assessment requirements and standards-based reform

activities. (DB)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.
999 a t© 

SpitdaR 

ducztfian. 

ittccm© 

NATIONAL 

CENTER ON 

EDUCATIONAL 

OUTCOMES 

in collaboration with: 

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) 

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) 

Report on State 

Activities at the End 

the Century 

U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION 

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION 

CENTER (ERIC) 

EVIhis document has been reproduced as 

received from the person or organization 

originating it. 

Minor changes have been made to improve 

reproduction quality. 

Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official NIE 

position or policy. 

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 
1999 State

Special

Education

Outcomes

NATIONAL

CENTER ON

EDUCATIONAL

OUTCOMES

In collaboration with:

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)

t

. A Report on State

Activities at the End

of the Century
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

The Mission of the National Center on

Educational Outcomes

NCEO Core Staff

John S. Bielinski

Robert H. Bruininks

Jane L. Krentz

Camilla A. Lehr

Michael L. Moore

Rachel F. Quenemoen

Dorene L. Scott

Sandra J. Thompson

Martha L. Thurlow

James E. Ysseldyke

NCEO Director:

Martha Thurlow

NCEO IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, THE

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), and the

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Part of NCEO's mission is to

provide national leadership in assisting state and local education agencies in their

development of policies and practices that encourage and support the participation of students with disabilities in accountability systems and data collection

efforts. NCEO is working toward four goals for students with disabilities:

Goal 1:

Goal 2:

Goal 3:

Goal 4:

Students with disabilities will be a part of nationally-initiated

educational reforms.

Students with disabilities will be a part of each state's standardsbased educational reform efforts.

Students with disabilities will be included in national educational

data collection efforts.

Students with disabilities will be included in national and state

level reporting of educational outcomes, with results that can be

disaggregated.

Many NCEO activities promote these goals. In addition to its national survey,

NCEO is working with its partners to provide needed information and support to

state education agencies seeking to include students with disabilities in their

efforts to provide better educational outcomes to all students.

The Center is affiliated with the Institute on Community Integration at the

College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. It is

supported through a cooperative agreement (#H159C50004) with the U.S.

Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Opinions or

points of view expressed within this document do not necessarily represent those

of the Department or the Offices within it.

Additional copies of this report may be ordered for $15.00. Please write or call:

Publications Office

NCEO

350 Elliott Hall

75 E. River Road

Minneapolis, MN 55455

612/624-8561 Fax: 612/624-0879 http://www.coled.umn.edu/nceo

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

December, 1999

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Acknowledgments iii

Acknowledgments

MANY INDIVIDUALS PROVIDED INPUT ON BOTH THE CONTENT AND FORMAT OF THIS

1999 Special Education Outcomes document. NCEO especially expresses its

appreciation to the state directors of special education and their staff who volunteered a portion of their valuable time in addressing the survey questions. In

addition, special thanks go to:

David Malouf and Lou Danielson, of the Office of Special Education

Programs in the U.S. Department of Education;

Eileen Ahearn, of the National Association of State Directors of Special

Education;

Joshua Davis, on-line survey design and maintenance;

John Bielinski, data analyst for the National Center on Educational

Outcomes; and

Michael Moore, publications director for the National Center on Educational

Outcomes.

State Special Education Outcomes 1999 was prepared by Sandra Thompson and

Martha Thurlow, with support from research assistant Stacy Callender.

5
iv NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

State Directors of Special Education

ALABAMA

Mabrey Whetstone

ALASKA

P.J. Ford Slack

ARIZONA

Joyce Bone llo

ARKANSAS

Diane Sydoriak

CALIFORNIA

Alice Parker

COLORADO

Lorrie Harkness

CONNECTICUT

George Dowaliby

DELAWARE

Martha Brooks

FLORIDA

Shan Goff

GEORGIA

Paulette Bragg

HAWAII

Thelma Yamamoto

IDAHO

Nolene Weaver

ILLINOIS

Gordon Riffel

INDIANA

Robert Marra

IOWA

Jeananne Hagen

KANSAS

Alexa Pochowski

KENTUCKY

Mike Armstrong

LOUISIANA

Virginia Beridon

MAINE

David Stockford

MARYLAND

Carol Ann Baglin

MASSACHUSETTS

Marcia Mittnacht

MICHIGAN

Jacquelyn Thompson

MINNESOTA

Norena Hale

MISSISSIPPI

Carolyn Black

MISSOURI

Melodie Friedebach

MONTANA

Robert Runkel

NEBRASKA

Gary Sherman

NEVADA

Gloria Dopf

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Debra Grabill

NEW JERSEY

Barbara Gantwerk

NEW MEXICO

Robert Pasternack

NEW YORK

Lawrence Gloeckler

NORTH CAROLINA

Lowell Harris

NORTH DAKOTA

Brenda Oas

OHIO

John Herner

OKLAHOMA

Darla Griffin

OREGON

Steve Johnson

PENNSYLVANIA

William Penn

RHODE ISLAND

Robert Pryhoda

SOUTH CAROLINA

Ora Spann

SOUTH DAKOTA

Deborah Barnett

TENNESSEE

Joseph Fisher

TEXAS

Eugene Lenz

UTAH

Mae Taylor-Sweeten

VERMONT

Dennis Kane

VIRGINIA

Doug Cox

WASHINGTON

Douglas Gill

WEST VIRGINIA

Dee Bodkins

WISCONSIN

Juanita Pawlisch

WYOMING

Rebecca Walk

AMERICAN SAMOA

Jane French

BUREAU OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS

Angelita Felix

DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE

Carrie Rothenbacher

DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

Frieda Lacey

GUAM

Vince Leon Guerrero

MARIANA ISLANDS

Frank Perez

MARSHALL ISLANDS

Kanchi Hosia

MICRONESIA

Makir Keller

PALAU

Jemmy Blelai

PUERTO RICO

Maria Teresa Morales

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

Belinda West-O'Neal

These were the state

directors of special education in May 1999 when the

survey was conducted.

6
Executive Summary

Executive Summary

THE 1999 NATIONAL SURVEY OF STATE DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION IS THE

seventh in a series of surveys that have been conducted by NCEO since 1991. This

year's findings include:

More students with disabilities are participating in statewide testing, and states

are better at documenting actual numbers participating. Still, only 23 states

actually provided participation data. The variability in participation and accommodation rates is striking, but these differences may reflect differences in

definitions.

High stakes attached to school or district performance and lack of exposure of

students with disabilities to test content are factors that inhibit greater participation of students with disabilities in assessment systems.

Most states are in the process of developing their alternate assessments. Expected rates of students unable to participate in regular assessments varies

considerably in the 29 states ready to make predictions, implying that there will

also be large variations in alternate assessment participation rates.

Test results are used primarily for guiding statewide policy decisions, decisions

to reform schools, and decisions about individual students. Yet, about one-third

of states use the results in informal ways, often as a result of parent and community pressure.

Strategies used most often by states to meet the assessment provisions of IDEA

are training and the dissemination of written policies. Greatest needs for training involve clarifying how student goals are aligned with state standards, and

defining performance standards for students with disabilities.

State special education involvement in standards-based reform is highest for

practices directly related to students with disabilities, such as aggregating results

of alternate assessments with general assessment results. There is little

involvement when the inclusion of students with disabilities is seen as

detrimental, such as when there are rewards and sanctions for accountability

results.

Lack of resources and inadequate assessments are seen as the greatest barriers to

obtaining educational accountability information on students with disabilities.

Best practice information continues to lead the list of preferred technical

assistance, but the desire for obtaining information from the Internet has

soared since 1997.

These findings highlight the current status of students with disabilities at the end of

a century marked by dramatic changes in measuring the outcomes of education for

students with disabilities. The findings reinforce the need to continue to survey

state directors of special education about the status of state special education

outcomes.
VZ NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table of Contents

State Directors of Special Education iv

Executive Summary

Overview of 1999 Survey 1

The Context of Reform 3

Table 1. Frequency and Percentage of State Student Populations Receiving Special

Education Services for the 1996-97 School Year 3

Figure 1. Change in Percentage of Students Receiving Special Education Services

from 1990 to 1999 5

Participation of Students with Disabilities in Statewide Testing 6

Table 2. Primary Participation Data Available 6

Table 3. 504 Participation Data and Other Participation Data Available 8

Table 4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Counting Students Locally on Test

Day Versus Using the Federal Child Count 10

Table 5. States with Data on the Number of Students with Disabilities

Participating in State Assessments 11

Table 6. Percent of Students Receiving Special Education Services Who

Participated in State Assessments 12

Table 7. Percent of Students Receiving Special Education Services Who Used

Testing Accommodations 14

Figure 2. Factors Discouraging Participation of Students with Disabilities in

State Assessment Programs 15

State Activities in Developing Alternate Assessments 16

Table 8. Alternate Assessment Standards 15

Table 9. States Engaged in Various Alternate Assessment Activities 17

Table 10. Alternate Assessment Approaches Selected by States 17

Table 11. Estimated Percentages of All Students Whose Exposure to Content is

Too Limited for Them to Participate in Regular Assessments 18

Table 12. Estimated Changes in Alternate Assessment Participation from

1999-2000 to 2000-01 18

8
Table of Contents vii

Reporting and Using Assessment Results 19

Figure 3. Reasons for Disaggregating Performance Data 19

Table 13. Ways in which Results of Separate Analyses of Students with Disabilities

are Reported 20

Figure 4. Uses of Test Results Across States 21

Individualized Education Programs and Assessments 22

Figure 5. IEPs and AssessmentAreas of Difficulty and Need for Training 21

Standards-based Reform 23

Figure 6. Level of State Activity and Involvement of State Special Education

Personnel in Standards-based Reform 24

Current Issues and Technical Assistance Needs 27

Table 14. Factors Presenting Barriers to the Development, Implementation, and

Reporting of Educational Accountability Information on Students Receiving

Special Education Services 27

Figure 7. Technical Assistance Needs of State Directors 28

Appendices 29

Appendix A. Approaches States Have Found Most Helpful in Meeting the

Assessment Provisions of IDEA 29

Appendix B. Comments about Standards-based Reform Activities 33
Overview of 1999 Survey

Overview of 1999 Survey

THE NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES HAS BEEN SURVEYING STATE

directors of special education about efforts to include students with disabilities in

education reform since 1991. At that time, most state directors of special education were just beginning to think about how students with disabilities fit into

emerging educational reforms. Little did anyone realize the incredible magnitude

of education reform efforts that would take place over the next eight years, at

local, state, and national levels.

In 1997 the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA) sparked educational reform in special education. As a result of changes in

the Act, educational results for students receiving special education services now

must be as public as they are for other students. This means that states must

define performance goals and indicators for themselves, and one of the indicators

must be the performance of students with disabilities on state and district assessments. Students with disabilities must be included in state and district assessments,

with accommodations as appropriate, or in an alternate assessment when they are

not able to participate in the general assessment. Their performance on these

measures is to be reported in the same way and with the same frequency as the

performance of other students is reported.

IDEA 97 is not an isolated law. Its push for educational accountability is evident

in other laws as well. The Improving America's Schools Act, for example, requires

that the performance of students with disabilities be disaggregated so that Title I

reforms can be targeted toward the needs of these students as well as toward the

needs of other students. Other laws, such as Goals 2000: Educate America Act and

the School to Work Opportunities Act also solidify the push to recognize that

students with disabilities are part of the educational system and that states and

districts must be accountable for their learning as well. All in all, there has been a

clear directive that the public needs to know, and has a right to know, about the

performance of students receiving special education services.

As we produce this first report since the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA, we look

at the key elements contained in IDEA. Yet, we also attempt to understand the

pressures and barriers that affect state activities during this period of change. We

give states the opportunity to report on the planning, development, and implementation of their accountability systems. And, we once again gather information

on technical assistance needs so that states can better move forward in their efforts

to meet the mandates of educational reform and at the same time do what is best

for the children served by special education programs.

lU

This last survey of the

century marks the

incredible changes that

have occurred since the

first survey in 1991.
Eleven Unique

States

American Samoa

Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA)

Department of Defense

District of Columbia

Guam

Mariana Islands

Marshall Islands

Micronesia

Palau

Puerto Rico

U.S.Virgin Islands

NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

The 1999 Special Education Outcomes survey focuses on the implications of

educational reform within the context of the 1997 reauthorization of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Results are presented in six sections:

Participation of Students with Disabilities in Statewide Testing

State Activities in Developing Alternate Assessments

Reporting and Using Assessment Results

Individualized Education Programs and Assessments

Standards-based Reform

Current Issues and Technical Assistance Needs

Participants in the 1999 survey included state directors of special education

from all 50 states and 11 unique states that abide by the provisions of IDEA.

Responses to the survey were gathered on-line for the first time, or by fax or mail

for those without Internet access. Some state directors designated other state

officials to complete the survey, and some surveys were completed by multiple

respondents, including state assessment personnel. Once compiled, drafts of

tables were sent to state directors for verification. Several directors made changes

in their responses and faxed them back to NCEO. Overall, responses were

obtained from 48 of the 50 states and from the U.S. Virgin Islands.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

11
The Context of Reform

The Context of Reform

TABLE 1 DISPLAYS THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES, AGES 6 TO 17 YEARS,

served under the provisions of IDEA during the 1996-97 school year (see third

column). It also shows in the last column what percentages these totals represent

when compared to the total estimated resident population of students 6-17 years

old (from second column). State special education populations differ in their

proportion to the overall student populations because of a variety of factors,

including differences among states in their eligibility requirements for receiving

special education services.

Table I. Frequency and Percentage of State Student Populations Receiving Special

Education Services for the 1996 -97 School Year

Name of State Estimated

Resident

Population for

Children

(Ages 6-17) '

Number of

Children

Served Under

IDEA

(Ages 6-17) 2

Percent of All

Children

Served Under

IDEA

(Ages 6-17) 3

Alabama 719,328 84,406 11.73%

Alaska 123,975 15,056 12.14%

Arizona 738,684 68,403 9.26%

Arkansas 447,838 45,050 10.06%

California 5,548,936 505,936 9.12%

Colorado 671,575 61,146 9.10%

Connecticut 527,690 69,883 13.24%

Delaware I 1 5,806 13,190 1 1.39%

Florida 2,262,861 293,033 12.51%

Georgia 1,287,524 122,307 9.50%

Hawaii 196,244 14,965 7.63%

Idaho 239,941 21,213 8.84%

Illinois 2,054,925 228,834 II. I 4%

Indiana 1,005,325 119,308 I I .87%

Iowa 499,544 58,943 11.80%

Kansas 470,136 46,744 9.94%

Kentucky 656,613 66,902 10.19%

Louisiana 837,677 78,554 9.38%

Maine 212,162 27,838 13.12%

Maryland 848,85 I 91,017 10.72%

Massachusetts 945,688 136,577 14.44%

Michigan 1,720,585 165,784 9.64%

Minnesota 863,512 86,191 9.98%

Mississippi 510,179 56,585 I 1.09%

Missouri 949,395 111,331 11.73%

State special education

populations differ in their

proportion to the overall

student population.

EEST COPY' AVAILABLE
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table I. Frequency and Percentage of State Student Populations Receiving Special

Education Services for the 1996-97 School Year (continued)

Name of State Estimated

Resident

Population for

Children

(Ages 6-17) '

Number of

Children

Served Under

IDEA

(Ages 6 -17) 2

Percent of All

Children

Served Under

IDEA

(Ages 6-17)3

Montana 165,074 1 6,086 9.74%

Nebraska 305,230 35,120 11.51%

Nevada 268,132 25,761 9.61%

New Hampshire 203,891 22,845 11.20%

New Jersey 1,293,988 176,576 13.65%

New Mexico 336,994 42,524 12.62%

New York 2,938,973 339,892 11.56%

North Carolina 1,212,477 132,295 10.91%

North Dakota I 18,783 10,967 9.23%

Ohio 1,929,434 195,556 10.14%

Oklahoma 604,777 65,206 10.78%

Oregon 552,251 55,759 10.10%

Pennsylvania 1,969,268 183,471 9.32%

Rhode Island 158,229 22,810 14.42%

South Carolina 628,881 77,098 12.26%

South Dakota 142,091 12,268 8.63%

Tennessee 882,139 109,041 12.36%

Texas 3,552,482 405,491 11.41%

Utah 453,896 46,673 10.28%

Vermont 1 03,207 10,034 9.72%

Virginia 1,081,618 125,065 11.56%

Washington 969,424 90,630 9.35%

West Virginia 292,704 39,943 13.65%

Wisconsin 934,624 91,385 9.78%

Wyoming 95,323 10,797 11.33%

' Data taken from Table AF4 published in Twentieth Annual Report to Congress

(U.S. Department of Education, 1998). 2 Data taken from Table AA I published in Twentieth Annual Report to Congress

(U.S. Department of Education, 1998).

Data taken from Table AA I 0 published in Twentieth Annual Report to Congress

(U.S. Department of Education, 1998).

13
The Context of Reform

Figure 1 shows changes in populations of students receiving special education

services from 1990 to 1997. While there has been an increase in 34 states and a

decrease in 16 states, the percentages of change are generally quite small. Thus,

special education populations continue to show tremendous variations from one

state to another, but changes over time are relatively small.

Figure I. Change in Percentage of Students Receiving Special Education Services

from 1990 to 1999

Percentage of State Student Populations Receiving Special

Education Services for the 1996-97 School Year

Decreases

> 1% Change

0 < 1% Change

Increases

> 1% Change

< 1% Change

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Participation of students

with disabilities in

assessments continues to

be a focus of the survey,

and is now supported by

special education law.

U NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Participation of Students with

Disabilities in Statewide

Testing

THE EXTENT TO WHICH STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ARE PARTICIPATING IN STATEWIDE

testing has increased and also become more measurable since NCEO began

asking states to provide data on student participation in assessments. Participation

data previously were largely inaccessible or unavailable to most state directors of

special education. The 1995 NCEO survey noted that few state directors knew

whether test scores for students with disabilities could be disaggregated from

assessment databases. Even when the data were available, most states had not

attempted to disaggregate data on students with disabilities.

This year, NCEO again asked for data on the participation of students with

disabilities in state assessments. As in the 1997 report, state directors were asked

to indicate whether the following kinds of data are available for one or more of

their statewide assessments:

Number of students receiving special education services tested.

Number of students receiving special education services excluded or

exempted from testing.

Percentage of test takers who received special education services.

Percentage of all students receiving special education services at the grade

or age level tested who were actually assessed.

The responses of individual states are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Primary Participation Data Available

Regular States

Measure of Participation Rate Collected or Received by Special Education Unit

Number of

Students with

Disabilities Tested

Number of

Students with Disabilities Exempted or Excluded

Percent of All Test

Takers Who Were

Students with Disabilities

Percent of All

Students with

Disabilities at the

Grade(s) Being

Tested Who Were

Actually Assessed

Do Not Collect or

Receive Any of These Data Alabama Alaska * Arizona Arkansas California

Colorado * Connecticut 11,;'

Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho 15
Participation of Students with Disabilities in Statewide Testing

Table 2. Primary Participation Data Available (continued)

Regular States

Measure of Participation Rate Collected or Received by Special Education Unit

Number of

Students with

Disabilities Tested

Number of

Students with

Disabilities

Exempted or Excluded

Percent of All Test

Takers Who Were

Students with Disabilities

Percent of All

Students with

Disabilities at the

Grade(s) Being

Tested Who Were

Actually Assessed

Do Not Collect or

Receive Any of These Data

Illinois *

Indiana

Iowa Kansas Kentucky .

Louisiana Maine * Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Mi Minnesota IN .

Mississippi Missouri / li Montana Nebraska Nevada In MI New Hampshire

New Jersey . Ii U IN

New Mexico

New York Mi North Carolina

North Dakota ii

Ohio

Oklahoma Mi Oregon

Pennsylvania Rhode Island /

South Carolina U El

South Dakota U

Tennessee Texas . .

Utah IN .

Vermont

Virginia .

Washington MI West Virginia .

Wisconsin

Wyoming

American Samoa

Bureau of Indian Affairs * Mariana Islands * Department of Defense

District of Columbia * Micronesia * Guam

Marshall Islands Palau Puerto Rico * U.S. Virgin Islands * Totals 45 32 29 3I 16

* No response

16 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
III NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

A total of 45 states indicated that they have data on the number of students with

disabilities tested. This information is required by the 1997 amendments to

IDEA. Five regular states and all unique states appeared not to have information

on the number of students with disabilities tested. One of these states (Nebraska)

does not administer statewide tests, so it would not be expected to have data on

the number of students taking the state assessment. The four other regular states

without an indication that they had participation data either had not responded

to this item (Alaska, Colorado) or they had not responded to the survey (Illinois,

Maine).

Several states also collect or receive participation data in other ways than simply

the number tested. Approximately equal numbers of states, but not necessarily

the same ones, have data on exemptions or exclusions, and percentage information.

Some students are recognized as having disabilities under another federal law

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Data on 504 students participating in testing and other types of participation data are available somewhat

sporadically among the states (see Table 3). For example, data on how many 504

students participate in testing are available in just 18 states, and other kinds of

participation data are available in 12 states. These other data include the number

of students using testing accommodations.

Table 3.504 Participation Data and Other Participation Data Available

Regular

States 504 Plans

Other

Measures of

Participation Description of Other Data

Alabama "Other" not defined

Alaska*

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado*

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida "Other" not defined

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois*

Indiana Number of students receiving accommodations

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky Types of accommodations, number testing with

and without accommodations, number

participating in alternate portfolio

Louisiana

Maine*

Maryland Number of students/types of accommodations,

number of students alternately assessed

Massachusetts Pre-test files, post-test files, results

Michigan

17
Participation of Students with Disabilities in Statewide Testing

Table 3.504 Participation Data and Other Participation Data Available (continued)

Regular

States 504 Plans

Other

Measures of

Participation Description of Other Data

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire Number of students with limited English

proficiency

New Jersey

New Mexico Number of special education test takers with and

without modifications

New York Disaggregate results for students receiving

consultant teacher, resource room, or related

services, and results for students receiving special

class services

North Carolina*

North Dakota

Ohio Information presented by 4- 6- 9 -10 -12 grades and

by proficiency area

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota Number of students participating with

accommodations

Tennessee

Texas "Other" not defined

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Unique States*

American

Samoa

Bureau of Indian

Affairs

Department of

Defense

District of

Columbia

Guam

Mariana Islands

Marshall Islands

Micronesia

Palau

Puerto Rico

U.S. Virgin

Islands

Totals 18 12

* No response

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
l0 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

State directors also were asked how participation rates were calculated in their

most recent statewide assessment. Of the 31 states whose directors had reported

that the state calculated test participation rates for students receiving special

education services, 10 indicated that the calculations were completed at the local

level by having schools turn in all of their test forms, including those for students

who were not tested. Participation is calculated by dividing the number of completed test forms by the total number of test forms (including those that are

blank). Most of the remaining states (14 of 21) divide the number of test takers

by the state/federal child count that is reported December 1. Other states gave

answers that did not indicate which calculation method they used. States have

found distinct advantages and disadvantages with each of these models, as shown

in Table 4. Interestingly, a few additional states indicated how they would calculate these rates even though they had indicated they did not do so. These states

were fairly evenly split between those using local counts and those using state/

federal child count data.

Table 4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Counting Students Locally on Test Day Versus Using

the Federal Child Count

Count students locally on test day Use federal child count

Advantages Do not have to worry about inaccuracies

resulting from time between enrollment

count and test.

Numbers are used to determine state

and federal funding, so underreporting

is unlikely.

Disadvantages Count may be inaccurate due to errors

by local test administrators.

Some students are unaccounted for

they are eligible for testing, but are not

tested.

Several months may pass between child

count and test, leaving room for error

due to students entering and leaving

school system.

Child count is generally reported by

student age, not grade (tests are given

by grade, not age).

State directors reported encountering a variety of difficulties in the calculation of

test participation rates of students receiving special education services. Only two

state directors reported having no problems calculating these participation rates.

Other states reported four primary challenges:

Data currently are collected on students with disabilities by age and not by

grade placement (15 states).

Total number of students is determined by number of test forms turned in

and may over-exclude studentstest scores are not connected to demographic data about individual students at the state level (9 states).

Coding test forms so students with disabilities could be identified and

disaggregated is difficult (8 states).

State enrollment is calculated in the fall and tests are given in the spring,

causing discrepancies due to student movement in and out of school/state,

and changes in student eligibility status.

19
Participation of Students with Disabilities in Statewide Testing

Each year, NCEO asks states to provide actual participation frequency data for the

most recent assessment for which data are available. In the past, most states have

been able to provide only estimates of the participation of students with disabilities in state assessments. In 1997, prior to the reauthorization of IDEA, 15 states

provided actual participation numbers. In 1999, 23 states provided these data, but

the states were not necessarily the same ones. The states providing participation

data in 1999 are listed in Table 5, along with those states that provided data in

1997.

Table 5. States with Data on the Number of Students with Disabilities

Participating in State Assessments

1997 1999

Connecticut Connecticut

Delaware Florida

Florida Georgia

Hawaii Indiana

Kansas Kansas

Louisiana Kentucky

Maryland Maryland

Missouri Massachusetts

New York Minnesota

North Dakota Missouri

Oregon Nevada

Rhode Island New York

South Carolina Ohio

Texas Oklahoma

Wisconsin Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Vermont

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Although the federal requirement is for states to report the number of students

with disabilities participating in state and district assessments, percentages are

most useful for policymakers evaluating the inclusiveness of assessment programs.

Using state-provided numbers of students participating in assessments and child

count data, participation rates were calculated for specific administrations of state

tests. These estimated rates are contained in Table 6. Rates of participation vary

from less than one-fourth of students with disabilities to all students with

disabilities.

More students with

disabilities are participating in statewide testing

and states are better at

documenting actual

numbers participating.

Still, only 23 states

provided participation

data.
m NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table 6. Percent of Students Receiving Special Education Services Who Participated in State

Assessments*

State

Assessment/

Subject Area

Elementary

Grades

(K-5)

Middle

School

Grades (6-8)

High School

Grades

(9-12)

Connecticut CT Mastery Test 44% (Gr 3) 43% (Gr 6)

(Reading, Math, Writing) 43% (Gr 8)

CT Academic Performance Test 27% (Gr 10)

(Interdisciplinary)

Florida FL Writing Assessment 81% (Gr 4) 75% (Gr 8) 52% (Gr 10)

FCAT (Reading) 80% (Gr 4) 71% (Gr 8) 50% (Gr 10)

FCAT (Math) 81% (Gr 5) 72% (Gr 8) 50% (Gr 10)

Georgia GHSGT (Lang Arts, Math,

Science, So Studies, Writing)

51% (Gr I I)

GKAP (Literacy, Math,

Social/Emotional)

50% (Kdg)

Iowa Test of Basic Skills 53% (Gr 3) 62% (Gr 8)

60% (Gr 5)

Writing Assessments 44% (Gr 3) 64% (Gr 8) 54% (Gr 11)

53% (Gr 5)

Indiana Statewide Assessment

Math 51% (Gr 3) 76% (Gr 6) 78% (Gr10)

81% (Gr 8)

English/Language Arts 5 I% (Gr 3) 76% (Gr 6) 78% (Gr 10)

81% (Gr 8)

Kansas KS Assessment Program Math 65% (Gr 4) 69% (Gr 7) 59% (Gr 10)

Reading 57% (Gr 3) 67% (Gr 7) 54% (Gr 10)

Writing 63% (Gr 5) 63% (Gr 7) 54% (Gr 10)

Kentucky Kentucky Core Content Test 100% (Gr 4) 100% (Gr 7) 100% (Gr 10)

100% (Gr 5) 100% (Gr 8) 100% (Gr 11)

100% (Gr 12)

Maryland Functional Testing Program 95% (Gr 8)

(Citizenship, Math, Reading,

Writing)

MSPAP (Writing, Science, Social 95% (Gr 3) 95% (Gr 8)

Studies, Reading, Language Usage,

Math)

95% (Gr 5)

Massachusetts Iowa Test of Basic Skills Reading 98% (Gr 3)

Comprehensive Assessment

System 94% (Gr 4) 93% (Gr 8) 91% (Gr 10)

Minnesota Basic Standards Tests (Reading,

Math)

89% (Gr 8)

Comprehensive Assessments 84% (Gr 3)

(Reading, Math, Writing) 83% (Gr 5)

Missouri MMAT (Math, Language Arts,

Science, Social Studies)

60% (Gr 3)

65% (Gr 5)

MAP Math 82% (Gr 4) 82% (Gr 8) 65% (Gr 10)

MAP Communication Arts 60% (Gr 3) 65% (Gr 7) 42% (Gr 11)

MAP Science 59% (Gr 3) 64% (Gr 7) 45% (Gr 10)

Nevada Terra Nova Complete Battery 83% (Gr 4) 88% (Gr 8) 93% (Gr 10)

New York PEP Test Reading 85% (Gr 3) 90% (Gr 6)

Math 88% (Gr 3) 90% (Gr 6)

Writing 90% (Gr 5)

21
Participation of Students with Disabilities in Statewide Testing

Table 6. Percent of Students Receiving Special Education Services Who Participated in State

Assessments (continued)

State

Assessment/

Subject Area

Elementary

Grades

(K-5)

Middle

School

Grades (6-8)

High School

Grades

(9- 12)

Ohio Proficiency Test (Citizenship, 62% (Gr 4) 59% (Gr 6) 57% (Gr 9)

Math, Reading, Science, Writing) 34% (Gr 12)

Oklahoma Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Reading,

Math, Language Arts, Science,

Social Studies, other)

80% (Gr 3) 84% (Gr 7)

OK Core Curriculum Tests 80% (Gr 5) 75% (Gr 8) 58% (Gr 11)

(Math, Science, Reading,

Constitution and Government,

Geography, Visual Arts and Music)

OK Core Curriculum - Writing 78% (Gr 5) 75% (Gr 8) 63% (Gr 11)

Pennsylvania Reading and Math Assessment 48% (Gr 5) 56% (Gr 8) 32% (Gr 11)

Rhode Island Writing Performance Assessment 95% (Gr 3) 92% (Gr 7) 91% (Gr 10)

Health Performance Assessment 92% (Gr 5) 89% (Gr 9)

South Dakota Stanford Achievement Test 53% (Gr 2) 74% (Gr 8) 67% (Gr I I)

(Language, Math, Reading, Science,

Social Science)

63% (Gr 4)

Tennessee TCAP Writing Assessment 65% (Gr 4) 66% (Gr 7) 39% (Gr 11)

TCAP Achievement 79% (Gr 3) 76% (Gr 6)

77% (Gr 4) 71% (Gr 7)

73% (Gr 5) 76% (Gr 8)

. TCAP Competency 76% (Gr 9)

73% (Gr 10)

74% (Gr 11)

64% (Gr 12)

Texas TAAS Reading 38% (Gr 3) 39% (Gr 6) 42% (Gr 10)

34% (Gr 4) 42% (Gr 7)

36% (Gr 5) 42% (Gr 8)

Mathematics 48% (Gr 3) 44% (Gr 6) 41% (Gr 10)

42% (Gr 4) 44% (Gr 7)

41% (Gr 5) 41% (Gr 8)

Writing 31% (Gr 4) 39% (Gr 8) 41% (Gr 10)

Social Studies 45% (Gr 8)

Science 45% (Gr 8)

Vermont Developmental Reading 92% (Gr 2)

Math 90% (Gr 4) 87% (Gr 8) 50% (Gr 10)

English Language Arts 88% (Gr 4) 77% (Gr 9) 50% (Gr 10)

Science 91% (Gr 6)

Washington Washington Assessment of 92% (Gr 4) 94% (Gr 7)

Student Learning

West Virginia SAT 9 Language, Math, Reading,

Science, Social Studies

89% (Gr 3-11)

Wisconsin Wisconsin Knowledge and 23% (Gr 4) 15% (Gr 8) 26% (Gr 10)

Concepts Exam (Math, Reading,

Science, Social Studies, Writing,

Language Arts)

*Repeat years of exit tests are not included in this table.

22
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Twelve states were able to report data on the number of students who used

accommodations. These data, also calculated as percentages by NCEO, are

provided in Table 7. Rates of use vary from less than one-fourth of students with

disabilities to more than three-quarters. The variability in rates may be due, in

part, to differences in definition and what kinds of accommodations are counted

(e.g., some states count only modifications).

Table 7. Percent of Students Receiving Special Education Services Who Used Testing

Accommodations

State

Assessment/

Subject Area

Elementary

Grades

(K-5)

Middle

School

Grades (6-8)

High School

Grades (9-12)

Florida FL Writing Assessment 5I %(Gr 4) 39% (Gr 8) 34% (Gr 10)

FCAT (Reading) 47% (Gr 4) 38% (Gr 8) 40% (Gr 10)

FCAT (Math) 50% (Gr 5) 38% (Gr 8) 39% (Gr 10)

Indiana Statewide Assessment - Math 28% (Gr 3) 34% (Gr 6) 80% (Gr 10)

38% (Gr 8)

English/Language Arts 29% (Gr 3) 34% (Gr 6) 82% (Gr 10)

38% (Gr 8)

Kansas KS Assessment Program Math 21% (Gr 4) 14% (Gr 7) 08% (Gr 10)

Reading 19% (Gr 3) 13% (Gr 7) 08% (Gr 10)

Writing 23% (Gr 5) 17% (Gr 7) 09% (Gr 10)

Kentucky Kentucky Core Content Test 82% (Gr 4) 72% (Gr 7) 50% (Gr 10)

82% (Gr 5) 70% (Gr 8) 57% (Gr II)

55% (Gr 12)

Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment 61% (Gr 4) 38% (Gr 8) 25% (Gr 10)

System

Maryland MSPAP - Reading 53% (Gr 3) 25% (Gr 8)

51% (Gr 5)

Language Usage 44% (Gr 3) 16% (Gr 8)

41% (Gr 5)

Math 20% (Gr 3)

Nevada Terra Nova Complete Battery 51% (Gr 4) 42% (Gr 8) 44% (Gr 10)

New York PEP Test Reading 50% (Gr 3) 50% (Gr 6)

Math 3I%(Gr 3) 32% (Gr 6)

Writing 33% (Gr 5)

Pennsylvania Reading and Math Assessment 67% (Gr 5) 52% (Gr 8) 45% (Gr I I)

Rhode Island Writing Performance Assessment 49% (Gr 3) 55% (Gr 7) 60% (Gr 10)

Health Performance Assessment 39% (Gr 5) 61% (Gr 9)

South Dakota Stanford Achievement Test 63% (Gr2) 59% (Gr 8) 46% (Gr II)

(Language, Math, Reading, Science,

Social Science)

67% (Gr 4)

West Virginia SAT 9 Language, Math, Reading,

Science, Social Studies

64% (Gr 3-1 I)

23
Participation of Students with Disabilities in Statewide Testing

There are several factors that state directors of special education believe may work

against the full participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessment

programs, especially in states where accountability systems have significant consequences for students or schools (see Figure 2). Most of the factors reported in

1999 inhibit participation to a somewhat lesser degree than they did in 1997.

High stakes (i.e., sanctions or rewards) attached to school or district performance

remains the greatest source of discouragement. A new item in 1999, focusing on

exposure to the curriculum or content included in tests, is perceived to inhibit

participation to a high degree and will be important to continue to track in future

years. The perception of teachers, parents, and others that large-scale testing is

irrelevant to the educational success of students with disabilities also remains a

significant barrier. Implementation of participation guidelines varies widely at the

school or district level, but less than in 1997. The least inhibiting factor this year

is "policies or guidelines overseeing participation of students with disabilities in

assessment are absent or vaguely written." The decreases in ratings for both the

monitoring and policies/guidelines items reflect substantial changes from 1997.

Figure 2. Factors Discouraging Participation of Students with Disabilities in State

Assessment Programs

High stakes (i.e., sanctions or rewards) are

attached to school or district performance

Students are not exposed to curriculum or content

included in tests (new in 1999)

Implementation of participation guidelines varies

widely at the school or district level

Teachers, parents, or others perceive large-scale

testing as irrelevant

Monitoring of participation is limited or

High stakes attached to

school or district performance and lack of

exposure of students with

disabilities to test content

are factors that inhibit

greater participation of

students with disabilities

in assessment systems.

*:::::*ititilafaititiz.13.4KFOMM1074M2 3.5

PRR:::.CW5505$72:.%:::::;:***3Ara:02;f*

3.2

3.0

3.0

2.6

3.6

3.5

inadequate 3.4

Policies or guidelines overseeing participation of

students with disabilities in assessment are

absent or vaguely written

1999

01997

2 3 4

Mean Rating Based on 5 Point Scale

24

5

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

State Activities in Developing

Alternate Assessments

ALTERNATE ASSESSMENTS PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR STUDENTS WHO CANNOT PARTICIpate in state and district-wide assessments, even with accommodations, to be

included in state and district accountability systems. In 1997, NCEO began to

assess the status of states in the development of alternate assessments using an online survey. This provided all states with continuous, up-to-date information on

what other states are doing in the development of their alternate assessments. The

data reported in Tables 8-10 were compiled from state responses to the Alternate

Assessment On-line Survey in October, 1999. At this time, 43 regular states and

three unique states had completed the survey. The date is important to note,

since states are continually working on their alternate assessments and updating

the information in the survey (see http://www.coled.umn.edu/nceo/

survey.htm).

Nearly half of the states report using the same standards for alternate assessments

as they use in general education assessments, or some variation of them, such as

expanded standards (see Table 8). Other states are developing different standards

for students participating in alternate assessments, or are still uncertain about

what standards they will use.

Table 8. Alternate Assessment Standards*

Alternate Assessment Standards Regular States Unique States

Identical to those applied to general

education 6 0

General education standards with

some additions I 0

Subset of those applied to general

education 14 2

Independently developed for students

needing alternate assessments 8 0

Uncertain at this time 14 I *Includes the responses of 43 regular states and 3 unique states to the Alternate Assessment

Survey, as of October, 1999.

25
State Activities in Developing Alternate Assessments

Table 9 shows the status of states in various aspects of the development of their

alternate assessments. Most states are continuing to work on identifying standards, establishing eligibility guidelines, and creating assessment tools or systems.

Table 9. States Engaged in Various Alternate Assessment Activities*

State Activity Regular States Unique States

Identifying standards 34 0

Establishing eligibility guidelines 36 I Identifying/creating instrument 32 I Training on alternate assessment 12 0

Establishing proficiency levels 22 0

Determining reporting procedures 23 0

Determining inclusion in high stakes 18 0

*Includes the responses of 43 regular states and 3 unique states to the Alternate Assessment

Survey, as of October, 1999.

Several states now have selected the data collection methods that they are using

for their alternate assessments (see Table 10). Most states have decided to use

observations, portfolios, or performance assessments. However, many states have

not yet selected their alternate assessment approach.

Table 10. Alternate Assessment Approaches Selected by States*

State Activity Regular States Unique States

Observation (direct, video, or other) 8 0

Student portfolio 4 0

Performance assessment 4 0

Survey (mail or other) or Interview 3 0

Review of progress 3 0

Adapted regular state assessment 3 0

Adaptive behavior scale 2 0

*Includes the responses of 43 regular states and 3 unique states to the Alternate Assessment

Survey, as of October, 1999.

Only 29 state directors were able to give a number when asked to estimate the

percent of students in their states whose exposure to the content covered on

statewide assessments was so limited that it made little sense to give them the

regular assessment for their age or grade level (see Table 11). Some estimated the

percentage of students with disabilities while others estimated the percentage of

all students. The distinction between the two percentages still seems to be confusing to states. Some states were able to base their estimation on actual participation data, while others were making educated guesses. Eight states reported that

they are not able to estimate this percentage yet, but will have better information

once their alternate assessments are in place. State provided estimates varied

considerably, with as many states estimating more than 4% (and some of these as

high as 9%) as estimated one percent or less.

26
Most states are in the

process of developing

their alternate

assessments. Expected

participation rates of all

students unable to

participate in regular

assessments varies

considerably in the 29

states ready to make

predictions, implying

that there will also be

large variations in

alternate assessment

participation rates.

NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table I I. Estimated Percentages of All Students Whose Exposure to Content is

Too Limited for Them to Participate in Regular Assessment

< I I% > I 2% > 2 4% >4%

Delaware* California Arkansas* Mississippi

Kansas Colorado Connecticut Ohio

Kentucky Hawaii Massachusetts South Dakota

Maryland Idaho Missouri Tennessee

Minnesota Indiana New Hampshire Texas*

Nebraska Florida* New Mexico West Virginia

Vermont Louisiana Utah

Nevada Washington

Oregon Wisconsin

Rhode Island

Virginia

*State provided percentage of students with disabilities was transformed to a percentage

of all students using the special education rate.

When asked to estimate how many students per grade level are expected to

participate in alternate assessments, for both the current school year (1999-2000)

during which alternate assessments are not required by law, and the upcoming

school year (2000-01), when alternate assessments are required, state directors

sometimes responded with percentages of all students rather than just students

with disabilities. Most states estimated that percentages would stay the same, but

some foresaw decreases and others increases (see Table 12).

Table 12. Estimated Changes in Alternate Assessment Participation from I 999-

2000 to 2000-01*

Decrease Same Increase

Florida California Colorado

Idaho Delaware Massachusetts

West Virginia Hawaii Tennessee

Wyoming Kansas

Kentucky

New Mexico

Texas

Washington

*Only 15 states were able to make projections for both years.

27
Reporting and Using Assessment Results

Reporting and Using

Assessment Results

PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON REGULAR ASSESSMENTS NOW MUST BE

disaggregated from the scores of other students and reported in the same way as

the performance of other students is reported. In 1999, all directors with statewide assessments indicated that scores of test-takers receiving special education

services were disaggregated. In 1997, 22 states did not disaggregate scores.

Reasons for disaggregating data are primarily to conduct separate analyses or

report the results. Still, 11 states indicated they are removing the scores of students with disabilities from further analyses (see Figure 3). Removing scores was

the only reason cited by four states (Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, and Nebraska).

Figure 3. Reasons for Disaggregating Performance Data

4540-

25-

Number of

States

2015- 10

Remove Scores Analysis or Reporting

Reasons for Disaggregation

28

Other

All directors with

statewide assessments

indicated that scores of

test-takers receiving

special education services

were disaggregated from

the scores of other

students, mostly to

conduct separate analyses

on the performance of

students with disabilities.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
20 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table 13 shows the ways in which results are reported in the 41 states that separate scores for analysis or reporting. Most states are publicly reporting on the

performance of students with disabilities.

Table I 3.Ways in which Results of Separate Analyses of Students with Disabilities are Reported

State

Internal report

for review by

SEA personnel

Internal report

to local district

or school

officials

Publicly released

report that

includes all test

takers

Publicly released

report that

includes only

students with

disabilities

Alabama

Arkansas

Arizona

California

Colorado

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Indiana

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

North Carolina

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Mexico

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

West Virginia

Wyoming

29
Reporting and Using Assessment Results

About three fourths of the state directors use test results for at least three distinct

purposes, including guiding statewide policy decisions, curricular or instructional

decisions, and decisions to reform schools (see Figure 4). Over half use them to

guide decisions about individual students. About one-third of the directors

indicated that the use of test results is informal and usually results from parent

and community pressure.

Figure 4. Uses of Test Results Across States

Guide statewide policy decisions

Guide curricular or

instructional decisions

Guide decisions to reform

schools

Guide decisions about individual

students

Informal and usually results from

parent and community pressure

0 20 40 60

Percent of States

30

80 100

Test results are primarily

used for guiding statewide

policy decisions, decisions

to reform schools, and

decisions about individual

students. Yet, about onethird of states use the

results in informal ways,

often as a result of parent

and community pressure.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Greatest needs for

training involve clarifying

how student goals are

aligned with state

standards and defining

performance standards

for students with

disabilities.

NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Individualized Education

Programs and Assessments

THE 1997 REAUTHORIZATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT

will likely lead to fundamental changes in how Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are written, implemented, and evaluated. Two areas of greatest

difficulty and need for training are alignment of student goals with state standards, and decisions about the performance standards to which students with

disabilities will be held (see Figure 5). State directors reported having the least

difficulty and lowest training needs in determining the instructional accommodations students will use.

States have used several strategies to meet the assessment provisions of IDEA.

The approach used by the greatest number of states is training (70% of states),

followed by the development and dissemination of written policies (44% of

states). These approaches and others identified by states are summarized in

Appendix A for those states that responded.

Figure 5. IEPs and AssessmentAreas of Difficulty and Need for Training

Alignment of student goals with

state standards

Decisions about performance standards to

which a student will be held

Assessment participation decisions

Alternate assessment participation

decisions

Assessment accommodations a student

will use

Instructional accommodations a

student will use

Implementation Difficulty

0 Training Needed

31

zaktaik:Mxt....

knelt 0:4,K.74,1g(41,7**7..WpTP, .:Sitt0.34:41**41

,,:dIERTMEM

2.12

12.50

kti.*4.:***;),.... +: ....vc-....,,

qW1*ZWORW

1 Low Medium

Mean Rating

3

High
Standards-based Reform

Standards-based Reform

THE CHARTS IN FIGURE 6 SUMMARIZE THE CURRENT STATUS OF STATES WITH RESPECT TO

several standards-based reform practices. For those states with some activity

underway, the figure also shows the involvement of state special education

personnel.

Passing an exit exam for graduation from high school is required by 19 states,

with another 9 states either developing or planning an exit exam. In nearly half

of the 35 states with some activity, special educators have high to very high

involvement.

Eighteen states allow IEP teams to change graduation requirements for individual

students. Another four are planning to do so. Three-quarters of the 30 states with

some activity have high to very high involvement of special educators.

Rewards or sanctions for schools or districts based on accountability results is a

practice currently being implemented by 16 states; 12 additional states are developing rewards and sanctions practices, and 4 are planning. Most state special

education personnel have some or high involvement.

Out-of-level testing is implemented by 10 states, with development or planning

taking place in 10 states. High involvement with this issue was the most frequent

response of special educators.

Only 7 states are implementing end-of-course testing, but another 7 are either in

development or planning stages. Involvement of special education personnel is

varied, yet almost half of the states with some activity indicate high involvement.

Only 4 states are aggregating results of their alternate assessment with the results

of the general assessment. Most states are in the planning stage. Involvement of

special education personnel in states with some activity in this area is primarily

high to very high.

Clearly, special education personnel are most highly involved in practices that are

most directly related to students with disabilities, especially aggregating results of

alternate assessments with general assessment results and allowing IEP teams to

change graduation requirements for individual students. Practices relating to all

students, or those where the inclusion of students with disabilities might be seen

as detrimental, such as determining rewards or sanctions for schools based on

accountability results, have the least involvement of special education personnel.

Comments by individual states about their activities across each of these practices

can be found in Appendix B. s 32

State special education

involvement in standardsbased reform is highest

for practices directly

related to students with

disabilities.
Considered

But Rejected

(n=4)

NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Figure 6. Level of State Activity and Involvement of State Special Education

Personnel in Standards-based Reform

Exit exams required for graduation

No Activity

(n = 14)

Planning

(n = 4)

Developing

(n = 5)

Revising

(n = 3) None Low Some High

Involvement of Special Education Personnel

Allowing IEP teams to change graduation requirements for individual students

Considered

But Rejected

(n = 6)

Revising

Planning (n = 2)

(n = 4)

Very High

33

None Low Some High

Involvement of Special Education Personnel

Very High
Standards-based Reform

Figure 6. Level of State Activity and Involvement of State Special Education

Personnel in Standards-based Reform (continued)

Rewards or sanctions for schools or districts based on accountability results

Considered

But Rejecte

(n = 1)

Planning

(n=4) Number of to States

Out-of-level testing for large-scale accountability systems

Developing

(n=2)

34

None low Some High

Involvement of Special Education Personnel

Very High

Number of to States

None Low Some High

Involvement of Special Education Personnel

Very High

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
iti NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Figure 6. Level of State Activity and Involvement of State Special Education

Personnel in Standards-based Reform (continued)

End-of-course testing as a measure of accountability

Planning

Considered

But Rejected

(n=3)

Revising

... (n = 2)

Developing

(n = 3)

Number of States

None Low Some High

Involvement of Special Education Personnel

Aggregating results of alternate assessment with general assessment results

No Activity

(n = 4)

Implementing

(n = 4)

Number of States

Very High

None Low Some High

Involvement of Special Education Personnel

Very High
Current Issues and Technical Assistance Needs

Current Issues and Technical

Assistance Needs

ACCORDING TO STATE DIRECTORS, THE FACTOR PRESENTING THE GREATEST BARRIER TO

obtaining educational accountability information on students with disabilities is

lack of resources (see Table 14). The adequacy of assessments for use with all

students is also seen as a significant barrier. The fewest barriers are attributed to

cooperation between general and special education and concerns or resistance by

state agency personnel.

Table 14. Factors Presenting Barriers to the Development, Implementation, and

Reporting of Educational Accountability Information on Students Receiving

Special Education Services

Lack of resources and

inadequate assessments

are seen as the greatest

barriers to obtaining

educational accountability information on

students with disabilities.

Ratings of Barriers (Number of States

Factors None Minimum Moderate Major

Mean

Rating*

Lack of resources 0 I6 18 14 1.96

Adequacy of assessments for all students 0 16 20 11 1.89

Concerns or resistance by local school personnel 0 13 29 5 1.83

Policies or practices regarding test

accommodations 2 21 18 7 1.63

Policies or practices regarding participation 5 19 14 7 1.51

Appropriateness of standards for all students 5 20 14 8 1.50

Availability of data on who is excluded from

assessment 8 20 10 9 1.43

Lack of technical expertise 7 20 17 3 1.34

Concerns or resistance by parents and community

members 4 28 9 5 1.33

Availability of data on who receives

accommodations 10 17 11 6 1.30

Lack of cooperation between general and special

education 8 22 15 I 1.20

Concerns or resistance by state agency personnel 13 26 7 I .91

*For the mean rating, none = 0, minimum = 1, moderate = 2, major = 3.
Best practice information

continues to lead the list

of preferred technical

assistance, but the desire

for obtaining information

from the Internet has

soared since 1997.

NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Technical assistance needs reflect the issues states are facing. Figure 7 illustrates

the change in preferred forms of technical assistance since 1995. While access to

best practice information continues to be rated high, information available via the

Internet has soared in 1999 to a level nearly as high as best practice information.

Figure 7.Technical Assistance Needs of State Directors

Best practice information used in

other states

Information available via the

Internet

Consultation and review of state-developed

draft materials

Small group "clinics" on specific topics at

national conferences and meetings

Materials to build awareness of the value of

accountability data for IEP students

Materials for self-review in making participation

decisions for students in state assessments

Conference calls between counterparts in

other states

Individual consultation scheduled at national

conferences and meetings

1999

01997

M 1995

37

'1$231:3EMSKS: itakzialtS`.:27S3S-11.3zz..1,vkat

:6144::.:4:4*av:,..6.14.4:4tt446:444:44.±.44.4i,i4ed6.4.:41.4akke.t. M2101tifirgeaVitrigaZaZ42.18M2

ifzimattatra&mkt:.:sz:SEIM:

FtViteRte&MMT4MaraMMISTral

gifiltaMISM3

0 20 40 60

Percent of States

80 100
Appendix A 12

Appendix A:

Approaches States Have Found

Most Helpful in Meeting the

Assessment Provisions of IDEA

38
30 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Approaches States Have Found Most Helpful in Meeting the Assessment Provisions of IDEA

State Response

Alabama Training

Arkansas Written policies; linking IEP goals/objectives to curriculum frameworks of state; refining data collection

and reporting procedures with test producers; training; monitoring practices.

California Development of new monitoring procedures and presentations at regional meetings and conferences.

Colorado Training materials; trainer of trainers; conferences; parent center involvement; listserv, teleTA, & Web

site.

Connecticut Since implementation is not required until July 2000 no training, monitoring have been conducted.

Policies in development.

Delaware Stakeholder groups, informing all parties regularly (SBE, parents, teachers, administrators), providing

written guidelines and training.

Florida Training at local levels, written policies from state level; monitoring practices (just beginning);

providing inclusion rate reports to districts (has heightened awareness and made folks pay attention to

what's reported!).

Hawaii Working with NCEO personnel, SCASS group, training and working with parents.

Iowa Ongoing professional development.

Idaho Written policies, large group training, small workshops, 1:1 TA, monitoring, district accountability.

Indiana Training and written policies.

Kansas Since everything is so new, the development of training packages is delayed because the development

of written policies takes place. Staff development, that results in an understanding of the

requirements, and what is right for students, teachers, and parents.

Kentucky Written policies, training, professional development, technical assistance, and monitoring.

Louisiana Training & task force discussions.

Massachusetts Regional training - Addendum to the IEP, direct mailing of guidelines. Contractor forcing us to stay

focused to get our $ worth.

Maryland Continuous training of LEA's, teachers, and parents. Intense training of IHEs.

Minnesota Written accommodations guidelines; training for special education and general education together;

participation decision-making tool available on the Internet.

Missouri Training, monitoring practices, written policies.

Mississippi Written policies and guidelines, Intense training, Follow up.

Montana Alternate assessments based on rating the students' performance directly with the state's standards.

North

Carolina

Training.

North Dakota Training and written policies.

Nebraska Written policies, training, technical assistance documents.

New

Hampshire

Written policies, training, monitoring practices.

New Jersey I. Joint training activities by our Office of Special Education Programs and Office of Assessment

accompanied by written guidelines. 2. Presentations for various constituencies with opportunities to

solicit their input. 3. Participation of special educators.

New Mexico Working closely with our Assessment and Evaluation Unit staff. Providing written guidance to the

field from the Superintendent.

Nevada We have issued policy guidelines and provided some training. More training is needed, and more

user-friendly guidelines for making participation and accommodations decisions are needed. We're

working on these this year.

New York Public reporting of results, monitoring and training based on data, and written policies.

Ohio Training.

Oklahoma Written policies, training, monitoring practices.

Oregon Training, monitoring practices, written policies.

South Carolina Training, monitoring practices, written policies.

South Dakota In-service training and technical assistance guides.

Tennessee Training, written policies.

39
Appendix A

Approaches States Have Found Most Helpful in Meeting the Assessment Provisions of IDEA (continued)

State Response

Texas Written policies; coordination between the various state and regional divisions of the Texas Education

Agency; training; monitoring practices; website; statewide steering committee with parents,

professional educators, advocates, and state student accountability division.

Utah Training of special education, general education, and testing staff in local districts has been very helpful.

Written guidelines with decision-making strategies for IEP teams and feedback to district regarding

their performance have also been helpful.

Wisconsin Training and consulting with experts in the field.

West Virginia Collaboration with the Office of Assessment within the WVDE for policy development, training,

monitoring. Also, participation in conferences and Spec Ed SCASS, especially helpful with alternate

assessment, and assistance from Mid-South RRC.

Wyoming Access to information on our web page www.k I 2.wy.us.

Virgin Islands Professional development, guided dialogue, and written procedures.
Appendix B El

Appendix B:

Comments about Standardsbased Reform Activities

41
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Exit exams required for graduation

State

State's Level

of Activity

Special

Education's

Involvement Description of Activity

Alabama Implementation High Implementation of current exam and in revision for new exam. Giving

EE and developing a new exam on new content. Note: Special

Educators (SDE & LEA) used on all committees.

Arkansas Considered but

Rejected

High Arkansas had this required but has since eliminated it.

Arizona Implementation High Our graduation test will be implemented next year (2000).

California Low High school exit exams were mandated early in 1999.

Delaware Implementation Some Administration of 10th grade DSTP in Spring of 2000 will count for

High School Diploma.

Florida Implementation Very High Currently have a minimum skills test for graduation and are

transitioning to an on level graduation test (FCAT) in 2003.

Idaho Planning Some Expected to be implemented in 2005.

Kansas No Activity ---- Local decision.

Louisiana In Revision Some For the past ten years Louisiana has provided students with graduate

exit exams; currently test exams are under revision.

Massachusetts Planning High Under Education Reform requirement for graduation is passing MCAS

tests.

Minnesota Implementation High Students with IEPs can pass the exit exam at an "individual" level (lower

score or modified test) and still receive a regular high school diploma.

Missouri Planning Some This is being discussed in our state.

New Jersey Implementation High All students must pass our High School Proficiency Assessment to

receive a diploma except those who are exempt on their IEPs.

Students may also pass an alternative test, the Special Review

Assessment, which measures the same proficiencies as the HSPA.

New Mexico Implementation Low High School Competency Exam in grade 10, passing rates of 90% or

higher are typical.

New York Implementation High Regents' exams are exit exams and are requirements for graduation.

Students with disabilities may meet lower standards during the period

the State is phasing in new higher standards for all students.

Ohio Implementation High Students must pass high school proficiency test in order to receive a

diploma.

Oklahamo Considered but

Rejected

None Legislation does not require exit exams, but requires passing end of

course tests before graduation.

Oregon Implementation Our school reform system is in place at this time.

Tennessee In Revision High In transition from competency tests to high stakes EOC tests.

Texas Implementation Very High Students with disabilities must take the Exit Exam for graduation when

the IEP Committee has determined it is an appropriate test,

considering the effects of the student's disability, the instructional

content required in the IEP for FAPE, and the student's requirements

for accommodations in test administration.

Utah Development High To be implemented in 2003. Testing will begin in 10th grade. Students

who pass receive regular diploma. Students can retake test until it is

passed. Test has yet to be developed.

42
Appendix B

IEP teams allowed to change graduation requirements for individual students

State

State's

Level of

Activity

Special

Education's

Involvement Description of Activity

Arizona Implementation High IEP teams may determine the level at which the graduation test will be

given to students with IEP.

California Planning High Policies are under development for use with new promotion standards

and the high school exit exam.

Colorado No Activity Some The decision is made by the district only; the state only guides.

Connecticut Implementation Very High Has been in place for years. IEP team may determine that a requirement

is not appropriate for a student or determine what coursework will

satisfy the requirement.

Delaware Planning High Very preliminary discussions.

Florida No Activity Very High We have a special diploma option that is determined by the IEP but it is

not Considered but Rejected a diploma (standard) Students with

disabilities always have the right and opportunity to pursue a standard

diploma by meeting the same requirements as other students.

Massachusetts No Activity Very High We will need to consider this when the state sets graduation

requirements.

Minnesota Implementation Very High Students with IEPs can have individualized graduation requirements and

still get a regular diploma.

Missouri Implementation Very High High school diplomas can be issued based upon completion of IEP goals

and objectives.

Mississippi No Activity Low IEP teams determine exiting goals and objectives, requirements for a

standard diploma are established by the State Board of Education.

Montana Implementation Schools across the state have been practicing this for years.

New Jersey Implementation IEP teams must include graduation requirements in the IEP. Students

who meet modified graduation requirements as stated in the IEP receive

the same state endorsed diploma as those nondisabled students who

meet all mandated graduation requirements.

New Mexico Implementation High Recent revision of state regulations specifies how the team should

operate.

Nevada Implementation Very High In Nevada, a student who has a disability can earn an "adjusted" diploma

based upon completion of program outlined in IEP. IEP teams cannot

change regular diploma graduation requirements for individual students.

New York Implementation High All students must meet same standards, however there is a safety net

that applies to students with disabilities and Section 504 students,

allowing such students to meet lower graduation requirements. This is

work in progress.

Oklahoma In Revision Some Current legislation does not mention students on IEPs and has no

provision for changing course requirements for graduation.

Tennessee Considered but

Rejected

High State law does not allow.

Texas Implementation Very High IEP teams may not change graduation requirements set in state law and

policy. However, there are various plans for achieving graduation for

students in the general curriculum, and three additional options for

SWD. The IEP team is required to identify, plan, and provide the student

the appropriate rout to graduation.

Utah Implementation Very High IEP teams determine graduation requirements including participation in

test required for graduation.

Vermont Implementation Very High Allow IEP teams to develop multi-year plans. Plans must be endorsed by

the school superintendent or designee.

Wisconsin ---- ---- Unsure at this time.

West Virginia Implementation Very High IEP teams can determine if student is working toward a regular or

modified diploma. These criteria are defined in state board policy.

Wyoming In Revision State his 'developed a task force to study this issue.

4 3 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Rewards or sanctions for schools or districts based on accountability results

State

State's

Level of

Activity

Special

Education's

Involvement Description of Activity

Alabama Implementation Some At-risk funding for low achievers. Schools/LEAs placed on Alert,

Caution, clear lists with consequences.

Arizona Planning Low There was legislation proposed to require the State Board to do this.

California Development Some An Academic Performance Index is under development.

Colorado Development None Awaiting board decision on accreditation rules.

Connecticut Implementation None Funding formula provides additional dollars to low performing schools in

an effort to bring them up.

Delaware Development Some Accountability Task Force is making those decisions currently.

Florida Implementation High Two years of test results are used to define all schools on achievement

levels I through 5. Vouchers are allowed for schools at level I.

Currently only students with speech and language impairments are

included in this calculation.

Georgia Planning Low State is just beginning to consider.

Kansas Considered but

Rejected

Low The results of students on the Kansas State Assessments, is a part of the

accreditation process for schools.

Kentucky In Revision High State accountability regulations have been revised to determine a new

method for determining school accountability rewards and sanctions.

Louisiana Implementation High This is the first year for school accountability.

Massachusetts Development Some Plan to identify under performing schools.

Maryland Implementation Very High Both rewards and sanctions are applied for MSPAP. Student Diploma or

non-diploma for Functional Test.

Missouri Implementation High Requirement is in state law. Rules are being developed.

New Jersey In Revision High Current proposal: districts must have an 85% passing rate on statewide

assessments or show year to year improvement to pass state

monitoring. For special education students, we are planning to look at

participation rates and performance.

New Mexico In Revision Low Not ranking but rating schools on five factors: achievement; attendance;

dropouts; parent/community involvement and safety.

Nevada Implementation Some Since 1997, the Nevada Education Reform Act has used results from

Terra Nova Testing to evaluate school-level accountability, with various

consequences being attached to the results.

New York Implementation High Local Assistance Plans must be prepare by school districts for low

performing schools. Lowest performing schools are subject to

registration review and eventual closure or re-design if they do not

improve. Our accountability system is currently under revision.

Ohio Implementation Some State intervention will be required for some district performing poorly.

Oregon Development Low State legislation regarding district effectiveness.

Tennessee Development Some Value added rewards and sanctions being developed.

Texas Implementation Some TX does include consideration of student performance, including SWD,

on the state accountability test in the rating system for rewarding or

sanctioning districts.

Utah Development Some New state legislation passed in 1999 session is requiring state office to

further develop accountability system for implementation in 2003.

Vermont Development Very High AYP system based on growth factors under development.

Virginia Development Some The Board has held public hearings on what policy should be.

Wisconsin Implementation High Wisconsin's criteria for identifying schools "in need of improvement"

have been in place for several years. Until recently, this criteria was

based on the percentage of students achieving in the top two of the

state's four proficiency levels.

West Virginia Implementation Some Current rewards or sanctions do not specifically address students with

disabilities - their results are aggregated into school totals if they took

the assessment under standard conditions.
Appendix B

Out-of-level testing for large-scale accountability systems

State

State's

Level of

Activity

Special

Education's

Involvement Description of Activity

Arizona Implementation High For both our NRT and standards-based assessment systems, as per State

Board decision.

California Implementation Low There is discussion on resolving inequitable reporting practices for outof-level testing.

Connecticut Implementation Very High CT has allowed out-of-level testing for about 10 years.

Idaho ---- High Data to support or refute the need is currently being collected.

Massachusetts Planning None Planning is too strong, we are considering and have not rejected the

idea.

North Dakota Implementation Some Out-of-level Testing guidelines for CTBS followed.

New York Considered but

Rejected

High We allow school districts to define "age appropriate" when making

decisions regarding when students are to be tested.

Oklahoma Considered but

Rejected

Some State will revisit this issue for possible consideration in the next few

months.

Oregon Development High 1999-2000 is to be the first year of implementation.

Tennessee Considered by

Rejected

Very High Accommodations committee rejected due to validity issues.

Texas Development Very High The current accountability assessment, TAAS, does not permit out-oflevel testing. This is the major reason students with disabilities are

exempt. Texas is developing an alternate test of students' progress in

the state's general curriculum for students with disabilities who are

taught in the curriculum but for whom the TAAS is not an appropriate

test.

Utah Implementation Very High Out-of-level testing is an option on the end-of-course, end-of-level tests

only.

Vermont Implementation Very High Out-of-level tests may be requested. Use must be approved by Dept. of

Ed. on a case-by-case basis.

West Virginia Implementation Very High Currently, students cannot only be tested one grade level below

placement; this is a modification and nonstandard administration.

45
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

End-of-course testing as a measure of accountability

State

State's

Level of

Activity

Special

Education's

Involvement Description of Activity

Arizona In Revision High All grades except Ilth which is in "Development."

California Considered but

Rejected

None California's Golden State Exam program is not used for accountability

purposes.

Idaho Planning Some Assessment for State standards is in the planning phase.

Maryland Development High Developing for High school. Field-testing in 1999-2000 school year.

New York Implementation High NY uses 1 I th grade competency status to make accountability

determinations for high schools. We are moving to a system of cohort

analysis. The performance of students with disabilities is included

(aggregated) in such determinations. Also, spec. ed. Quality Assurance

(monitoring) procedures heavily emphasize student perf. data, including

participation and performance in state assessments.

Oklahoma Planning None Recent legislation requires end of course tests. Beginning the planning

and development of these tests. . Tennessee Development High EOC tests in developmentspecial ed. has concerns with obtaining

regular education diploma.

Texas Implementation High Students with disabilities who take the course with no content

modifications are included in the assessments.

Utah Implementation High End of level tests for k-6 in language arts, math and science. Math and

science for some courses grades 7-12. By 2003, Language Arts and Math

will be developed for all grades and courses K-I2.

West Virginia Development Low Currently looking at end-of-course test for Algebra I only.

46
Appendix B

Aggregating results of alternate assessment with general assessment results

State

State's

Level of

Activity

Special

Education's

Involvement Description of activity

California Implementation Low Aggregation is automatic for students who participate.

Florida Planning Very High Pilot studies are underway to review reliability and audit teacher

decision-making. Multiple means of alternate assessment are currently

being used. Planning in this area continues.

Kentucky Implementation Very High Reports include the results of alternate assessment in the aggregate as

an equal weight as non-disabled students.

Idaho Implementation Very High Scores appear identical and will be aggregated and disaggregated.

Missouri Considered but

Rejected

High At this time we do not plan to aggregate the results with the MAP

assessments. We will use the MAP-Alternate results somehow in the

accountability system. Not sure how we will do that yet.

North Dakota Planning Some Task Force reviewing this issue.

New York Considered but

Rejected

High We will not aggregate results from these very different measures.

Oklahoma Planning Very High There is discussion of how these results will be reported after July I,

2000.

Tennessee Development Very High Alternate assessment developed to mirror reporting language of

statewide assessment.

Texas Planning High Texas is studying valid methodology and statistical design to address this

issue.

Utah Considered but

Rejected

Very High AA results are not expected to be compatible with results of general

state assessments and therefore cannot be aggregated. Still in

development so no firm decision has been made.

Vermont Planning Very High Developing a system.

Wisconsin Implementation High Students who participate in alternate assessment will be reported in a

fifth proficiency level beginning with the 1999-2000 school year.

West Virginia Planning High Examining reporting alternate assessment results across 4 performance

levels - not percentiles.

Wyoming Considered but

Rejected

For reporting purposes the State does not aggregate due to statistical

reasons. For accountability purposes alternate assessment will count.
40 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Other areas of reform

State

State's

Level of

Activity

Special

Education's

Involvement Description of Activity

Arkansas Development Some New Outcome Based Licensure System

Colorado ---- ---- (I) Each district will develop a contract specifying how all students will

meet standards.

(2) The report form will include alternate assessment resultsnot

aggregated.

(3) The state will also try to look at "Safe & Civil Learning

Environment" as an accreditation indicator.

Florida Planning Very High School Achievement level determination for special schools (juvenile

justice facilities, special center schools; alternative schools):

Addressing accountability for special schools and investigating

accountability for special education in multiple waysnot just through

test scores.

Idaho Development Very High Accountability for demonstrating progress toward Special Education

Performance Goals and Indicators:

Includes: Decreasing dropout rates, increasing graduation rates,

participation of all students in district and statewide assessments,

improving academic skills of students in special education, improving

post-school outcomes for special education student.

Massachusetts Planning High Alternate graduation options:

Discussing is more like it - we have not reached the planning stage yet.

New Mexico Planning Some We are still trying to establish a single system based on cohort groups

in schools.

Tennessee Implementation Very High Special accommodations for students in special education. Training ongoing.

Utah Development Low Stanford 9 will be increased to include grade 3 by 2003.

48
(9

I11111 The College of Education & Human Development

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

49
(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

ERIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release

(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to

reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release

form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket")..