ED 385 061

AUTHOR

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATE

CONTRACT

NOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICE

DESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC :504 094

Erickson, Ron; And Others

State Special Education Outcomes: A Report on How

States Are Assessing Educational Outcomes for

Students with Disabilities, 1994.

National Center on Educational Outcomes, Minneapolis,

MN.

Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington,

DC.

Mar 95

H159C00004

39p.

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

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

Reports Descriptive (141)

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.

*Accountability; Administrators; *Disabilities;

*Educational Assessment; *Educational Objectives;

Educational Policy; Elementary Secondary Education;

Evaluation Methods; National Surveys; *Outcomes of

Education; Program Development; School Districts;

Special Education; State Departments of Education;

Statewide Planning; *Student Evaluation; Student

Participation

*Goals 2000; National Center on Educational

Outcomes

Results of a 1994 survey of state directors of

special education are presented for 47 states, 7 protectorates, and

the District of Columbia. Four major issues were surveyed: the

effects of activities outlined In Goals 2000 on state special

education service delivery systems; efforts that states are making to

develop learner goals and related assessments; how broadly the

National Center on Educational Outcomes model of educational outcomes

and indicators has been disseminated and used within state and local

educational agencies; and the extent to which students with

disabilities are participating in statewide achievement assessments.

Narrative summaries, tables, and figures include information on the

status of outcomes development and assessment development for each

state and state policies on learner outcomes and outcomes-related

assessments. For each state, statewide assessments are listed and

their purposes are identified as either for student accountability,

school or district accountability, or instructional decision-making.

The study found that Goals 2000 is seen by most state directors as

having a positive impact on students with disabilities, that mcit

states have adopted statements of learner goals or outcomes, and that

most states are developing or reviewing assessment systems designed

to measure student progress toward these outcomes. (SW)

*********A******************************************A******************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * from the original document. ***********************************************************************
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educatdanal Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

Z ,01Krs. document has been reproduced as

the person or orgamzetion

0 IN,nor changes have been made to mprove

'eproduct,on qualdy

Pontsot v.ew or op,mons slated In this doCu

ment do not neCeSsardy represent 01/1C,al

OERI posIlden nr poncy

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS

MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

"11()NAI. I..N 1 I l

11)1't A 110\,\I

()LI( M\11-,-;

A Report on

How States are Assessing

Educational Outcomes

for Students with

.)11C;2;l` dill ,111()11 .110 I ill111,111 11m l'ICTIFICIlt L \ Ill 1lII1I11,-.01,1

2

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
19.4 State

Special Education

Outcomes

National Center

on Fducational ()utcorne,

Collegc of Education and

ni-n n Development

L tliver!.-;ity Of NIinne,,ota

oll,11.1ordhon \\.

',LC loud M.Ito 1. \ dMLi

tho svuion,t1 Htcito

-tol- of I dt.h..otioii

A Report on

How States are Assessing

Educational OutcoMes

for Students with Disabilities

BEST CO' AVAILABLE
March 1995

NCEO Core Staff:

Robert H. Bruininks

Judith L. Elliott

Ronald N. Erickson

Patricia J. Grafstrom

Kevin S. McGrew

Dorene L. Scott

Patricia S. Seppanen

Martha L. Thurlow,

assistant director

James E. Ysseld v ke,

director

The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) was

established in October 1990 to

work with state departments of

education, national policymaking groups, and oti-iers 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 Education, 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.

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

612-626-1530
Acknowledgments

Many people provided input on

both he content and format of

this 1994 special education

survey. NCEO especially

expresses its appreciation to

those who devoted their time to

answering the survey quesions.

F

Special thanks

go to:

Office of Special

Education Programs,

U.S. Department of Education:

Louis Danielson

David Malouf

Report Update:

Trish Gra fstrom

State Special Education Outcomes

1994 was prepared by Ron Erickson,

Martha Thurlow, and Kathryn Thor.
Executive Summary

This report by the National

Center on Educational Outcomes

(NCEO) presents the results of

the fourth annual survey of state

directors of special education.

NCEO sent the survey to directors of all 50 regular states and

the 10 unique states that provide

special education services under

the provisions of the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act.

The major findings of the 1994

special education survey include:

The majority of state directors

of special education have received training and/or information about Coals 201.10, the federal

initiative designed to support

state and local reform efforts.

This information and training has

come from a variety of state and

federal sources.

111 Coals 2000 is seen by most

state directors of special education as having a positive impact

on students with disabilities, and

is considered a positive force for

including students with disabilities in statewide reform activities.

IIII Most states have identified

and adopted statements of

learner goals or outcomes.

Assessment systems designed to

measure student progress toward

these outcomes are currently

under development or review in

most states.

II The most prevalent policy in

place to promote the adoption of

state-ratified learner goals and

related assessments is one

whereby the state strictly mandates the adoption of such systems by local districts.

I The NCEO Conceptual Model

of Outcomes and Indicators has

reached a broad audience of state

directors of special education,

and has been used to assist in

state-level reform activities.

Information on the participation of students with disabilities

in statewide assessment programs is still largely inaccessible

or unavailable to most state

directors of special education.
State Directors of Special Education

ALABAMA

Bill East

KENTUCKY

11,1111,10cm

NORTH CAROLINA

Lowell I larris

WISCONSIN

Juanita Pawlisch

ALASKA LOUISIANA NORTH DAKOTA WYOMING

Myra I Lowe Leon Borne Gary Gronberg Sharon Davarn

ARIZONA MAINE OHIO

Kathryn Lund David Stockford John Ilerner

AMERICAN SAMOA

ARKANSAS MARYLAND OKLAHOMA Jane French

Diane Sydoriak Richard Steinke John orpolongo

BUREAU OF INDIAN

CALIFORNIA MASSACHUSETTS OREGON AFFAIRS

Leo Sandoval Pamela Kaufmann Karen Brazeau Lena Mills

COLORADO MICHIGAN PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT OF

Fred Smokoski Richard Baldwin Michele Desera COLUMBIA

B. Garnett Pinkne,.

CONNECTICUT MINNESOTA RHODE ISLAND

Tom Gi Hung Wayne Erickson Robert Pry hoda GUAM

DELAWARE MISSISSIPPI SOUTH CAROLINA

Vince Lcon (;uerren,

Martha Brooks Carolyn Black Ora Spann COMMONWEALTH

OF THE NORTHERN

FLORIDA MISSOURI SOUTH DAKOTA MARIANA ISLANDS

Bettye kVeir vIelodie l'riedebach Deborah Barnett Barbara Rudy

GEORGIA MONTANA TENNESSEE REPUBLIC OF THE

Paulette Bragg Robert Runkel Joe Fisher MARSHALL ISLANDS

Kanchi I losia

HAWAII NEBRASKA TEXAS

Margaret I )onova n Gary Sherman Jill Gray FEDERATED STATES

OF MICRONESIA

IDAHO NEVADA UTAII N'Iakir Keller

Fred lialcom Gloria I)opi Steve Kukic

PALAU

ILLINOIS NEW HAMPSHIRE VERMONT Peter Elechuus

Gail I .ieberman Nate Norris Dennis Kane

PUERTO RICO

INDIANA NEW JERSEY VIRGINIA Morales

Paul . \'h Port-mi.,' Gant werk Jo Lynne Demar

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

IOWA NEW MEXICO WASHINGTON Priscilla Stridiron

leanonne I Ligon Diego Gallegos Douglas Gill

Note: In ,1111. r.ponNr, IN, it 1;.1111,-Ivr1 Ir .rn orb, r

KANSAS NEW YORK WEST VIRGINIA ror,onncl

Carol I )ermover Iom Neveld i no Michael Valentine
Table of Contents

Introduction

Part One: Goals 2000: Educate America Act 3

'l able 1 Sources Providing States with Information on Goals 200 4

Figure 1 kVill Gods 2000 Have an Impact' 6

Figure 2 Goals 2000:1 vpc 01 Impact

Figure 3 States' Planning Response to Gods 20(1)

Part Two: State Policies on Learner Outcomes and Related Assessments 9

Table 2 Status on Outcomes and Assessments Development 11

table 3 State Policy on Learner Outcomes 12

Table 4 State Policy on Outcomes-Related Assessments 14

Figure 4 States Using 1: \isting Assessmt. oh; 16

Figure 5 - States Using New Forms of Assessment 16

Part Three: The NCEO Conceptual Model of Outcomes and Indicators . . 17

Figure 6 -States' Level of Awareness of the NCFO Model is

Part Four: Participation of Students with Disabilities

in Statewide Assessments

I able - Students w ith I )isabilities Participating in .Assessments . 20

Figure 7 Availability of Assessment I )ato on Students

with Disabilities 22

Conclusion 23

Appendix
migernamesmiiminiuni

Introduction

NCEO's Mission

NCEO is a collaborative effort

of the National Association of

State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), the University of Minnesota, and Saint

Cloud State Unive..sity. Part of

NCEO's mission hat; been to

lead the nation in identifying

educational outcomes for

students with disabilities and to

develop possible indicators that

could be used to monitor those

important outcomes.

The Center works with national

policTnaking 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,

NCE.0 has four major goals:

Goal 1 .1-o promote the development of a system of indicators for use with all students,

including those with disabilities.

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.

The Center undertakes many

activities to accomplish these

goals. In addition to the state

survey, the Center examines and

analyzes existing national and

state data that could provide

information on outcomes for

students with disabilities. It

works with other groups and

organizations (such as the National Center for Education

Statistics) to address issues

related to current national and

statewide assessment efforts.

And it has developed a conceptual model of outcomes and

indicators through a collaborative effort involving state and

national agencies, parents, and

professionals.

About the State Survey

NCEO produced its first report

on state special education outcollies in ittle did anyone

realize the incredible magnitude

of educational Morin efforts that

would soon follow, both locally

and nationally. Virtually every

state has become invol%ed in

some type of educational reform

movement. States have placed

much attention on establishing

learner goals and accompanying

assessment systems capable of

measuring these goals. Federal

efforts have included those of:

ill the National Education Goals

Panel monitoring progress

toward eight national education

goals;

various standards-setting

groups producing world-class

standards in numerous curricular

areas; and

N Congress passing Goals 2000:

Educate America Act.

The federal legislation has stimulated and supported a variety of

state-level activities that foster

quality educational opportunities

for all students. Consequently,

education is undergoing rapid

change and reform.

The question now is, I low does

special education participate in

this movement?

NCEO offers some preliminary

answers to this question in its

State Special Education Outcomes

1994 report. Survey questions for

this report focus on four major

issues:

(1) What effect the activities

outlined in Goals 2000: The

Educate America Act have on state

special education service delivery

systems;

(2) What efforts states are making

to develop learner goals and

related assessments;
Introduction

(3) How broadly the NCEO

model of educational outcomes

and indicators has been disseminated and used within state and

local educational agencies;

(4) The extent to which students

with disabilities are participating

in statewide achievement assessments now being used by states.

This year's report surveyed state

special education directors in all

fifty regular states and the ten

unique states that must abide by

the provisions of P. L. 101-476,

bulipiduals zoith Disabilities Educatio Act (IDEA). NCEO gathered

the responses through a mailed

or faxed survey, or through an

interview. In some cases, state

special education directors

designated other state officials to

assist in answering the survey

questions. There was a 100

percent response rate.

10

il'UnititielStater

American Samoa = Am Samoa

Bureau of Indian Affairs = BIA

Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands =

CN MI

District of Columbia = DC

Federated States of

Micronesia = FSM

Guam

Palau

Puerto Rico

Republic of the Marshall

Islands = RMI

U.S. Virgin ;sla rids = USVI
Part One:

Goals 2000: Educate America Act

During the past year, three pieces

of federal legislation passed that

supported the current momentum for change in American

education: the Schools to Work

Opportunity Act, the ImproPing

America's Schools Act (formerly

called the Elementary and Sccondani Education Act), and Goals

2000: Educate America Act.

the Goals 2000 legislation placed

into law the six original national

goals, which were k.'staHished at

the 1989 Charlottesville education summit, plus two additional

goals aimed at improving teachers' professional development

and parents' involvement in

school. Goals 2000's central tenet

emphasizes setting high, challenging standards for all students, including students with

disabilities.

States that choose to submit

applications for funding under

this legislation must write state

improvement plans and provide

evidence on how such plans

include students with disabilities.

State-level planning teams that

are funded by first-year grants

also must include representatives

from a broad constituent audience, including special education.

To find Out how aware and

involved state directors of special

education are regarding Goals

2000 legislation, the survey asked

them three questions: How much

information. and training did they

receive about Goals 2000?; What

impact did they believe Goals

2000 would have on students

with disabilities ?; How did they

plan to respond to Goals 2000 in

the coming year?

Sources of Information on

Goals 2000

111 TOW('

Most directors of special education received some type of information or training about Goals

2000 since it was signed into law

in March 1994. This came most

often from the respondent's own

state department of education.

NASDSE and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)

of the U.S. Department of

Education.

The Impact of Goals 2000 on

Students with Disabilities

Figures 1 and 2

Nearly all state directors believed

that Goals 2000 would have a

mostly positive impact on students with disabilities, and

would foster their inclusion of

students with disabilities in state

reform efforts. They also expressed expectations of greater

inclusion in curriculum and

instruction, assessment, and

higher academic standards.

Responses to Goals 2000

MI Figure 3

I .ikely responses of states to Goals

2000 during the upcoming year

were: (a) to provide training or

technical assistance to local

education agencies and special

education directors on how to

apply for Goals 2000 funding, or

(b) to continue to participate with

state officials on the Goals 2000

planning teams.

Other responses included seeking changes in how special

education was funded, and

monitoring the progress of the

legislation at the federal level.
Part One Sources of Information on Goals 2000

,.:..,,..

'T. e, Sour

State

,', rovidingS,

OSEP

ates,vithl.nformattoron

Federally

Funded

Projects

. Goals 20. :fr No

NASDSE Information

State Dept

of

Education

Other

Alabama ii a

Alaska a li

Arizona a

Arkansas

California

Colorado a a

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia a

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa a

Kansas,

Kentuck\ ti

Louisiana a is

Maine

Maryland a

Massachusetts

Michigan a

Minnesota a

miscissippi a

Missouri a a

Montana

Nebraska

Ne\ada

New I lampshire

New .Terse, a

12

4
State Special Education Outcomes 1994

State OS EP

Federally

Funded

Projects

NASDSE

State Dept

of

Education

Other

No

Information

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio ail Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia Ili

Wisconsin

WN.ornin2

Ain Samoa

WA

CNM I

DC

FSM

Guam

Palau

Puerto Rico

10,11

L'S VI

TOTALS 31 11 41 12 42 5

13
Part One Impact of Goals 2000 on Students with Disabilities

'Figure 1 Will oa s uvu Have animpacti

No

3%

Y. II g I- I S.

Unsure

8%

Unsure

2%

14

Positive and

Negative

6%

Negative

15%
Part One Responses to Goals 2000

Figure 3 States'..Planning Resposse to Goals 2000 <Y

Not Specified

Other

Planning with Regular

Education Programs

Training Local Education

Agencies

o Number of States

7
Part Two:

State Policies on Learner Outcomes

and Related Assessments

Standards and assessments are

the two concepts that form the

centerpiece of American educational reform in the 1990s. Perhaps during no other period of

our nation's history has so much

interest and effort been generated

in the area of setting academic

standardsstatements of what

students should know and be

able to do in the 21st century.

To meet the requirements for

Goals 2000 funding, states need to

provide evidence that challenging content standards have been

established for all students in a

variety of academic disciplines.

States may select these standards

through a collaborative planning

process, or by adopting those of

standards-setting groups. States

also must give attention to the

development of new forms of

assessment to adequately measure student performance on

these standards.

The movement to create standards and develop new forms of

student assessment were well

underway in many states by the

time Goals 2000 was signed into

law. The policies that those states

developed to support the standards and assessments differ

from state to slate, just as do the

relationships between states and

local education agencies.

What is even more variable

between states, though, is the

implementation of standards and

assessments. Some states choose

to address standards that are

specific to particular disciplines

such as mathematics, science,

and social studies. Other states

may define expectations about

integrated higher thinking skills.

They use different words to

describe their standards. Among

the terms often used are outcomes, goals, and curriculum

frameworks. NCEO chose to use

the phrase "learner goals or

outcomes" to encompass these

various terms, with the recognition that significant differences

exist among them in practice.

16

Current Status of Outcomes

and Assessments

Table 2

States can develop outcomes

without assessments and vice

versa. Since Goals 2000 and the

Improving America's Schools Act

(formerly the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act) require

assessments linked to standards,

NCEO needs to know how states

are developing both outcomes

and assessments.

The survey asked respondents to

describe their states' progress in

identifying learner goals or

outcomes and in developing

related assessments. Table 2

places the 50 regular states and

10 unique states into a matrix

that identifies each state's status

in both outcomes and assessments development. The table

reveals the significant breadth of

current reform activities taking

place across the states: 23 states

report having a set of learner

goals or outcomes completed and

available, with another 26 states

in the process of developing,

reviewing or revising them at the

present time. In terms of assessment activity, the survey revealed that most states are at the

initial stages of reform: only 12

states report having assessment
Part Two: The State Policies on Learner Outcomes and Related Assessments

systems complete and available

for use, with another 33 indicating that their systems are currently under development or

review.

Some respondents indicate that

the development of Outcomes

and assessments had been completed in certain curriculum

areas, but not in others. States

whose directors answered in this

manner were placed in the

"under development" category.

State Policies on Learner

Outcomes and Assessments

U Tables .3 and 4

The most prevalent state policy

on outcomes and assessments

mandates the adoption of learner

goals and the use of state-ratified

assessments at the local district

level.

Other reported policies give local

educational agencies the option

of either adopting the statedeveloped outcomes famework

and its accompanying assessment

program, or developing and

adopting their own frameworks

and assessments. Still others

report having policies that allow

local districts the option of

deciding whether to adopt any

system of accountability.

Figures 4 and 5

Almost equal percentages of

states were:

(1) using assessments already in

use in the state;

(2) developing new instruments

for the purpose of measuring

their articulated learner goals or

outcomes.

17

I()
Part Two Current Status of Outcomes and Assessments

StattwiotQutqotrps and Asses

Completed

Outcomes Development

Under

Development

Other Status No articulated

Outcomes at

Present

Not Sure

Completed Alabama

Connecticut

Illinois

Maryland

Nevada

New Mexico

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

FSM

USVI

Arizona South Carolina

CDE

C2. 0

CD>0

Ca

0

4-.

0

Cf)

CI) CDV) CD

Under

Development

Florida

Geo; ,,ia ,

Indiana

Maine

Massachusettcs

Michigan

Oklahoma

Vermont

West Virginia

IX'

Alaska

Colorado

Delaware

[(mho

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Minnesota

Missouri

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas

Utah

Washington

BIA

Puerto Rico

R NI I

NIississippi

No Mandated

Assessment

Program at

Present

Arkansas

Hawaii

Montana

Cali1Ornia

Virginia

Iowa

Nebraska

North Dakota

South Dakota

Wyoming

Ain Samoa

CNMI

Guam

Tennessee

Not Sure Palau
Part Two State Policies on Learner Outcomes and Assessments

State Must Adopt

State

Must Adopt

State or Local

Local Choice

. Not Sure

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

M ar land

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Ne\ ada

New Hampshire

New JerseN

19

12
State Special Education Outcomes 1994

State Must Adopt

State

Must Adopt

State or Local

Local Choice Not Sure

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota ''

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota *

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

NVillington

West Virginia

Wisconsin III Wyoming *

Ain Samoa

13IA a

c NJ m i *

DC

ISM

Guam *

Palau

Puerto Rico

RMI

USVI

TOTALS 25 12 8 * State reports no current set of learner goals or outcomes.

20
Part Two State Policies on Learner Outcomes and Assessments

Table''' We.:

State

bliC4':' 'ort

Must Adopt

State

Ucbm-eslelated:Assessthent

Other

.i ... Must Adopt Not Sure

State or Local

Local Choice

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas *

California *

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida a

Geor6a

Hawaii *

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa *

Kansas

Kentucky a

Louisiana

. Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana *

Nebraska *

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

21.

14
State Special Education Outcomes 1994

State Must Adopt

State

Must Adopt

State or Local

Local Choice Other Not Sure

New Mexico Iiii 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 *

An Samoa

131A

CNM1 *

DC

FSM

Guam *

Palau *

Puerto Rico

RMI

USVI

roTALs 27 8 6 1 4

State reports no current outcome-related assessment program.

15
Part Two State Policies on Learner Outcomes and Assessments

tetesUsing Existing 'Assessments

Yes

70% Awogig-0,4"--

'4.A. .kg > Not Sure

12%

No

18%

Sing-NewFornistd Assessment ;

Not Sure

No 14%

5%

16
Part Three:

The NCEO Conceptual Model of

Outcomes and Indicators

NCEO developed a conceptual

model of educational outcomes

and indicators to assess the

effectiveness of education for all

students, including those with

disabilities.

NCEO created the model cooperatively with educational policymakers, researchers, teachers and

parents. State directors of special

education commented on the

extent to which they were aware

of this model, and to what extent

it had been useful in their current

reform efforts.

111 Figure 6

Most state directors were familiar

With the model. Only 7 directors,

or about 12 percent, were unaware of the model, and 23

directors, or about 38 percent,

had either shared the model with

colleagues, or used it in their

reform efforts.

Conceptual Model of Outcomes

= OUTCOME DOMAIN Physical I leahlt

Responsibility and

Independence

Presence and

Participation

Contribution and

Cititenship

Academic and

Functional Literacy

Pers011al and SOCial

AdJUStillnt

SatiNt aci ion

Rei,mrces

(Input and Conte t Educational

Oppoitunit and

Process

4)0

A, c, iilatim,

and Adaptatim

1

17

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Part Three The NCEO Conce_ ta2aiffiodel of Outcomes and Indicators

Figure 6- tatesLLeitel Awareness of the NCE0 Mo e

Used Model

Seen & Shared

Aware: Seen

Aware: Not Seen

Not Aware

P'-`{ `Iry :'#4'

Es Number of States

40
Part Four:

Participation of Students with

Disabilities in Statewide Assessments

Since 1991, NCEO has reported

the rates at which students with

disabilities participate in statewide assessments. In the past,

their participation in statewide

testing programs had varied a

great deal, with estimates for

states ranging from 0',/, to 100',.

Many respondents were unable

to provide an estimate.

Participation Rates in

Statewide Assessments

M Table 5

In the 1994 survey, NCEO asked

for the participation rate for each

assessment administered by a

state. Using Viezoing the Landscape, which was produced

jointly by the North Central

Regional Education Laboratory

(NCREL) and the Council of

Chief State School Officers

(CCSSO) to identify assessments,

NCEO listed each state's current

assessment battery and asked for

the participation rates. (See

Appendix for lists of assessments

and rates for each one.)

Assessments were coded according to the purpose of the assessment noted in Viewing the Landscape, and then summarized for

three classifications:

(1) student accountability (for

example, assessments used to

determine grade promotion or

graduation);

(2) school accountability (for

example, assessments that assign

rewards or sanctions to districts

or schools); or

(3) instructional decision making

(for example, assessments used

for placement or instructional

decisions).

Despite NCEO's request for more

specific information, most states

still could not report the participation rates for students with

disabilities. What is clear is that

many of the statewide assessments serve multiple purposes.

For this reason, participation

rates for the different purposes

tend to look quite similar.

26

Some states could only provide

estimates, which can vary greatly

in their accuracy. Furthermore,

other states report that the data

were not immediately or conveniently available. The DK or

"Don't Know" response was also

used to classify those states

where other related data may

have been reported, such as the

percentage of all test takers who

had a special education

designation.

Figure 7

Participation rates were available

most often (in 18 states) for

assessments used for school

accountability. The were available least often (in 10 states) for

assessments used for student

accountability.

19
Part Four Participation of in Statewide Assessments

_.. able :5 'Students

. Witit Disablities:Participatirigifli.AstesSment

School or District

Accountability

State Student

Accountability

Instructional

Decision Making

NOT

cells I a vera disc&

partic

asses

wit hi

(See ,

asses

ca tag

* Par

were

all as

cater;

rI-. Ns(

asses

NA

state

asst.,

into I

DK -

State

asse!-

c a tq

knov

rate('

Alabama 63.5 45.0 56.5*

Alaska NA DK DK

Arizona I)K DK DK

Arkansas NA I)K DK

California DK NA DK

Colorado *4: * * * *

Connecticut 94.0 84.0 84.0

Delaware NA 84.0 84.0

Florida 81.0 1)K 30.0*

Georgia I)K DK DK

Hawaii DK DK DK

Idaho NA DK DK

Illinois NA 25.0 NA

Indiana DK 1)K DK

Iowa ** ** ** Kansan NA DK DK

Kentucky NA 100.0 100.0

Louisiana 5.0 5.0* 5.0*

Maine DK DK l)K

Maryland NA 90.0 90.0

Massachusetts NA 50.0 NA

Michigan DK DK DK

Minnesota

Mississippi DK DK DK

Missouri NA I)K DK

Montana NA 90.0 NA

Nebraska .!..i. 11

Nevada DK DK DK

New Hampshire NA DK NA

New Jersey 43.0 54.5 54.5

: Percentages in

represent an

ge of students with

ilities who

-ipate across all

sments that fall

n that category.

Appendix for

sments within each

ory.)

icipation rates

not available for

sessments in this

orv.

statewide

snients.

Not Applicable

does not have an

sment that falls

his category.

1)on't Know

has one or more

-Anent in this

orv, but does not

the participation

20 27
State Special Education Outcomes 1994

State Student

Accountability

School or District

Accountability

Instructional

Decision Making

New Mexico DK DK DK

New York NA 91.5 91.5

North Carolina NA 7.0 7.0

North Dakota DK DK DK

Ohio DK DK DK

Oklahoma DK DK DK

Oregon NA 88.5 88.5

Pennsylvania NA DK DK

Rhode Island NA 70.0* 70.0*

South Carolina DK DK DK

South Dakota NA DK DK

Tennessee 99.0 86.4* 74.0*

40.0 40.0 40.0

Utah 75.0 75.0 75.0

Vermont NA DK DK

Virginia 13.0 13.0* 13.0

Washington NA DK DK

West Vin2inia DK DK DK

Wisconsin NA DK DK

\V \ ()mint! ::: !: ...a..

Am Samoa NA NA NA

13IA NA NA NA

CN M I NA NA NA

DC NA NA NA

FS M NA NA NA

Guam NA NA NA

Palau NA NA NA

Puerto R !co NA NA NA

RNI1

USN] NA NA NA

21
Part Four Participation Rates in Statewide Assessments

igure,7 - Availability of Assess ent Data on Students With "sabilitiee'"s

Purpose of Assessments

Instructional Decision

Making

School Accountability

15 26

18 26

Student Accountability 10 15

10 20 30

Number of States

40

Participation Rates Available Participation Rates Not Available

(7

50
Conclusion

Now is an exciting time in education. Findings from the 1994

special education survey provide

testimony to many ambitious

efforts currently underway in

state education systems.

Feedback from state directors

about Collis 20(X) suggests that

this federal initiative provides a

unique opportunity for collaborative planning and bridge-building between special and general

education interests.

Indeed, such collaboration will

become more important as

deliberations continue over the

identification of learner goals,

and as states devise and mandate

new forms of valid and reliable

measures of student performa nce.

(-1 r-ti

If education in the United States

is to become accountable for all

students, then students with

disabilities will need to be considered throughout the entire

process of reform--from the

identification of learner goals to

the reporting of results.
Appendix

The chart in this appendix lists all

assessments identified in the

NCREL report Viewing the

Landscape, plus additional

assessments identified by the

states.

For each assessment, NCEO

listed the percentage of students

with disabilities reported by the

state respondent to its survey

and then the purpose(s) according to the NCREL report.

These data are the basis for the

summary information provided

in Table 5 (see page 20). When

more than one assessment was

identified for a single purpose,

the average of the percentages for

these assessments was reported

in Table 5.

31
Appendix

State and

Assessments

c/c**

P- pose of Assessment Identified in NCREI,

Student School or Instructional 1ot

Account- District Decision- Categorability Account- Making iced

ability

Alabama

Integrated Reading

and Writing

39

Assessment for

Grade Two

Basic Competency 56

Tests

SAT 45

AL Direct 60

Assessment of

Writing

High School Basic 71

Skills Exit Exam

Differential Aptitude NS

Tests with Career

Interest Inventory

Alaska

ITBS NS

Writing Exam NS El

Arizona

1TBS NS

Test of Achievement

and Proficiency

NS

District Assessment

Plans NS

Arkansas

Minimum NS

Performance Tests

SAT NS

Writing Assessment NS

California

Golden State Exams NS

Colorado

NONE

Connecticut

CT Mastery Test 74 MI CT Academic 94

Performance Test

Delaware***

Writing Exam 84

Performance Based 84 II

Assessment in

Reading and Math

32
State Special Education Outcomes 1994

State and

Assessments

ck **

Purpose of Assessment Identified in NCREL*

Student School or Instructional Not

Account- District Decision- ('ategorability Account- Making ized

ability

Florida

High School

Competency Test

FL 'Writing

Assessment

Program

Grade 10

Assessment Test

81

30

NS

N

N

Georgia

GA Curriculum

Based

Assessments

GA High School

Graduation Test

1TBS

Test of Achievement

and Proficiency

GA Kindergarten

Test

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

N

E

N

Hawaii

SAT

Test of Essential

Competencies

(FISTEC)

N S

NS

S

Idaho

Test of Achievement

and Proficiency

ITBS

Direct Writing

Assessment

Performance

'Mathematics

Assessment

Interdisciplinary

Assessments

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

Illinois

1. Goal Assessment

Program

25

Indiana

IN Statewide Testinl..;

for Educational

Progress

(PASS

NS

NS

N

Iowa

NONE

273
Appendix

State and

Assessments

%**

Purpose of Assessment Identified in NCREL*

Student School or Instructional Not

Account- District Decision- Categorability Account- Making ized

ability

Kansas

State Test in Math, NS III Conimunications.

Social Skills.

Science

Kentucky

KY Instructional 100

Results and

Information

System

Portfolio 100

Assessments

Performance Events 100

Louisiana

LA Educational 5

Assessment

Program

LA Grad Exit Exams 5 MI Statewide Norm- NS

Referenced Testing

Program

Maine

State Student NS

Achievement Tests

Maryland

Comprehensive Test

of Basic Skills

NS

(CTBS)

MD School 90

Performance

Assessment

Program

Graduation Tests in 90

Reading, Math,

Writing, and

Citizenship

!MAP NS

Massachusetts **

MA Education 50

Assessments

Program (MEAP)

Michigan

Michigan Education NS M

Assessment

Program

34

28
State Special Education Outcomes 1994

State and

Assessments

%**

Purpose of Assessment Identified in NCREL*

Student School or Instructional Not

Account- District Decision- Categorability Account- Making ized

ability

Minnesota

NONE

Mississippi

Functional Literacy

Examination

ITBS

Test of Achievement

and Proficiency

NS

NS

NS

N N N

N

Missouri

Missouri Mastery

Achievement Test

NS

Montana

Standardised

Achievement

Testing

90

Nebraska

NONE

Nevada

CTBS

Analytic-Trait Score

Writing

High School

Proficiency Exam

Program

NS

NS

NS

N

N

N

New Hampshire

CAT

NH Educational

Assessment

Program (NHEAP)

NS

NS

New Jersey

Grade S Early

Warning Test

High School

Proficiency Test

(HSPT)

66

43

III

N

New Mexico

NM Reading

Assessment

Achievement

Assessment

Direct Writing

Assessment

High School

Competency

Examinations

NS

NS

NS

N S

MI N

N

Me, 2 9
Appendix

State and

Assessments

% * *

Purpose of Assessment Identified in NCREI,*

Student School or instructional Not

Account- District Decision- Categorability Account- Maki;ig ized

ability

New York

Pupil Evaluation 92

Program Test

Program Evaluation 91 N

Tests

North Carolina

End-of-Grade Tests 10 I is

End-of-Course Tests 4 N

Writing NS

Competency Test NS

Computer Skills NS

Proficiency Test

North Dakota

C'TBS NS In

Ohio

Norm Referenced NS

Achievement Tests

Ninth-Grade NS

Proficiency

Testing

Oklahoma

Norm-Referenced NS

Achievement

Norm-Referenced NS

Writing

Assessment

Criterion- NS

Referenced Testing

Program

Oregon

Reading, 90

Mathematics and

Health

Assessments

Statewide Writing 87

Assessment

Pennsylvania

Reading and Math NS

State Assessment

Writing State NS

Assessment

36

30
State Special Education Outcomes 1994

State and

Assessments

c/c**

Purpose of Assessment Identified in NCREI,*

Student School or Instructional Not

Account- District Decision- Categorability Account- Making ized

ability

Rhode Island

Metropolitan 70 M

Achievement Test

Health Education 70 M

Exams

Physical Education NS M

Exams

Writing Exam 70

South Carolina

Metropolitan NS 111 Achievement 'Fest

Basic Skills NS

Assessment

Program

Exit Examination NS

South Dakota

SAT NS

Career Assessment NS

Pro 2ram

Tennessee

TN Comprehensive 74 N

Assessment

Program

TN Proficiency Test 99 II

WritiR Assessment NS

Texas

TX Assessment of 40

Academic Skills

(TAAS)

Utah

SAT 65

Core Curriculum 75 II

Assessment

Pro 2ram

Vermont

Portfolio NS

Assessments

Uniform Tests in NS

Math and Writing

Virginia

Literacy Passport 13

Testing Program

ITBS NS

Tests of NS

Achievement and

Proficiency

31
Appendix

State and

Assessments

WI:*

Purpose of Assessment Identified in NCREL*

Student School or Instructional Not

Account- District Decision- ('ategorability Account- Making ized

ability

Washington

CTBS

Curriculum

Frameworks

Assessment

NS

NS a

West Virginia

Criterion-Referenced

Tests

CTBS

State Writing

Assessment

N S

NS

NS

a

a

II

a

Wisconsin

Third Grade Reading

Test

ACT 8th Grade

EXPLORE

ACT 10th Grade

PLAN

NS

NS

N S

a

a

Wyoming

NONE

Am Samoa

SAT

Minimum

Competency Test

Locally Developed

Curriculum

Referenced Tests

NS

80

NS

I

MA

CTBS NS a

CNMI

CAT 60

DC

CTBS

National Assessment

of Educational

Progress (NAEP)

41

41

a

FM

FSM National

Standardized Tests

in Language Arts.

and Mathematics

NS

Guam

Life and School

Survival Skills Test

Brigance

50

90

38
State Special Education Outcomes 1994

State and

Assessments

%**

Purpose of Assessment Identified in NCREL*

Student School or Instructional Not

Account- District Decision- Categorability Account- Making ized

ability

Palau

Criterion-Referenced

Test

Brigance

Education Needs

Assessment

Pre-School

Supplementary

Screening

Inventory

Denver II

Hawaii Early

Learning Profile

Island Infant &

Toddlers

Screening

Instruments

NS

70

70

70

NS

70

70

a

a

Puerto Rico

Aprenda: Reading,

Language

Aprenda: Math

Aprenda: Basic

Skills

NS

NS

NS

NJ RMI

NONE

USVI

Metropolitan

Achievement Test

NS MI

* North Central Regional Educational Laboratory

** Percent of students with disabilities participating in assessment

*** Original NCREL coding of the assessment was revised by the state director

NOTE: NS stands for "Not Sure"

39

33