ED 404 799

AUTHOR

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATE

CONTRACT

NOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICE

DESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 305 317

Erickson, Ron; And Others

State Special Education Outcomes: Longitudinal Trends

in How States Are Assessing Educational Outcomes for

Students with Disabilities, 1995.

National Center on Educational Outcomes, Minneapolis,

MN.

Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington,

DC.

Apr 96

H159C50004

46p.

NCEO Publications Office, 350 Elliott Hall, 75 East

River Road, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

55455; telephone: 612-626-1530; fax: 612-624-0879

($15).

Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142) Statistical

Data (110)

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.

Academic Achievement; Accountability; Data Analysis;

Data Collection; *Disabilities; *Educational

Assessment; Educational Policy; Educational Trends;

Elementary Secondary Education; Graduate Surveys;

National Surveys; Needs Assessment; Outcomes of

Education; *Special Education; *Student Evaluation;

*Student Participation; *Trend Analysis

IDENTIFIERS Testing Accommodations (Disabilities)

ABSTRACT

This report presents the results of the fifth annual

survey of state activities in the assessment of educational outcomes

for students with disabilities. The survey of state directors of

special education requested information in the areas of federally

reported data, assessment of outcomes, participation of students with

disabilities in state assessments, and state technical assistance

needs. Comparison with previous surveys identified the following

trends: (1) more states reported collecting outcome-related data on

students with disabilities in 1995 than in 1991, although fewer

states collected post-school data; (2) the impetus for data

collection and analysis has shifted toward accountability and public

reporting; (3) access and analysis of data on the academic

achievement of students with disabilities has not changed much over

the years (many state directors did not know whether the scores for

students with disabilities could be disaggregated from assessment

databases); (4) the primary barrier to more states being able to

enact such analyses appeared to be a limitation of resources; and (5)

more states have policies governing participation and accommodations

in testing programs. The report contains 10 tables and 19 figures

detailing state data. (DB) ***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document. ***********************************************************************
V

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Educational Research ano imorovement EDU IONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organization

originating it.

O Minor changes have been made to

improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this

document do not necessarily represent

official OERI position or policy.

lir -0 -me

11nt

)

111

0 1 0 ccl

IN

tz' all Tre

Sates ar ssessing

atio

St dents with Disabilities 0

1

EDUCATIONAL

OUTCOMES dffe

2 BEST COPtcy,..AVAIy LLAfiBuiLivE,

tion and 1 innesota

ir
2):

cccuyarlabHr°,_2y Accamta faily f-Lcceuzii

y Acccauunib-MV AccounIabilTh

"Pry AccuutiTthilim

ectantabffity ccou

o

rernunta

LtaILD1L PLcccuaintuaibMi

ccounta,

=manta, My

C L-

=until (AM

0 /1(

Tren

o --- _c_IDSAates ar ssessing

MIT ati 1

St

CC

CC0

dents with Disabilities 0

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), and St Cloud State University.

ed by the Office of Special E tion P Department of Educati

esota

ion Associa

T enter is support-
April 1996

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. Ysseldyke,

director

NCEO is a collaborative effort of

the University of Minnesota, the

National Association of State

Directors of Special Education

(NASDSE), the Council of Chief

State School Officers (CCSSO)

and Saint Cloud State University.

Part of the Center's mission has

been to provide national leadership in identifying educational

outcomes for students with

disabilities and in developing

possible indicators that could be

used to monitor those outcomes.

The Center works with national

policymaking groups, state

departments of education, and

other groups and individuals to

promote national discussion of

educational goals and indicators

that include students with disabilities. Furthermore, it is directing its efforts toward the achievement of several goals:

Goal 1: Students with

disabilities will be part of

national level education

reforms

Goal 2: Students with

disabilities will be part of

each state's standards-based

educational reform efforts

Goal 3: Students with

disabilities will be included

in national education data

collection efforts

Goal 4: Students with

disabilities will be included in

national and state level reporting of educational outcomes,

with results that can be

disaggregated.

4

NCEO continues to work with its

organizational partners to document, analyze, and disseminate

information to national and state

educational agencies seeking to

include students with disabilities

in their efforts to reach better

educational results.

The Center is supported through

a cooperative agreement with the

U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Special Education

Programs (1990-1995:

H159C00004; 1995-2000:

H159C50004). Opinions or points

of view expressed within this

document 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

Minneapolts,MN 55455

612-6264530

...... ........ ....... .... ....... .......
Acknowledgments

Many individuals provided input

on both the content and format of

the 1995 Special Education Outcomes document. NCEO especially expresses its appreciation

to the state directors of special

education who volunteered a

portion of their valuable time in

addressing the survey questions.

Special recognition and thanks

go to:

Office of Special Education

Programs, U.S. Department of

Education

Lou Danielson

David Malouf

National Association of State

Directors of Special Education

Eileen Ahearn

Report Update:

Trish Grafstrom

1995 State Special Education

Outcomes was prepared by Ron

Erickson and Martha Thurlow,

with special assistance from

Kathryn Thor and Allison

Seyfarth.
Executive Summary

This report presents the results of

the fifth annual survey of state

activities in the assessment of

educational outcomes for students with disabilities. NCEO

sent the survey to directors of

special education of all the 50

regular states and the 10 unique

states that provide special education under the provisions of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Respondents were asked to

respond to items about the

current status or activities of their

states in these areas:

federally-reported data

assessments of outcomes

II participation of students with

disabilities in state assessments

state technical assistance

needs

In several of these areas, it was

possible to examine longitudinal

trends by comparing responses

from the first survey to current

responses.

-Major Fin-din-gs

The longitudinal look at state activities in the assessment of

educational outcomes for students with disabilities reveals some

interesting trends:

II Overall, more states report collecting outcome-related data on

students with disabilities in 1995 than in 1991. The only exception to this trend is a decrease in the number of states engaged

in post-school data collection.

Over the past five years, the impetus for data collection and

analysis has shifted toward accountability and public reporting. This is true for participation, exit, vocational, and postschool data. However, data collection activities from postschool studies have decreased significantly over the past five

years.

Change has occurred, though not as rapidly, in the access and

analysis of academic achievement data on students with

disabilities. In 1995, a large number of state directors of special

education still do not know whether the scores for students

with disabilities can be disaggregated from assessment databases. Even when the data are available, many states have not

conducted such analyses.

E The primary barrier to more states being able to enact such

analyses appears to be a limitation of resources.

Increases in state policies governing participation and accommodations in testing programs are hopeful signs that attention

will continue to be focused on obtaining information on the

outcomes of students with disabilities.
State Directors of Special Education

ALABAMA KANSAS NEW YORK WEST VIRGINIA

Bill East Mike Remus Tom Neveldine Michael Valentine

ALASKA KENTUCKY NORTH CAROLINA WISCONSIN

Myra Howe Hal Hayden Lowell Harris Juanita Pawlisch

ARIZONA LOUISIANA NORTH DAKOTA WYOMING

Kathryn Lund Leon Borne Gary Gronberg Patti Muhlenkamp

ARKANSAS MAINE OHIO

Diane Sydoriak David Stockford John Hemer

AMERICAN SAMOA

CALIFORNIA MARYLAND OKLAHOMA Jane French

Leo Sandoval Richard Steinke John Corpolongo

BUREAU OF INDIAN

COLORADO MASSACHUSETTS OREGON AFFAIRS

Fred Smokoski Marty Mittnacht Petrea Hagen-Gilden Lena Mills

CONNECTICUT MICHIGAN PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT OF

Tom Gillung Richard Baldwin William Penn COLUMBIA

Garnett Pinkney

DELAWARE MINNESOTA RHODE ISLAND

Martha Brooks Wayne Erickson Robert Pryhoda GUAM

Vince Leon Guerrero

FLORIDA MISSISSIPPI SOUTH CAROLINA

Bettye Weir Carolyn Black Ora Spann MARIANA ISLANDS

Barbara Rudy

GEORGIA MISSOURI SOUTH DAKOTA

Paulette Bragg John Heskett Deborah Barnett MARSHALL ISLANDS

Kanchi Hosia

HAWAII MONTANA TENNESSEE

Robert Campbell Robert Runkel Joe Fisher MICRONESIA

Makir Keller

IDAHO NEBRASKA TEXAS

Nolene Weaver Gary Sherman Jill Gray PALAU

Jemmy Blelai

ILLINOIS NEVADA UTAH

Gail Lieberman Gloria Dopf Steve Kukic PUERTO RICO

Ade la Costa

INDIANA NEW HAMPSHIRE VERMONT

Robert Marra Nate Norris Dennis Kane U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

Elsia Monsanto

IOWA NEW JERSEY VIRGINIA

Jeananne Hagen Barbara Gantwerk Doug Cos These were the state directors of

special education in October 1995

when the survey was conducted.

NEW MEXICO WASHINGTON

Diego Gallegos Douglas Gill
Table of Contents

Introduction 1

State Contexts 3

Table 1 - Student Populations Ages 6-17 4

Figure 1 Percentages of Students in Special Education 6

Federally-Reported Data 7

Table 2 - Participation Data Extensions 8

Table 3 Exit Data Extensions 10

Figure 2 - Trends in the Collection of Additional Participation 12

Figure 3 - Trends the Additional Collection of Exit Data 13

Table 4 - Trends in the Reported Uses of Additional Participation Data . 14

Table 5 - Trends in the Reported Uses of Additional Exit Data 15

State Assessments of Outcomes 17

Figure 4 Academic Achievement Data 19

Table 6 - Vocational Areas Assessed 20

Table 7 - Post-School Areas Assessed 22

Figures 5 & 6 Trends in SEA Responsibility for

Academic Achievement Data 24

Table 8 - Trends in the Reported Uses of Academic Achievement Data . 25

Figure 7 - Trends in the Collection of Vocational Data 26

Table 9 - Trends in the Reported Uses of Vocational Information . . 27

Figures 8 & 9 - SEA Responsibility for Vocational Data Collection . . . 28

Figure 10 - Trends in Collection of Post-School Data 29

Table 10 - Trends in Reported Uses of Post-School Data 30

Figures 11 & 12 SEA Responsibility for Post-School Data Collection . 31

Including Students with Disabilities 33

Figure 13 - States that Identify and Access Achievement Data

on Students with Disabilities 34

Figure 14 - Barriers to Analyzing Statewide Achievement Data

for Students with Disabilities 35

Figure 15 - Decisioh Makers for Participation in Assessment Programs . . 36

Figure 16 - States with Data on Accommodations Used

in Academic Assessment Programs 37

Figures 17 - Regular States with Written Policies on

Testing Participation and Accommodation 38

State Needs 39

Figure 18 - Outcomes Information Issues Identified as Major

for Students with Disabilities 40

Figure 19 - Areas Where Technical Assistance was Needed 41
Introduction

Since 1991, when NCEO conducted its first national survey of

state special education directors,

there have continued to be efforts

to reform our nation's system of

schooling. Almost every state has

been engaged in some type of

reform effort since that time, with

efforts often focused on the

establishment of learner outcomes and aligned assessment

systems. National efforts have

included the establishment of

national education goals, the

passage of the Goals 2000: Educate

America Act, and the work of

various groups to produce

world-class standards in numerous content areas.

Central to many of these state

and national efforts is the concept

of educational accountability, a

premise that our schools must

take more responsibility for the

outcomes attained by our students. NCEO has joined many

other state and national organizations in arguing that such accountability is possible only when

relevant data are collected to measure the outcomes.

About the State Survey

The survey for 1995 State Special

Education Outcomes examined

state special education policies

and practices related to the

collection and analysis of data.

This year's report also analyzes

longitudinal trends in state

efforts to collect information on

(a) the participation of students

with disabilities in the general

education curriculum and their

exit from special education; (b)

the vocational experiences of

students with disabilities while in

school; (c) the post-school experiences of students with disabilities; and (d) the participation of

students with disabilities in

statewide assessment programs.

To examine these trends, findings

from the 1995 survey are compared to those of the first annual

survey of states conducted by

NCEO in 1991.

The individuals surveyed for this

report include the state special

education directors in all fifty

regular states, and in the ten

unique states that abide by the

provisions of the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA). The responses compiled

within this report were gathered

through a mailed or faxed survey, or in some cases, by telephone interviews. In some

instances, state special education

directors asked other state officials to assist in answering the

survey questions. For longitudinal analyses, only the responses

of nine unique states were included, since only nine existed in

1991.

Next Steps

Since 1991, NCEO has conducted

its survey on an annual basis.

After the 1995 survey, presented

in this report, NCEO will conduct

its survey on a biennial basis,

9

starting in 1997. Thus, the final

survey will be conducted in 1999

and reported in the year 2000.

Ten Unique States

American Samoa = Am Samoa

Bureau of Indian Affairs = BIA

District of Columbia = DC

Guam

Mariana Islands = CNMI

Marshall Islands = RMI

Micronesia = FSM

Palau

Puerto Rico

U.S. Virgin Islands = USVI
State Contexts

- ° S

Table 1 page 4

Table 1 displays state populations of all elementary and

secondary students (ages 6 to 17

years), the number of those

students in special education,

and the corresponding percentages of students receiving special

education. It is evident that the

numbers and percentages of

students receiving special education in relation to the overall

population of students vary from

state to state.

- Figure 1 page 6

State special education student

populations differ as a result of

numerous factors, including the

variance found among states'

eligibility requirements for

special education services. Figure 1 illustrates this variance

among the 50 regular states by

identifying each state as falling

into one of six percentage ranges.

10

3

Nationally, special education

reported serving increasingly greater

numbers of children during the past

five years. The number of special

education students in many states

reflects this trend.
State Contexts Table 1 Student Population Receiving Special Education

Student Populations Ages 6-17

State Student

Population

Special

Education

% Special

Education

Alabama 718,221 85,369 11.89

Alaska 120,532 14,772 12.26

Arizona 683,516 59,065 8.64

Arkansas 429,013 43,956 10.25

California 5,263,177 461,495 8.77

Colorado 617,334 56,842 9.21

Connecticut 494,174 60,599 12.26

Delaware 112,207 12,604 11.23

Florida 2,033,404 248,217 12.21

Georgia 1,195,702 106,852 8.94

Hawaii 188,289 12,920 6.86

Idaho 229,411 19,159 8.35

Illinois 1,982,615 217,170 10.95

Indiana 983,816 108,824 11.06

Iowa 504;600 53,644 10,63

Kansas 460,207 42,093 9.15

Kentucky 658,835 63,634 9.66

Louisiana 834,814 71,606 8.58

Maine 209,127 25,215 12.06

Maryland 788,580 82,213 10.43

Massachusetts 882,172 131,414 14.90

Michigan 1,659,693 152,295 9.18

Minnesota 825,704 74,732 9.05

Mississippi 510,625 55,360 10.84

Missouri 912,828 99,807 10.93

11

4
State Special Education Outcomes 1995

State

Student

Population

Special

Education

% Special

Education

Montana 160,743 15,554 9.68

Nebraska 298,574 31,891 10.68

Nevada 221,786 21,243 9.58

New Hampshire 186,383 19,594 10.51

New Jersey 1,205,058 163,667 13.58

New Mexico 317,146 38,233 12.06

New York 2,834,121 296,966 10.48

North Carolina 1,104,161 116,907 10.59

North Dakota 118,796 10,502 8.84

Ohio 1,895,330 191,822 10.12

Oklahoma 587,918 63,513 10.80

Oregon 526,532 54,754 10.40

Pennsylvania 1,897,720 175,867 9.27

Rhode Island 150,231 19,672 13.09

South Carolina . 624,605 68,342 10.94

South Dakota 141,920 12,741 8.98

Tennessee 838,595 101,823 12.14

Texas 3,360,563 352,757 10.50

Utah 450,035 45,111 10.02

Vermont 96,834 8,750 9.04

Virginia 1,025,195 111,605 10.89

Washington 918,572 82,811 9.02

West Virginia 304,758 37,016 12.15

Wisconsin 912,672 82,265 9.01

Wyoming 97,359 10,055 10.33

Numbers for 1993-94 for general education derived from Table AF4 and for special education from Table AA9 (ages 6-17) published in the Fifteenth

Annual Report to Congress (U.S. Department of Education, 1995). 12

5
State Contexts Figure 1 Student Population Receiving Special Education

Percentages of Students in Special Education

H

CT RI MA

J

DE

D

% of Students Identified as

Special Education

n Below 8.00% 10.00-10.99%

8.00 8.99% 11.00-11.99%

1-7 9.00-9.99% 12.00% and above

Numbers for 1993-1994 from Tables AA9 and AF4 in Seventeenth Annual Report to Congress

(U.S. Department of Education , 1995).

13

6
Federally-Reported Data

.1-Special-Education-Participation-ancLExitData

Beyond the federally-required

data, many states extend their

efforts to collect additional

information on the participation

and exit of students with disabilities.

Table 2 page 8

The Office of Special Education

Programs requires states to

report annually on student

participation and exit data.

Participation information includes the number of students in

special education categories

being served in different program settings. Exit information

includes counts of students who

exit special education by graduating, returning to regular educational programs, or in other

ways.

Thirty-two regular states and

five unique states report collecting additional participation data.

Among the most frequently

collected data that extend beyond

the required data are measures of

the specific amounts of time

students are served in general

ediTcation and special education

settings. Expulsion and suspension data also are collected by

numerous states. Within the

"other" category, states reported

collecting information on the

participation of students with

disabilities in statewide assessments (or conversely, the rates of

exclusion).

Table 3 page 10

States that collect additional exit

information beyond what is

required usually obtain it about

the circumstances surrounding a

student's withdrawal from

special education services.

Twenty-four regular states and

one unique state report collecting

additional exit data. The most

frequently cited additional data

are dropout and graduation rates

or trends. "Other" additional

data include information on

gender and ethnicity, and measures of student satisfaction.

kongitudinal Trends.

There have been some interesting

and dramatic changes over the

past five years in the numbers of

states collecting additional

participation and exit data.

Figure 2 m page 12

With the exception of data on

extracurricular activities, state

data collection has increased

significantly over this five year

period in every category of

additional participation data.

Most dramatic is the increase in

number of states collecting data

on school suspension and expulsion. Fourteen states reported

collecting this type of information in 1995, compared to only one

state in 1991.

7

1 4

Figure 3 page 13

States that collect additional data

on dropout and graduation rates

have increased significantly over

the past five years, along with

states that collect information on

the types of diplomas earned by

students with disabilities. Reason

for dropping out of school was the

only data category that did not

show significant growth six

states collected this information

in both 1991 and 1995.

Table 4 page 14

An increase in the collection and

use of additional participation

data is evident. More states now

collect this information than in

1995, and among those that do, a

greater percentage use these data

for a variety of purposes. The

only exception is that of those

states that collect additional

participation data, the percentage

using these data for program

evaluation has remained stable.

Table 5 page 15

A similar increase can be found

in the collection and use of exit

data among the states. Eleven

more states collect this information than did in 1991, and of

those that collect, a greater

number are using it for accountability, evaluation, and reporting

purposes.
Federally-Reported Data Table 2Participation Data Extensions Participation Data Extensions STATE cP" CP. 4" <> .C.s. ;CP rtr C.,RI, 4%N. '''5)

.

-2i,,C)

V,S, 44) V'Z'

J c.,

.,, ,rs41/

05,, e, cP4°.\ c ;s ' SC. '

s Fa,., ..o. ,,,, ec., ..;7- _,,s Goo c,s 8, e

0 ,z,..l4,..s'' +0 ,,e' ,,z,9,., c,4,c.,0 0 Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Color ado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada 15

8
State Special Education Outcomes 1995

ct, (364'

(5, 0

co,

"s<)9

STATE

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

° e North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

° South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

*

° * ° Texas

Utah

Vermont e 0

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Am Samoa

BIA

CNMI

DC

FSM

Guam

o 0 o Palau

Puerto Rico

RMI

USVI

Note: 1995 data not available for Washingon and the Virgin Islands

16

9
Federally-Reported Data Table 3 Exit Data Extensions

Exit Data Extensions

STATE

O

1/4 '<4 Paa OC3C OSgSO4 C O

<.- 0

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Color ado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

e

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

e

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

17

10
State Special Education Outcomes 1995

STATE

b

<Cf:' 2, N,e, (SC' cv ,-,2)%6S<4' 2. ,t, .S4)

,fre .,,,..0. N'C'l* 'C') Z5411. \C''CC°' 'Z' eg-. O'T

-5) 'OC. cC C , c..<.4 New Mexico

New York

North Carolina ° North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma e

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

0

e

0

Texas

Utah

Vermont es

of Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

. Wisconsin

Wyoming

Am Samoa

BIA

CNMI

DC

FSM

Guam

Palau

Puerto Rico

WI

USVI

Note: 1995 data not available for Washingon and the Virgin Islands

18

I I
Federally-Reported Data Figure 2 Longitudinal Trends

Trends in the Collection of Additional Participation Data

Time in General

2

Education

o

Time in Special 6

C.) Education

es 0

co Hours of service by

provider

0

:::coa. Attendance

E

co Suspension and

a. Expulsion

c-i c

Extracurricular activities im-1

"o

13

<

"5 Social involvement

o

0.I Other

0 5

Number of States

10 15 20 25

1991

1995

19

12
Federally-Reported Data Figure 3 Longitudinal Trends

-Trends-in-the-Collection-of-Additional-Exit_Data_

Dropout Rate or Trend

C1X Reason for Dropping Out Ta0

Graduation Rate or

o Trend

0

a.

Types of Diplomas

Awarded

Number of States

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

1991

1995

20

13
Federally-Reported Data Table 4 Longitudinal Trends

Trends in the Reported Uses of Additional Participation Data

Percent of Those States Collecting Additional Participation Data Who Report Using the Information for: In 1991 (N = 25) In 1995 (N = 37)

Local or State Accountability 2 (8%) 29 (78%)

Program Evaluation 8 (32%) 12 (32%)

Individual Student Decision Making 0 (0%) 11 (30%)

Reporting to State Legislature 10 (40%) 17 (46%)

Reporting to State Education Agency 4 (16%) 26 (70%)

Reporting to Local Education Agencies 11 (44%) 25 (68%)

Reporting to Other State Agencies/Departments 1 (4%) 11 (30%)

Reporting to Parents and Parent Groups 0 (0%) 12 (32%)

Reporting to Media * 10 (27%)

* Data not collected in 1991 survey.

21

14
Federally-Reported Data Table 5 Longitudinal Trends

.-Trends-in-the -Reported_Uses_otAdditional Exit Data

Percent of Those States Collecting Additional Exit Data Who Report Using the

Information for: In 1991 (N = 14) In 1995 (N = 25)

Local or State Accountability 1 (7%) 21 (84%)

Program Evaluation 7 (50%) 13 (52%)

Individual Student Decision Making 1 (7%) 4 (16%)

Reporting to State Legislature 4 (29%) 14 (56%)

Reporting to State Education Agency 2 (14%) 17 (68%)

Reporting to Local Education Agencies 8 (57%) 17 (68%)

Reporting to Other State

Agencies/Departments

0 (0%) 13 (52%)

Reporting to Parents and Parent Groups 0 (0%) 10 (40%)

Reporting to Media * 8 (32%)

* Data not collected in 1991 survey.

22

15
State Assessments of Outcomes

Areas Assessed

ACHIEVEMENT DATA

The most commonly used

approach to assessing educational outcomes is the collection

of data on students' academic

achievement.

Figure 4 page 19

Forty-five regular states and six

unique states currently collect

academic achievement data.

Assessment of achievement now

includes new strategies such as

performance and portfolio

assessments. States also are

recognizing that if our nation's

schools and school systems are to

be accountable for the success of

all students, then it is imperative

to consider students with

disabilities in the design, implementation, and reporting of

assessments.

VOCATIONAL DATA

Positive relationships have been

demonstrated between in-school

vocational training and positive

post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. Local

educational agencies are required

to provide individualized, interdisciplinary transition planning

for all students with disabilities

16 years and older as they

approach the transition to adult

living. A major component of

this planning involves the participation of students with disabilities in career awareness and a

variety of vocational training

experiences.

Table 6 page 20

Thrity-one regular states and five

unique states collected vocational

data in 1995. Among the vocational information collected most

frequently is the enrollment of

students with disabilities in

vocational programs, and the

types of programs. "Other"

vocational information collected

by states includes employment

status of students one year after

graduation, and type of high

school course work (academic,

vocational, both).

POST-SCHOOL DATA

Table 7 page 22

Seventeen regular states and two

unique states collected postschool data on students with

disabilities in 1995. Among the

most frequently reported variables being tracked are the

employment status of graduates,

and their enrollment in postsecondary education. "Other"

types of post-school data collected are enlistment in military

service, friendship networks, and

student satisfaction with schoolbased programs.

Longitudinal Trends

ACHIEVEMENT DATA

Figures 5 and 6 page 24

A modest increase occurred in

the number of states reporting

that sponsorship of the achievement testing program was a

17

In all outcomes areas assessed, the

use of data for accountability purposes increased dramatically over the

past five years.
State Assessments of Outcomes

collaborative effort of the special

education and general education

divisions of the state education

agency. This trend toward

collaborative assessment programs would be expected to

continue as states seek better

ways to include all students in

their assessment programs.

Table 8 page 25

NCEO has annually asked states

how they use the achievement

data they collect. Among those

states that collect statewide

achievement data, there has been

an increase in both the number

and proportion of states that use

these data for a variety of accountability and reporting

purposes. Among the most

dramatic increases leap from 8 to

40 states over the past five years

that report using achievement

test results for accountability

purposes.

VOCATIONAL DATA

Changes are evident over time in

the collection of vocational data.

These changes occurred in the

number of states collecting data,

in the uses of the data, and in the

group responsible for collecting

the data.

Figure 7 page 26

For all categories of vocational

data except employment during

school years, there is an increase

over time in the number of states

collecting the data. The most

dramatic increase is in the number of states collecting data on

enrollment in vocational

education.

Table 9 page 27

Changes in the uses of vocational

data also have occurred over

time. Dramatic increases are

evident in the use of vocational

data for reporting and accountability purposes. Less dramatic,

but still quite large, is the number

of states in which vocational data

are used for reporting to state

legislative audiences.

Figures 8 and 9 page 28

Assessment activities can be

directed by various departments

or units within a state educational agency. From 1991 to 1995,

there was considerable expansion

in the efforts of general education

to collect vocationally-related

data. Efforts by special education

units to collect vocational data

also increased. Collaborative

efforts to collect vocational data

have not shown a significant

increase over time.

POST-SCHOOL DATA

In previous surveys, post-school

data had been collected as part of

externally-funded research

studies in many states. This no

longer seems to be occurring,

even though post-school attainment is a major goal of education.

Figure 10 page 29

An overall reduction in the

number of states collecting any

type of statewide post-school

data is evident from 1991 to 1995.

Especially significant is the

reduction in the number of states

gathering information on the

employment status of special

education graduates.

24

Table 10 page 30

Despite the decline in the number

of states collecting post-school

data, there is a notable increase in

the use of post-school data for

accountability purposes whenever these data are collected.

Correspondingly, a much greater

percentage of states collecting

these data now use these data for

reporting to educational and

public audiences.

Figures 1.1 and 12 page 31

The educational unit responsible

for collecting post-school data

remains relatively unchanged in

1995 compared to 1991. Special

education units have been constantly more likely to have

responsibility for collecting postschool data than are their general

education counterparts.

18
State Assessments of Outcomes Figure 4 Areas Assessed

Academic Achievement Data

Unique States

Am Samoa

B IA

CNMI El Puerto Rico

RMI

USVI

Guam

Palau

DC

FSM

State collected statewide academic

achievement data in 1995

cp State did not collect statewide

academic achievement data in 1995

25

19
State Assessments of Outcomes Table 6Areas Assessed Vocational Areas Assessed STATE 47..o.O. -\,t, er cos

ooN ,c.,te 49. J4.1:9 c-,"

Vao 49 %..1). 00.4:9 el

$,J..,C? C.+

r.4Z)rtr

1-1,4°

°

vtr TY,`,.°.l.

° fop'S. AS' 4:9

4oc" %."` ,q'

% s? c, o:,q.' 457

v A,

o'4,7 ,..,4, ,S4/'. V' co

O

0 Alabama Alaska Arizona* Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida

- Georgia Hawaii Idaho

- Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska

a Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey 26 20
State Special Education Outcomes 1995

STATE

c? . Le .0

. °.° 4e ,,, c0

, 0

. ... c ,,,,>. cb.- ,...9 .. 40er e ,,,.

Itii ..§) p.., p .Z7 AO '$7 467 '161

" C:$' Le"

4' 49 4,. ,,, ,s4" -v so q

"

Acs, K,

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

e

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

e

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Am Samoa

BIA

CNMI

DC

FSM

Guam

0 0

Palau

Puerto Rico

RM1

USVI

Note: 1995 data not available for Washingon and the Virgin Islands

* No response to survey question 27

21
State Assessments of Outcomes Table 7 Areas Assessed

Post-School Areas Assessed

STATE

,ct, e / i e

T of NO F"

,

4

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona*

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland ° Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

22
State Special Education Outcomes 1995

STATE

<3

. 0

,;

b

i:, col

43 te

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina*

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Am Samoa

BIA

CNMI e

DC

FSM

Guam

Palau

Puerto Rico

RMI

USVI

Note: 1995 data not available for Washingon and the Virgin Islands

* No reponse to survey question

29

23
State Assessments of Outcomes Figures 5 & 6 Longitudinal Trends

Trends in SEA Responsibility for Academic Achievement Data

10%

N = 59

2%

20%

1991

68%

General Education*

Special Education

1:9Combined Effort

No Statewide Achievement

Testing

*includes SEA assessment divisions

*includes SEA assessment divisions

24
State Assessments of Outcomes Table 8 Longitudinal Trends

Trends-in-the-Reported_Uses_otAc_ade_mic Achievement Data

Percent of Those States Collecting Achievement Data Who Report Using the

Information for: In 1991 (N = 47) In 1995 (N 44)

Local or State Accountability 8 (17%) 40 (91%)

Program Evaluation 27 (57%) 27 (61%)

Individual Student Decision Making 20 (43%) 23 (52%)

Reporting to State Legislature 11 (23%) 31 (70%)

Reporting to State Education Agency 9 (19%) 38 (86%)

Reporting to Local Education Agencies 26 (55%) 40 (91%)

Reporting to Other State Agencies/Departments

0 (0%) 13 (30%)

Reporting to Parents and Parent Groups 3 (6%) 31 (70%)

Reporting to Media * 30 (68%)

* Data not collected in 1991 survey.

31

25
State Assessments of Outcomes Figure 7 Longitudinal Trends

Trends in the Collection of Vocational Data

Employment During

School Years

Enrollment in Vocational

Education

v

a)

IS

a)

-5 Type of Vocational

C.) Program

IS0

ci

rac

o

7.as0

> Job Placement at School

"5 Completion

a

1-

Enrollment in Career

Education*

Other

*Data collected during 1995

01992

1995

0 5 10 15 20 25

Number of States

survey only 32

26
State Assessments of Outcomes Table 9 Longitudinal Trends

-Trends-in the_Reported_Usesof Vocational Information

Percent of Those States Collecting Vocational Data on Students with

Disabilities Who Report Using the

Information for:

In 1992 (N = 13) In 1995 (N = 34)

Local or State Accountability 0 (0%) 29 (85%)

Program Evaluation 6 (46%) 19 (56%)

Individual Student Decision Making 0 (0%) 12 (35%)

Reporting to State Legislature 3 (23%) 7 (21%)

Reporting to State Education Agency 1 (8%) 21 (62%)

Reporting to Local Education Agencies 8 (62%) 17 (50%)

Reporting to Other State

Agencies/Departments

* 6 (18%)

Reporting to Parents and Parent Groups * 8 (24%)

Reporting to Media * 2 (6%)

* Data not collected in 1992 survey.

33

27
State Assessments of Outcomes Figures 8 & 9 Longitudinal Trends

SEA Responsibility for Vocational Data Collection

N = 59

1992

OGeneral Education

Special Education

07Combined Effort

No Vocational Data

Collection

N =57

1995

15% 34

General Education

Special Education

[II Combined Effort

No Vocational Data

Collection

28
State Assessments of Outcomes Figure 10 Longitudinal Trends

7Trends in the-Collection-of Po-st-SChool Data

Employment Status

O Wages or Earnings

ea 0

Ts Enrollment in post-

.c secondary education

Cl)

0

/2- Living Arrangements

0

0.

Other

0 5 10 15

Number of States

20 25

01992

1995

-35

29
State Assessment of Outcomes Table 10 Longitudinal Trends

Trends in Reported Uses of Post-School Data

Percent of Those States Collecting Post- School Data Who Report Using the

Information for: In 1991 (N = 27) In 1995 (N = 19)

Local or State Accountability 2 (7%) 14 (74%)

Program Evaluation 17 (63%) 11 (58%)

Individual Student Decision Making 2 (7%) 4 (21%)

Reporting to State Legislature 3 (11%) 8 (42%)

Reporting to State Education Agency 3 (11%) 17 (89%)

Reporting to Local Education Agencies 7 (26%) 15 (79%)

Reporting to Other State Agencies/Departments2 (7%) 13 (68%)

Reporting to Parents and Parent Groups 0 (0%) 11 (58%)

Reporting to Media * 4 (21%)

* Data not collected in 1991 survey.

36

30
State Assessment of Outcomes Figures 11 & 12 Longitudinal Trends

SEA Responsibility for Post-School Data Collection

N = 59

54%

1991

15%

7%

24%

General Education

Special Education

l:OCombined Effort

No Post School Data

Collection

N = 57

1995

7%

37

General Education

Special Education

no Combined Effort

No Post School Data

Collection

31
Including Students With Disabilities

Pairtidipation in

Assessments

Information on participation of

students with disabilities in

assessment has been notoriously

difficult to obtain in a way that

ensures comparability from one

state to the next. Thus, in 1995

specific information was requested on the extent to which

scores of students with disabilities could be identified in the

assessment data base.

Figure 13 page 34

One-third of the regular states

are not able to identify and

disaggregate from within their

assessment program data bases

the scores of students with

disabilities.

Among those states that can

identify and access achievement

results for students with disabilities, roughly half do not choose

to do so. In other words, a

significant number of states that

have the means to identify

achievement data for students

with disabilities do not aggregate, analyze, or report such

information.

Figure 14 page 35

States identify a number of

barriers to analyzing and reporting achievement data for students with disabilities. Chief

among the reasons, however, is

lack of funding or resources,

followed closely by lack of time.

No state indicated that achievement scores of students with

disabilities were not being analyzed and reported because of a

lack of technical ability.

Figure 15 page 36

In nearly all states now, the

decision about the participation

of a student with disabilities in a

state assessment is made by that

student's IEP team. In Kentucky,

where the decision is about which

assessment a student will take

rather than whether the student

will participate, that decision is

made by the IEP team.

Assessment

Accommodations

Figure 16 page 37

The need to examine the comparability of scores obtained when

assessment accommodations are

used can be addressed only if

33

38

states are able to identify the

scores achieved under accommodated conditions. Yet, only 18 of

those states with assessment

systems that allow for disaggregation can identify the specific

accommodations that are used.

Longitudinal Trends

Figure 17 page 38

The existence of written policy

guidelines about the participation of students with disabilities

in testing programs, and about

the use of testing accommodations, has increased considerably

over the past five years. (This

information was not collected

from the unique states). Examination of the actual written guidelines reveals that twenty-six of

forty-three policies had been

written or revised in 1994 or

1995. All but seven states had

policies with dates more recent

than 1991.
Including Students With Disabilities Figure 13 Participation

States that Identify and Access Achievement Data on Students with Disabilities

22%

5%

20%

33%

No statewide testing

program

Cannot identify special

education students in

database

[1:1 Can identify special

education students and do

analyze

Can identify special

education students but do

not analyze

Not sure or No Response

39

34
Including Students With Disabilities Figure 14 Participation

Barriers to Analyzing Statewide Achievement Data for Students with Disabilities

Lack of funding or staff

resources

Lack of available time

Possible misinterpretation

or misuse of data

No immediate need for

information

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of States

7 8 9 10

40

35
Including Students With Disabilities Figure 15 Participation

Decision Makers for Participation in Statewide Assessment Programs

IEP Team Decision

Building Principal

R

District Testing Personnel

0

O Special Education Teacher

O

a" co General Education Teacher -

a

Parents I

Other

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Number of States

35 40 45

41

36
Including Students With Disabilities Figure 16 Accommodations

States with Data on Accommodations Used in Academic Assessment Programs

Can identify

accommodations

Cannot identify

accommodations

Not Sure

0 2 4 6 8 10

Number of States

12 14 16 18

42

37
Including Students With Disabilities Figure 17 Written Policies

Regular States with Written Policies on Testing Participation and Accommodations

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1991 1995

Written policies on

participation

0Written policies on

accommodations

43

38
State Needs

States identified both the issues

they faced regarding the development, implementation, and

reporting or use of outcomes

information on students with

disabilities, and their technical

assistance needs for addressing

these issues.

Figure 18 page 40

Four issues were identified as

major by more than half of the

respondents:

Adequacy of assessments for

all students.

Policies or practices regrading

who participates in state

assessments.

Policies or practices regarding

the provision of testing accommodations.

Appropriateness of content

and performance standards

for all students.

Among the other issues identified were many different factors,

including staff changes, concerns

about terminology, and lack of

commitment.

Figure 19 page 41

Technical assistance and support

needs were numerous, yet most

states commonly identified that

the following would be most

helpful:

Best practice information used

by other states.

Materials for conducting selfreviews on the participation of

students with disabilities in

state assessment programs.

Awareness materials about

value of outcome data for

students with disabilities.

Among other areas in which

technical assistance was needed

were designing assessments,

validating accommodations, and

solutions for emerging issues.

39

44
State Needs Figure 18 Issues

Outcomes Information Issues Identified as Major for Students with Disabilities

Appropriateness of standards

for students with disabilities

Adequacy of assessments for

students with disabilities

Policies or practices regarding

participation

Policies or practices regarding

test accommodations

Availability of data on who is

excluded from assessment

Availability of data on who

receives accommodations

Lack of resources

Lack of cooperation between

general and special education

Concerns or resistance by

local school personnel

Concerns or resistance by

state agency personnel

Concerns or resistance by

parents and community

Lack of technical expertise

Other

0 5 10 15 20 25

Number of States Reporting

30 35 40

40 45
State Needs Figure 19 Technical Assistance

Areas Where Technical Assistance Was Needed

Materials to build awareness

of value of outcome data

Best practices used by other

states

Materials to inform selfreview of assessment

Review of state-developed

materials by NCEO

0

C

es Individual consultations with

NCEO

C

.c

a) I Small group clinics by NCEO

"5 on specific topics

(1) a.

Conference calls with NCEO

Conference calls with other

states

Information via Special Net

Other

0 5 10 15 20 25

Number of States Reporting

30 35 40

41 46
ERICI

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

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").