ED 385 061 EC :504 094 AUTHOR Erickson, Ron; And ... 385 061 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION SPONS AGENCY PUB DATE CONTRACT NOTE AVAILABLE FROM PUB TYPE EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS IDENTIFIERS

ED 385 061

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC :504 094

Erickson, Ron; And OthersState Special Education Outcomes: A Report on HowStates Are Assessing Educational Outcomes forStudents with Disabilities, 1994.National Center on Educational Outcomes, Minneapolis,MN.

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

Mar 95H159C0000439p.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 ofEducation; Program Development; School Districts;Special Education; State Departments of Education;Statewide Planning; *Student Evaluation; StudentParticipation*Goals 2000; National Center on EducationalOutcomes

Results of a 1994 survey of state directors ofspecial education are presented for 47 states, 7 protectorates, andthe District of Columbia. Four major issues were surveyed: theeffects of activities outlined In Goals 2000 on state specialeducation service delivery systems; efforts that states are making todevelop learner goals and related assessments; how broadly theNational Center on Educational Outcomes model of educational outcomesand indicators has been disseminated and used within state and localeducational agencies; and the extent to which students withdisabilities are participating in statewide achievement assessments.Narrative summaries, tables, and figures include information on thestatus of outcomes development and assessment development for eachstate and state policies on learner outcomes and outcomes-relatedassessments. For each state, statewide assessments are listed andtheir 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 ashaving a positive impact on students with disabilities, that mcitstates have adopted statements of learner goals or outcomes, and thatmost states are developing or reviewing assessment systems designedto 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 EDUCATIONOffice of Educatdanal Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

Z ,01Krs. document has been reproduced asthe person or orgamzetion

0 IN,nor changes have been made to mprove'eproduct,on qualdy

Pontsot v.ew or op,mons slated In this doCument do not neCeSsardy represent 01/1C,alOERI 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 l11)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

2BEST COPY AVAILABLE

19.4 StateSpecial EducationOutcomes

National Centeron Fducational ()utcorne,

Collegc of Education andni-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. BruininksJudith L. ElliottRonald N. EricksonPatricia J. GrafstromKevin S. McGrewDorene L. ScottPatricia S. SeppanenMartha L. Thurlow,

assistant directorJames E. Ysseld v ke,

director

The National Center on Educa-tional Outcomes (NCEO) wasestablished in October 1990 towork with state departments ofeducation, national policy-making groups, and oti-iers tofacilitate and enrich the develop-ment and use of indicators ofeducational outcomes forstudents with disabilities. It isbelieved that responsible use ofsuch indicators will enablestudents with disabilities toachieve better results from theireducational experiences. TheCenter represents a collaborativeeffort of the University ofMinnesota, the NationalAssociation of State Directors ofSpecial Education, and St. CloudState University.

The Center is supported througha cooperative agreement with theU.S. Department of Education,Office of Special EducationPrograms (H159C00004).Opinions or points of view donot necessarily represent those ofthe U.S. Department of Educationor Offices within it.

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

Publications OfficeNCEO350 Elliott Hall75 E. River RoadMinneapolis. MN 55455612-626-1530

AcknowledgmentsMany people provided input onboth he content and format ofthis 1994 special educationsurvey. NCEO especiallyexpresses its appreciation tothose who devoted their time toanswering the survey quesions.

F

Special thanksgo to:

Office of SpecialEducation Programs,U.S. Department of Education:

Louis DanielsonDavid Malouf

Report Update:

Trish Gra fstrom

State Special Education Outcomes1994 was prepared by Ron Erickson,Martha Thurlow, and Kathryn Thor.

Executive SummaryThis report by the NationalCenter on Educational Outcomes(NCEO) presents the results ofthe fourth annual survey of statedirectors of special education.NCEO sent the survey to direc-tors of all 50 regular states andthe 10 unique states that providespecial education services underthe provisions of the Individualswith Disabilities Education Act.The major findings of the 1994special education survey include:

The majority of state directorsof special education have re-ceived training and/or informa-tion about Coals 201.10, the federalinitiative designed to supportstate and local reform efforts.This information and training hascome from a variety of state andfederal sources.

111 Coals 2000 is seen by moststate directors of special educa-tion as having a positive impacton students with disabilities, andis considered a positive force forincluding students with disabili-ties in statewide reform activities.

IIII Most states have identifiedand adopted statements oflearner goals or outcomes.Assessment systems designed tomeasure student progress towardthese outcomes are currentlyunder development or review inmost states.

II The most prevalent policy inplace to promote the adoption ofstate-ratified learner goals andrelated assessments is onewhereby the state strictly man-dates the adoption of such sys-tems by local districts.

I The NCEO Conceptual Modelof Outcomes and Indicators hasreached a broad audience of statedirectors of special education,and has been used to assist instate-level reform activities.

Information on the participa-tion of students with disabilitiesin statewide assessment pro-grams is still largely inaccessibleor unavailable to most statedirectors of special education.

State Directors of Special Education

ALABAMABill East

KENTUCKY11,1111,10cm

NORTH CAROLINALowell I larris

WISCONSINJuanita Pawlisch

ALASKA LOUISIANA NORTH DAKOTA WYOMING

Myra I Lowe Leon Borne Gary Gronberg Sharon Davarn

ARIZONA MAINE OHIOKathryn Lund David Stockford John Ilerner

AMERICAN SAMOA

ARKANSAS MARYLAND OKLAHOMA Jane French

Diane Sydoriak Richard Steinke John orpolongoBUREAU 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 COLUMBIAB. Garnett Pinkne,.

CONNECTICUT MINNESOTA RHODE ISLANDTom Gi Hung Wayne Erickson Robert Pry hoda GUAM

DELAWARE MISSISSIPPI SOUTH CAROLINA

Vince Lcon (;uerren,

Martha Brooks Carolyn Black Ora Spann COMMONWEALTHOF 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 ISLANDSKanchi I losia

HAWAII NEBRASKA TEXASMargaret I )onova n Gary Sherman Jill Gray FEDERATED STATES

OF MICRONESIA

IDAHO NEVADA UTAII N'Iakir Keller

Fred lialcom Gloria I)opi Steve KukicPALAU

ILLINOIS NEW HAMPSHIRE VERMONT Peter Elechuus

Gail I .ieberman Nate Norris Dennis KanePUERTO RICO

INDIANA NEW JERSEY VIRGINIA MoralesPaul . \'h Port-mi.,' Gant werk Jo Lynne Demar

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

IOWA NEW MEXICO WASHINGTON Priscilla Stridiron

leanonne I Ligon Diego Gallegos Douglas GillNote: In ,1111. r.ponNr, IN, it1;.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 ImpactFigure 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 Disabilitiesin Statewide Assessments

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

Figure 7 Availability of Assessment I )ato on Studentswith Disabilities 22

Conclusion 23

Appendix

migernamesmiiminiuni

Introduction

NCEO's MissionNCEO is a collaborative effortof the National Association ofState Directors of Special Edu-cation (NASDSE), the Univer-sity of Minnesota, and SaintCloud State Unive..sity. Part ofNCEO's mission hat; been tolead the nation in identifyingeducational outcomes forstudents with disabilities and todevelop possible indicators thatcould be used to monitor thoseimportant outcomes.

The Center works with nationalpolicTnaking groups, statedepartments of education, andother groups and individuals topromote national discussion ofeducational goals and indicatorsthat include students with dis-abilities. To accomplish this,NCE.0 has four major goals:

Goal 1 .1-o promote the devel-opment of a system of indica-tors for use with all students,including those with disabili-ties.

Goal 2 To support and enhancethe measurement of educa-tional outcomes and indica-tors for students withdisabilities.

Goal 3 To enhance the avail-ability and use of outcomesinformation in decisionmaking at the federal and statelevels.

Goal 4 To identify and developindicators that can be used to

make judgments about theextent to which educationworks for students with dis-abilities, and that can be usedto improve programs andservices.

The Center undertakes manyactivities to accomplish thesegoals. In addition to the statesurvey, the Center examines andanalyzes existing national andstate data that could provideinformation on outcomes forstudents with disabilities. Itworks with other groups andorganizations (such as the Na-tional Center for EducationStatistics) to address issuesrelated to current national andstatewide assessment efforts.And it has developed a concep-tual model of outcomes andindicators through a collabora-tive effort involving state andnational agencies, parents, andprofessionals.

About the State SurveyNCEO produced its first reporton state special education out-collies in ittle did anyonerealize the incredible magnitudeof educational Morin efforts thatwould soon follow, both locallyand nationally. Virtually everystate has become invol%ed insome type of educational reformmovement. States have placedmuch attention on establishinglearner goals and accompanyingassessment systems capable of

measuring these goals. Federalefforts have included those of:

ill the National Education GoalsPanel monitoring progresstoward eight national educationgoals;

various standards-settinggroups producing world-classstandards in numerous curricularareas; and

N Congress passing Goals 2000:Educate America Act.

The federal legislation has stimu-lated and supported a variety ofstate-level activities that fosterquality educational opportunitiesfor all students. Consequently,education is undergoing rapidchange and reform.

The question now is, I low doesspecial education participate inthis movement?

NCEO offers some preliminaryanswers to this question in itsState Special Education Outcomes1994 report. Survey questions forthis report focus on four majorissues:

(1) What effect the activitiesoutlined in Goals 2000: TheEducate America Act have on statespecial education service deliverysystems;

(2) What efforts states are makingto develop learner goals andrelated assessments;

Introduction

(3) How broadly the NCEOmodel of educational outcomesand indicators has been dissemi-nated and used within state andlocal educational agencies;

(4) The extent to which studentswith disabilities are participatingin statewide achievement assess-ments now being used by states.

This year's report surveyed statespecial education directors in allfifty regular states and the tenunique states that must abide by

the provisions of P. L. 101-476,bulipiduals zoith Disabilities Educa-tio Act (IDEA). NCEO gatheredthe responses through a mailedor faxed survey, or through aninterview. In some cases, statespecial education directorsdesignated other state officials toassist in answering the surveyquestions. There was a 100percent response rate.

10

il'UnititielStater

American Samoa = Am Samoa

Bureau of Indian Affairs = BIA

Commonwealth of theNorthern Mariana Islands =CN MI

District of Columbia = DC

Federated States ofMicronesia = FSM

Guam

Palau

Puerto Rico

Republic of the MarshallIslands = RMI

U.S. Virgin ;sla rids = USVI

Part One:Goals 2000: Educate America Act

During the past year, three piecesof federal legislation passed thatsupported the current momen-tum for change in Americaneducation: the Schools to WorkOpportunity Act, the ImproPingAmerica's Schools Act (formerlycalled the Elementary and Sccond-ani Education Act), and Goals2000: Educate America Act.

the Goals 2000 legislation placedinto law the six original nationalgoals, which were k.'staHished atthe 1989 Charlottesville educa-tion summit, plus two additionalgoals aimed at improving teach-ers' professional developmentand parents' involvement inschool. Goals 2000's central tenetemphasizes setting high, chal-lenging standards for all stu-dents, including students withdisabilities.

States that choose to submitapplications for funding underthis legislation must write stateimprovement plans and provideevidence on how such plansinclude students with disabilities.State-level planning teams thatare funded by first-year grants

also must include representativesfrom a broad constituent audi-ence, including special education.

To find Out how aware andinvolved state directors of specialeducation are regarding Goals2000 legislation, the survey askedthem three questions: How muchinformation. and training did theyreceive about Goals 2000?; Whatimpact did they believe Goals2000 would have on studentswith disabilities ?; How did theyplan to respond to Goals 2000 inthe coming year?

Sources of Information onGoals 2000111 TOW('

Most directors of special educa-tion received some type of infor-mation or training about Goals2000 since it was signed into lawin March 1994. This came mostoften from the respondent's ownstate department of education.NASDSE and the Office of Spe-cial Education Programs (OSEP)of the U.S. Department ofEducation.

The Impact of Goals 2000 onStudents with Disabilities

Figures 1 and 2

Nearly all state directors believedthat Goals 2000 would have amostly positive impact on stu-dents with disabilities, andwould foster their inclusion ofstudents with disabilities in statereform efforts. They also ex-pressed expectations of greaterinclusion in curriculum andinstruction, assessment, andhigher academic standards.

Responses to Goals 2000

MI Figure 3

I .ikely responses of states to Goals2000 during the upcoming yearwere: (a) to provide training ortechnical assistance to localeducation agencies and specialeducation directors on how toapply for Goals 2000 funding, or(b) to continue to participate withstate officials on the Goals 2000planning teams.

Other responses included seek-ing changes in how specialeducation was funded, andmonitoring the progress of thelegislation at the federal level.

Part One Sources of Information on Goals 2000

,.:..,,..

'T. e, Sour

State

,', rovidingS,

OSEP

ates,vithl.nformattoronFederallyFundedProjects

.

Goals 20.

:fr

NoInformationNASDSE

State Deptof

EducationOther

Alabama ii aAlaska a li

Arizona aArkansas

California

Colorado a aConnecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia aHawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa aKansas,

Kentuck\ ti

Louisiana a is

Maine

Maryland aMassachusetts

Michigan a

Minnesota a

miscissippi aMissouri a aMontana

Nebraska

Ne\ada

New I lampshire

New .Terse, a

12

4

State Special Education Outcomes 1994

State OS EPFederallyFundedProjects

NASDSEState Dept

ofEducation

OtherNo

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

No3%

Y. II g I- I S.

Unsure8%

Unsure2%

14

Positive andNegative

6%

Negative15%

Part One Responses to Goals 2000

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

Not Specified

Other

Planning with RegularEducation Programs

Training Local EducationAgencies

o Number of States

7

Part Two:State Policies on Learner Outcomesand Related Assessments

Standards and assessments arethe two concepts that form thecenterpiece of American educa-tional reform in the 1990s. Per-haps during no other period ofour nation's history has so muchinterest and effort been generatedin the area of setting academicstandardsstatements of whatstudents should know and beable to do in the 21st century.

To meet the requirements forGoals 2000 funding, states need toprovide evidence that challeng-ing content standards have beenestablished for all students in avariety of academic disciplines.States may select these standardsthrough a collaborative planningprocess, or by adopting those ofstandards-setting groups. Statesalso must give attention to thedevelopment of new forms ofassessment to adequately mea-sure student performance onthese standards.

The movement to create stan-dards and develop new forms ofstudent assessment were wellunderway in many states by thetime Goals 2000 was signed intolaw. The policies that those statesdeveloped to support the stan-dards and assessments differfrom state to slate, just as do therelationships between states andlocal education agencies.

What is even more variablebetween states, though, is theimplementation of standards andassessments. Some states chooseto address standards that arespecific to particular disciplinessuch as mathematics, science,and social studies. Other statesmay define expectations aboutintegrated higher thinking skills.They use different words todescribe their standards. Amongthe terms often used are out-comes, goals, and curriculumframeworks. NCEO chose to usethe phrase "learner goals oroutcomes" to encompass thesevarious terms, with the recogni-tion that significant differencesexist among them in practice.

16

Current Status of Outcomesand Assessments

Table 2

States can develop outcomeswithout assessments and viceversa. Since Goals 2000 and theImproving America's Schools Act(formerly the Elementary andSecondary Education Act) requireassessments linked to standards,NCEO needs to know how statesare developing both outcomesand assessments.

The survey asked respondents todescribe their states' progress inidentifying learner goals oroutcomes and in developingrelated assessments. Table 2places the 50 regular states and10 unique states into a matrixthat identifies each state's statusin both outcomes and assess-ments development. The tablereveals the significant breadth ofcurrent reform activities takingplace across the states: 23 statesreport having a set of learnergoals or outcomes completed andavailable, with another 26 statesin the process of developing,reviewing or revising them at thepresent time. In terms of assess-ment activity, the survey re-vealed that most states are at theinitial stages of reform: only 12states report having assessment

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

systems complete and availablefor use, with another 33 indicat-ing that their systems are cur-rently under development orreview.

Some respondents indicate thatthe development of Outcomesand assessments had been com-pleted in certain curriculumareas, but not in others. Stateswhose directors answered in thismanner were placed in the"under development" category.

State Policies on LearnerOutcomes and AssessmentsU Tables .3 and 4

The most prevalent state policyon outcomes and assessmentsmandates the adoption of learnergoals and the use of state-ratifiedassessments at the local districtlevel.

Other reported policies give localeducational agencies the optionof either adopting the state-developed outcomes fameworkand its accompanying assessmentprogram, or developing andadopting their own frameworksand assessments. Still othersreport having policies that allowlocal districts the option ofdeciding whether to adopt anysystem of accountability.

Figures 4 and 5

Almost equal percentages ofstates were:

(1) using assessments already inuse in the state;

(2) developing new instrumentsfor the purpose of measuringtheir articulated learner goals oroutcomes.

17

I()

Part Two Current Status of Outcomes and Assessments

StattwiotQutqotrps and Asses

Completed

Outcomes Development

UnderDevelopment

Other Status No articulatedOutcomes atPresent

Not Sure

Completed AlabamaConnecticutIllinoisMarylandNevadaNew MexicoPennsylvaniaWisconsinFSMUSVI

Arizona South Carolina

CD

EC2.0CD

>0Ca04-.

0Cf)CI)

CDV)CD

UnderDevelopment

FloridaGeo; ,,ia,IndianaMaineMassachusettcsMichiganOklahomaVermontWest VirginiaIX'

AlaskaColoradoDelaware[(mhoKansasKentuckyLouisianaMinnesotaMissouriNew HampshireNew JerseyNew YorkNorth CarolinaOhioOregonRhode IslandTexasUtahWashingtonBIAPuerto RicoR NI I

NIississippi

No MandatedAssessmentProgram atPresent

ArkansasHawaiiMontana

Cali1OrniaVirginia

IowaNebraskaNorth DakotaSouth DakotaWyomingAin SamoaCNMIGuam

Tennessee

Not Sure Palau

Part Two State Policies on Learner Outcomes and Assessments

State Must AdoptState

Must AdoptState 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

1912




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 ac NJ m i *

DC

ISM

Guam *

Palau

Puerto Rico

RMI

USVI

TOTALS 25 12 8

* State reports no current set of learnergoals or outcomes.

20


Table''' We.:

State

liC4':'b 'ort

Must AdoptState

Ucbm-eslelated:AssessthentOther

.i ...

Not SureMust AdoptState or Local

Local Choice

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas *

California *

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida aGeor6a

Hawaii *

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa *

Kansas

Kentucky aLouisiana

.

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana *

Nebraska *

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

21.

14




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


tetesUsing Existing 'Assessments

Yes70%

Awogig-0,4"--

'4.A. .kg >

Not Sure12%

No18%

Sing-NewFornistd Assessment ;

Not SureNo 14%5%

16

Part Three:The NCEO Conceptual Model ofOutcomes and Indicators

NCEO developed a conceptualmodel of educational outcomesand indicators to assess theeffectiveness of education for allstudents, including those withdisabilities.

NCEO created the model coop-eratively with educational policy-makers, researchers, teachers andparents. State directors of special

education commented on theextent to which they were awareof this model, and to what extentit had been useful in their currentreform efforts.

111 Figure 6

Most state directors were familiarWith the model. Only 7 directors,or about 12 percent, were un-

aware of the model, and 23directors, or about 38 percent,had either shared the model withcolleagues, or used it in theirreform efforts.

Conceptual Model of Outcomes

= OUTCOME DOMAIN Physical I leahlt

Responsibility andIndependence

Presence andParticipation

Contribution andCititenship

Academic andFunctional Literacy

Pers011al and SOCialAdJUStillnt

SatiNt aci ion

Rei,mrces(Input and Conte t

EducationalOppoitunit and

Process

4)0A, 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 withDisabilities in Statewide Assessments

Since 1991, NCEO has reportedthe rates at which students withdisabilities participate in state-wide assessments. In the past,their participation in statewidetesting programs had varied agreat deal, with estimates forstates ranging from 0',/, to 100',.Many respondents were unableto provide an estimate.

Participation Rates inStatewide AssessmentsM Table 5

In the 1994 survey, NCEO askedfor the participation rate for eachassessment administered by astate. Using Viezoing the Land-scape, which was producedjointly by the North CentralRegional Education Laboratory(NCREL) and the Council ofChief State School Officers(CCSSO) to identify assessments,NCEO listed each state's currentassessment battery and asked forthe participation rates. (SeeAppendix for lists of assessmentsand rates for each one.)

Assessments were coded accord-ing to the purpose of the assess-ment noted in Viewing the Land-scape, and then summarized forthree classifications:

(1) student accountability (forexample, assessments used todetermine grade promotion orgraduation);

(2) school accountability (forexample, assessments that assignrewards or sanctions to districtsor schools); or

(3) instructional decision making(for example, assessments usedfor placement or instructionaldecisions).

Despite NCEO's request for morespecific information, most statesstill could not report the partici-pation rates for students withdisabilities. What is clear is thatmany of the statewide assess-ments serve multiple purposes.For this reason, participationrates for the different purposestend to look quite similar.

26

Some states could only provideestimates, which can vary greatlyin their accuracy. Furthermore,other states report that the datawere not immediately or conve-niently available. The DK or"Don't Know" response was alsoused to classify those stateswhere other related data mayhave been reported, such as thepercentage of all test takers whohad a special educationdesignation.

Figure 7

Participation rates were availablemost often (in 18 states) forassessments used for schoolaccountability. The were avail-able least often (in 10 states) forassessments used for studentaccountability.

19

Part Four Participation of in Statewide Assessments

_.. able :5 'Students.

Witit Disablities:Participatirigifli.AstesSmentSchool or District

AccountabilityState Student

AccountabilityInstructional

Decision MakingNOTcells Ia veradisc&particasseswit hi(See ,assesca tag

* Parwereall ascater;

rI-. Ns(

asses

NAstateasst.,into I

DK -Stateasse!-c a tqknovrate('

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 inrepresent ange of students withilities who-ipate across allsments that falln that category.Appendix forsments within eachory.)

icipation ratesnot available for

sessments in thisorv.

statewidesnients.

Not Applicabledoes not have ansment that fallshis category.

1)on't Knowhas one or more

-Anent in thisorv, but does not

the participation

20

27


State StudentAccountability

School or DistrictAccountability

InstructionalDecision 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 DecisionMaking

School Accountability

15 26

18 26

Student Accountability 10 15

10 20 30

Number of States

40

Participation Rates Available Participation Rates Not Available

(750

Conclusion

Now is an exciting time in educa-tion. Findings from the 1994special education survey providetestimony to many ambitiousefforts currently underway instate education systems.

Feedback from state directorsabout Collis 20(X) suggests thatthis federal initiative provides aunique opportunity for collabora-tive planning and bridge-build-ing between special and generaleducation interests.

Indeed, such collaboration willbecome more important asdeliberations continue over theidentification of learner goals,and as states devise and mandatenew forms of valid and reliablemeasures of student perfor-ma nce.

(-1 r-ti

If education in the United Statesis to become accountable for allstudents, then students withdisabilities will need to be con-sidered throughout the entireprocess of reform--from theidentification of learner goals tothe reporting of results.

Appendix

The chart in this appendix lists allassessments identified in theNCREL report Viewing theLandscape, plus additionalassessments identified by thestates.

For each assessment, NCEOlisted the percentage of studentswith disabilities reported by thestate respondent to its surveyand then the purpose(s) accord-ing to the NCREL report.

These data are the basis for thesummary information providedin Table 5 (see page 20). Whenmore than one assessment wasidentified for a single purpose,the average of the percentages forthese assessments was reportedin Table 5.

31

Appendix

State andAssessments

c/c**

P- pose of Assessment Identified in NCREI,

Student School or Instructional 1otAccount- District Decision- Categor-ability Account- Making iced

abilityAlabamaIntegrated Reading

and Writing39

Assessment forGrade Two

Basic Competency 56Tests

SAT 45AL Direct 60

Assessment ofWriting

High School Basic 71Skills Exit Exam

Differential Aptitude NSTests with CareerInterest Inventory

AlaskaITBS NSWriting Exam NS El

Arizona1TBS NSTest of Achievement

and ProficiencyNS

District AssessmentPlans NS

ArkansasMinimum NS

Performance TestsSAT NSWriting Assessment NSCaliforniaGolden State Exams NSColoradoNONEConnecticutCT Mastery Test 74 MI

CT Academic 94Performance Test

Delaware***Writing Exam 84Performance Based 84 II

Assessment inReading and Math

32



ck **

Purpose of Assessment Identified in NCREL*

Student School or Instructional NotAccount- District Decision- ('ategor-ability Account- Making ized

ability

FloridaHigh School

Competency TestFL 'Writing

AssessmentProgram

Grade 10Assessment Test

81

30

NS

N

N

GeorgiaGA Curriculum

BasedAssessments

GA High SchoolGraduation Test

1TBSTest of Achievement

and ProficiencyGA Kindergarten

Test

NS

NS

NSNS

NS

N

E

N

HawaiiSATTest of Essential

Competencies(FISTEC)

N SNS

S

IdahoTest of Achievement

and ProficiencyITBSDirect Writing

AssessmentPerformance

'MathematicsAssessment

InterdisciplinaryAssessments

NS

NSNS

NS

NS

Illinois1. Goal AssessmentProgram

25

IndianaIN Statewide Testinl..;

for EducationalProgress

(PASS

NS

NS

N

IowaNONE

273

Appendix


%**


Student School or Instructional NotAccount- District Decision- Categor-ability Account- Making ized

ability

KansasState Test in Math, NS III

Conimunications.Social Skills.Science

KentuckyKY Instructional 100

Results andInformationSystem

Portfolio 100Assessments

Performance Events 100LouisianaLA Educational 5

AssessmentProgram

LA Grad Exit Exams 5 MI

Statewide Norm- NSReferenced TestingProgram

MaineState Student NS

Achievement TestsMarylandComprehensive Test

of Basic SkillsNS

(CTBS)MD School 90

PerformanceAssessmentProgram

Graduation Tests in 90Reading, Math,Writing, andCitizenship

!MAP NSMassachusetts **MA Education 50

AssessmentsProgram (MEAP)

MichiganMichigan Education NS M

AssessmentProgram

3428



%**



ability

MinnesotaNONEMississippiFunctional Literacy

ExaminationITBSTest of Achievement

and Proficiency

NS

NSNS

N N N

N

MissouriMissouri Mastery

Achievement TestNS

MontanaStandardised

AchievementTesting

90

NebraskaNONENevadaCTBSAnalytic-Trait Score

WritingHigh School

Proficiency ExamProgram

NSNS

NS

NN

N

New HampshireCATNH Educational

AssessmentProgram (NHEAP)

NSNS

New JerseyGrade S Early

Warning TestHigh School

Proficiency Test(HSPT)

66

43

III

N

New MexicoNM Reading

AssessmentAchievement

AssessmentDirect Writing

AssessmentHigh School

CompetencyExaminations

NS

NS

NS

N S

MI

N

N

Me,

2 9

Appendix


% * *

Purpose of Assessment Identified in NCREI,*

Student School or instructional NotAccount- District Decision- Categor-ability Account- Maki;ig ized

ability

New YorkPupil Evaluation 92

Program TestProgram Evaluation 91 N

TestsNorth CarolinaEnd-of-Grade Tests 10 I isEnd-of-Course Tests 4 N

Writing NSCompetency Test NSComputer Skills NS

Proficiency TestNorth DakotaC'TBS NS In

OhioNorm Referenced NS

Achievement TestsNinth-Grade NS

ProficiencyTesting

OklahomaNorm-Referenced NS

AchievementNorm-Referenced NS

WritingAssessment

Criterion- NSReferenced TestingProgram

OregonReading, 90

Mathematics andHealthAssessments

Statewide Writing 87Assessment

PennsylvaniaReading and Math NS

State AssessmentWriting State NS

Assessment

36

30



c/c**

Purpose of Assessment Identified in NCREI,*


ability

Rhode IslandMetropolitan 70 M

Achievement TestHealth Education 70 M

ExamsPhysical Education NS M

ExamsWriting Exam 70South CarolinaMetropolitan NS 111

Achievement 'FestBasic Skills NS

AssessmentProgram

Exit Examination NSSouth DakotaSAT NSCareer Assessment NS

Pro 2ramTennesseeTN Comprehensive 74 N

AssessmentProgram

TN Proficiency Test 99 II

WritiR Assessment NSTexasTX Assessment of 40

Academic Skills(TAAS)

UtahSAT 65Core Curriculum 75 II

AssessmentPro 2ram

VermontPortfolio NS

AssessmentsUniform Tests in NS

Math and WritingVirginiaLiteracy Passport 13

Testing ProgramITBS NSTests of NS

Achievement andProficiency

31

Appendix


WI:*


Student School or Instructional NotAccount- District Decision- ('ategor-ability Account- Making ized

ability

WashingtonCTBSCurriculum

FrameworksAssessment

NSNS a

West VirginiaCriterion-Referenced

TestsCTBSState Writing

Assessment

N S

NSNS

a

aII

a

WisconsinThird Grade Reading

TestACT 8th Grade

EXPLOREACT 10th Grade

PLAN

NS

NS

N S

a

a

WyomingNONEAm SamoaSATMinimum

Competency TestLocally Developed

CurriculumReferenced Tests

NS80

NS

I

MACTBS NS aCNMICAT 60DCCTBSNational Assessment

of EducationalProgress (NAEP)

4141

a

FMFSM National

Standardized Testsin Language Arts.and Mathematics

NS

GuamLife and School

Survival Skills TestBrigance

50

90

38



%**



ability

PalauCriterion-Referenced

TestBriganceEducation Needs

AssessmentPre-School

SupplementaryScreeningInventory

Denver IIHawaii Early

Learning ProfileIsland Infant &

ToddlersScreeningInstruments

NS

7070

70

NS70

70

a

a

Puerto RicoAprenda: Reading,

LanguageAprenda: MathAprenda: Basic

Skills

NS

NSNS

NJ

RMINONEUSVIMetropolitan

Achievement TestNS 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"

3933

Documents

ED 385 061 EC :504 094 AUTHOR Erickson, Ron; And ... 385 061 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION SPONS AGENCY PUB DATE CONTRACT NOTE AVAILABLE FROM PUB TYPE EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS IDENTIFIERS