ERIC ED455626: State Special Education Outcomes, 2001: A Report on State Activities at the Beginning of a New Decade.

50 Pages·2001·0.77 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 455 626
EC 308 498
AUTHOR
Thompson, Sandra; Thurlow, Martha
TITLE
State Special Education Outcomes, 2001: A Report on State
Activities at the Beginning of a New Decade.
INSTITUTION
National Center on Educational Outcomes, Minneapolis, MN.;
Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.;
National Association of State Directors of Special
Education, Alexandria, VA.
SPONS AGENCY
Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC.
PUB DATE
2001-00-00
NOTE
49p.; For earlier edition, see ED 440 507. Supported by the
Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education
Programs (ED).
AVAILABLE FROM
National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of
Minnesota, 350 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Rd., Minneapolis,
MN 55455. Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Web site:
http://www.coled.umn.edu/NCEO.
PUB TYPE
Reports
Research (143)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
*Academic Standards; *Accountability; Alternative
Assessment; *Disabilities; *Educational Assessment;
Elementary Secondary Education; *Outcomes of Education;
State Programs; *Student Participation; Surveys
IDENTIFIERS
*Testing Accommodations (Disabilities)
ABSTRACT
This report summarizes the eighth survey of state directors
of special education by the National Center
on Educational Outcomes at the
University of Minnesota. Results include all 50 states and the
Bureau of
Indian Affairs, American Samoa, and Palau. State directors report increased
participation rates of students with disabilities in state
assessments and,
in many cases, improvement in performance as well. This first
year of
alternative assessment implementation has been challenging, but
most states
now have systems in place and are grappling with how to include the results
in their accountability systems in ways that show the
progress of every
student toward state and district standards. Additional findings include:.
(1)
more states listed positive consequences of inclusive standards, assessments,
and accountability, then listed negative consequences;
(2) more than half
reported increases in participation rates;
(3) two-thirds of directors
reported stable or increased performance levels of students with disabilities
on these tests;
(4) most states are using portfolios or body of evidence
approaches for their alternate assessments; and (5) 25 states include
alternate assessment participants in all components of their accountability
system. Appendices include charts on student participation and performance
levels.
(CR)
Stzt©
ipitdall
EducztAcm.
uutcom©o
ji
EDUCATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
proveent
m
and Im
hive of Educational Research
INFORMATION
UCATIONAL RESOURCES
E
CENTER (ERIC)
reproduced as
This document has been
organization
received from the person or
originating it..
been made to
CI Minor changes have
improve reproduction quality.
stated in this
Points of view or opinions
represent
document do not necessarily
official OERI position or policy.
A Report on State
at the
Activities
elinnini f
a
o
New Decade
NATIONAL
CENTER ON
EDUCATIONAL
OUTCOMES
In collaboration with:
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
0
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)
4
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2001 State
Special
Education
Outcomes
A Report
State
on
Activities at the
a
Beginning of
New Decade
All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permis-
sion, provided the source is cited as:
Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2001). 2001 State special education outcomes: A report
on state activities at the
beginning of a nnv decade. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center
on Educational Outcomes.
3
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
The Mission of the National Center
on
Educational Outcomes
NCEO IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, THE
NCEO Staff
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), and the
Deb A. Albus
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). NCEO provides national leader-
John S. Bielinski
ship in assisting state and local education agencies in their development of policies
Jane L. Krentz
and practices that encourage and support the participation of students with dis-
Kristi K. Liu
abilities in accountability systems and data collection efforts.
Jane E. Minnema
NCEO focuses its efforts in the following areas:
Michael L. Moore
Research on the participation and performance of students with disabilities in
Rachel F. Quenemoen
state and national assessments and other educational reform efforts.
Dorene L. Scott
Dissemination and Technical Assistance through publications, presentations,
Sandra J. Thompson
technical assistance, and other networking activities.
James E. Ysseldyke
Collaboration and Leadership to build on the expertise of others and to
develop leaders who can conduct needed research and provide additional
Martha L. Thurlow,
technical assistance.
Director
The Center is supported primarily through a Cooperative Agreement
(#H326G000001) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special
Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Additional support for
targeted projects, including those on limited English proficient students, is pro-
vided by other federal and state agencies. The Center is affiliated with the Institute
on Community Integration in the College of Education and Human Develop-
ment, University of Minnesota. Opinions or points of view expressed within this
document do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Education or
the Offices within it.
Additional copies of this report may be ordered for $15.00. Please write
or call:
Publications Office
NCEO
350 Elliott Hall
75 E. River Road
Minneapolis, MN 55455
612/624-8561
Fax: [phone]
http://education.umn.edu/NCE0
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
4
June, 2001
jjj
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT THAT CONTAINS INFORMATION FROM ALL 50 STATES IS ONLY
possible through the collective efforts of every state director and staff. Thanks to
the thoughtful responses of the directors and their designees who completed this
survey, we are able to share trends, accomplishments, and frustrations. We appre-
ciate the willingness of many of the respondents to share their progress honestly,
knowing that we are all learning as we go and that progress is sometimes painfully
slow and tedious. The purpose of this report is not to check for compliance with
federal mandates nor to point fingers at states that have had a difficult time
moving their systems forward; it is simply to capture where states are now and to
provide information to help states view their own progress in light of other states.
State agency personnel are often barraged by requests for information. With the
value of each director's time in mind, we designed a survey that would capture
information not requested by other groups, a survey that could be completed
online in a minimal amount of time. We appreciate the time taken by respondents
to talk to people outside of special education, and we hope that this collaborative
effort increased awareness within and across state programs and departments.
For their support, special thanks go to:
David Malouf and Lou Danielson, of the Office of Special Education
Programs in the U.S. Department of Education;
Eileen Ahearn, of the National Association of State Directors of Special
Education; and
Michael Moore, online survey designer and communications director for
the National Center on Educational Outcomes.
2001 State Special Education Outcomes was prepared by Sandra Thompson and
Martha Thurlow, with support from research assistant Chris Boys.
iv
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
State Directors of Special Education
ALABAMA
KENTUCKY
NORTH CAROLINA
WISCONSIN
Mabrey Whetstone
Mike Armstrong
Lowell Harris
Stephanie Petska
ALASKA
LOUISIANA
NORTH DAKOTA
WYOMING
Greg Maloney
Virginia Beridon
Robert Rutten
Rebecca Walk
ARIZONA
MAINE
OHIO
Lynn Busenbark
David Stockford
John Herner
AMERICAN SAMOA
Jane French
ARKANSAS
MARYLAND
OKLAHOMA
Marcia Harding
Carol Ann Baglin
Darla Griffin
BUREAU OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS
CALIFORNIA
MASSACHUSETTS
OREGON
Angelita Felix
Alice Parker
Marcia Mittnacht
Steve Johnson
DEPARTMENT OF
COLORADO
MICHIGAN
PENNSYLVANIA
DEFENSE
Lorrie Harkness
Jacquelyn Thompson
Fran Warkowski
Lorrie Sebestyen
(acting)
CONNECTICUT
MINNESOTA
RHODE ISLAND
George Dowaliby
Norena Hale
DISTRICT OF
Thomas Dipaola
COLUMBIA
DELAWARE
MISSISSIPPI
SOUTH CAROLINA
Ann Gay
Martha Brooks
Ed Kelly
Susan Durant
GUAM
FLORIDA
MISSOURI
SOUTH DAKOTA
Vince Leon Guerrero
Shan Goff
Melodie Friedebach
Deborah Barnett
MARIANA ISLANDS
GEORGIA
MONTANA
TENNESSEE
Suzanne Lizama
Philip Pickens
Robert Runkel
Joseph Fisher
(acting)
HAWAII
NEBRASKA
TEXAS
MARSHALL ISLANDS
Debra Farmer
Gary Sherman
Etsgene Lenz
Kanchi Hosia
IDAHO
NEVADA
UTAH
MICRONESIA
Jana Jones
Gloria Dopf
Mae Taylor
Makir Keller
ILLINOIS
NEW HAMPSHIRE
VERMONT
PALAU
Gordon Riffel
Debra Grabill
Dennis Kane
Evans Imetengel
INDIANA
NEW JERSEY
VIRGINIA
PUERTO RICO
Robert Marra
Barbara Gantwerk
Doug Cox
Maria Teresa Morales
IOWA
NEW MEXICO
WASHINGTON
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Brenda Oas
Robert Pasternack
Douglas Gill
Belinda West-O'Neal
KANSAS
NEW YORK
WEST VERGINIA
These were the state
Alexa Pochowski
Lawrence Gloeckler
Dee Bodkins
directors of special educa-
tion in April 2001 when the
6
survey was conducted.
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
THIS REPORT SUMMARIZES THE EIGHTH SURVEY OF STATE DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCA-
don by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the University
of Minnesota. Results include all 50 states and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Ameri-
can Samoa, and Palau. The purpose of this report is to capture the state of the
nation as states build the participation and performance of students with disabilities
in state and district standards, assessments, and accountability systems, and to
provide information to help states view their own progress in light of other states.
State directors report increased participation rates of students with disabilities in
state assessments, and in many cases, improvement in performance as well. This first
year of alternate assessment implementation has been challenging, but most states
now have systems in place and are grappling with how to include the results in their
accountability systems in ways that show the progress of every student toward state
and district standards.
Among the more striking findings are the following:
More states listed positive consequences of inclusive standards, assessments,
and accountability than listed negative consequences.
More than half of the states reported increases in participation rates.
In two-thirds of the states, directors reported stable or increased performance
levels of students with disabilities on state tests.
Nearly 60% of states keep track of the use of accommodations, and half of
these reported increased use of accommodations.
Most states are using a portfolio or body of evidence approach for their
alternate assessments.
While students may use accommodations whether or not they are approved,
nearly half of the states do not report the scores of students who use non-
approved accommodations.
Twenty-five states include alternate assessment participants in all components
of their accountability systems.
A positive theme throughout this report is that the benefits of inclusive assessment
and accountability systems are beginning to outweigh the challenges, and many
states are taking positive approaches as they face the challenges ahead.
vi
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
in
State Directors of Special Education
iv
Executive Summary
Overview of 2001 Survey
1
The Bottom Line: Consequences of Inclusive Standards, Assessments,
and Accountability
3
Assessment Participation and Performance
5
Participation
5
Performance
8
Assessment Accommodations
9
Information on Use
9
Eligible Students
9
Data Collection Procedures
10
Alternate Assessments
11
Alternate Assessment Stakeholders
11
Standards Assessed
12
Alternate Assessment Approach
12
Performance Measures
13
Performance Descriptors
14
Scoring Alternate Assessments
15
Reporting
16
Accountability
18
Current Issues
21
Out-of-Level Testing
21
LEP Students with Disabilities
22
Diploma Options
22
IEPs and State Assessments
23
Referrals for Special Education Services
25
Emerging Issues and Future Challenges
26
0
0
Table of Contents
vii
Appendix A: State Assessment Participation and Performance Summary Table
27
Appendix B: Accommodations Summary Table
29
Appendix C: Alternate Assessment Summary Table
31
Appendix D: Reporting Summary Table
34
Appendix E: Accountability Summary Table
36
Appendix F: Current Issues Summary Table
38
o
o
Overview
Overview of 2001 Survey
THIS REPORT MARKS THE EIGHTH TIME OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS THAT THE NATIONAL
Center on Educational Outcomes has collected information from state directors of
special education about the participation of students with disabilities in education
reform. Reform efforts continue to evolve at a rapid pace. The purpose of this
report is to capture the progress of states as they move toward assessment and
accountability systems that include every student.
Eleven Unique
States
It is clear from the results of this survey that states are working hard to increase
American Samoa
accountability for all students. As described in many NCEO publications and
Bureau of Indian Affairs
elsewhere, there are several important reasons why all students need to be in-
(BIA)
cluded in assessment and accountability systemsto:
Department of Defense
promote high expectations
District of Columbia
provide an accurate picture of education
Guam
allow all students to benefit from reforms
Mariana Islands
enable accurate comparisons to be made
Marshall Islands
avoid unintended consequences of exclusion
Micronesia
meet legal requirements
Palau
Puerto Rico
The 2001 Special Education Outcomes Survey focuses on the implications of
U.S.Virgin Islands
educational reform within the context of the 1997 reauthorization of the Indi-
viduals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Results are presented in eight
sections:
Consequences of Inclusive Standards, Assessments, and Accountability
Assessment Participation and Performance
Assessment Accommodations
Alternate Assessments
Reporting
Accountability
Current Issues
Emerging Issues
Participants in the 2001 survey included state directors of special education from
all 50 states and 11 federal jurisdictions that abide by the provisions of IDEA
(referred to in this report as "unique states"). Responses to the survey were
gathered online and via fax. To view the survey instrument, go to http://
education.umn.edu/NCEO/NCEOSurveys/SpEdDirectors_Survey.htm. Some
state directors designated other state officials to complete the survey, and multiple
respondents, including state assessment and accountability personnel, completed
some surveys.