Search

There has been a paradigm shift from accommodations to the identification of levels of accessibility (e.g., universal features, designated features, and accommodations). A consequence of this shift is that many students with disabilities who previously were assigned accommodations now access many of them as universal or designated features. This Brief highlights what states and Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams can do to avoid possible unintended consequences of the paradigm shift.

Many students with disabilities use accessibility features and accommodations during instruction and when taking assessments. It is important to consider teacher perceptions and experiences when making accessibility decisions. The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) synthesized and summarized research conducted between 1999 and 2022 on the perceptions of teachers regarding accommodations. Based on this research on teachers' perceptions of accommodations, NCEO suggests several strategies that could improve practice.

This report highlights the findings of the sixteenth survey of states conducted by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO). It has been administered for more than three decades to collect information from states about the participation and performance of students with disabilities in the assessments that comprise the comprehensive assessment system. Topics addressed included: accessibility and accommodations, alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS), interim assessments, accountability, English learners with disabilities, technology, graduation requirements, State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs)/State-identified Measurable Results (SiMRs), family engagement, and technical assistance needs.

This report summarizes an investigation of literature published in 1985-2023 on universal design (UD) of large-scale assessments. State education agencies, K-12 assessment vendors, teacher trainers, and classroom teachers are increasingly applying the principles of UD to the instruction and assessment of students from special populations. In theory, UD ensures that instruction and assessment are created from the beginning to be accessible to the widest population of students possible. Yet, it is unclear how these UD frameworks and their associated principles and elements are being applied, or even which UD framework is used. This obscurity and lack of defined UD principles in the research literature creates obstacles in research replication and in identification of evidence-based practices. This scoping review identifies how the concept of UD has been applied to the broad range of U.S. district and state large-scale academic assessments. We included literature on the application of UD to the broad range of K-12 district and state large-scale academic assessments in the U.S.

Alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS) are designed and implemented for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Historically, these assessments have been described as reflecting reduced "depth," "breadth," and "complexity." Yet, the meaning of these terms is often not defined. The purpose of this report is to provide: (1) an overview of relevant history and legislation that address depth, breadth, and complexity of AA-AAAS; and (2) questions for states to consider as they revise or develop new AA-AAAS. This information also can be useful for states submitting evidence for an existing AA-AAAS to the U.S. Department of Education peer review process.

There continues to be confusion among some educators and staff in State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) about what is an accommodation and what is a modification. This confusion about accommodations and modifications happens in how these words are used in both instruction and assessment. The confusion is further compounded by the use of the term "modified curriculum" when describing the academic content taught to some students with disabilities. The misunderstandings of these terms affect how Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are written and then implemented. The purpose of this Brief is to clarify what accommodations and modifications are for both instruction and assessment for students with disabilities. We also disentangle the use of the term "alternate or modified curriculum" from the meaning of modification used for instruction and assessment. Accommodations and modifications can also be appropriate for English learners; however, this Brief is focused on students with disabilities, including English learners with disabilities.

The Prospective Students Survey is one of the Graduate Management Admission Council's (GMAC) keystone research programs. The global graduate management education (GME) community has relied on data from this survey to gain insights about candidates' decision-making processes when considering and applying to graduate business schools since 2009. The findings detailed in this report are based on responses from a total of 2,710 individuals surveyed between January and December 2022. Prospective students who responded represent those interested in various MBA and business master's program categories, including full-time MBA, professional MBA, executive MBA, master's in management and international management, and other specialized business master's programs. Responses used for analysis included candidates who are at different stages of the GME journey, including those who are actively applying to business schools or currently doing research about graduate business degrees. This year, the information gleaned from the Prospective Students Survey is being released in a nine-part series for easier consumption and improved user experience. This overview report contains the following sections: (1) Career Aspirations; (2) Career Goals; (3) Industries of Interest; (4) Job Functions of Interest; and (5) Methodology. [The following individuals made significant contributions to the publication of this report: Quan Yuan, Alexandria Williams, and Kun Yuan.]

The Prospective Students Survey is one of the Graduate Management Admission Council's (GMAC) keystone research programs. The global graduate management education (GME) community has relied on data from this survey to gain insights about candidates' decision-making processes when considering and applying to graduate business schools since 2009. This year, the rich information gleaned from the Prospective Students Survey is being released in a nine-part series for easier consumption and improved user experience. The findings detailed in this overview report are based on responses from a total of 2,710 prospective students surveyed between January and December 2022 who represent those interested in various MBA and business master's program categories, including full-time MBA, professional MBA, executive MBA, master's in management and international management, and other specialized business master's programs. Responses used for analysis included candidates who are at different stages of the GME journey, including those who are actively applying to business schools or currently doing research about graduate business degrees. Descriptive analyses were conducted on survey responses to examine prospective students' program of study preferences, application plans, and preferred study destination. This overview report contains the following sections: (1) Graduate Management Education Decisions; (2) Program Choice; (3) School Selection Criteria; (4) Study Destination Considerations; and (5) Methodology. [Contributors of the report include: Quan Yuan, Alexandria Williams, and Kun Yuan.]

This Deans Summary highlights the key themes and insights of the GMAC Prospective Students Survey -- 2023 Summary Report. It continues to explore trends in the candidate pipeline, program preferences, and career goals as well as new questions added to this year's survey about first-generation candidates, motivations for pursuing GME, and social issues like sustainability and corporate social responsibility. [For the related report, "GMAC Prospective Students Survey. 2023 Summary Report," see ED630796. For the 2022 report, see ED623229.]

For more than a decade, the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC) Prospective Students Survey (PSS) has provided the world's graduate business schools with critical insights into the decision-making processes of people currently considering applying to a graduate management education (GME) program. Its questions--covering a diverse range of topics that impact prospective students' application and enrollment decisions--provide school professionals with timely, relevant, and reliable market intelligence to inform how they engage with candidates to build their incoming classes. This year's summary report, which considers data collected in the 2022 calendar year, continues to explore trends in the candidate pipeline, program preferences, and career goals. It also focuses on new questions added to this year's survey about first-generation candidates, motivations for pursuing GME, and social issues like sustainability and corporate social responsibility. The report then considers the longevity of trends in online and hybrid education and candidate mobility brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. [Contributors of the report include: Andrew Walker, Alexandria Williams, Nicola Rampino, Quan Yuan, Kun Yuan, and Sabrina White. For the related report, "GMAC Prospective Students Survey. 2023 Deans Summary," see ED630799. For the 2022 report, see ED623211.]

Women represent a key demographic in the global workforce and are increasingly seeking advanced degrees to further their careers. However, many barriers and challenges still exist in attracting and retaining prospective female students in graduate management education (GME) programs. This research brief takes a closer look at the perspectives of women in the GME pipeline. Data is leveraged from GMAC's Prospective Students Survey, in which candidates self-select their gender identity, as well as other research to better understand their motivations and goals. With this understanding, GME programs can better tailor messaging to use when marketing to this key audience. First, the brief examines the mindset female candidates have expressed in the survey, including the motivations and barriers they consider when assessing a potential next step in GME. Then, through the identification of female candidates' hopes for potential benefits from GME, the second section contextualizes these preferences. With a better understanding of female GME candidates' mindsets and hopes, the final section examines their associated career goals and expectations and their plans for the future.

Up to 1.0% of the total tested state student population in a subject area may participate in the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS). This Brief presents the results of analyses of states' AA-AAAS participation rates from 2015-16 through 2018-19. Information is presented on: (a) the number of states meeting the 1.0% participation requirement in each year from 2015-16 through 2018-19 for mathematics (i.e., math) and reading/language arts (i.e., reading), and (b) states with decreasing and states with increasing patterns of participation rates across the four years in math and reading.

This research brief provides insights on first-generation candidates in graduate management education including data on their motivations, financial plans, and barriers to pursuing higher education. These findings can help business school professionals to better understand and support this population of business school students. The brief draws upon GMAC's 2022 Prospective Students Survey data as well as expert insights to glean a closer look into how schools might most appropriately support first-generation students in graduate management education.

As outlined in the "Guide for Developing High-Quality School Emergency Operations Plans (School Guide)" (ED571878), multidisciplinary planning teams--composed of school personnel and community partners--can develop a comprehensive school emergency operations plans (EOP) customized to the needs of the students, the staff, and the community that the school comprises. The "School Guide" and six-step planning process are for both private and public schools and allow for flexibility at the school level. Like public schools, private schools are susceptible to a wide range of threats and hazards, of which their core planning teams should be aware so that they address them in their EOP. The purpose of this fact sheet is to provide considerations for private schools, including their administrators, core planning teams, and community partners, to incorporate in their emergency management planning efforts. This fact sheet presents challenges and considerations, points to consider when developing a school EOP, methods of engaging the community and promoting partnerships in emergency management planning, and resources.

Comprehensive school emergency management planning requires input and collaboration from multidisciplinary stakeholders that represent the whole school community. The involvement of those who are affected by and help carry out the school emergency operations plan (EOP) can help ensure buy-in and the quality of the plan, as well as build the preparedness capacity of the school. Students are often an overlooked stakeholder group and yet represent a large population within the school setting. They can serve as both a resource and key partner by participating in activities before, during, and after an emergency and contributing to EOP development. This fact sheet provides school core planning teams and school safety leaders with strategies for engaging students in school emergency management planning efforts while still safeguarding their well-being.

In collaboration with their local government and community partners, schools can take a proactive approach to crime prevention as a part of developing, implementing, and maintaining school emergency operations plans (EOPs) using the "Guide for Developing High-Quality School Emergency Operations Plans (School Guide)" [ED571878]. In addition to outlining the school's approach to operations before, during, and after an emergency, the "School Guide" suggests that comprehensive all-hazards and all-threats school EOPs include "courses of action that schools will implement on a routine, ongoing basis to secure the school from criminal threats originating from both inside and outside the school," including implementation of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). This fact sheet presents an overview of the CPTED approach to reducing and removing opportunities for criminal behaviors, along with tips and strategies for applying CPTED in a K-12 school environment.

Integrating chemical management into a comprehensive emergency operations plan (EOP), including through the creation of a Toxic Materials Annex and a Hazardous Materials Annex, helps improve a school district's or individual school's preparedness for a chemical-related incident. To ensure the annexes remain relevant and useful, districts and individual schools should practice them through emergency exercises and make revisions based on lessons learned. Additionally, districts and individual schools should review, update, and strengthen these annexes regularly. The lessons learned in this document are the reflections of one school and are based on one chemical spill. They are suggestions to consider when developing an emergency operations plan that incorporates planning for hazardous chemicals; they are not prescriptive best practices for every school or school district. The names of the school and school district have been changed to protect identities.

Despite the elevation of the opioid crisis in the U.S. to the level of a nationwide public health emergency in 2017, the number of opioid-involved overdose deaths has continued to rise. The impact of the opioid epidemic extends well beyond the tragedy of fatal overdose. Nonfatal overdose can result in brain injury and permanent disability, and research suggests that between 20 and 30 nonfatal overdoses occur for every overdose death. K-12 students affected by opioid abuse in the home face a number of challenges that can interfere with their educational engagement and success. Evidence indicates that children whose parents abuse opioids are at risk of experiencing trauma, school absences, behavioral issues, and even displacement from the home--all factors that can negatively affect educational and socioemotional outcomes. Similarly, research shows that college students who engage in drug use are more likely to experience gaps in enrollment, prolonged time to graduation, failure to graduate, and even lifelong struggles with addiction. Planning teams at K-12 schools and institutions of higher education (IHEs) can specifically address the risk of opioid-related emergencies, including overdose, in their emergency operations plans (EOPs) by including a Threat- and Hazard-Specific Annex for drug overdose. This fact sheet provides information and strategies for addressing opioid overdoses at K-12 schools and IHEs through EOPs and other preparedness activities.

This Brief provides an overview of how students' insights on the usefulness and feasibility of various accessibility features and accommodations should be taken into account when identifying accessibility features and accommodations for instruction and assessment. Students are often the best source of information about their strengths and needs, and what helps. This Brief uses synthesized and summarized research NCEO conducted on the perceptions of students with disabilities regarding accommodations between 1999 and 2021, and provides suggestions for soliciting students' perceptions on accommodations and involving them in advocating for their needs.

In order to assist schools and their community partners in their efforts to create, assess, or update their comprehensive emergency operations plans (EOPs), Federal agencies jointly produced the "Guide for Developing High-Quality School Emergency Operations Plans (School Guide)" and "The Role of Districts in Developing High-Quality School Emergency Operations Plans (District Guide)." This fact sheet outlines ten timeless school safety strategies that directly support the prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery practices outlined in the aforementioned guides.

Safe, secure, resilient, and accessible education system infrastructure, both physical and digital, is an essential factor for success. Yet, the digital infrastructure in the nation's K-12 schools is increasingly under threat from malicious cyber actors. This fact sheet: (1) describes the most common types of cyber threats currently facing school districts and individual schools; (2) offers strategies for preparing for cyber threats; (3) shares actionable recommendations that key school community groups can take before, during, and after a cybersecurity incident; and (4) provides information on how to incorporate cybersecurity considerations into every step of emergency operations plans through the creation and modification of a Cyber Annex.

Ensuring that students come to school prepared to learn involves comprehensive emergency management planning that supports students in all settings and at all times. This includes protecting students as they participate in online spaces. As Internet communication technology continues to advance, so do opportunities for criminals to entice, exploit, and victimize children online. The prevailing use of mobile devices and the popularization of mobile applications, particularly social media, have given rise to new types of Internet-based crimes, including child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data, and sextortion. This fact sheet describes sextortion and its impacts on students and outlines how schools can protect youth from sextortion through the creation and modification of a Sextortion Annex in the school emergency operations plan (EOP).

State education agencies (SEAs) play a unique and essential role in supporting schools and school districts as they develop prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery protocols for their emergency operations plans (EOPs). With input from a broad array of stakeholders and experts, SEAs are positioned to aid schools and school districts by aggregating data, providing resources and tools, highlighting promising practices, identifying and anticipating challenges facing schools and school districts, and convening stakeholders to share ideas and address EOP elements. This fact sheet provides information on how SEAs can support schools and school districts with the development and refinement of school EOPs.

To help ensure that assessments are properly administered, states have developed policies about who can administer or proctor assessments, and the training they must have. This report presents the findings of our analysis of states' 2021 policies on the qualifications and requirements for test administrators, proctors, and accommodations providers for general state summative content assessments (e.g., math, language arts, science), specifically as they relate to students with disabilities, English learners, and English learners with disabilities. The individuals who administer or proctor assessments, as well as those who provide accommodations (e.g., scribes, test readers, sign language interpreters, translators), need to be qualified and knowledgeable about how to appropriately administer assessments and how to provide accommodations.

This Brief provides an overview of issues related to the inclusion of students with disabilities and English learners with disabilities in early grade (that is, K-2) assessments and offers strategies for improved practices.

This report provides an update on the state of the research on testing accommodations. Previous reports by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) have covered research published since 1999. In this report, we summarize the research published in 2020. During 2020, 11 research studies addressed testing accommodations in the U.S. K-12 education system. The research also highlights important emerging issues including the role of technology in facilitating accessibility for students with disabilities through built-in accommodations and in considering needed practices for applying technologies. [For the 2019 report, see ED620540.]

As support continues to grow across the country and across the political spectrum for the federal student-level data network (SLDN) proposed in the College Transparency Act (CTA), IHEP partnered with AEM Education Services, with input from RTI International, to further build out a roadmap to support the implementation of the SLDN. "Frameworks for a Federal Student-Level Data Network: Considerations for Using the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS)" examines how the vocabulary, data models, and more than 550 postsecondary-specific elements already in the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) can streamline implementation of an SLDN, which would bridge the current gaps in data that currently exclude countless students and their outcomes from higher education decision-making. This brief builds on other research to facilitate the implementation of an SLDN that would finally deliver accurate, complete, and timely data on enrollment, completion, and post-college outcomes while staunchly protecting student privacy. The findings in this brief align with a series of convenings that RTI and IHEP have hosted over the past two years with experts across the field of higher education to support the modernization of the nation's postsecondary data system. Recommendations from those convenings have addressed measures and underlying data elements addressed in proposed legislation, institutional views on data submission, and financial aid. [This report was written with contributions from RTI International.]

This Research Brief provides data and analysis on business school candidates who studied non-business fields as undergraduates, including liberal arts and STEM subjects. Topics covered include demographics, timing of their consideration of business school, career aspirations, curriculum preferences, and evaluation of business school options. The underlying data is from the GMAC Prospective Students Survey. [For the "GMAC Prospective Students Survey -- 2022 Summary Report, see ED623211.]

This report outlines the approaches that state education agencies (SEAs) have taken in defining and using formative assessment practices, including practices to explicitly support students with disabilities. At the state level, there have been efforts to develop or adopt formal definitions of formative assessment practices that guide how these practices are used in instruction. Given the different approaches and definitions that might exist for formative assessment practices, this report aims to describe how states are communicating and supporting these practices with their districts and schools.

This report provides an update on the state of the research on testing accommodations. Previous reports by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) have covered research published since 1999. In this report, we summarize the research published in 2019. During 2019, 11 research studies were published on the topic of testing accommodations in the U.S. elementary and secondary education system. [For the 2018 report, see ED613024.]

The Prospective Students Survey is one of the Graduate Management Admission Council's (GMAC) keystone research programs. The global graduate management education (GME) community has relied on data from this survey to gain insights about candidates' decision-making processes when considering and applying to graduate business schools since 2009. The findings detailed in this report are based on responses from a total of 6,596 individuals surveyed between January and December 2021, as well as responses from more than 152,000 individuals surveyed between the years 2009 and 2021. Prospective students who responded represent those interested in various MBA and business master's program categories, including full-time MBA, professional MBA, executive MBA, master's in management and international management, and other specialized business master's programs. This year, the information gleaned from the Prospective Students Survey is being released in a nine-part series for easier consumption and improved user experience. Each program reports showcases results from the Prospective Students Survey by preferred program type of study. This program report showcases results from the following MBA Program Types: (1) Full-Time Two-Year MBA; (2) Full-Time One-Year MBA; (3) Part-Time; (4) Executive MBA; and (5) Online MBA. [The following individuals made significant contributions to the publication of this report: Alexandria Williams, Tacoma Williams, Kun Yuan, Devina Caruthers, and Matt Hazenbush. For "Post-GME Career Aspirations. Overview Report. Prospective Students Survey 2021," see ED626862.]

The Prospective Students Survey is one of the Graduate Management Admission Council's (GMAC) keystone research programs. The global graduate management education (GME) community has relied on data from this survey to gain insights about candidates' decision-making processes when considering and applying to graduate business schools since 2009. The findings detailed in this report are based on responses from a total of 6,596 individuals surveyed between January and December 2021, as well as responses from more than 152,000 individuals surveyed between the years 2009 and 2021. Prospective students who responded represent those interested in various MBA and business master's program categories, including full-time MBA, professional MBA, executive MBA, master's in management and international management, and other specialized business master's programs. This year, the information gleaned from the Prospective Students Survey is being released in a nine-part series for easier consumption and improved user experience. Each program reports showcases results from the Prospective Students Survey by preferred program type of study. This program report showcases results from the following Business Master's Program Types: (1) Master of Finance; (2) Master of Data Analytics; (3) Master of Management; (4) Master of International Management; and (5) Master of Marketing. [The following individuals made significant contributions to the publication of this report: Alexandria Williams, Tacoma Williams, Kun Yuan, Devina Caruthers, and Matt Hazenbush. For "Post-GME Career Aspirations. Overview Report. Prospective Students Survey 2021," see ED626862.]

This Deans Summary highlights the key themes and insights of the GMAC Prospective Students Survey -- 2022 Summary Report. It explores how prospective students' preferences have shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic based on responses from more than 6,500 individuals worldwide who expressed interest in graduate business education in 2021. [For the GMAC Prospective Students Survey -- 2022 Summary Report, see ED623211.]

For more than a decade, the GMAC Prospective Students Survey has provided the world's graduate business schools with critical insights into the decision-making processes of people currently considering applying to a graduate management education (GME) program. Its questions--covering a diverse range of topics that impact prospective students' application and enrollment decisions--provide school professionals with timely, relevant, and reliable market intelligence to inform how they engage with candidates to build their incoming classes. This year's summary report explores how prospective students' preferences have shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic and includes responses from more than 6,500 individuals worldwide who expressed interest in graduate business education in 2021. [Contributors of the report include: Matt Hazenbush, Alexandria Williams, Kun Yuan, Tacoma Williams, Devina Caruthers, Sabrina White, and Maite Salazar. For a related report, "GMAC Prospective Students Survey: 2022 Deans Summary," see ED623229. For the 2019 report, see ED598219.]

This report presents the findings of a survey of states that examined the policies, practices, and procedures State Education Agencies (SEAs) used to monitor IEPs for participation decision making in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS). It is imperative that only students with the most significant cognitive disabilities participate in the AA-AAAS because it has short- and long-term implications. The instruction of students taking the AA-AAAS may be reduced in depth, breadth, or complexity, and this may have implications for graduation as well as reduce post-secondary options.