Search

English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities struggle with reading and the reasons for their struggles are not well understood owing to little knowledge about the impact of disability on language development in either the first or second language (Klingner et al., 2006). Nevertheless, this difficulty in reading achievement historically has been a marker for students with learning disabilities (Bender, 2003). It may be challenging for ELLs with disabilities to learn in large general education classes (Vaughn, Klingner, & Bryant, 2001). Vaughn and her colleagues indicate that because students with the most severe reading difficulties need intense reading strategy instruction, they must have additional support services in a special education setting where there are sufficient time and resources to address student's specific learning needs. Thus, it seems apparent that an important area of research attention is to examine the benefits of instruction in the specialized settings where small group or individualized services are provided to English language learners with disabilities. Moreover, because of the need to adapt learning situations to the specific needs of these students, it seems imperative that any examination of individualized instruction should also examine the degree to which adjustments to instruction should be made. It should also examine how different approaches to the instruction of these learners may affect learner outcomes. To add to this limited, but growing knowledge base, this report provides details about a series of single-subject research studies. The studies examine how an instructional reading strategy identified by classroom teachers could be used to improve grade-level standards-based reading achievement among English language learners with learning disabilities in individualized instructional settings. A companion report (Barrera, Liu, Yan, Chamberlain, & Thurlow, 2006) examines a similar series of studies with a mathematics instructional strategy. Appended is: Protocol for Chunking and Questioning Aloud Strategy. (Contains 4 figures and 4 tables.)

English language learners (ELLs) and students with disabilities are two groups specifically targeted in NCLB for which schools must demonstrate "adequate yearly progress." However, ELLs with disabilities, a category where these two groups overlap, are not specifically mentioned in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Students with "high-incidence" learning-related disabilities (e.g., speech and language impairments, learning disabilities, and emotional/behavioral disabilities) in particular exhibit unique educational needs likely to place them at risk as schools strive to improve academic outcomes across the range of students specifically targeted in NCLB. With the rapid growth of the population of ELLs in the U.S., schools have an urgent need for research-based information on how to instruct ELLs with disabilities in grade-level content. This report describes a series of single-subject studies conducted to examine the effect of a mathematics instructional strategy, teacher-directed "think-aloud," on the standards-based academic achievement of Latino and Hmong ELLs with disabilities attending middle or junior high school. The study targeted students with disabilities participating in mainstream content classes using standards-based curriculum. Protocol strategies are appended. (Contains 4 figures and 2 tables.)

Research support for providing a read-aloud accommodation (i.e., having an individual read test items and directions aloud) to students with disabilities has been somewhat limited, particularly when merely examining effects of the accommodation on overall test scores for general groups of students with disabilities. The authors examined data on accommodated and non-accommodated performances of students with specific reading disabilities on various math test items anticipated to be highly sensitive to accommodation effects. Analyses were conducted across three consecutive years of data from an elementary and middle school statewide assessment program. Within the fourth grade dataset, items classified as reading-hard (RH) and those classified as mathematically easy but difficult to read (ME/RH) were positively affected by the accommodation. Marginally significant findings were obtained for the ME/RH item set at the eighth grade level. Limitations and implications of the study are discussed. (Contains 8 tables.)

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and other recent changes in federal legislation have placed greater emphasis on accountability in large-scale testing. Included in this emphasis are regulations that require assessments to be accessible. States are accountable for the success of all students, and tests should be designed in a way that provides all students an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and skills. With the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2004, states are required for the first time to incorporate universal design principles in developing and administering tests, to the extent feasible. Applying the concept of universal design to statewide assessment means that assessments are designed from the beginning and continually refined to result in more valid inferences about performance of students with diverse characteristics. There are many elements involved in creating universally designed assessments. They include making sure that students with disabilities are part of field testing, for example. A major focus of universal design in assessments is making sure that the items included in the assessment are appropriate. There are several methods for selecting items to ensure that they optimize the characteristics of universal design. The purpose of this "Policy Directions" is to provide an overview of these item selection methods, and to suggest that a combination of the methods will produce the better result. Each method has strengths and weaknesses, may lead to different results, and is in different stages of current practice. Although each method has merits, the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) recommends states employ all methods systematically and in conjunction with each other. A brief list of additional resources is also included. (Contains 4 tables.)

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires the reporting of participation in assessments overall and by subgroup, including students with disabilities. As states and school districts strive to meet the goals for adequate yearly progress required by NCLB, the use of individual accommodations continues to be scrutinized for effectiveness, threats to test validity, and score comparability. This report summarizes 49 empirical research studies completed on test accommodations between 2002 and 2004, and provides direction in the design of critically needed future research on accommodations. NCEO found that studies during this three-year period had the following characteristics: (1) Purpose: The primary purpose of the 2002-2004 accommodations research was to determine the effects of accommodations use on the large-scale test scores of students with disabilities; (2) Types of assessment, content areas, and accommodations: The majority of the studies tested students using norm-referenced or criterion-referenced tests, on math or reading/language arts; (3) Participants: Equal numbers of research studies involved between 1-100 participants, 100-1,000 participants, and more than 1,000 participants of multiple age categories. Participants were varying percentages of students without disabilities and students with disabilities. Students with learning disabilities were studied most frequently among students who receive special education services; (4) Findings: Findings shared no common theme, with various accommodations shown to have both a positive and non-positive effect on scores. Individual accommodations showed either differential item functioning or no differential item functioning depending on the study. The lack of consistent findings points to a need for further research; and (5) Limitations: Most often, authors noted that studies were too narrow in scope, involved a small sample size, or provided confounding factors. These limitations and other considerations led researchers to recommend investigating the characteristics of accommodations in further detail. Important overall observations from the NCEO analysis include a need in future research for a clear definition of the constructs tested, a reduction in confounding factors, increased study of institutional factors affecting accommodations judgment, and exploration of the desirability and perceived usefulness of accommodations by students themselves. Future research should focus on improvement in these areas but also on the positive effects of field-testing potential items in accommodated formats in addition to standard formats. The following are appended: (1) Summary of Research Purpose; (2) Summary of Type of Assessment; (3) Subject Area Studied (by Author); (4) Type of Accommodation Studied (by Author); (5) Summary of Participants; (6) Summary of Research Results; (7) Summary of Limitations Cited by Researchers; and (8) Summary of Suggestions for Future Research (as recommended by authors). (Contains 13 tables.)

Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and 504 Plans often recommend the use of accommodations to facilitate the learning of classroom material by students with disabilities. Since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997, students with disabilities are expected to participate in state and district-wide assessments, using appropriate accommodations. Large-scale assessment assumes the use of standardized testing conditions to allow for comparability of test scores; however, some students with disabilities are better able to demonstrate their knowledge when allowed to use accommodations that offset the effect of their disability on the construct tested. For these students, de-standardizing the test conditions is the only meaningful way to obtain an accurate estimate of achievement. In 1999 the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS) began to examine the experience of elementary age students in schools, and pertinent to this report, their experience in testing situations, particularly the use of accommodations. In this paper, using data from SEELS, the authors examine accommodation use across different educational conditions, comparing IEP and 504 Plan accommodations to what students reportedly received in the classroom and on standardized tests. Results suggest a lack of alignment in accommodation use among IEP/504 plans, classroom conditions, and state testing situations. Additionally, there is some variability in what happens for students with different categorical labels. Since the data for this report was obtained from an early administration of the SEELS (Wave 2), monitoring of the alignment issue should continue. (Contains 11 figures and 1 table.)

The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has been tracking and analyzing state policies on assessment participation and accommodations since 1992. The purpose of the current analysis is to update information on these policies that was last reported by NCEO in 2005 (based on 2003 data). The current analysis of states' 2005 participation and accommodation policies found that state policies on participation and accommodation continue to evolve, and that they have become more detailed and specific than in previous years. Key findings from this analysis include: (1) Most states now have Web sites where users can access their policies; (2) Clarifications and specifications attached to specific participation policy variables and to specific accommodations (e.g., what tests accommodations can be used on) are increasing; (3) The "read aloud questions," "sign interpret questions," and "calculator" accommodations continue to be controversial; (4) The "spell checker" accommodation, though it continues to be controversial, appears to be more widely accepted than in the past; and (5) Most states now permit the use of extended time with no restriction, though fewer states permit the "testing over multiple days" accommodation than in the past. This analysis did not attempt to determine the degree to which state policies complied with federal requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 or Title I of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. Instead, it is a descriptive analysis of the written policies that states have for the participation of students with disabilities in assessments and the use of accommodations during their assessments. Appended are: (1) State Documents Used in Analysis of Participation and Accommodation Policies; and (2) Participation and Accommodation Guidelines by State. (Contains 38 tables and 10 figures.)

Finding ways to improve the design of large-scale tests is a timely issue. Recent changes in Federal legislation (including the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) have placed greater emphasis on accountability via large-scale tests. Students who have previously been exempted from large-scale assessments, including students with disabilities and English language learners, are now expected to reach achievement levels comparable to their non-disabled or English proficient peers. Schools are held accountable for their performance, and their scores are reported publicly. With such high stakes placed on large-scale assessment, there is a critical need for states to have valid information about how the design of assessments affects student test performance. This report provides information on the use of "think aloud methods" to detect design issues in large-scale assessments. Various design problems may introduce construct-irrelevant variance or hinder students from showing what they know on assessments. Research included a variety of students, including students with learning disabilities, students with hearing impairments, students with cognitive disabilities, English language learners, and students without disabilities who were proficient in English. In this project, the authors asked students to "think out loud" when solving mathematics large-scale assessment items. The sentences that students uttered produced data that led the authors to believe that think aloud methods, under certain circumstances, can successfully detect design issues. Specifically, they found issues related to unclearly defined constructs, inaccessibility of items, unclear instructions, incomprehensible language, and illegible text and graphics. To this end, think aloud methods appear to be a useful strategy in the design and refinement of large-scale assessments. Think aloud methods, as the authors designed them, were not effective for students with cognitive disabilities. This population had great difficulty in producing the language needed to explain problem-solving processes and may require additional research accommodations to help them participate in think aloud research. All other groups sufficiently participated in research activities. Think aloud methods also did not produce informative data for very difficult mathematics items because students had difficulty verbalizing their thoughts while solving problems. Despite shortcomings found in this study, the think aloud method appears to be an effective way to determine the effects of item design for a wide variety of students (with the exception of students with cognitive disabilities) and for items with low to moderate difficulty levels. (Contains 6 tables and 2 figures.)

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are two of the nation's most important federal laws relating to the education of children. While NCLB seeks to improve the education of all children--with an emphasis on children from low-income families--IDEA focuses on the individual child and seeks to ensure specialized services for children with disabilities so that they may benefit from education. Lately, these two laws have taken on new importance to parents of students with disabilities. NCLB provisions apply to all students, including those whose disabilities require special education. So it is important that parents understand the requirements of NCLB. IDEA, in its latest update by Congress, has been more closely aligned with NCLB, making it equally important that parents become familiar with the ways the two laws have been positioned to work together to improve academic achievement of students with disabilities. This brief guide provides information for parents about the meaning of NCLB; the meaning of IDEA; how NCLB and IDEA work together; academic content and achievement standards; annual assessments; school accountability; and highly qualified teachers. Sections providing answers to frequently asked questions; a glossary; and a list of additional resources conclude the guide.

This study was designed, in part, to clarify some of the issues that surround including English language learners in states' large-scale assessment programs. More specifically, the authors gathered practical information at the local school level to understand these students' large-scale assessment experiences from a variety of perspectives, to describe the characteristics of English language learners with disabilities as well as the characteristics of their schools, and to make known the level of awareness that students and their families have about large-scale assessments. Two broad research questions were addressed in this study: (1) What perceptions do educators, parents, and students have about the experiences of English language learners with disabilities who participate in large-scale assessments? and (2) What are the characteristics of schools that test English language learners with disabilities in large-scale assessments? The case study research design, in which one school is defined as a case, used a mixed method approach to collect quantitative and qualitative data from four sources of data. Data were collected on site in three schools and one alternative school program in a large urban school district located in a large western state. The findings from the document review, written survey, and face-to-face interviews are each presented in different formats, allowing the researchers to highlight the most interesting and useful findings from each data collection activity. To discern the useful information that emerged from the findings, the authors compared school level and sample subgroup results for a discussion that concludes this report. While the findings cannot be directly generalized to other school sites due to the nature of the case study research design for this project, they do indicate noticeable school characteristics, policies, and procedures that are important considerations for policymakers, administrators, and practitioners who strive to better include English language learners with disabilities in states' large-scale assessment and accountability programs. Seven such important considerations are identified and explored herein. The following are appended: (1) research instruments; and (2) Tabled Results by Written Survey Item. (Contains 10 tables and 37 figures.)

Alternate assessment acts as a mechanism for inclusion in large-scale educational assessments for those students with disabilities who cannot participate in regular state and district assessments, even with accommodations and modifications. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), and subsequent regulations reinforce the requirement that states develop alternate assessments for students who need them in order to be appropriately included in assessment and accountability systems. To ensure full participation in assessment and accountability systems, whether for NCLB accountability purposes or for graduation or promotion, students with disabilities unable to take statewide paper-and-pencil tests may require alternate assessments. Some of these students have significant cognitive disabilities and are working substantially below the performance expectations of other students in their grade. Sometimes, though, the nature of the student's primary disability is not cognitive, though still complex and significant enough to require an alternate assessment, for example a student with cerebral palsy or an intensive emotional disability. This latter group of students may be working at or close to a performance level comparable with typical peers, but cannot take the on-demand paper-and-pencil test, even with accommodations, due to their disability. The alternate assessments taken by these students must be able to measure their performance against grade-level achievement standards, rather than the alternate achievement standards normally associated with students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The focus of this discussion is on those students who require alternate assessments based on grade-level achievement standards, and how such alternate assessments can reliably measure their achievement in a manner that is equivalent to students who are taking the regular state assessment for that grade. The Massachusetts Department of Education (the "Department") has developed an alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards consisting of a structured portfolio of student work collected over a period of time, and reviewed by experts in the content area. This option can be used for two purposes: (1) to ensure appropriate participation for all students in system accountability for NCLB purposes; and (2) to ensure appropriate assessments for all students for the purpose of competency determination for a diploma. In this paper, the "competency portfolio" is discussed, including how the model was developed and validated, and how a small but growing number of students are using this format as an alternative pathway to participate in the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) and, ultimately, satisfy the state's graduation requirement. Appended is: MCAS-Alt Grade 10 "Competency Portfolio" Requirements in ELA [English language arts] and Math. (Contains 2 figures.)

For several years, states have listed accommodations allowed on state assessments. States soon found that the definitions of these accommodations varied not only across states, but also within states and even in schools. Over the past few years, states have made greater attempts to define each accommodation and to decide whether the accommodation provided valid test results. During that time, the National Center on Educational Outcomes has recorded accommodations used by states and their definitions and decisions about validity. As the authors studied accommodations use, they found that there are accommodations that require human assistance in order to administer, but that rarely came with instructions about how they were to be delivered or qualifications of the human assistants. They decided to delve deeper and look for state guidelines for these individuals, who they are now calling "access assistants." Guidelines from state education department Web sites were searched, letters sent, and phone calls made to all 50 states to find out what existed for access assistants. They found 22 states with guidelines for one or more of the access assistants that were the focus of their study--scribes, readers, and sign language interpreters. Variations across state guidelines extended from breadth and depth to format and ease of access. They also found 14 states with guidelines describing the qualifications or characteristics of scribes, readers, or sign language interpreters. The report concludes with a description of several challenges to the development of state guidelines for access assistants, and recommendations for meeting those challenges. The following are appended: (1) State Documents Containing Guidelines for Access Assistants; (2) Examples from State Guidelines for Access Assistants; and (3) Examples from State Guidelines Specifying Qualifications and Characteristics of Access Assistants. (Contains 2 tables.)

The rapid increase of culturally diverse populations with special needs in the United States has important implications for delivering grade-level, standards-based instruction to English language learners with Individualized Education Programs (ELL/IEP students). One of the major challenges in both special education and bilingual education is the dearth of research on ELL/IEP students' needs. To be consistent with federal education law requirements, there is a need to focus on content in at least three areas--reading, mathematics, and science. The present study builds on earlier work in which educators of ELL/IEP students were asked about instructional strategies (Thurlow, Albus, Shyyan, Liu, & Barrera, 2004). Specifically, educators generated and weighted the importance, feasibility, and use of content areas and instructional strategies for delivering grade-level, standards-based instruction to ELL/IEP students. Although initial strategies included in the research were from Gersten, Baker, and Marks (1998), 30 educators added strategies to that list. The final list of instructional strategies included 27 reading strategies, 19 mathematics strategies, and 23 science strategies. This study was undertaken to obtain students' input on the instructional strategies generated by educators. The following questions served as the focus of this study: (1) What instructional strategies do ELL/IEP students consider important in reading, mathematics, and science standards-based instruction? (2) What instructional strategies are feasible, as perceived by ELL students with disabilities? and (3) What instructional strategies are employed in the instruction of ELL students with disabilities? Appended are: (1) Instructional Strategies; and (2) Content Area and Instructional Strategy Weightings. (Contains 5 tables and 7 figures.)

This report compares the assumptions and values embedded in scoring criteria used in five states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oregon, and Vermont) for alternate assessments of students with significant cognitive disabilities. The five states use different alternate assessment approaches, including portfolio assessment, performance assessment, Individualized Education Program (IEP) linked body of evidence, and traditional test formats. Analysis finds a surprising degree of commonality in how the states define success for these students. Six criteria are included the states' approaches, either articulated or assumed. They include: (1) content standards linkage; (2) independence; (3) generalization; (4) appropriateness; (5) IEP linkage; and (6) performance. Three scoring criteria are very different across the five states' approaches, including system vs. student emphasis, mastery, and progress. The report offers 10 recommendations for states including identify stated and embedded scoring criteria; clarify whether scoring criteria refer to the student or the system; determine whether underlying assumptions of scoring criteria reflect views of various stakeholders; examine the scoring process in light of the scoring criteria; and examine scores of alternate assessments to ensure that scores reflect original intentions. Appended are an interview guide and student and system criteria definitions and examples. (Contains 19 references and 17 tables.) (DB)

This report discusses findings of a study that investigated the resolution of disputes in the field of special education. Information was collected from ten states (Alabama, California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming) on their current dispute resolution systems and from two additional states (Arizona and Montana) on other procedures they have put in place that are known as early dispute resolution options. Findings in the areas of complaints, mediation, and due process indicate: (1) state education agencies directly administer state complaint procedures and usually begin by opening a file and contacting the special education administrator and the superintendent at the local education agency; (2) the ten states involved in the study vary considerably in the length of time they have provided mediation, do not have a strict set of prerequisites for mediator applicants, and only 8 of the 10 states make mediation services available anytime parties have a dispute; and (3) states use either a single-level or two-level structure system for due process hearings. The study also found that the main dispute resolution components (complaints, mediation, and due process) typically do not function as an integrated system. The need for an integrated data system is stressed. (CR)

This report is the fifth analysis of state reports to examine the extent to which states publicly report information about students with disabilities in statewide assessments. The report describes statewide testing systems and evaluates whether these systems include participation and performance information for students with disabilities. It finds that the number of states reporting both participation and performance results for students with disabilities on all tests has increased from 16 to 28, with an additional 16 states reporting test results for students with disabilities on some state assessments. Thirteen states publicly reported both participation and performance results for their alternate assessments. The following recommendations are offered: (1) provide data in a timely manner; (2) establish reporting practices consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (such as disaggregation of data); (3) report participation rates for students with disabilities; (4) report the number and percent of students with disabilities using accommodations; (5) report disaggregated performance results for all subgroups in the same data table; and (6) post all Web-based assessment results under a clear heading and post results for students with disabilities in the same place as results for all students. Eight appendices include letters to State Directors of Special Education and more detailed data analysis. (Contains 17 references and 17 figures.) (DB)

This paper reports on a survey of the perceptions of 86 state-level educational assessment personnel or other professionals involved in educational assessment regarding different ways in which test scores are influenced by accommodations for participants with disabilities and how scores obtained under accommodated conditions should be treated in reporting. It notes three general options: (1) report all scores in the aggregate (i.e., do not differentiate between accommodated and non-accommodated test scores; (2) report accommodated scores separately; and (3) report accommodated scores both in the aggregate as well as separately. A survey instrument asked participants to classify accommodations into one of three categories distinguished by the degree to which accommodations influence performance. Accommodations were also classified as either presentation accommodations, response accommodations, setting accommodations, or timing accommodations. The study found a relatively high degree of disagreement among participants on the degree to which various accommodations alter test constructs and thus should be treated differently. Accommodations seen as least likely to influence performance were small group administration, use of a large print answer sheet, special lighting, or flexible scheduling. Accommodations seen as most likely to influence performance included provision of extra time, test administration at home, use of a calculator for computations, or use of a spell checker. The paper suggests that accommodations be viewed as a means of establishing optimal testing conditions rather than as a means of "leveling the playing field." Appendices include the survey protocol and detail on level of agreement for each accommodation. (Contains 12 references, 3 tables, and 4 figures.) (DB)

The National Center for Education Statistics conducted a survey of 1,843 public elementary schools that focused on both general education and special education prekindergarten characteristics of the students, classes, personnel, funding sources, and support services. This document summarizes findings relating to prekindergarten special education classes for students with disabilities. Findings indicate: (1) 20% of schools offered general education prekindergarten classes only, 8% offered special education prekindergarten classes only, and 8% offered both general education and prekindergarten classes; (2) the average number of children in prekindergarten general education classes was 17 compared with 9 children per class in prekindergarten special education classes; (3) large public elementary schools were more likely to offer prekindergarten special education classes; (4) public elementary schools in the southeast were more likely to offer prekindergarten special education classes; (5) schools where minority enrollment was 21% or higher were more likely to offer prekindergarten special education classes; (6) overall, 30% of children enrolled in public elementary school prekindergarten classes had individualized education programs (IEPs); and (7) schools with the lowest poverty rate served a higher proportion of prekindergarten children with IEPs than schools with the highest poverty rate. (CR)

This paper summarizes information from interviews with four states regarding their Universal Design for Learning (UDL) initiatives, i.e., state or regional level efforts to promote the principles and practices of UDL via professional development or the production and/or dissemination of universally designed instructional materials. Discussion of the origins of UDL notes the term's use to describe learning technologies that provide access to the curriculum for students both with and without disabilities. The paper then describes the individual features of UDL efforts in four states, noting also strategies and barriers mentioned by state representatives interviewed. It reports that Kentucky has the most comprehensive and long-standing UDL initiative. This has three goals: integration of UDL concepts and technology across all schools; increased access to digitized text and curriculum; and development of a Web-based state assessment. New York's program emphasizes developing providers of technical assistance in UDL to districts and schools, disseminating information on UDL, and adding UDL to the teacher preservice curriculum. California's program stresses conversion of curricular materials into digital formats and dissemination of UDL information. Ohio's program stresses building organizational capacity, introducing UDL concepts in professional development, and a pilot project providing six school-level teams with training and support. (DB)

This paper summarizes key findings from three 2002 documents on availability of special education professionals: "The Supply and Demand of Special Education Teachers: The Nature of the Chronic Shortage of Special Education Teachers" (J. McLeskey and others); "Special Education Teacher Retention and Attrition" (B. Billingsley); and "The Proliferation of Alternative Routes to Certification in Special Education: A Critical Review of the Literature" (M. Rosenberg and P. Sindelar). The paper addresses the following topics: magnitude of the special education teacher shortage; factors influencing demand; factors influencing supply; reasons for low teacher supply; attrition and retention; filling teacher vacancies and reducing demand; and future research directions. Three policy recommendations for state and local education agencies emerged from analysis of these documents: (1) focus on strategies for supporting new special education teachers (e.g., mentoring, administrative support) in addition to recruitment strategies; (2) examine teacher roles, responsibilities and caseloads to ensure that educators have adequate time to focus on student and family needs; and (3) collaborate with institutions of higher education in developing and implementing alternative certification programs. (Contains 44 references.) (DB)

This paper describes the National State Policy Database (NSPD), a full-text searchable database of state and federal education regulations for special education. It summarizes the history of the NSPD and reports on a survey of state directors or their designees as to their use of the database and their suggestions for its future expansion. The history of NSPD is recounted from its origins in 1990 through its development and availability on the Internet since 1998. It notes that the NSPD currently contains the special regulations for 49 states and the Department of Defense schools, as well as the 1997 federal regulations for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Survey interviews with 36 state directors and staff found that 25 states were using the NSPD, that 22 of these indicated no problems with its use, and that commonly reported uses included providing a perspective on what other states are doing; helping with policy development and revision; and allowing examination of specific policy issues in depth. Interviewees also suggested additions to the NSPD and offered suggestions for updating the NSPD. Nonusers of the database indicated this is because they were not aware of it, the database does not fit their needs, or they have difficulty accessing information. (DB)

This document is a synthesis of literature from 1997-2002 on the individualized education program (IEP), a core component of federal and state laws on the education of students with disabilities. The first section identifies the significant changes related to the IEP in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. The following sections address parent involvement; assessment/accountability and accommodations (including perceptions and decision making on use of accommodations and specific accommodations); access to the general curriculum; teacher satisfaction; professional development; post-secondary transition; and special considerations such as behavior, limited English proficiency, visual and hearing impairments, and assistive technology. The paper concludes with a list of 10 related areas in which further research is recommended. (Contains approximately 200 references.) (DB)

This brief paper summarizes information collected from state education agencies concerning: (1) state-level special education data collected by gender; and (2) gender and special education issues identified as concerns. A section on the study's background notes that about two-thirds of students receiving special education services are boys, especially in the areas of emotional disturbance and specific learning disability. Three theories to explain these gender differences are noted. A survey completed by 42 state and 3 non-state school jurisdictions found 41 jurisdictions collected gender information for at least one type of special education data, most commonly disability category, educational environment, and state-wide assessment participation. Twenty-seven jurisdictions identified one or more gender and special education issues as a concern, of which the most common were special education identification overall, disciplinary actions, specific disability categories, and educational environments. However, few (10) indicated a need or interest in receiving technical assistance on gender and special education. The paper concludes by recommending that states be required to report child count data by gender as well as race/ethnicity. A table details the special education data collected by gender for each state. (Contains 10 references.) (DB)

This brief paper analyzes the types of information about disproportionality of particular racial/ethnic groups in special education that states provided in the Biennial Performance Reports (BPRs) submitted to the U.S. Department of Education in 2002 (covering the academic years 1991-2000 and 2000-2001). A section on the study's background notes requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to collect data on disproportionality. The BPRs of all 50 states and nine non-state jurisdictions were examined. Forty-five jurisdictions provided data on disproportionality in table form while the others provided narrative information only. Twenty-nine states used the formula recommended by the Office of Special Education Programs to determine disproportionality. Forty-four of the jurisdictions identified one or more areas/types of disproportionality, most commonly in the following disability categories: emotional disturbance (40 states), mental retardation (39 states), and specific learning disability (35 states). Thirty-five states included at least some information on how they were addressing or planning to address disproportionality. Also, 26 states expressed concerns about the collection and use of data to determine disproportionality. Among these concerns were that heightened awareness of disproportionality could lead to a drop in appropriate referrals and that poverty may affect the labeling and referral of students. (DB)

This report updates and summarizes what is known from research on the effects of test accommodations for students with disabilities and also provides direction to the design of critically needed future research on accommodations. A review was conducted of 46 empirical research studies on accommodations published from 1999 through 2001. The majority of the studies involved criterion referenced tests used for state accountability. Findings across at least four studies from the review indicate three accommodations showed a positive effect on student test scores: computer administration; oral presentation; and extended time. However, additional studies on each of these accommodations also found no significant effect on scores or alternations in item comparability. All of the meta analyses of accommodated conditions found a positive effect on scores, and all of the studies examining differential item functioning (DIF) under accommodated conditions found some items that exhibited DIF. The analysis also indicates a need for the clear definition of the constructs tested, greater clarity in the accommodations needed by individual students, and exploration of the desirability and perceived usefulness of accommodations by students themselves. Several appendices include a summary of the types of accommodations and research results. (Contains 54 references.) (CR)

This brief paper summarizes data collected by the National Association for State Directors of Special Education on state policies concerning accountability for students with disabilities receiving special education in public or private settings outside of district K-12 school buildings. It focuses specifically on participation in assessments and the reporting of assessment results. A survey was completed by State Education Agency (SEA) representatives of 30 states and 4 non-state jurisdictions. Survey data are reported concerning formal participation policies, formal reporting policies, reporting assessment results (both general assessments and alternate assessments), and other uses of assessment results. The study found that only 12 responding SEAs have formal written policies on participation in assessments by students with disabilities in out-of-district settings. Six additional states, however, noted that their policies included all students with disabilities, regardless of setting. Several SEAs noted that lack of policy or procedures is related to the small number of students in most out-of-district settings. The paper urges states to include these students in both state and district-wide assessments since the No Child Left Behind Act requires accountability for all students. (DB)

The reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act, commonly refereed to as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), require states to demonstrate that all public schools make adequate yearly progress (AYP) with respect to student academic achievement. The measurement unit is schools and the following four subgroups within each school: economically disadvantaged students; students from major racial and ethnic groups; students with disabilities; and students with limited English proficiency. If the number of students in a subgroup is of a size that would reveal the identity of the students or the subgroup is not of sufficient size to yield statistically reliable results, the AYP of that subgroup need not be reported separately. This report summarizes information from 37 state education agencies (SEAs) on the minimum subgroup size for reporting test results to guarantee confidentiality and yield statistically reliable information. Results indicate at least 30 SEAs have policy or practice in place related to the minimum number of students required in a subgroup to conceal individual student identity. In comparison, only 14 responding SEAs have policy or practice related to the minimum number to yield statistically reliable results for reporting and 12 for measuring AYP. (Author/CR)

This report explains how students with significant disabilities who submit portfolios for the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) Alternate Assessments are evaluated to meet state requirements for a "competency determination" needed to receive a regular high school diploma. The reasoning behind the Massachusetts approach and the ways in which performance levels in each strand are combined to produce an overall performance level is described in this report. Student portfolios are based on "expanded" state standards that describe academic outcomes appropriate for students with significant disabilities. Portfolios contain an array of work samples, instructional data sheets, audio- and videotapes, or other evidence, organized into "portfolio strands." Portfolios are submitted to the state for scoring and designation of a performance level. Following an overview, the report examines the development of alternate assessment in Massachusetts. It then explains standards for counting scores to yield an overall performance level including the analytic rubric used to convert raw scores to performance levels. The final section considers standards for meeting the state's graduation requirements through MCAS Alternative Assessment. (DB)

Accountability systems that provide rewards, sanctions, or assistance to schools based on student achievement outcomes are currently being developed and implemented in nearly every state. The purpose of this study was to identify and describe these systems, as well as to determine the degree to which publicly available documents clearly articulate whether students with disabilities are included in accountability calculations. A search was conducted on each state educational agency Web site for information pertaining to school-level accountability. State accountability and Title I directors were also contacted to provide additional information. Results indicate that many systems are currently in a stage of revision. Primary indicators in current school accountability systems include student performance on statewide assessments, performance growth on statewide assessments, attendance rates, and dropout rates. Although it was often clear that students with disabilities participated in statewide assessments, it was frequently less clear whether their scores count in school accountability calculations. Only in Delaware, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Vermont was it entirely clear that all students with disabilities truly count in the determination of consequences for schools. An appendix includes excerpts from inclusion policies for students with disabilities in accountability systems from four states representing full inclusion practices. (Contains 10 references.) (Author/CR)

This report describes one approach toward setting standards to determine performance level cut scores for an alternative assessment for students with disabilities. First, it considers requirements for inclusion of students with disabilities in educational assessments under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The proposed methodology focuses on a student's "body of work" through evaluation, using predetermined criteria, of student portfolios, a systematic collection of student work. The rationale and design of the alternate portfolio assessment are presented, followed by a detailed description of the standard setting process. The paper identifies time and resource constraints and areas of potential contamination and bias in this approach. The importance of range-finding and pin-pointing phases for the body of work approach is stressed. Topics covered include: portfolio configuration, portfolio scoring, standard setting procedures, selection of committees, selection of student work, calculation of summary statistics, rates of agreement, literacy and mathematics consistency across grades, and evaluation (including time factors, contamination, distribution of portfolios, sampling of student work, scoring experience of panelists, and lack of pin-pointing portfolios). (DB)

This report summarizes major points from the Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports' (PBIS Center) literature review on statewide behavior initiatives (SBIs) and findings from the PBIS Center's study that examined the extent to which SBIs have been developed and implemented. Of the 19 states that responded to the PBIS Center's study, 16 have SBIs that address all students, not just students with disabilities. Almost all SBIs place special emphasis on interventions for students with severe emotional disturbance, students atrisk for social or academic failure, and chronic offenders irrespective of disability status. One-third of respondents reported that SBIs have been implemented on a statewide basis. The majority of SBI behavioral objectives focus on classroom disruption and antisocial behavior, school violence, bullying, delinquency, and harassment. Strategies for addressing these objectives include behavioral management, classroom management, social skills training, academic accommodations, and early screening and intervention. Recommendations for state policy are provided and include ensuring participants from all stakeholders in the development and implementation of SBIs; providing financial support for SBIs by tapping a variety of funding sources; and providing professional development to school and agency personnel on interdisciplinary teaming. (Contains 24 references.) (CR)

This report provides information about state monitoring practices on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part C program that provides early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities. The findings reported summarize responses from 10 states with a variety of Part C lead agencies. In five states, the lead agency is the state education department (Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, and South Dakota); in two the lead agency is the state health department (Florida and Rhode Island); in another two the lead agency is a state department of mental retardation services (Connecticut and Virginia); and in one, the lead agency is the state's department of health and human services (New Hampshire). The number of children served ranged from 947 in Rhode Island to 24,655 in Florida. Information from the states indicates most agencies use a traditional cyclical approach to monitoring, including pre- and on-site activities resulting in a written report and some sort of improvement plan. Elements of the Office of Special Education Program's monitoring process were evident in the data provided, including use of self-assessments, focused monitoring, improvement plans instead of corrective action plans, and viewing monitoring as a continuous and data-driven process. (Contains 10 references.) (CR)

This report summarizes information gathered by Project FORUM at the National Association of State Directors of Special Education from data collected by state education agencies (SEAs) on the provision of related services to students with disabilities. A survey asked SEAs to report on whether they collected state-level data on 13 types of related services. Forty-three states and four jurisdictions completed the survey. Findings indicate that despite the fact that SEAs are not required by law to collect and report on data pertaining to related services, at least 33 SEAs collect some information on this subject. Eight of the SEAs collected data on all 13 related services identified. Most commonly, data are collected on speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, and physical therapy. In addition, 23 of these SEAs collect their related services data by disability, age group, gender, and race/ethnicity. One state noted that it collects only a limited amount of data on related services because the Office of Special Education Programs does not mandate data collection. The report concludes that it is significant that so many states and non-state jurisdictions believe it is important to collect data on this aspect of service delivery to students with disabilities. (CR)

This paper reports on the range of methods used by state education agencies (SEAs) to report special education information to the public and the challenges related to this reporting. The report is based on a September 2001 survey completed by state directors of special education from 34 states. First, the paper summarizes reporting requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act) as well as the parallel requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, specifically, requirements concerning performance goals and indicators and reports relating to assessments. Discussion of the survey findings covers the following: methods used for reporting; public reporting of disaggregated data; reporting on progress toward performance goals (aggregated reporting and disaggregated reporting); methods used for reporting data (assessment participation and assessment results); assessment accommodations and out-of-level testing; annual report of children served; challenges to public reporting of data (incompatible or limited data systems, accuracy of data, diversity of data needs, accessibility of data); and SEA strategies to overcome challenges. Overall, the report finds that assessment results of students with and without disabilities are combined in general education reports and are also available in reports tailored for specific audiences, such as the press, legislators, or those accessing information through the Internet. (DB)

The document reports the changes states have made in their monitoring of the provision of special education services by local education agencies from 1997 to 2001. It includes a brief background on the federal monitoring process and an outline of the federal requirements for state monitoring. Changes in state monitoring systems are discussed, including changes in monitoring approaches, monitoring scope and personnel, and the monitoring process. The report concludes that by following the Office of Special Education Program's (OSEP's) lead in restructuring its monitoring process, state monitoring systems have continued to evolve and have been influenced greatly by OSEP's Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP). There has been a move toward systems that link compliance with improved outcomes and results. States have placed increase emphasis on CIMP components, including being data-driven; linking monitoring to state standards and priorities; emphasizing local and state collaboration; using self assessment, including public input; and using improvement plans instead of corrective action plans. The increased interest in focused monitoring at the federal level has been followed by an increase in the number of states using such a model. Finally, the majority of states reported an increase in the number of state-level monitoring personnel since 1997. (Contains 10 references.) (CR)

This brief document analyzes the goals and indicators provided by states as part of the second round of state Biennial Performance Reports (BPRs) covering the academic years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 as required by the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Review of state (or other federal jurisdiction) BPRs examined: (1) total number of goals; (2) total number of indicators; (3) content areas addressed by goals and indicators; and (4) number and content of goals and indicators that were the same for students both with and without disabilities. An overview of state goals and indicators found a large range in the numbers of both goals and indicators as well as differing understandings of the terms "goal" and "indicator." Out of a total of 223 goals 102 were the same for both students with and without disabilities. Evaluation of the required content areas of assessment, dropouts, and graduation found 55 (of 59) states or other jurisdictions reported at least one goal or indicator relating to each of the three required content areas. Other content areas addressed by some state BPRs included suspension and expulsion, secondary transition, disproportionality, least restrictive environment, personnel, parent involvement, monitoring and compliance, and due process and mediation. A table identifies states with goals and indicators by content area. (DB)

This report describes the range of methods used by state education agencies to report special education information to the public and the challenges related to this reporting. It begins by reviewing the reporting requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and then reports the results of a survey of 34 state directors of special education that investigated the method and format used in the state to report information to the public. Results indicate: (1) the most common methods used for reporting data are general and special education reports. However, Web sites are increasingly being used by states to communicate information to the public; (2) information that is reported to the public is often presented to allow data from different groups of children to be viewed separately; (3) most states report on progress toward performance goals by combining the results of students with and without disabilities and reporting all student results together in general education reports; (4) 19 of the 34 states report information to the public about students who participate in assessments using accommodations and/or out-of-level testing. The report concludes by discussing the challenges that states face in public reporting of data. (CR)

A Web-based survey of 25 experts in testing theory and large-scale assessment examined the utility of out-of-level testing for making decisions about students and schools. Survey respondents were given a series of scenarios and asked to judge the degree to which out-of-level testing would affect the reliability and validity of test scores within each scenario. Generally, respondents indicated that the error introduced in the vertical scaling process offset any precision that might be gained through out-of-level testing, especially when students were tested more than two levels below grade. For questions on the validity of decisions about school comparisons, adequate yearly progress, earning a diploma, and instruction, respondents' ratings spanned the continuum from those who indicated that out-of-level testing would dramatically reduce the validity of inferences to those who indicated that out-of-level testing would dramatically enhance the validity of inferences. Most respondents indicated that out-of-level testing would have a detrimental effect on validity, regardless of whether the test was part of a multi-level testing system or a criterion-referenced testing system. The only exception was when test scores were used to guide classroom instruction, in which case 47% of respondents indicated enhanced validity. The survey is appended. (DB)

This report presents findings of an analysis of state policies on student participation in assessments and accommodations for 2001. Major findings include: (1) participation options beyond the usual three (participation without accommodations, participation with accommodations, alternate assessment) have become more evident and include partial participation, additional alternate assessments, and out-of-level testing; (2) "emotional anxiety" is noted by many more states than previously as a reason for students to not participate in assessments; (3) policies for both participation and accommodations are becoming more specific and may include implications for scores and whether scores should be aggregated with other scores; (4) five states allow accommodations for all students and additional states allow some accommodations to be used with all students (generally setting and scheduling accommodations); and (5) the most controversial accommodations continue to be read aloud, calculator, and scribe. Following an overview, the report describes the policy collection process. Discussed separately are participation policies, accommodation policies, and alternate assessments. Appendices list state documents used in the analysis and present participation and accommodation guidelines by state. (Contains 19 references and 12 tables.) (DB)

This brief document provides information about the nationwide reading initiative, Reading First, in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Reading First is a focused effort to improve reading skills of students in kindergarten through third grade. First, information is provided on unique characteristics of the Reading First program and requirements concerning state applications for Reading First funds, state use of funds, and program evaluation and reporting requirements. Next, key components of state initiatives are described. These include a state level reading leadership team, use of scientifically based reading research, high quality professional development, use of valid and reliable assessments, use of reading programs with a coherent design in accord with scientifically based reading research, and accountability. Also considered is the role of state departments of education. The efforts of one state, Pennsylvania, are highlighted and include the involvement of special education personnel. Finally, the Early Reading First program, aimed at preschool children from low income families, is briefly described. (Contains 12 references.) (DB)

This brief report presents state data from 10 years (1991-2000) on the number of special education due process hearings requested and the number actually held. It notes requirements for designing and conducting due process hearings under both federal (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) and state laws. It also finds that the major difference among states is the use of either a single- or a two-level structure. In the one-tier system, hearings are initiated at the state level with no formal hearing procedure at lower levels, whereas in the two-tier system, a hearing takes place first at the school or district level with the right of appeal to the state level. The report also notes that states vary in collection of calendar or school year data. Major findings indicate a continuation of the pattern of annual increases in the number of hearings requested at Level 1, although the total number of hearings held continued to decline. Results suggest the increasing use of alternate strategies for dispute resolution, especially mediation. Tables present the following data by state and year: (1) number of hearings requested at Level 1; (2) number of hearings held at Level 1; and (3) number of hearings held at Level 2 for two-tier states. (DB)

This report discusses the challenges and successes in creating an education system that meets the needs of all students in Texas. The first two sections provide background information on a project investigating the achievement of students with disabilities in high achieving, high poverty Texas elementary schools, and present a framework for this state policy analysis. A third section discusses the educators and students of the Texas education system and the most notable features of school finance policies. The fourth section examines Texas schools today through the lens of reform efforts that began in the mid-1980s. Within this section, the four themes of accountability, inclusion of diverse learners, early intervention, and flexible use of funding are probed. Additionally, state technical assistance and professional development are examined. The report closes by describing key elements of the Texas education system: (1) it presents clear and concise education information; (2) it promotes an education system that includes diverse learners; (3) every component of the system is expected to focus attention on the teaching and learning process; (4) it encourages the development of consistent goals that allow flexible implementation; and (5) it uses data to identify areas in need of development. Appended are: Methodology Used for First Phase of NASDSE's (National Association of State Directors of Special Education's) Policy Analysis; list of Interview Participants; and the Interview Protocol. (Contains 29 references and 3 tables.) (CR)

In this study, special education teachers identified students with learning disabilities who were working on math skills usually taught two grades below the grade in which the student was enrolled. Each student (n=33) took two levels of the MAT/7 math computation test, an on-grade test, and an out-of-level test intended for students two grades below. All levels of the MAT/7 are statistically linked to permit scores comparisons across levels. On average, the students obtained a higher scale score on the on-grade test (mean=557) than on the out-of-level test (mean=541). When a correction was made for random guessing, the mean scale score on the on-grade test (mean=535) was lower than the mean scale score on the out-of-level test (mean=550), although the difference was not statistically significant. More of the scores on the out-of-level test (n=16) fell in the tests reliable score range (45-75% correct) than did scores on the on-grade test (n=7). After completing each test, students were asked to rate how hard and how frustrating the test was for them. Ratings of test difficulty and frustration did not differ for the out-of-level and in-level tests. Generally, the students rated both tests as being fairly easy. (Contains 10 references.) (CR)

Two focus groups of test and measurement experts were held to explore the use of out-of-level testing for students with disabilities. The participants (n=17) included state and federal level assessment personnel, test company employees, and university professors. A content analysis of the narrative results indicated that there was no clear consensus in supporting or not supporting out-of-level testing. Instead, focus group participants were able to adopt numerous perspectives on many contentious issues. Four key areas demonstrate salient patterns in the focus group data. First, discussions reflected multiple issues and varying definitions that are reported in the field through testimonial evidence. Second, there was marginal comfort in equating out-of-level test scores back to on-grade level test scores for reporting purposes when the state test was a norm-referenced instrument. This "comfort" decreased when participants discussed criterion-referenced instruments, especially when students were tested more than one level below their assigned grade level. Third, there was general consensus about the need to develop large-scale assessment instruments with broad based content so that more students can be included in the testing program. Finally, opposition to out-of-level testing centered on out-of-level policy concerns rather than psychometric concerns. Appendices include focus group probes. (Contains 13 references.) (CR)