Search

This present study examined the intended and unintended consequences of Minnesota's high stakes graduation exam on students with disabilities. Historically, little empirical data have been collected and the scant data available suggest some significant unintended consequences for educational accountability systems (e.g., the retention of students and increased referrals to special education). Fifty-two parents of students with disabilities and 39 special educators from six schools in two large urban and suburban school districts participated in focus groups. The author also conducted a focus group with the Minnesota Association of Educational Assessment and Evaluation (MAEAE) as well as 15 interviews with building administrators, school district representatives, and a state representative. The results show that the Minnesota Basic Standards Tests have had some very positive and negative consequences for students with disabilities, including increased exposure to the curriculum, increased participation in testing, raised expectations, high levels of anxiety and frustration, and drop-out concerns. There did not seem to be any retention as perceived by the consumers nor an increase in special education referrals, although many times the referral data were not collected in a systematic manner. Further studies are needed to document empirically whether these consequences are occurring for students with disabilities. (Contains 4 tables and 1 figure.)

This report is the third analysis of state reports conducted by the National Center on Educational Outcomes to determine what types of information are provided on students with disabilities in state education reports. For this analysis, 170 reports were collected between March 1999 and August 1999 from state accountability offices and state special education offices. Despite requirements of the 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for public reporting of assessment participation and performance data from students with disabilities, results indicate that only 14 states included participation data and only 17 states included performance data for students with disabilities in state assessments. There were increases in the reporting of performance data for students with disabilities, but not to the extent that might be expected given the timelines in IDEA. More than two-thirds of the document that did not include data on students with disabilities did include data on regular education students' performances. Only eight states reported data on students with disabilities for the first time in this analysis. Furthermore, three states that reported data on students with disabilities in previous years did not report data this time. Recommendations are presented. (Contains 11 references.) (Author/CR)

This report discusses the findings of a study that analyzed 115 public reports from state accountability offices and state special education offices to investigate how students with disabilities are doing academically and nonacademically. A framework developed by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) was used to organize results. Analysis indicated very limited information on students with disabilities in state accountability reports. Almost every state (47) provided data in the academic and functional literacy domain, but only 13 reported on students with disabilities in this domain. These states provided information on how students with disabilities performed on statewide assessments, yet there was a range in the amount and types of data presented. In general, the performance of students with disabilities was considerably below that of students without disabilities. While 38 states reported on students with disabilities in the participation domain (graduation or exit data, enrollment data, dropout rates, time spent in various settings), only 12 provided data beyond that required for federal reporting. The additional areas were participation in large scale assessments and family involvement. Results revealed that states are beginning to report on the performance and progress of students with disabilities. Appendices include relevant data. (Contains 13 references.) (CR)

This report discusses the findings of a study that compared identified desirable characteristics of state accountability reports with 20 accountability reports generated by 7 states. Desirable characteristics included (1) clarity (the intended audience, statements of purpose, a description of the population being reported on and the states' conceptual model for its accountability system); (2) comprehensiveness in the reporting of inputs, processes, and results for students, especially students with disabilities; (3) provide comparative information with changes over time between schools, districts, states, regions, or standards; (4) conciseness or carefully chosen indicators so that no more information is given than is necessary; (5) cautions (against misinterpretations of the data or against any unintended consequences); (6) confidentiality; (7) good formats so that reports are well-organized, readable, and interesting. Results found none of the reports contained every desirable characteristic. Very few reports were clear as to who was included, the conceptual model, and assumptions. Many reports were comprehensive, concise, and comparative, but were also unclear in their presentation of information. Only four of the states provided disaggregated data on students with disabilities. (CR)

This report summarizes a study that analyzed the inclusion of students with disabilities in the accountability systems of 48 state education accountability reports and that of Washington, D.C. Extreme variability was found to exist in the reporting practices across states and there was little information on students with disabilities. Eleven states included test-based outcome data for students with disabilities in their reports and only five states produced a separate special education report. Many states include input/context and/or process indicators for students with disabilities, but few reported outcome data for these students. Finally, every state was unclear on at least one educational indicator in their accountability system and whether students with disabilities were included. The report contains the following recommendations about reporting on students with disabilities: (1) be clear about the role of students with disabilities in data and standards; (2) while special education reports can be useful in providing detailed information about students with disabilities, general accountability reports should also include information on students with disabilities; and (3) when making comparisons among schools, districts, and states, comparisons should be based on similar populations. (Contains 28 references.) (CR)

This report summarizes a study that analyzed the state education accountability reports of 48 states and Washington, DC, and the inclusion of students with disabilities in the accountability systems. Extreme variability was found to exist in the reporting practices across states and there was little information on students with disabilities. Only 11 states included test-based outcome data for students with disabilities in their reports; 5 states produced a separate special education report. Many states included input/context and/or process indicators for students with disabilities, but few reported outcome data for these students. Finally, every state was unclear on at least one educational indicator in their accountability system and whether students with disabilities were included. The report includes the following recommendations regarding reporting on students with disabilities: (1) be clear about the role of students with disabilities in data and standards; (2) while special education reports can be useful in providing detailed information about students with disabilities, general accountability reports should also include information on students with disabilities; and (3) when making comparisons among schools, districts, and states, comparisons should be based on similar populations. (Contains 28 references.) (CR)

Based on an extensive analysis of the characteristics of 113 accountability reports from 32 state education agencies, a study group convened to develop a list of necessary, desirable, and succinct characteristics of good state and district educational accountability reports. This report discusses the recommendations of the study group. Desirable characteristics were identified for both content and format, such as: (1) be clear about who the report is directed to, the intended purposes of the report, and the state's conceptual model for its accountability system; (2) be comprehensive yet concise in the reporting of inputs, processes, and results for students, especially students with disabilities; (3) provide comparative information with changes over time between schools, districts, states, regions, or standards; (4) ensure reports are concise or contain carefully chosen indicators so that no more information is given than is necessary; (5) include cautions against misinterpretations of the data or against any unintended consequences; (6) make efforts to maintain confidentiality and avoid the possibility of identifying individual students; (7) use good formats so that reports are well-organized, readable, and interesting. A checklist of desirable characteristics for state and school district accountability reports is included for those who develop reports. (CR)